Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over surgery

[Elizabeth502]

bookgirl, I’ll be more explicit. An extreme example of what I’m referring to occurred a couple of years ago, I believe, on CAF. A former poster and I gently suggested that the abortion debate and the ‘pro-life’ debate in general (with Life as the premise from which all argument would derive) might be more successful in the secular arena if we came up with common language that the secular world would understand was working toward the common good. You would not believe (or maybe you would) the reaction that he and I received. My gosh, you would have thought that we had suggested Jesus isn’t present in the Eucharist, when we were merely suggesting what to us was a more winning approach to the issue.

Not a single person backed us up. They all regarded us as traitors, as “non-Catholics” as “CINO’s,” etc. – merely for using language other than from the CCC to persuade abortion providers and seekers to change their ways. I don’t make this stuff up. They kept on insisting that the only valid, approved approach was to use Catholic terminology.

This is only one of many examples in Catholic venues.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth, they’re on a Catholic Answers Forum, sorry to disappoint you, but this is not a secular world. But please, feel free to go tell faithful people what God can or can’t accomplish if they fervently believe Him despite a secular culture set against Him.

You’re thoroughly distorting my views as they were stated. Feel free to distort, but I’m going to Mass now. I was referring to effective activism with a view to efficaciousness, as opposed to a view toward self-destructiveness.

It sounds to me like you think that faithful and devout Catholics who refuse to be influenced by the secular world are stupid. That’s what it sounds like.

Then I think you’re choosing to misinterpret me. A marriage counselor who’s been a guest several times on EWTN is not “stupid.” I didn’t suggest that in the slightest. She has a professional certification. She was discussing why she was making a choice. If anything, one could conclude that the non-Catholic couples who, in her words, ‘didn’t understand what it means to be open to life,’ are the “stupid” ones, but neither she nor I said or implied that.

My posts have never suggested that Catholics should be “influenced” by the secular world. They should simply be extremely knowledgable about if if they want to make a difference.

 

[bookgirl32]

bookgirl, I’ll be more explicit. An extreme example of what I’m referring to occurred a couple of years ago, I believe, on CAF. A former poster and I gently suggested that the abortion debate and the ‘pro-life’ debate in general (with Life as the premise from which all argument would derive) might be more successful in the secular arena if we came up with common language that the secular world would understand was working toward the common good. You would not believe (or maybe you would) the reaction that he and I received. My gosh, you would have thought that we had suggested Jesus isn’t present in the Eucharist, when we were merely suggesting what to us was a more winning approach to the issue.

But it’s irrelevant to this conversation. We, Catholics, are discussing an article about a Catholic hospital on Catholic website. An issue and an article that directly involve Catholic theology. Where, in that context, is the problem with using the term “Divine Law”?

Not a single person backed us up. They all regarded us as traitors, as “non-Catholics” as “CINO’s,” etc. – merely for using language other than from the CCC to persuade abortion providers and seekers to change their ways. I don’t make this stuff up. They kept on insisting that the only valid, approved approach was to use Catholic terminology.

People shouldn’t be uncharitable, and shouldn’t call you “traitors”. And I’m sorry if I lost my patience with you. But as long as they are charitable, they’re not required to “back you up”. And as much education as you may have had, they may have equally valid points. This thought doesn’t seem to occur to you.

This is rapidly turning into a subject for another thread.

 

[bookgirl32]

You’re thoroughly distorting my views as they were stated. Feel free to distort, but I’m going to Mass now. I was referring to effective activism with a view to efficaciousness, as opposed to a view toward self-destructiveness.

How could it possibly be self-destructive to talk about the Church using it’s own language? Sometimes the “view to efficaciousness”, in our society that so looks down upon anything religious much less Catholic, may really be “fear of looking like one of those backwards, non-thinking Catholics” in disguise. I’m not saying this is you. I’m just saying that Christians are often thought to be pro-faith anti-logic mindless followers without a wordly education. And although, yes, that can bother me sometimes, I don’t think it’s always necessary to deal with that problem prior to doing the actual evangelization.

