Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over surgery

[jimmy]

Jimmy, no one can say you are not tenacious.

You’re right - the end is the same. The child is dead. But there’s more to it than the death of a human being, as horrible and tragic as that is. I don’t think anyone is showing a lack of compassion for the child or for the mother.

…
Intent is very, very important. That is what is important in this case (IMHO).

To oversimplify the Arizona case, the impression I have is that the staff believed the child was dying. So they hurried the process along a little by killing her (I’m assuming it was a girl; I don’t really know). Killing an innocent human being is murder. The child was murdered. I’m not 100% clear on direct abortion vs. indirect abortion as I haven’t had time to read all the references that have been provided in this thread. But I believe it was a direct abortion and the Church teaches that direct abortions are illicit. Always. Their objective was to kill the baby. Just because killing her supposedly helped her mother to survive doesn’t justify killing her.

Does this help?

BTW, it’s “Nazis,” not “nazis.”

I don’t know if it is a compliment or not that I am tenacious.

To tell the truth, my opinion has changed since earlier. When I was considering the two examples I mentioned in the last post my opinion changed, atleast to a large degree. The first example, the one about the infamous group we have agreed not to talk about, I have always agreed with. The general idea is that someone of this infamous group asks you to kill one person, or else they will kill ten of them. Do you kill that one person, or not? The answer is no, you shouldn’t. Even if they kill the ten you are not guilty of it because they can’t blame you for what they have done. The ends do not justify the means. I can’t kill one innocent man to save the ten.

The second example regarding the ectopic pregnancy I have always thought was spliting hairs, and I still do. I have never liked it because it splits hairs and makes a distinction that seems to justify abortion without actually admitting to it. But at the same time I can understand that the parents are in a very hard situation, so I tend to take a soft stand on it. I tend to think that either both options are acceptable, or neither one is acceptable.

 

[LittleSoldier]

It helps when you don’t just make thiings up out of whole cloth.

It also helps when you don’t start a post with a pejorative statement.

(1) The ACLU lawsuit is about abortions in life-threatening situations, not “for convenience,” according to two articles I read – at least one of which was cited on CAF.

Two articles do not an understanding make. This could very well be sliding further down the slippery slope. I have no doubt in my mind that the ACLU has as its intention full and publicly funded abortion on demand in all hospitals.

(2) I agree that it is doubtful that the ACLU could force sterilization and contraception policies on private (Catholic or other) hospitals, especially if not rising to any life-threatening situation. The Phoenix patient case did not pertain to those two issues. However, it is to be noted that the Bishop complained that there were concerns in previous years about contraceptive distribution at the hospital, etc. Further, the lay theologian’s report included admission of suggestion of an elective abortion in fall of '09.

I have no disagreement with this. I’m well aware of it.

(3) You don’t seem to have been following much of the discussion here on the realities of medical services. I don’t make up the laws; I’m just reflecting on what’s required for access by all citizens, and that in cases where one hospital is the only one in a geographic area, such hospitals run the risk of violating federal statutes if they withhold life-saving measures based on sectarian morality, including if such life-saving measures involve abortion of an 11-week-old fetus.

You don’t seem to have been following any of the discussion here on the reality of the Church teaching Truth which is applicable to all persons, Catholic or not. It makes no difference if a Catholic hospital is the only hospital in a billion square miles. It is not going to provide direct abortion services. And the CCC states that we are not required to adhere to immoral laws. If the staff of a Catholic hospital refuses to adhere to an immoral law and is sued, so be it. That is better than following an immoral law.

(4) I agree that Catholic hospitals would close rather than be comply with reproductive policies which violate RCC moral guidelines. To me, that’s not the issue. The issue is that there are still many (lay & clergy) who imagine that they can select Catholic morality over medical ethics for non-Catholic patients who object and who do not have alternative medical facilities within reach of the time needed. Clearly I’m talking about time-urgent situations here, such as unexpected early deliveries or unforeseen obstetrical complications. I would very much doubt that routine, non-emergency services would apply. (Contraception, elective sterilization, elective abortion without threat of immanent death to mother, etc.) And I agree: I would hope not.

