K
kimmielittle
Guest
And a few “Sisters” Have a Priest complex
Does this Sister even have any theologian teaching - say moreso than the average 2nd year college student in theology?
- Status
Does this Sister even have any theologian teaching - say moreso than the average 2nd year college student in theology?
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Edit: (again, I’m really sorry. I’m having problems with language because of brain damage.)This being a secular world? Oy vey!!And that means that moral relativism is perfectly fine with you? I think I’ve already asked you if you believe the Church teaches Truth, so I won’t repeat that question (and you probably haven’t had time to even read that post anyway).
You are really coming across as a moral relativist. That is a dangerous position to take. Moral relativism leads to instability, chaos, and eventually a breakdown of civilization.
If you are Catholic you believe the Church teaches Truth. That Truth should not be restricted to Catholics. Truth applies to every single person, even those little babies being aborted. If the staff of a secular hospital wishes to perform a direct abortion, it is wrong. If the staff of a Presbyterian hospital offers contraception, it is wrong.
It is true that they have the man-made legal right to offer those services. That doesn’t make it OK with God. He gives us free will and unfortunately many people, some of them members of hospital staffs, use that free will to perform immoral procedures and offer immoral services.
It’s still wrong. It’s still immoral. It still goes against Divine Law.
Divine Law always trumps man-made law.
The second sentence in the third paragraph should read: That Truth cannot be restricted to Catholics. The Church teaches how Truth is applied and her teachings should not be restricted to Catholics.
My apologies (again).
B
bookgirl32
Guest
B
bookgirl32
Guest
But my argument** is **to a practicing Catholic. I am discussing all of this and how it pertains to practicing Catholics, not non-Catholics. I understand all that you say above. It has no relevance when you’re talking about a bishop, a nun, and a Catholic hospital. Yes the civil law is going to have an impact and we can’t change that. That can’t change how we react.
I never said the second (not that I, or God, would mind though). The first I’m only speaking of hospitals officially associated with the Catholic Church. No any other hospital.
They are subject to the civil law and the rights of others, even when the civil law and others’ “so-called rights” (no one really has a right to an abortion, even though civil law says they do, and we can’t enforce that, but we also have freedom over our own actions, and can’t be physically forced to do anything) threaten lawsuits and other consequences.
.
I disagree. They may run into major problems in our culture doing so, but if the medical field is their calling, then the cultural / civil law problems are their cross.
I can’t speak for Elizabeth on how she feels about the Bishop, but I think it was admirable to for him to stand up for his Church, and his actions were positive. However, I don’t believe it was wrong for the hospital to give the required treatment to this woman if her life was in danger and she was too sick to transport out, which they said was the case.
And I’m not concerned that the non-Catholic patients would think the staff at a hospital as being “too Catholic”, however, it would pain me to think that they wouldn’t go to a Catholic hopsital because they think the medical care there would be inadequate or substandard, or that it would be a dangerous place to go, especially when they are in crisis.
I wouldn’t go to a Catholic hospital in a crisis, especially after gleening a bit of knowledge on online forums about how a handful people can get ten different interpretations of a same teaching – because if the staff were pracicing Catholics, they would be more concerned about following canon, and trying to interpret it, rather than taking care of my medical needs. It would be up to me to either refuse or consent treatment, but I want them concentrating on my medical needs, not on whether they are in compliance with what they think their religion is about.
Now, I’ve never encountered that in the emergency room: people floundering around trying to interpret canon…they’ve always been taking care of ME and other patients. But these threads have proven to be quite an eyeopener for me. People “on the same side” are arguing about “serious” reasons for using NFP, there are conflicts amoung the “traditional Catholics” regarding end of life issues, and then of course, applying medical practices to canon law. It’s been quite an eye opener.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I think you may have hit the nail on the head with what you’ve written here. I also don’t think there is any way of enforcing Catholic standards in institutions which are not Catholic. But that does not relieve a Catholic of the responsibility to try. If one accepts Catholic teaching as Truth one must also accept that this Truth applies to everyone. And actually, it makes no difference re the validity of Truth if not one person in the entire world accepts it. Truth stands on its own. It can’t be changed, determined, or voted on. It just is.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
I’m not talking about a secular hospital. And I’m not talking about the care received by non-Catholic patients at Catholic hospitals (Secondly, you have no idea if the specific patient at St. Joseph’s was Catholic or not). I’m talking about a Catholic hospital, it’s claim that it supposively follows the directives, it’s responsibility to God outside and above the reach of civil law, and it’s responsibility to obey it’s bishop. I’m allowed to have this conversation. If you dont’ want to talk about this then don’t.