Then I think you’re choosing to misinterpret me. A marriage counselor who’s been a guest several times on EWTN is not “stupid.” I didn’t suggest that in the slightest. She has a professional certification. She was discussing why she was making a choice. If anything, one could conclude that the non-Catholic couples who, in her words, ‘didn’t understand what it means to be open to life,’ are the “stupid” ones, but neither she nor I said or implied that.

I didn’t say I thought you thought the marriage counseler was stupid. I said it sounded to me like you thought that anyone who would immediately defend their faith without gathering all possible information and analyzing the most efficacious way of doing so was not being very smart about what they were doing.

My posts have never suggested that Catholics should be “influenced” by the secular world. They should simply be extremely knowledgable about if if they want to make a difference.

At the risk of getting this post closed down becuase this is so extremely off topic, I will say that God can use anyone to make a difference. And He will require knowledge where He will, but He certainly doesn’t have to.

 

[Elizabeth502]

But it’s irrelevant to this conversation. We, Catholics, are discussing an article about a Catholic hospital on Catholic website. An issue and an article that directly involve Catholic theology. Where, in that context, is the problem with using the term “Divine Law”?

Obviously. I never said once that I had a problem with Catholics talking about divine law to Catholics. But I very much disagree what you have said several times here – that this is only about a Catholic audience. What good does it do to preach to the choir? (CAF)
(1) Much of this discussion here has been about engaging Catholic values in a secular world, in medical institutions many of which are not Catholic, or which are Catholic but have administrative associations with non-Catholic medical facilities (implying an overlap of two worlds). (2) Non-Catholics also read this forum, and many also participate. That in itself doesn’t require us to change our language, but to be aware that many of them, as well, do not buy into the Catholic view of divine law. That’s across religious traditions. Say “divine law” to a Jew (many, many of whom practice medicine), and they immediately become anxious about a singularly Christian world view. We don’t have to deny a Christian world view – not to ourselves, not to each other, not to the secular world. But to begin from that framework from the get-go can be problematic to audiences (medical and other) which are sensitized to polemics and tend to reject without further discussion arguments with a religious label. Not because they’re anti-religious or irreligious, but because such arguments lack either relevance or credibility to them. They would be much more persuaded by arguments using non-religious language. (Such as, in the example above I provided, those provided by Professor Robert George.)

People shouldn’t be uncharitable, and shouldn’t call you “traitors”. And I’m sorry if I lost my patience with you. But as long as they are charitable, they’re not required to “back you up”.

I didn’t say they were “required” to back me up. I illustrated an extended debate with those who have a siege mentality about navigating outside of a very small ‘recognizably Catholic’ world, and expecting/demanding that the rest of the world see things their way. I’m telling you, and I’m telling them – just as Rence has been telling you – that “the world” is not going to see values, morals, ethics in “strictly Catholic” terms.

And as much education as you may have had, they may have equally valid points. This thought doesn’t seem to occur to you.

You have absolutely no foundation for such a statement. It’s strange to me that you seem to continually come out of nowhere with these suppositions. I never once, not on this thread, not on other threads, have said or implied that people with less education than I have “don’t have equally valid points.” But in this particular case (those who called my fellow poster and I “sinners,” “on the way to Hell,” opposed to the Catholic faith and on and on, merely because we tentatively suggested actual dialogue with the “pro-choice” segment of the population), they frankly did not have “valid points.” There’s nothing valid about expecting change from another subpopulation when you refuse to actually communicate with them and continually marginalize them, call them tools of the devil, etc.

 

[Elizabeth502]

How could it possibly be self-destructive to talk about the Church using it’s own language? Sometimes the “view to efficaciousness”, in our society that so looks down upon anything religious much less Catholic, may really be “fear of looking like one of those backwards, non-thinking Catholics” in disguise. I’m not saying this is you. I’m just saying that Christians are often thought to be pro-faith anti-logic mindless followers without a wordly education. And although, yes, that can bother me sometimes, I don’t think it’s always necessary to deal with that problem prior to doing the actual evangelization.