To me, that is the issue. Again, the Church teaches Truth, which is applicable to all people. Going against Church teaching is going against God and Truth. There is no situation that cannot be pursued using Church teaching, time-urgent or not.

(5) Medical facilities include the category of emergency services which treat the public in general, even though these facilities also offer routine care. Such facilities must meet civil requirements for such delivery of emergency services, if alternative services are not available.

And if a Catholic hospital is forced to provide services which go against Church teaching it will close its doors. Period. End of story.

(6) Again, the solution is to reserve a section of any Catholic or Catholic-affiliated hospital for treatment policies which are directy under the authority of the local Bishop, and only such treatments.

Your solution is to reserve a section of a hospital affiliated with the Catholic Church for treatments which follow Church teaching. No. If the hospital is affiliated with the Catholic Church the entire hospital must follow Church teaching. It’s unacceptable to move patients to one section or another based on their religious belief or unbelief. Every single square inch of a hospital affiliated with the Catholic Church must be run so that it adheres to Church teaching. With your solution we could end up with women giving birth in the Catholic section and then being transferred to another section to have their tubes tied.

Perhaps the solution is for people who refuse to follow Truth to join together and buy the Catholic hospitals which will close when they receive orders from the government to provide direct abortions. There is something at stake here that is much more important than our transitory lives on earth and that is the fate of our souls.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I say Kudos to the Bishop! Someone needs to stand up for the rights of the unborn.

Honestly today with all this high tech stuff I don’t believe that the mother would have been in any danger should they have at least tried to get the baby to an age that it would have been viable outside of the womb.
I’ve seen stories of women with cancers that are pregnant being treated during pregnancies. I’ve seen stories of people and even fetuses having surgeries to help save lives during pregancies. So all of that is just garbage.

As for determining whether the child would live or not. That was NOT up to the hospital to determine. My fourth pregnancy was riddled with one thing after another. We were even given the “option” for abortion due to them thinking my daughter would not live.
Let me tell you. She may have been born with multiple birth defects. But if you saw her she is no different than any other 4 yr old. Her only ‘sign’ of having problems is the fact she has a missing right thumb. It doesn’t account for the multiple birth defects she was born with inside her body. But he is a happy , for the most part healthy, very intelligent four year old whom I could never imagine my life without. If I had listened to the doctors and had gone through with such a thing I would of missed out on such a wonderful gift from God.

I also had preeclampsia with my first daughter and even though my BP got mighty high we both survived. My oldest will be 13 and I can’t imagine my life without her.

Pregnancy is a risky thing period. Nothing , I mean nothing, makes abortion right.
I even read a story not to long ago about a family who had a child with a terrible birth defect. The child had part of its brain. They allowed the pregnancy to go on even though they knew their child would maybe live for only minutes after birth. They allowed her to have a chance and wanted to know her, it was a beautiful story ( newsobserver.com/2010/11/17/807998/saying-hello-and-goodbye.html) . The only one who has the right to take a life is God. Peroid.

You make an excellent point. We don’t have the right to determine when a person will die. Only God does. Speeding up the process via abortion or euthanasia is very anti-life. Sometimes I think the people who believed in the three Fates had a better understanding than people today. I’m so glad my parents refused to take my Mom’s physician’s advice to abort me. The physician’s reason was that my Mom was anemic. For that he wanted me to die. That man should never have been a physician in the first place and definitely not an OB/GYN. He had no respect for human life, born or unborn. When I was born he offered to sell me as I was the third girl in a family that planned on only two children.

I see you have four girls! You are very blessed!! I will read the story. Thank you for providing the link.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It also helps when you don’t start a post with a pejorative statement.

I’m merely correcting an erroneous and inflammatory statement on your part. You simply fabricated that the news story reported the ACLU suing over “abortions of convenience.” If you are contradicting what has been reported in several locations, then show us the quotation from the ACLU which states that they are demanding abortions of convenience universally at every hospital, including Catholic hospitals.