You have no idea what that prayer is doing. It does, however, sound that you are demanding that God provide the answers to those prayers that are satisfactory to you. And give me some examples if you’re going to throw around these scenarios. You really think that the only goal of those praying a rosary at an abortion clinic is to change civil law? Maybe their prayers are reaching a mother who has aborted, and needs to turn back to God to heal her hurt. You can’t tell God what those prayers are achieving just because you or anyone else don’t see subjectively desired results.
So I take it Mother Teresa was delusional then? She came to the US, sat there and told politicians and presidents that the US is legally participating in arguably the biggest evil in today’s world. I’m sure some of them were thinking, “Like I’m going to listen to this old lady.” She was doing exactly what you are saying not to. Is she delusional? Is the Pope illogical when he addresses the whole entire political world and it’s leaders in purely Catholic language?
You’re acting like the ultimate goal is to convert everyone to Catholicism. We cannot make anyone do that. The ultimate goal is to uphold God’s laws. Period. If we offend God but then tell Him, “It’s okay, I’m only doing it to make them believe you,” what good is that? Isn’t it Jesus Himself that said we would be persecuted, made fun of, not believed? But to stand fast in Him? He didn’t tell us to please everyone, not offend anyone, remain politically correct or hide the Truth. I am NOT talking about non-Catholics here or what they think of Catholicism. I’m talking about God’s revelation through the Catholic Church and whether or not Catholics should follow it above all things.
I have absolutely no problem using words non-Catholics can understand. I do however have a problem with you, first off, discounting silent or spiritual efforts of anyone in favor of “dialogue”. Don’t you realize that you’re doing the same thing that you’re accusing “Catholics” of doing? Insisting that your way is the only really effective way? Your way has obvious merits, I’m not refuting that at all. But I’m talking about a Catholic hospital, led by a nun, that defied it’s bishop. Not an interfaith conference where everyone needs to understand eachother.
Why in the world would I disagree with this? Have you seen me advocate anything similar to the actions of Scott Roeder or imply that they’re correct? If you believe then St. Joseph’s actions were no better than Scott Roeder’s. He killed a man, they killed a baby. And both did so in the “name” of saving others, the hospital the mother, Scott Roeder future abortion victims. The fact is that NEITHER had the right to do so and BOTH are wrong. So why are you defending the hospital so strongly?
I never said I could, or that I was. I just said I haven’t once heard you speak positively about Bishop Olmsted’s actions, and a lot of what you’ve said could be construed as implying that he might not have been fully correct. That is all I said. That and you seem to think that you have the monopoly on effective communication, and anyone who disagrees wtih you is wrong.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
And also, it would be nice if you would not cut out 95% of my posts when you quote me. It kind of takes them out of context, and then allows you to address the questions or issues that are on your agenda, some of which are quite off topic as to my posts.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
Not sure how I screwed up my previous post and missed this part of Rences’. Sorry about that.
Then who was right and who was wrong? Were they both right? How can they both be right?
It pains me too. But in the end, after a lot of effort towards preventing this scenario, if that’s what happens as a result of a Catholic hospital following Church teaching, then so be it.
And here’s the problem again. A handful of people can get different interpretations. Only one matters. And he gave his. A handful of people getting ten different interpretations of the same teachings and then refusing to recognize an ultimate authority is exactly what got us Protestantism.
Then don’t go to a Catholic hospital. Get some sort of medic alert identification that states you will not approve being treated a Catholic hospital. Then you don’t have to worry about it.
Except did an authoritatve bishop decisively rule on the NFP debates, or the end of life issues? I’m not saying this to a non-Catholic, I’m saying it to you, who identifies as Catholic.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
Exactly. And you’re also simply telling the truth here about what the Catholic Church teaches. I don’t see how trying to hide this fact or put it in a better light (as if it were a negative thing in the first place) is going to help any sort of dialogue with non-Catholics.