I agree! How can we continually second-guess ourselves? That’s fruitless, and that is self-destuctive. But let me clarify – because you asked the question at the opening (above). I think it’s self-destructive to approach (or react to) the non-Catholic world in a habitually hostile manner. I’m not suggesting that you are doing this or recommending it. I’m suggesting that I see extreme rhetoric on CAF sometimes and hear it in various Catholic venues. Posters will introduce a moral dilemma (such as evident in a current news story), and immediately 10 repliers will trot out dismissive language about “the world,” about “humanists,” about “secularists,” etc. Well that may be true (or may not be true), but that’s not a response: that’s a reaction, and one I call self-destructive. Fr. John Corapi has said often that you need to get to know your opposition extremely well; you need to be able to have discussions with them; you absolutely (he says) need to understand their language. And if you don’t speak their language, you can forget dialogue. You (we Catholics) can’t have it all on our terms, particulary given the goals of evangelization & transformation which you also bring up.

Or, if evangelizing Catholics wish to treat the secular world as “enemy,” then I suggest they follow this course: *‘Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.’ *

I agree we’ve gotten off-topic, but sometimes it’s necessary when discussing effects or consequences of one’s Catholic (medical) decision-making, religious compliance, activism, etc. Because we’re not dealing with “just Catholic” institutions.

I didn’t say I thought you thought the marriage counseler was stupid. I said it sounded to me like you thought that anyone who would immediately defend their faith without gathering all possible information and analyzing the most efficacious way of doing so was not being very smart about what they were doing.

No. I disagree that any of my statements could have led to that conclusion. I didn’t say anything about “gathering all possible information.” I did say it’s necessary to be informed. Ignorance is not a virtue.

God can use anyone to make a difference. And He will require knowledge where He will, but He certainly doesn’t have to.

Not only have I not denied that, I would never deny that, as I don’t believe he is limited. That said, medical institutions are sophisticated places, as you yourself acknowledge (i.e., litigation, etc.). The more complex the issue, person, or institution, the more an advantage one has – when dealing with philosophical, intellectual issues – to be able to communicate in both “languages.” That’s all I’m saying.

 

[etspiri2sanctus]

Because, according to the forum rules, you have to use the title of the article, and that was the title of the article. Also, keep in mind, this was a surgical procedure.

I understand the forum rules Rence, but it was an abortion, not just any old surgical procedure. Sorry I’m not perfectly politically correct.

 

[1holycatholic]

I understand the forum rules Rence, but it was an abortion, not just any old surgical procedure. Sorry I’m not perfectly politically correct.

Worse still, it was a direct abortion - a crime against humanity.

It’s like the hospital gave approval to Dr. Swango.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I’m not really referring to the medical world as it should be, but as it is now. It’s not fair act like it’s “purely medical” when it’s not. If one would look at religion as a set of values, dictated by something, then the medical world is very very very much influenced (acceptably influenced, in our culture) by secular values. So I could very much say that the religion of secularism is being forced upon me when I walk into a state funded hospital that does abortions every day.

That being said, I’m not speaking of forcing non-Catholics to adhere to our belief system. I’m speaking of the overall idea that there should somehow be a “seperation of Church and medical world” like there is a “seperation of Church and state”. While I believe in everyone’s free will, and their right to it, ideally civil law and medical ethics would be interpreted through the perspective of Natural and Divine law as God has revealed it. When I say this I’m not asking for some sort of Catholic state to be made. I realize that I can’t, nor should I be able to, force anyone to do anything. The Church is not going to be able to “make America a Catholic state” and that’s not what I’m implying. But it does recognize that there is an objective, revealed truth, and it should uphold that truth within civil law, and when civil law runs contrary to divine law it should remain true to the divine law in spite of, and regardless of the consequences of, civil law. And those that consider themselves Catholic also have a responsibility to do so, and follow the Church.