I have no doubt in my mind that the ACLU has as its intention full and publicly funded abortion on demand in all hospitals.

A subjective “doubt in one’s mind” is not a verifiable news fact.

You don’t seem to have been following any of the discussion here on the reality of the Church teaching Truth which is applicable to all persons, Catholic or not.

Then you haven’t been reading this thread or similar other threads carefully. That was discussed much earlier. The discussion migrated into questions of the status of Catholic hospitals as hospitals operating in the U.S.

It makes no difference if a Catholic hospital is the only hospital in a billion square miles. It is not going to provide direct abortion services.

Again, no hospital – Catholic or not – should necessarily be required to provide any elective services, including services having nothing to do with reproduction or female medicine.

And the CCC states that we are not required to adhere to immoral laws.

I am not quarreling with the morality of the CCC. I’m pointing out problematic areas of compliance with civil laws. Catholic institutions should do what they are morally convinced they need to do. However, they do so at risk of lawsuit, federal injunction, closure, and extinction, if in doing so pregnant mothers of young children die in crisis pregnancies, with their 11-week-old fetuses dying a few minutes after that, at the same time, or before that.

The Church teaches Truth, which is applicable to all people. Going against Church teaching is going against God and Truth. There is no situation that cannot be pursued using Church teaching, time-urgent or not.

That is a wholly sectarian belief and statement, that cannot be imposed on secular society, no matter how many times posters on CAF say it. It doesn’t matter that you and I believe certain universal truths. Those absolutes are not shared in the country, nor are those absolutes the controlling principles behind most contemporary law.

And if a Catholic hospital is forced to provide services which go against Church teaching it will close its doors. Period. End of story.

I agree.

Your solution is to reserve a section of a hospital affiliated with the Catholic Church for treatments which follow Church teaching. No. If the hospital is affiliated with the Catholic Church the entire hospital must follow Church teaching. It’s unacceptable to move patients to one section or another based on their religious belief or unbelief. Every single square inch of a hospital affiliated with the Catholic Church must be run so that it adheres to Church teaching. With your solution we could end up with women giving birth in the Catholic section and then being transferred to another section to have their tubes tied.

I couldn’t agree more that it’s a clumsy, inadequate, and an awkward compromise which confuses. It’s really not my “solution.” It’s only a suggestion as a stop-gap measure to prevent closure of the entire hospital.

Perhaps the solution is for people who refuse to follow Truth to join together and buy the Catholic hospitals which will close when they receive orders from the government to provide direct abortions.

Well either that will happen or there will be no/not enough buyers, and neither outcome is good for Catholic hospitals. Understand that Catholic hospital practices somewhat differ by diocese. In dioceses where the local bishop is setting a standard of practice which can be, or has been, challenged by federal law, my “solution” is to withdraw/close if that locality has no alternate hospitals for major care such as surgeries, obstetrics, and full emergency services. This discussion was carried on almost a year ago on CAF. At that time I think it was also suggested that if any new Catholic hospitals are envisioned, that they be built only in densely populated areas with plenty of options. That would leave the Catholic character intact without compromise in those hospitals with Catholic identity.

As I recall more about that discussion, it could have been brought up that Catholic hospitals are sometimes not self-sufficient financially, thus creating needs to share with or form associations with secular hospitals. I haven’t memorized the earlier discussion; I just know it was discussed extensively.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I was just asking if you thought that when it came down to Catholic individuals’ choices (not non-Catholic), if they were in a situation like the one in Pheonix, if you believed that they still had an obligation to uphold divine law in spite of civil law. I realize they might be breaking civil law. Does civil law, being what it is, relieve a faithful Catholic, individiually, from upholding divine law as revealed by the Church, if it is contrary?

Civil law never relieves one of following one’s conscience – whether one is Catholic, of another religion, or an agnostic with a strong moral code. Civil law recognizes that, so that even during The Military Draft days, one could be released from being drafted by proving Conscientious Objection to war. Many of my Franciscan ex-seminarian friends did so, due to the fact that they had internalized the pacifism in their Order, and continued to live with those beliefs after leaving seminary.