R
Rence
Guest
Of course someone questioned the procedure, otherwise no one would have consulted the ethics committee…sorry you’re having difficulty understanding that one. Maybe if you think on it a while it will make sense to later
In a hospital setting, there are many players: mom, mom’s family, doctor, nurses, techs, and anyone involved in her care.
Uh, no. I can’t think of a reason under the sun for a patient to call the ethics committee. That doesn’t even make sense.
No, the doctor would not call the Ethics Committee if a patient refused a treatment. He would document on the chart “patient refused treatment” and someone else would sign it, and he’d go on to another patient…here is no reason for him to call the ethics committee. He would, however, call the ethics committee if he diagnosed a patient and prescribed a treatment that someone thought it wasn’t necessary, was immoral or did not want to participate in because it was, “against their religion”. and then the ethics committee would come in and evauluate the situation.
Where did the reports indicate that she consented AFTER the ethics committee met with her family?
I don’t need to rethink this because I have been in working in this arena for years
There is no reason in the world for a patient to call on the ethics committee in the case that treatment is refused, and there is no reason in the world for a doctor to call on the ethics committee just because a patient declined treatment.Of course there is: to make sure the woman and family consented to the procedure. The family, on the other hand, may have wanted to meet with the ethics committee to make sure treatment was carried out.
Sorry these are hard for you to grasp, I don’t think you understand about the right of the patient to consent or refuse treatment. It’s a non-issue. The woman consented to treatment, and there was never any indication that she did not consent. That’s a whole new ball of wax, no evidence of it whatsoever, and would have caused a whole slew of new headlines regarding this case. The issue with this situation is that a Catholic hospital performed a procedure that was against the rules of the Church, a procedure the patient and her family wanted. Period.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
That’s right. In a hospital setting, be it Catholic, Methodist, or Jewish owned/operated, any medical procedure is performed only after patient written consent is obtained. It is also the time when the expected outcome, and associated risks and complications are discussed. The standard of medical care requires informed consent taking. Without patient consent, the surgeon and the hospital may be successfully sued for a battery cause of action.
.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
OK. Then I could also reverse that equation. (Catholic vs. secular) Beginning with, at the least, post 167 on this thread, the discussion has broadened to the requirements of medical institutions in general. Certainly the last 10 pages minimum have drifted in & out of that discussion, with you weighing in on how supposedly non-Catholics (working in, and patients in, hospitals) are also bound by divine law and objective truth, how Catholics discerning a medical vocation might have a constructive role in non-Catholic hospitals (I agree), and how divine laws are the final ‘decision-makers’ (Your post 279.) Of course you can limit your statements to those concerning Catholic hospitals, but even then (what several posters, not just I, have pointed out), one doesn’t stop being legally & practically bound by medical ethics because one is a Catholic medical worker. That’s the part that Rence, and separately I, have been trying to make clear.
I tend to think of the situation as something of a Venn diagram; you may be familiar with that. There are overlapping moral/ethical codes in a sectarian hospital: those pertaining to the code of the sect, those pertaining to civil/professional code. The problem is when there’s a conflict (rules not shared by both institutions). These conflicts have been highlighted by some posters. We can’t just blow off these contradictions as 'tough: Divine law rules; it’s a Catholic hospital. End of story. ’ “Catholic” requires one set of rules; ‘hospital,’ in the modern world, requires another. This contradiction (a contradiction which Bishop Olmstead himself acknowledged) is a problem for potentially all Catholic hospitals. That’s why talking about the non-Catholic view is important. It’s not going to go away.
You’ve misunderstood. I don’t pretend to know what prayers are doing, nor what God is doing.
I pray an awful lot about Life causes in this country. However, I am entitled to draw logical conclusions when explicit statements are made by pro-life people that “only” or “mostly” prayer in front of abortion clinics will convince pregnant women not to abort, and when they claim that that any approach except for that (in addition to that) is somehow “heretical” (their actual word), and a litmus test of loyalty to the Magisterium. Such a position is narrow-minded & ignorant. And yes, delusional.I never once said or implied that Mother Teresa is delusional for praying. Note, however, that most of her life was devoted to actual, practical involvement in (poor) people’s lives, as opposed to relying mainly on passive prayer. She prayed, talked, & worked all at the same time in many cases. Fr. Corapi has a number of colorful anecdotes about that.
You apparently missed the lively dialogue engaged by several of us on the “condom” issue on one of the threads about a month ago.