Simply put, we can’t force anything on anyone, but we also cannot stop being Catholic where it might get us in trouble with civil law. Which is what I believe, in this case, the hospital did. It wanted to avoid litigation. Abortion is objectively more morally wrong than the hospital protecting the livelihood and jobs of it’s employees by avoiding litigation.

Then they don’t have to go to a Catholic hospital! And if in the extreme cases of emergency situations when the patient has not been able to make an informed choice and are brought to a Catholic hospital, that hospital and any employees within it are still responsible to uphold Divne Law over civil. Even though it may expose them to litigation. That is not equal to pushing their Catholic values onto another person. Quite the opposite, if they do nothing, they’re simply doing nothing. If they perform or assist in an abortion against their better judgement, they’re actually being forced to go along with that patient’s values.

Absolutely!! Excellent post and I agree with everything you’ve written. People have the responsibility to know and accept that they will be treated in ways that follow Catholic Church teaching in a Catholic hospital. Time precious (to them) may be wasted while they are in a Catholic ER and expecting to be treated in a way which does not follow Church teaching.

The goal, though, is to treat all patients in all hospitals, Catholic or not, as if the patients were Catholic and/or if the hospital were Catholic.

 

[LittleSoldier]

[Bolding mine]

I know you’re responding to Rence, but I wanted to weigh in.

As I have already stated, you are free to respond to any post.

On previous threads on various subjects, I have explained that language is a huge deal. When one’s opposition cannot agree to your language (or interprets your language inaccurately), or when your language confuses them because they cannot relate to its premises and definitions, no amount of using ‘divine law’ arguments per se will persuade them that one’s own [one’s religion’s] ‘objective, revealed truth’ should be a “truth” that they must also accept. Maybe you don’t mean to use those words with secular institutions (“divine law,” “objective truth,” etc.). Maybe this is Inside Baseball for you, and you understand that the language itself does more to provoke than to invite (& persuade).

Using the language of “Divine Law” is an excellent way to explain why Church teaching is Truth. The only people who will not understand this are those who have not been able to make the jump to Universal Morality. That doesn’t mean that they should be exempt from Divine Law. Divine Law applies to absolutely everyone in every single action of their lives, including medical treatment and their expectations of such.

I will suggest again that secular institutions such as secular medical facilities, public schools, courts of law, commercial pharmacies, and governmental bodies will generally not buy an explicitly sectarian philosophical system. That absolutely does not mean that a Catholic – whether in medicine or any other field – cannot or should not apply & act in accord with his or her faith tradition. Certainly (for example), many Jews do so, relative to their own faith tradition. And these environments understand that. But if I wanted to make a case, in one of those non-Catholic settings, for the upholding of (Catholic) morality, I sure as heck wouldn’t start talking about revealed objective truth & divine law.

And bookgirl sure as heck would. As would I.

An excellent (in my opinion) example of this is Professor Robert George’s approach to the gay marriage debate. He uses language and suppositions that the secular world can accept without an explciit Catholic context. He returns the debate to common definitions, common experience, and then proceeds logically to make the case. It is a universal approach, not an identifiably “Catholic” approach (yes, I know that Catholic means universal ), even though Prof. George is very much committed to the religious Catholic arguments against gay marriage. (A recent published co-authored article of his is cited on a different CAF thread.) You will find legal arguments in there; you will both legal and philosophical terminology, but none that can be uniquely identified as Catholic, “divine,” etc. His arguments are, if anything, anthropological, which should please a secularist.

Why in the world would a secularist be pleased by anthropological arguments? The fact that “Catholic” means “universal” is really irrelevant. Divine Law is Universal Law is God’s Law. Explain it any way you want, but the patient in a Catholic hospital has the right to be treated according to Catholic teaching. Why should Truth be restricted to Catholics? I don’t care if the patient is not Catholic - Truth still applies to him/her and it’s not our place to decide if a person shouldn’t be treated according to Truth. The Catholic Church teaches Truth. When one accepts that, the rest should be clear.