The conflict with “just following one’s conscience” comes into play when there is a conflicting code of ethics in one’s profession. And frankly, if we are reading thorough examinations of conscience, those nightly and pre-Confession examens include in them the fulfillment of one’s earthly duties/station/profession as well. Further, one’s livelihood will be directly threatened by any following of one’s conscience which compromises the profession. This has been covered by posters who are medical professionals, on many threads on CAF. Some Catholics in medicine simply don’t work in OB-GYN, for that reason. (I also know several physicians who are not Catholic but refuse to do obstetrics because of the risk of lawsuits.)

So my long-winded answer, bookgirl, is that I could not work in a profession whose code conflicted with a Catholic moral code (or which would be likely to place me in situations which enjoined such a conflict). But then, in my own profession I already have to avoid certain environments because they conflict with my personal code, which is more rigorous even than that of my profession. In many professions these days it is hard to be a person of integrity, since there is so much cynical behavior that seems to be the norm.

 

[1holycatholic]

Civil law never relieves one of following one’s conscience – whether one is Catholic, of another religion, or an agnostic with a strong moral code. Civil law recognizes that, so that even during The Military Draft days, one could be released from being drafted by proving Conscientious Objection to war. Many of my Franciscan ex-seminarian friends did so, due to the fact that they had internalized the pacifism in their Order, and continued to live with those beliefs after leaving seminary.

The conflict with “just following one’s conscience” comes into play when there is a conflicting code of ethics in one’s profession. And frankly, if we are reading thorough examinations of conscience, those nightly and pre-Confession examens include in them the fulfillment of one’s earthly duties/station/profession as well. Further, one’s livelihood will be directly threatened by any following of one’s conscience which compromises the profession. This has been covered by posters who are medical professionals, on many threads on CAF. Some Catholics in medicine simply don’t work in OB-GYN, for that reason. (I also know several physicians who are not Catholic but refuse to do obstetrics because of the risk of lawsuits.)

So my long-winded answer, bookgirl, is that I could not work in a profession whose code conflicted with a Catholic moral code (or which would be likely to place me in situations which enjoined such a conflict). But then, in my own profession I already have to avoid certain environments because they conflict with my personal code, which is more rigorous even than that of my profession. In many professions these days it is hard to be a person of integrity, since there is so much cynical behavior that seems to be the norm.

I know far too many physicians for reasons unrelated to this thread. Without exception they tell me that abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother.

Regarding the oxymoron that is “therapeutic abortion”:
“There is a wide acceptance in medical circles that abortion is never medically indicated to save the life of the mother, which can be saved with good management and hospital care. This is admitted even by prominent pro-abortion medical activists.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

I know far too many physicians for reasons unrelated to this thread. Without exception they tell me that abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother.

And all the physicians I know (and I know a lot for reasons related to gynecology) tell me without exception that they have personal knowledge of extreme cases where abortion has saved the life of the mother. But neither your anecdotes nor mine constitute evidence, let alone medical evidence.

 

[1holycatholic]

And all the physicians I know (and I know a lot for reasons related to gynecology) tell me without exception that they have personal knowledge of extreme cases where abortion has saved the life of the mother. But neither your anecdotes nor mine constitute evidence, let alone medical evidence.

Physicians, like anyone else, tend to take the path of least resistance. Some are even willing to deny the hippocratic oath and intentionally kill one patient in favor of another instead of practicing medicine.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I’m merely correcting an erroneous and inflammatory statement on your part. You simply fabricated that the news story reported the ACLU suing over “abortions of convenience.” If you are contradicting what has been reported in several locations, then show us the quotation from the ACLU which states that they are demanding abortions of convenience universally at every hospital, including Catholic hospitals.

I haven’t shown any quotation from the ACLU. If I had done that I would have provided a source, which is normal forum procedure. I never post a quote without providing backup documentation.