Btw, I didn’t say that Catholic language is illogical. You seem to have trouble following sequence here. I said that Catholic “proprietary” language is often not understood by a wider audience. I made a separate point that strategies in Catholic moral activism (as in any activism, including civil) should logically align with goals. (Thus, when you want to communicate effectively with a non-Catholic audience, you speak to them in the context that has a good chance of resonating with them.) I’m sure Mother Teresa did this. The Pope, in the condom statement (including in the book, out of which it was lifted), did not sufficiently, in the opinion of many faithful, learned Catholics who were guests on EWTN, frame the condom remark so that non-Catholics – who dissect every word of his – would easily understand, since most of his global audience are not trained in Catholic philosophy which underpins Catholic moral theology. He needed a little bit of a preamble, and probably a better example, according to George Weigel and many others.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I’m sorry that I give you that impression. That’s not my belief. My belief is that when dealing with a powerful, sophisticated set of modern secular institutions which many Catholics would like to monitor, influence, change, relying on a Catholic viewpoint alone is an insufficient way to communicate. And anyone who thinks that identifiably religious (let alone Catholic) language does not actually back-fire with regard to many hot-plate issues in modern morality (contraception, abortion, cohabitation, gay “marriage,” reproductive technologies, etc.) really does not get out enough. If you want to shut down dialogue, and ensure that tomorrow there will be another million dollars in so-and-so’s campaign chest or such-and-such legislative attempt, just tell your opponents that you’re speaking for the Catholic church, or that what they’re doing is “against God’s law.” I’m not saying, bookgirl, that you necessarily want to do this or have done this. (You’ve already addressed that fact.) I’m saying that many, many well-meaning Catholic activists operate this way. It is indeed naive, if not also delusional because it does not lead to effective change.
I don’t put myself out there as “the only effective communicator.” I put other models out there. Twice now I’ve put Professor Robert George out there, as one fine example. He knows how to argue Catholic morality to a secular world, which is the majority population in the United States of America and which largely controls which laws are created, changed, enforced, disregarded, etc.
People in the medical and legal worlds are obviously extremely educated, for the most part, and highly intelligent. Intellectual arguments which are secular in nature universally appeal to them. For those who may also be religious, religious arguments may additionally appeal, but it’s a poor strategy to rely on those when dealing with these civil decision-makers. (Just clarifying my position, not suggesting you don’t get this.)
K
kimmielittle
Guest
K
kimmielittle
Guest
My Big Brother / Conservators have had to sign many consent forms for life threatening procedures, or in two cases, refusal of treatment - At no time did the Ethics Committee meet with us. Even when I checked out against Doctors wishes. A nurse brought the release…,and office Notary.
Someone, was saying no to signing the consent forms for this abortion - Until after the Ethics Committee met with the Mom and Family. And seeing who would have the weight of saying no in patient care - It was The Mom
Someone, was saying no to signing the consent forms for this abortion - Until after the Ethics Committee met with the Mom and Family. And seeing who would have the weight of saying no in patient care - It was The Mom
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
:clapping:
:clapping:
This is the best post in this entire thread. Bookgirl, you express my thoughts so much better than I ever could. I commend you for your devotion to the Church and her teachings!!!
:clapping:
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
In listening to and reading Bishop Olmsted’s direct statements regarding the matter that led to St. Joseph losing its Catholic status, I do not second guess the decision he reached.
We know that the Catholic Health Association backs the hospital in its management of the treatment of this pregnant 27 y.o. mother of four woman who presented with PH at 11 weeks gestation in Nov 2009. In this NCR article, it reported the following:
On “the facts of the case,” the hospital said:
“A woman in her 20s with a history of moderate but well-controlled pulmonary hypertension found out she was pregnant. There was concern for her health because pregnancy with pulmonary hypertension carries a serious risk of mortality. Because of the severity of her disease, the woman’s risk of mortality was close to 50 percent. In November 2009 the woman was admitted to St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center with worsening symptoms. Tests revealed that she now had life-threatening pulmonary hypertension. The chart notes that she had been informed that her risk of mortality was close to 100 percent if she continued the pregnancy. The medical team contacted the Ethics Consult team for review. The consultation team talked to several physicians and nurses as well as reviewed the patient’s record. The patient and her family, her doctors and the Ethics Consult team agreed that the pregnancy could be terminated, and that it was appropriate since the goal was not to end the pregnancy but save the mother’s life.”