Would you please provide links to threads you have referenced and appropriate articles authored (or co-authored) by Dr. George? That way others involved in this thread can check the posts and articles out for themselves. Thank you.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I can only respond to language that is offered to me. When Catholics assert simplistically that the vast secular state can simply be taken on by a minority of believers, without regard to what is indeed feasible and what is not (because some of it is), then I can logically deduce that many of them live sheltered lives, by choice or accident.

I beg to differ. I’ve seen enormous naivete about the secular world from Catholics on and off CAF. Not that they don’t get what’s happening: they do; I’m not arguing that. I’m arguing that it’s obvious to me that a significant segment of activist-inclined Catholics give me evidence constantly that they think much more can be accomplished – especially in a short period of time – than it can. And again, when I talk about what can be accomplished, I refer especially to those who insist on using identifiably religious language and assumptions to address a secular world. They say it on CAF; they say it on EWTN (and quote on EWTN radio/TV words they have used with the secular culture). Others, however, are more astute, but again, often these are Catholics who have withdrawn from secular circles (in their profession) because of the futility of common assumptions. Hence (I talked about his on another thread), there was a guest on Women of Grace who stated that she no longer counsels marreid couples who are not Catholic because “they just don’t get it about being open to life, and it’s impossible to explain it to them.”

I really don’t understand why you seem to have the habit of referencing other threads, people, and “Women of Grace” without providing links or other appropriate references.

“Divine Law” is not a Catholic term, as far as I know. A substitution for “Divine Law” is “Universal Law” - a term with which even an atheist might agree.

I would also like to submit that not understanding and/or agreeing with religious terminology exempts any person from Truth (as is stated by Divine Law, Universal Law, God’s Law).

 

[LittleSoldier]

bookgirl, I’ll be more explicit. An extreme example of what I’m referring to occurred a couple of years ago, I believe, on CAF. A former poster and I gently suggested that the abortion debate and the ‘pro-life’ debate in general (with Life as the premise from which all argument would derive) might be more successful in the secular arena if we came up with common language that the secular world would understand was working toward the common good. You would not believe (or maybe you would) the reaction that he and I received. My gosh, you would have thought that we had suggested Jesus isn’t present in the Eucharist, when we were merely suggesting what to us was a more winning approach to the issue.

Not a single person backed us up. They all regarded us as traitors, as “non-Catholics” as “CINO’s,” etc. – merely for using language other than from the CCC to persuade abortion providers and seekers to change their ways. I don’t make this stuff up. They kept on insisting that the only valid, approved approach was to use Catholic terminology.

This is only one of many examples in Catholic venues.

(Ergo, that is what will always happen?)

I very much doubt that is what happened, although that may have been your reaction. People other than yourself don’t know because we don’t know the thread to which you are referring in your initial complaint or what you even mean by your “many examples”. I’ve never been treated that way while posting in an abortion thread.

To what does “CINO” refer? I googled it and found out it is the last name of a woman whose first name is “Maria,” a commune in the province of Sondrio (with a population of 400), a misspelling of a janitorial company in Eugene OR, USA, a line of women’s clothing designed by Cinthia Menolascino (her first solo venture), and a (rather poor IMHO) poem authored by Ezra Pound, among other meanings and uses.

nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/12/nys-gop-throws-support-to-maria-cino-for-rnc-chief.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cino
bing.com/local/default.aspx?what=CINO&where=Eugene%2c+Oregon&s_cid=ansPhBkYp01&mkt=en-us&ac=false&q=CINO&qpvt=CINO&FORM=LARE
cinoapparel.com/
americanpoems.com/poets/ezrapound/3815

 

[LittleSoldier]

I really don’t understand why you seem to have the habit of referencing other threads, people, and “Women of Grace” without providing links or other appropriate references.

“Divine Law” is not a Catholic term, as far as I know. A substitution for “Divine Law” is “Universal Law” - a term with which even an atheist might agree.

I would also like to submit that not understanding and/or agreeing with religious terminology exempts any person from Truth (as is stated by Divine Law, Universal Law, God’s Law).