A subjective “doubt in one’s mind” is not a verifiable news fact.

I never claimed it to be more than a subjective NO doubt in my mind. I have not posted an erroneous and INFLAMMATORY statement and your claim that I fabricated anything is insulting to me. If I ever make a mistake in a post I appreciate it if other poster(s) inform me of my mistake; however, to be accused of lying is inappropriate. I do not lie. I am allowed to post my opinion. You have posted yours. If this forum can only exist to post quotes and sources (verifiable news facts) we will lose an enormous and useful cache of information re posters’ emotional reactions and subjective beliefs about topics. Do you only post “verifiable news facts”? There is a related problem with your statement. “Facts” as reported by news sources are often not backed up by evidence. Many news sources exist for the sole purpose of making a profit. One of the problems with this hospital case is that it is difficult to know when to believe that a news source is actually presenting the entire story. There are some news sources which are anti-Catholic. I’m sure they are not presenting only verifiable facts - oops, there I went posting my opinion again.

Then you haven’t been reading this thread or similar other threads carefully. That was discussed much earlier. The discussion migrated into questions of the status of Catholic hospitals as hospitals operating in the U.S.

I am not required to read other threads on this topic. This thread can stand on its own. It was not discussed to my satisfaction. Oops, there’s my opinion again. But if there is inadequate discussion of a facet of a topic in the opinion of any poster, that poster is allowed to state such and re-post.

Again, no hospital – Catholic or not – should necessarily be required to provide any elective services, including services having nothing to do with reproduction or female medicine.

I agree.

I am not quarreling with the morality of the CCC.

Of course not. You are quarreling with me. :blackeye:

I’m pointing out problematic areas of compliance with civil laws. Catholic institutions should do what they are morally convinced they need to do. However, they do so at risk of lawsuit, federal injunction, closure, and extinction, if in doing so pregnant mothers of young children die in crisis pregnancies, with their 11-week-old fetuses dying a few minutes after that, at the same time, or before that.

As I have stated before, if they are sued, so be it. That is better than going against Truth.

That is a wholly sectarian belief and statement, that cannot be imposed on secular society, no matter how many times posters on CAF say it. It doesn’t matter that you and I believe certain universal truths. Those absolutes are not shared in the country, nor are those absolutes the controlling principles behind most contemporary law.

This sort of statement is why I don’t believe you understand what I am saying. The Catholic Church and Catholics are not required to adhere to immoral laws. Of course it can’t be imposed on secular society. That doesn’t mean the Church should cave in to secular pressures. The Church should stand steadfast in her fight against anti-life procedures.

I agree.

Good. Then there is some common ground upon which other agreements could be based.

I couldn’t agree more that it’s a clumsy, inadequate, and an awkward compromise which confuses. It’s really not my “solution.” It’s only a suggestion as a stop-gap measure to prevent closure of the entire hospital.

It’s your suggestion. Can you back up your suggestion with verifiable news sources? If not, should you even be posting this?

Well either that will happen or there will be no/not enough buyers, and neither outcome is good for Catholic hospitals. Understand that Catholic hospital practices somewhat differ by diocese. In dioceses where the local bishop is setting a standard of practice which can be, or has been, challenged by federal law, my “solution” is to withdraw/close if that locality has no alternate hospitals for major care such as surgeries, obstetrics, and full emergency services. This discussion was carried on almost a year ago on CAF. At that time I think it was also suggested that if any new Catholic hospitals are envisioned, that they be built only in densely populated areas with plenty of options. That would leave the Catholic character intact without compromise in those hospitals with Catholic identity.

And that is why I suggested that the USCCB provide a comprehensive and clear protocol. Such protocol would be in effect for the entire United States. Ideally a protocol should be developed to be used world-wide.

As I recall more about that discussion, it could have been brought up that Catholic hospitals are sometimes not self-sufficient financially, thus creating needs to share with or form associations with secular hospitals. I haven’t memorized the earlier discussion; I just know it was discussed extensively.