My apologies if this has been raised already upthread. I bring it up because of the recent query on the involvement of the Ethics Committee in the case in question.
It would be interesting to have the commentary of the National Catholic Bioethics Center. The last time I checked the Diocese of Phoenix site, the NCBC has not (yet) released any comment.
.
We know that the Catholic Health Association backs the hospital in its management of the treatment of this pregnant 27 y.o. mother of four woman who presented with PH at 11 weeks gestation in Nov 2009. In this NCR article, it reported the following:
On “the facts of the case,” the hospital said:
“A woman in her 20s with a history of moderate but well-controlled pulmonary hypertension found out she was pregnant. There was concern for her health because pregnancy with pulmonary hypertension carries a serious risk of mortality. Because of the severity of her disease, the woman’s risk of mortality was close to 50 percent. In November 2009 the woman was admitted to St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center with worsening symptoms. Tests revealed that she now had life-threatening pulmonary hypertension. The chart notes that she had been informed that her risk of mortality was close to 100 percent if she continued the pregnancy. The medical team contacted the Ethics Consult team for review. The consultation team talked to several physicians and nurses as well as reviewed the patient’s record. The patient and her family, her doctors and the Ethics Consult team agreed that the pregnancy could be terminated, and that it was appropriate since the goal was not to end the pregnancy but save the mother’s life.”
My apologies if this has been raised already upthread. I bring it up because of the recent query on the involvement of the Ethics Committee in the case in question.
It would be interesting to have the commentary of the National Catholic Bioethics Center. The last time I checked the Diocese of Phoenix site, the NCBC has not (yet) released any comment.
.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
I have.
One time a Doctor prescribed and had issued to me codeine as Tylenol 3 -albeit I had a hospital band saying allergic to codeine on my wrist AND it was at the top of my records. I asked the Nurse what it was the two pills ] and she said Tylenol 3 - Not knowing what Tylenol3 was I thought like… Super Excedrin ] I took them.
Had the nurse called it Tylenol and codeine - I wouldn’t have taken them…
But since the Mom, in your opinion, didn’t / wouldn’t notify the Ethics Committee - why meet with the Mom and Family? Unless, the Mom wasn’t signing treatment by abortion papers.
The Ethics Committee justified the Doctor’s plan before meeting the Mom and Family.
That takes care of the Doctor OR any hospital staff that might have questioned. Why meet with the Mom and Family?
If a staff member thought it was “against their religion” to participate…no need for The Ethics Committee - The Staff members “Conscious Clause” protects them
Why meet with the Mom and Family?
stjosephs-phx.org/Who_We_Are/Press_Center/211990
lifenews.com/2010/05/18/state-5103/
Sooooo…Why meet with the Mom and Family?I don’t need to rethink this because I have been in working in this arena for years
C’mon
…
K
kimmielittle
Guest
I have it and will try to find the link to the PDF for you - In short they stand firmly behind The Bishop.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
[bolding added] And what others have tried to make clear is that Divine Law is Truth and that Catholics are not morally bound by immoral legal and medical “ethics.” One doesn’t put one’s Catholicism in a jar and leave it by the front door when one is going to work at a Catholic hospital or a non-Catholic hospital. If the legal aspects are immoral no Catholic should adhere to them, even at the risk of being fired, sued, or arrested and imprisoned.
When every hospital in the world follows Church teaching it will go away. Divine Law covers every aspect of a person’s life and every aspect of the workings of a hospital. You can draw Venn diagrams; fine. There are overlapping parts. But Divine Law is the only law that matters. As I have stated several times, Divine Law trumps civil law.
“Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.”
[CCC 1957, bolding added]
“Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.”
[CCC 1776]
And perhaps the most important, when there are conflicts between Divine Law and civil law:
The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” “We must obey God rather than men”:
When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.
[CCC 2242, bolding and underlining added]
I get a very strong feeling that what you have been saying all along is that Catholics should either stay away from any situation that might force them to choose between Divine Law and civil law, or obey civil law and ignore Divine Law (please feel free to correct me if I am wrong). But that is backwards - Divine Law always takes precedence and as Catholics we are required to not adhere to immoral laws.
-----continued in next post-----
- Status