Edit: My last statement should have read: "I would also like to submit that not understanding and/or agreeing with religious terminology does not exempt any person from Truth (as is stated by Divine Law, Universal Law, God’s Law).

My apology for the error.

 

[kimmielittle]

Absolutely!! Excellent post and I agree with everything you’ve written. People have the responsibility to know and accept that they will be treated in ways that follow Catholic Church teaching in a Catholic hospital. ** Time precious (to them) may be wasted while they are in a Catholic ER and expecting to be treated in a way which does not follow Church teaching. **

The goal, though, is to treat all patients in all hospitals, Catholic or not, as if the patients were Catholic and/or if the hospital were Catholic.

Bolding mine

 

[bookgirl32]

Obviously. I never said once that I had a problem with Catholics talking about divine law to Catholics. But I very much disagree what you have said several times here – that this is only about a Catholic audience. What good does it do to preach to the choir? (CAF)

First of all, what do you mean by “this”? The whole forum in general or this particular thread? So I have to refrain from using the term Divine Law in case there might be a non-Catholic lurker I don’t know about? Guess what, if they were interested (after getting over their shock that someone on a Catholic website was using the word “divine” while addressing another Catholic) is head right on over to apologetics and ask.

(1) Much of this discussion here has been about engaging Catholic values in a secular world, in medical institutions many of which are not Catholic, or which are Catholic but have administrative associations with non-Catholic medical facilities (implying an overlap of two worlds). (2) Non-Catholics also read this forum, and many also participate. That in itself doesn’t require us to change our language, but to be aware that many of them, as well, do not buy into the Catholic view of divine law. That’s across religious traditions. Say “divine law” to a Jew (many, many of whom practice medicine), and they immediately become anxious about a singularly Christian world view. We don’t have to deny a Christian world view – not to ourselves, not to each other, not to the secular world. But to begin from that framework from the get-go can be problematic to audiences (medical and other) which are sensitized to polemics and tend to reject without further discussion arguments with a religious label. Not because they’re anti-religious or irreligious, but because such arguments lack either relevance or credibility to them. They would be much more persuaded by arguments using non-religious language. (Such as, in the example above I provided, those provided by Professor Robert George.)

Elizabeth I do understand the point you are trying to make. It’s like someone trying to convince a non-Christian that homosexual activity is wrong because “it’s in the Bible”. The non-Christian does not have the same view of the Bible as the Christian. I get it. But you’re going so far in trying to either prove me wrong because you dont’ like something I’m saying or you just want to argue with me that you’re going to get the thread closed. I myself havent’ been talking about non-Catholics in this thread. I realize this topic may have at one point or another something to do with non-Catholics. My problem, however, is that a group of people claiming to be Catholic (including a nun) are publicly defying the bishop in their diocese. If anything, non-Catholics are going to see that and get even more of an idea that the Church is a democracy just like our government or some Protestant denominations. It will give them the idea that our doctrine changes with the times and the culture. It will do a lot of bad things. So do I want a non-Christian to see me talking about how un-changing the Church is, and how authoritative it is, even if at this point it might turn them off? Sure. It’s the truth.

You have absolutely no foundation for such a statement. It’s strange to me that you seem to continually come out of nowhere with these suppositions.

You’re suggesting we cater to one group of people because we might offend them, scare them off, threaten them, etc. etc. But to our own, our fellow Catholics, all I’ve heard from you is how naive and illogical they are. Can you blame me for coming up with some of these conlcusions? I haven’t heard from you once about how admirable it was of the Bishop to stand up for his Church, about how wrong it was of the hospital to openly defy him. You haven’t seemed to be (to me, in my opinion) in agreement with anyone who is looking upon the bishop and his actions positively. Yet you are extremely concerned that the non-Catholics shouldn’t think we’re too Catholic or they’ll – I don’t know, what are you afraid they’ll do? Not go to a Catholic hospital? It sounds (again, sounds to me, just my opinion, correct me if I’m wrong) like you don’t want them to.

I never once, not on this thread, not on other threads, have said or implied that people with less education than I have “don’t have equally valid points.”