Can you back that up with verifiable news sources? Or perhaps post a link to that thread?

 

[LittleSoldier]

I know far too many physicians for reasons unrelated to this thread. Without exception they tell me that abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother.

Regarding the oxymoron that is “therapeutic abortion”:
“There is a wide acceptance in medical circles that abortion is never medically indicated to save the life of the mother, which can be saved with good management and hospital care. This is admitted even by prominent pro-abortion medical activists.”

 

[LittleSoldier]

And all the physicians I know (and I know a lot for reasons related to gynecology) tell me without exception that they have personal knowledge of extreme cases where abortion has saved the life of the mother. But neither your anecdotes nor mine constitute evidence, let alone medical evidence.

And I am aware of many physicians who have not the slightest idea of how to practice medicine (I suppose that’s why they use the word “practice”). One diagnosed a patient who was complaining of severe pain in her abdomen with “a cold.” Another diagnosed this same patient with “menstrual cramps;” a third provided the diagnosis of “the flu” and refused to refer the patient to a GYN physician.

Fortunately she was able to find a GYN resident and received the surgery that saved her life. She had an ovarian cyst which had managed to take ahold of a blood vessel. The cyst was full of blood, was still receiving blood from the blood vessel and was close to bursting. If it had burst and she had accepted the diagnoses of any of the first three physicians she saw she would have died.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I haven’t shown any quotation from the ACLU. If I had done that I would have provided a source, which is normal forum procedure. I never post a quote without providing backup documentation.

No, you refuted the published statements about the ACLU story with your “no doubt in your own mind” so-called evidence. Which it is not. Thus, it is indeed a fabrication, or, more precisely, a projection from your psyche onto published facts, and requiring the conversation to continue with your subjective opinion of the facts as opposed to what was previously quoted verbatim from the ACLU’s statement.

I am allowed to post my opinion.

As we all are. But when my opinion about facts contradicts published facts, I don’t deny the published facts and substitute my opinion as if it were authoritative.

This sort of statement is why I don’t believe you understand what I am saying.

No. I do understand all the theology (as I am degreed in it, am well read, get it about immoral laws, etc.) But that does not require a secular institution from signing on to Catholic morality & priorities. That’s what you apparently do not understand. Those institutions are allowed to set their own standard for professional behavior, and they have, The individual Catholic must decide, based on an informed conscience, whether/how those two collide when they do, and how to release oneself from in accord with faithful conscience. And the institution can very well decide that it doesn’t want to retain, or hire, employees who cannot follow the ethics of the medical profession.

It’s your suggestion. Can you back up your suggestion with verifiable news sources? If not, should you even be posting this?

The sarcasm is really immature of you. I was responding to your comment about my [previous] suggestion, which I clarified was a stop-gap, flawed, but at least minimal measure.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I don’t know if it is a compliment or not that I am tenacious.

It is definitely a compliment. My Mom used to say I was stubborn and I would always reply with “I’m not stubborn; I’m tenacious.” I think I got that from a “Peanuts” cartoon but I’m not sure.

To tell the truth, my opinion has changed since earlier. When I was considering the two examples I mentioned in the last post my opinion changed, atleast to a large degree. The first example, the one about the infamous group we have agreed not to talk about, I have always agreed with. The general idea is that someone of this infamous group asks you to kill one person, or else they will kill ten of them. Do you kill that one person, or not? The answer is no, you shouldn’t. Even if they kill the ten you are not guilty of it because they can’t blame you for what they have done. The ends do not justify the means. I can’t kill one innocent man to save the ten.

See, that’s what I thought, too. But several people have told me I was wrong. Now I’m just confused.

The second example regarding the ectopic pregnancy I have always thought was spliting hairs, and I still do. I have never liked it because it splits hairs and makes a distinction that seems to justify abortion without actually admitting to it. But at the same time I can understand that the parents are in a very hard situation, so I tend to take a soft stand on it. I tend to think that either both options are acceptable, or neither one is acceptable.