Okay.

But in this particular case (those who called my fellow poster and I “sinners,” “on the way to Hell,” opposed to the Catholic faith and on and on, merely because we tentatively suggested actual dialogue with the “pro-choice” segment of the population), they frankly did not have “valid points.” There’s nothing valid about expecting change from another subpopulation when you refuse to actually communicate with them and continually marginalize them, call them tools of the devil, etc.

So now you have done it, claimed that someone did not have equally valid points.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I can only respond to language that is offered to me. When Catholics assert simplistically that the vast secular state can simply be taken on by a minority of believers, without regard to what is indeed feasible and what is not (because some of it is), then I can logically deduce that many of them live sheltered lives, by choice or accident.

What isn’t feasible? The Church covers all areas of our lives. The Church teaches Truth. Do you deny that the Church teaches Truth?

I’m asking because I get the feeling that you are a moral relativist and I mean no disrespect when I say that.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Worse still, it was a direct abortion - a crime against humanity.

It’s like the hospital gave approval to Dr. Swango.

It was a crime against humanity. It saddens me immensely to think of all the children whose lives on earth only last as long as their mothers (and sometimes other people) decide. How much has been lost!! One of those children might have been instrumental in solving a problem such as poverty, and every single one of them deserved the chance to become an autonomous human being.

And as for the child that was killed in the Arizona case, that child’s life was a reality, even though it was shortened. And maybe nothing could have been done to save the child with the “modern” technology we have today. But that doesn’t mean it’s morally acceptable to abort that child. We aren’t supposed to speed anyone’s death along. It’s not our call and it shows the arrogance of many medical personnel who have bloated, delusional ideas of their own importance.

 

[etspiri2sanctus]

I’m just writing off the top of my head here as I haven’t read the article yet, but although I agree with the gist of the parts you have quoted, I disagree that the bishops’ authority has been limited to issuing mere opinions. It’s my understanding that bishops are actively involved in excommunications (although in the Arizona case the Sister was automatically excommunicated by her actions and the bishop merely informed her of this.

I also believe that bishops are responsible for being in charge of their dioceses. This must involve more than issuing “mere decisions.”

But I do agree with the problems at “Catholic” colleges and universities, although my agreement is based only on what another poster has stated.

I don’t understand what “the tie between the theologians, the administrators and the bishops seems finally to have been broken” means. Shouldn’t there be a tie as they are all involved in moral decisions? Hopefully the article will answer that question.

And yes, I am saddened that a Catholic institution has been lost, though in all honesty I don’t think that institution has been “Catholic” for a very long time.

Little Soldier, I “think” the opinions statement was meant to be a bit sarcastic. Much has changed in the past 40 to 50 years in the Catholic Church in regard to the respect given by the laity to our hierarchy. Not only do dissenting Catholics disregard what their diocesan prelate, Bishop/Archbishop/Cardinals say, or teach, many of the Bishops etc. dissent from following what the Church in Rome teaches. Many laity are not even aware that there is a hierarchy of prelates who are “supposed” to have power over decisions of morality. Most of the problem, again “I think” is the result of the hierarchy here in the US ignoring their job of leading their flocks. Many have become politicians, not spiritual leaders, to the detriment of the Church here in the US.

Yes, there should be a tie among the Bishop, the hospital and theologians, but progressive theologians have managed to break the tie, by disstenting from what the Bishops teach. This is a result of occurances that happened during and after Vatican II. During that time many progressive theologians had louder voices than orthodox Bishops and priests. These theologians began to push for the Protestantising of the Catholic Church. And they have succeeded in the majority of their efforst. Their take on the “new church” was what was allowed to be taught. The Church ran amok, with many clergy, “doing their own thing”. The biggie came when Pope Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae and many clergy turned their backs on him. Confusion as to what should be taught is still alive and well because of the pride of some clergy.