The Church’s emphasis is on our eternal lives. Our intent is very important. The person who kills the daughter purposely is guilty of murder, while the person who kills the daughter out of lack of knowledge is not guilty of anything (although that person probably suffers more during this life than the person who purposely killed the daughter). In this case if the murderer does not atone he/she will be damned. That’s very important.

I wonder what will happen when medicine advances to the point where babies who have implanted in the tube can be safely removed and implanted in the uterine wall. I wonder how many physicians will actually go through that complicated procedure in order to save the baby. I hope all of them do.

I do understand that in an ectopic pregnancy today it is very difficult. I doubt there are very many people who enjoy finding out they have an embryo stuck in the tube and something must be done or both mother and child will die, especially when the child is so wanted. God knows our intent and everything else in our hearts. Fortunately He is the one who judges people, although we can judge their actions. I put my trust in Him and those we have as bishops through Apostolic Succession.

 

[LittleSoldier]

No, you refuted the published statements about the ACLU story with your “no doubt in your own mind” so-called evidence. Which it is not. Thus, it is indeed a fabrication, or, more precisely, a projection from your psyche onto published facts, and requiring the conversation to continue with your subjective opinion of the facts as opposed to what was previously quoted verbatim from the ACLU’s statement.

Now you’re being silly.

As we all are. But when my opinion about facts contradicts published facts, I don’t deny the published facts and substitute my opinion as if it were authoritative.

When did I ever present my opinion as if it were authoritative? It’s my opinion. That is clear from the “I have no doubt that…” That identifies what I say as my opinion. I think most people know that an opinion is not authoritative.

No. I do understand all the theology (as I am degreed in it, am well read, get it about immoral laws, etc.) But that does not require a secular institution from signing on to Catholic morality & priorities. That’s what you apparently do not understand. Those institutions are allowed to set their own standard for professional behavior, and they have, The individual Catholic must decide, based on an informed conscience, whether/how those two collide when they do, and how to release oneself from in accord with faithful conscience. And the institution can very well decide that it doesn’t want to retain, or hire, employees who cannot follow the ethics of the medical profession.

You can obtain degrees until the cows come home. That is not a guarantee that you understand what I am saying. I think you’re extremely angry at me for daring to respond to a post that you wrote publicly, expecting it to be answered only by the person to which it was addressed. That is my opinion. That is my opinion. That is only my OPINION.

The sarcasm is really immature of you. I was responding to your comment about my [previous] suggestion, which I clarified was a stop-gap, flawed, but at least minimal measure.

Fortunately for me I have no intention of ever growing up. Sarcasm has its place and one of its places was where I put it. Even CAF provides a sarcasm emoticon, which I will use here as my final comment on your post:

 

[bookgirl32]

Civil law never relieves one of following one’s conscience – whether one is Catholic, of another religion, or an agnostic with a strong moral code. Civil law recognizes that, so that even during The Military Draft days, one could be released from being drafted by proving Conscientious Objection to war. Many of my Franciscan ex-seminarian friends did so, due to the fact that they had internalized the pacifism in their Order, and continued to live with those beliefs after leaving seminary.

The conflict with “just following one’s conscience” comes into play when there is a conflicting code of ethics in one’s profession. And frankly, if we are reading thorough examinations of conscience, those nightly and pre-Confession examens include in them the fulfillment of one’s earthly duties/station/profession as well. Further, one’s livelihood will be directly threatened by any following of one’s conscience which compromises the profession. This has been covered by posters who are medical professionals, on many threads on CAF. Some Catholics in medicine simply don’t work in OB-GYN, for that reason. (I also know several physicians who are not Catholic but refuse to do obstetrics because of the risk of lawsuits.)

So my long-winded answer, bookgirl, is that I could not work in a profession whose code conflicted with a Catholic moral code (or which would be likely to place me in situations which enjoined such a conflict). But then, in my own profession I already have to avoid certain environments because they conflict with my personal code, which is more rigorous even than that of my profession. In many professions these days it is hard to be a person of integrity, since there is so much cynical behavior that seems to be the norm.

I didn’t ask about being relieved of one’s conscience, I asked about being relieved of the responsibility to uphold the Divine Law as revealed by the Church. Those can be two different things.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Closed pending mod review.

 

[Robert_Bay]

NOTICE

Please discuss the issues and not each other.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I didn’t ask about being relieved of one’s conscience, I asked about being relieved of the responsibility to uphold the Divine Law as revealed by the Church. Those can be two different things.

Well to the extent that one is in a position to do that (i.e., a decision-maker, a participant, an advisor, etc.), naturally one should (uphold divine law). I guess I do not see the conflict, bookgirl, unless you’re drawing the distinction between refusal to defy one’s conscience and affirmative activism in that regard. (To me, if one is following an informed conscience, one is upholding Divine Law as revealed, no?) I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear in that.

 

[bookgirl32]

Well to the extent that one is in a position to do that (i.e., a decision-maker, a participant, an advisor, etc.), naturally one should (uphold divine law). I guess I do not see the conflict, bookgirl, unless you’re drawing the distinction between refusal to defy one’s conscience and affirmative activism in that regard. (To me, if one is following an informed conscience, one is upholding Divine Law as revealed, no?) I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear in that.

I’m drawing the distinction because I wasn’t talking about consciences informed by other religions or arbitrary “strong moral codes”. No, you weren’t clear.

 

[bookgirl32]

I was going to leave my post at that because I thought it was funny. But I decided to edit it.

You and LS have defeated me into silence. I can no longer respond about nazis.

Regarding the ‘let em die’, I grasp the difference between inaction and direct killing but sometimes I think inaction falls short of charity.

On this issue I am conflicted. There are two examples that come to mind from moral theology that inform in opposite directions somewhat. The problem is one of those examples contains a nefarious group that we have already decided to not discuss. That example is in your favor and is about the distinction between inaction and direct killing. The other example is in relation to ectopic pregnancies. The Church accepts a procedure that removes the filopian tube around the embryo, but not a procedure that directly attacks the child. Either way it ends in the death of the child but one method is accepted and the other isn’t (I forget the names of the two procedures). According to this method I could see how the hospital could be justified, as long as their objective wasn’t to directly end the pregnancy.

I’m honestly not sure of how it would all apply to the case at St. Joseph either. We’ll never know for sure, b/c of HIPPA, and everything we discuss about that case directly here is only what we get from news sources and official statements from the hospital and the diocese. So in this particular case, that one was granted apostolic authority over faith and morals by the Church and the other wasn’t, I have no reason to doubt the Bishop at this point.

But to the wider discussion of how and when things fall under “double effect” (which is your eptopic pregnancy question), I guess the simplest way, which may or may not be an effective way, at this point (read posts between me and Seekerz), to understand it, for me, is to think about intent of action. I don’t mean the ultimate outcome the doctors were trying to achieve, but what is the direct intent of the physical action they take? I’ve quoted from several Phoenix diocesan sources saying that the procedures of D&C and D&E, if done on a live fetus, are never licit as the intent of action is to take apart the contents of the uterus (someone correct me if I’m wrong) in order to remove them from the uterus. The cervix is not dilating, so in order for things to fit, they’ve got to come out in pieces. Which directly breaks the live baby into pieces.

I’m fairly certain the only eptopic procedure officially sanctioned by the Church (although the morality of the others has been debated by many theologians) is to remove the malfunctioning section of the fallopian tube. That is, the part of the tube that connected with the baby and contributed it’s part in implantation. The baby will die, but not directly at the hands of those performing the procedure. I think this is all if the baby is still alive. If it the baby dies on it’s own before treatment then I’m assuming the other treatments are licit.

There are so many things that can be confusing about any of these situations. But what the situation ultimately came down to in Phoenix is that the hospital would not acknowledge the Bishop’s right to judge the morality of the act, and then act constintently with his conditions afterwards. It basically came to to authority issues.