I don’t know if you read this, but Catholic West, St. Joseph Hospital imported their “own” theologians to interpret Bishop Olmstead’s decision instead of what was truly taught by Bishop Olmstead. They wanted to salve their consciences by having a dissenting theologian tell them their, the hospital’s, interpretation of what happened and the reasoning behind it was theologically sound according to them. They even tried to say the abortion was a result of “double effect”, that the child was inadvertently aborted to save the life of the mother… Double effect means for instance, if the mother had a diseased placenta, or this was a tubal pregnancy, certain surgicfal procedures which may result in the loss of the life of the child may be done, but never a DIRECT abortion. Thank the Lord in Heaven, Bishop Olmstead stood his ground. Pray for him.

 

[Rence]

So I could very much say that the religion of secularism is being forced upon me when I walk into a state funded hospital that does abortions every day.

But the religion of secularism is not being forced upon you whne you walk into a state funding hospital that does abortions, because you have the right to refuse treatment for any reason. You, as a patient, have the right to consent or refuse treatment.

That being said, I’m not speaking of forcing non-Catholics to adhere to our belief system. I’m speaking of the overall idea that there should somehow be a “seperation of Church and medical world” like there is a “seperation of Church and state”.

There is. Just not in emergencies where the rights of one supercedes the rights of others (a patient in crisis).

While I believe in everyone’s free will, and their right to it, ideally civil law and medical ethics would be interpreted through the perspective of Natural and Divine law as God has revealed it.

But this only applies to an individual when they believe in God or subscribe to the rules of the Church. There are other religions who do not come to the same conclusions when interpreting religious documents.

When I say this I’m not asking for some sort of Catholic state to be made. I realize that I can’t, nor should I be able to, force anyone to do anything. The Church is not going to be able to “make America a Catholic state” and that’s not what I’m implying. But it does recognize that there is an objective, revealed truth, and it should uphold that truth within civil law, and when civil law runs contrary to divine law it should remain true to the divine law in spite of, and regardless of the consequences of, civil law. And those that consider themselves Catholic also have a responsibility to do so, and follow the Church.

By requiring civil laws to run in line with “divine law”, one would be creating a Catholic state.

Simply put, we can’t force anything on anyone, but we also cannot stop being Catholic where it might get us in trouble with civil law. Which is what I believe, in this case, the hospital did. It wanted to avoid litigation. Abortion is objectively more morally wrong than the hospital protecting the livelihood and jobs of it’s employees by avoiding litigation.

If every Catholic institution would do as you wish, they’d all be closed down from the wrongful death, negligence and malpractice suits.

Then they don’t have to go to a Catholic hospital! And if in the extreme cases of emergency situations when the patient has not been able to make an informed choice and are brought to a Catholic hospital, that hospital and any employees within it are still responsible to uphold Divne Law over civil. Even though it may expose them to litigation. That is not equal to pushing their Catholic values onto another person. Quite the opposite, if they do nothing, they’re simply doing nothing. If they perform or assist in an abortion against their better judgement, they’re actually being forced to go along with that patient’s values.

Correct, sometimes a patient in crisis doesn’t have a choice with regards to the hospital the ambulance takes him or her to, or as in the case of remote locations, the time to get to a secular hospital. However, the hospital (Catholic or otherwise), that once receives such a patient is still required by law to stabilize the patient - and should always be required to do so. Doing nothing is not an option. Doing nothing is abandonment, negligence and grounds for a lawsuit, and that’s not going to change.

 

[kimmielittle]

I don’t know if you read this, but** Catholic West, St. Joseph Hospital imported their “own” theologians to interpret Bishop Olmstead’s decision instead of what was truly taught by Bishop Olmstead. **

Bolding Mine

If you don’t like dads answer …go ask mommy.

** They wanted to salve their consciences** by having a dissenting theologian tell them their, the hospital’s, interpretation of what happened and the reasoning behind it was theologically sound according to them.

They even tried to say the abortion was a result of “double effect”, that the child was inadvertently aborted to save the life of the mother…

Thank the Lord in Heaven, Bishop Olmstead stood his ground. Pray for him.

Great points!! Thank you. :clapping: