E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Thank you for reading critically and discerning what was and was not said, implied etc.! Your assessment is correct.
- Status
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Your charity is overwhelming. Seriously.
The ongoing “argument” doesn’t appear to me to be at all what you are claiming. I am constantly amazed by the intelligence and understanding bookgirl has shown in this thread. She has a remarkable way of communicating what she means and I have no disagreement with anything she has stated.
I take issue with your use of “the ongoing argument you are having…” [bolding added]
It takes two to tango and it takes a minimum of two people to have an argument. Bookgirl has not posted one post in which she argues with herself. You’ve completely left out the fact that others are involved in what you call an “argument.”
Wow! I sure read discord and dissent!!
What has been discussed goes far beyond communicating with non-Catholics. But if you choose to limit what has been discussed to that part of this thread you should be aware this is a Catholic forum with Catholic posters who should be able to understand Catholic terminology. I find it somewhat insulting and condescending to imply that non-Catholics cannot understand Catholic language. And if they can’t, I’m sure bookgirl would be more than happy to explain to them what she is trying to communicate.
For example, Divine Law would probably be understood by any religious person who has managed to reach the stage of Universal morality. For atheists the term “Universal Law” could be used instead. I have suggested this several times, yet it is ignored by a few posters who disagree with just about everything bookgirl has stated in her posts.
Oh. Gosh, I’m sorry about that. We should be doing much more to keep those people in the Church. A good first step would be for Bishop Olmsted to admit he is wrong and that the staff at St. Joseph did exactly what they were supposed to do and that it was and is morally correct.It is already a tremendous challenge to keep the faithful on the same page. We see how Catholic hospitals depart from Church teaching as St. Joseph had, bringing with them yet another dissenting segment of the Catholic population.
.
This thread is about an Arizona hospital that lost its Catholic status because of ongoing problems with offering services not in accord with Catholic teaching (such as contraception and sterilizations) and the straw that broke the camel’s back was a direct abortion. The thread has veered off course, as threads often do, and now we are discussing Church teaching and how it relates to hospital services.
The Church is clear. Direct abortions are immoral and a cause for automatic excommunication for any Catholic who is involved. The staff at St. Joseph disagrees and that simply means they can no longer be affiliated with the Catholic Church.
It’s not the Church’s fault that Catholics who claim that St. Joseph performed a necessary, moral procedure may leave the Church and it most certainly is not bookgirl’s fault. What I am seeing is confusion from other posters who do not appear to be able to comprehend that Church teaching is Truth. If people leave the Church they are committing spiritual suicide. Some of the hospital staff are guilty of spitting in God’s face by murdering an innocent human being.
R
Rence
Guest
I still don’t understand why the ethics committee would do thatAnd if the physician wants to perform a procedure that the patient is not willing to go through
It’s the doctor’s job to do that 
It’s really no skin off any doctor’s nose (at least the ones I know) if a patient refuses treatment 
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Hyperbole? You think? Perhaps you are not aware of this but in debate it is up to the person making the claim to provide a link or other appropriate reference to show backup documentation. You have not done this, although you have dropped some names a few times and also have referred to other threads. Now you are saying that it’s up to bookgirl to do it? You are the one making the claims. Please don’t expect others to do your work for you. Frankly, that smacks of intellectual snobbery. I’m sorry, but it does..
Hyperbole? I’ve said his name 2 or 3 times, I believe. His name has been repeated by others on CAF more than once. Links are abundant on this forum for you to view, on more than one thread. The search engine is your friend.
Again you present yourself as uh, omniscient. Now you know bookgirl’s interests in discussion. You can’t know that as you are not bookgirl. Your comment is condescending and inappropriate.It doesn’t.
R
Rence
Guest
Hey, I agree with you. But then it’s not a Catholic that one wants to convince when it comes to consenting or refusing a treatment, because a Catholic would just refuse treatment - right? It’s the non-Catholics, who do not subject themselves to the Catholic Church, and even the non-practicing Catholics, who do not subject themselves to the Catholic Church. Those folks don’t give the Church authority over them and don’t recognize what the Church teaches as true. Their opinions, of course, can’t touch what the Church teaches, but it sure dictates how they receive the Church’s messages. And these are the folks who still need to be treated in all hospitals when there are in emergency or critical situations.
.
They don’t have to follow it. They can refuse to obey the civil law, and accept the consequences for it.
I understand that you don’t believe the Church’s rules and laws are enforcable under civil law and in today’s society. We both know this.
I think we both agree here.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
That’s what I have been saying over and over. I have zero argument with this. I think the problem is that your biggest concern with the issue seems to be how the Church is portrayed to non-Catholics in this situation. Which is fine. But my biggest concern is that it was clear that the bishop is correct. And that nothing else has any impact upon that.Absolutely. I’ve praised him for that. (An important fact which you continually skip over, preferring to ask me repeatedly whether I approve of him or not.) As I believe the poster ByzCath said earlier, it’s irrelevant whether anyone here approves or disapproves; it’s meaningless, including whether you, frankly, approve or disapprove. He’s the bishop; he has jurisdiction over his diocese; his judgment is what’s important here, not the judgments of CAF posters; they’re not running the show.
I hadn’t.
Thank you.
What was he clear about? He didn’t clarify the distinctions only in order to point out that there are disctinctions.
Notice that I keep saying “this is what you seem to be saying”? I’m sorry if I let my temper get away with me and got sarcastic. I obviously can’t put words in your mouth. But, honestly, it was how you were coming off to me.
And that’s fine. But here, again, you seem to be implying that that is what LS and I have been doing by instisting that Divine Law supersedes civil law when civil law morally contradicts Divine Law. I didn’t get any agreement (initially) with you on this, only a lecture about how non-Catholics are not going to react well to me using that term. That along with comments like this:
can be misleading.
My point was that if you’re going to reference something, the burden is usually upon you to provide the source.Hyperbole? I’ve said his name 2 or 3 times, I believe. His name has been repeated by others on CAF more than once. Links are abundant on this forum for you to view, on more than one thread. The search engine is your friend.
[/quote]
R
Robert_Bay
Guest
WARNING
Discuss the issues, not each other
If you request a reliable source for information and the member does not provide it, then the matter is closed. Other members reading the thread will see that and take that into consideration as they review people’s opinions.
Again, this thread needs to get back to discussing the issues, not each other.
Discuss the issues, not each other
If you request a reliable source for information and the member does not provide it, then the matter is closed. Other members reading the thread will see that and take that into consideration as they review people’s opinions.
Again, this thread needs to get back to discussing the issues, not each other.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
I admit that I have lacked in charity at some points in this discussion. And while I hope to reign it in the future, I will say that I don’t believe that quiet a few of my answers were unprovoked. I was unable to get any sort of statement on anything in reference to this situation other than how it pertains to the non-Catholic patients, the non-Catholic makers of civil law and how we need to communicate with them. For a long time there was no statement of agreement on the decision of the Bishop (that he had authority, yes, but not on his actions) or on the roles of Divine Law and civil law as pertaining to this particular case. All I kept getting was why it was uncovincing for non-Catholics to use certain language. She was, in posts addressing, answering questions I never asked in place of answers to questions that were directly addressed to her. In short, it seems like she was wanting to argue. I wanted agreement on the appropriateness of the actions of the bishop and the place of Divine law in a Catholic’s life. Nothing more.
Or what she would not say, which is how she interpreted the Church’s teachings as to Divine Law and civil law and when they are morally contrary. And this:
does seem to be in discord with Catholic teaching. If I’m misinterpreting it then correct me.
I don’t have a problem with that! I’ve never disagreed with that. But that is not an answer to the question of whether or not Divine Law supercedes civil law when they are morally contrary. I asked that question quite a bit, and instead of getting agreement, or even acknowledgement of what my question was, I was getting an indirect answer about how the term “Divine Law” is insufficient in communicating with non-Catholics.
I suggest you go back and read the entire thread. And I’ll take your comments in good faith and try to be more charitable.It is already a tremendous challenge to keep the faithful on the same page. We see how Catholic hospitals depart from Church teaching as St. Joseph had, bringing with them yet another dissenting segment of the Catholic population.
.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I probably don’t know the doctors you know. But I can think of three reasons right now - right off the top of my head:I still don’t understand why the ethics committee would do that
(1) Ka-ching!! :twocents::twocents:
(2) God Complex
(3) cya
I can go into further detail if you wish.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I just wanted to say that, although it is common knowledge that the Church is having difficulties in the State of Oregon, nobody would come to that conclusion if they attended Sunday Mass in the little town in which I currently reside. It’s standing room only.
I apologize for taking the thread off-topic.
R
Rence
Guest
No, you don’t know the doctors I know. And apparently I don’t know the doctors you know, or the hospitals in which you work. I have never seen the Ethics Committee called by a doctor or a patient over a patient’s refusal to prescribed treatment. And I know a lot of doctors. Refusing treatment is not a big deal. All the doctor needs for legal backup is a witness (nurse, another doctor, etc) and their signature and he is released of liability. Almost every day someone on my unit alone refuses some type of treatment.
Anyway, the article was a bit misleading, wasn’t it? It implied that the hospital lost it’s Catholic status over surgery, but that wasn’t what led the Bishop to his decision. As the National Catholic Bioethics Center indicated in their released statement:
This really backs up what I said earlier about this one case: this case alone would have probably gone unnoticed in another Catholic institution, and that this case is getting the attention it is getting because of the relationship between the hospital and the Bishop over the past 7 years. This was a difficult case, and the treatment was done emergently, which leaves little time to mill about trying to figure out if it is compliant with canon.
IMO, this one case has little to nothing to do with the hospital losing its Catholic status.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
Totally agreed. And yes I realize I can’t beat them over the head with the Catechism. I only wanted to reiterate that if practicing Catholics can’t/won’t follow Church teaching, then what’s the point of convincing anyone else of anything?
Not that I want them to be in a situation like that, I wish they weren’t. I realize there will have to be dialogue. But while all of that is going on, there’s still truth to follow. We can’t put it on hold while people figure it out.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Yes, we can say that this case was the last straw that broke the camel’s back. Not fatal by itself with arguable presenting medical facts, in terms of the hospital losing Catholic status, but on top of everything else, the bishop was left with not much choice.No, you don’t know the doctors I know. And apparently I don’t know the doctors you know, or the hospitals in which you work. I have never seen the Ethics Committee called by a doctor or a patient over a patient’s refusal to prescribed treatment. And I know a lot of doctors. Refusing treatment is not a big deal. All the doctor needs for legal backup is a witness (nurse, another doctor, etc) and their signature and he is released of liability. Almost every day someone on my unit alone refuses some type of treatment.
Anyway, the article was a bit misleading, wasn’t it? It implied that the hospital lost it’s Catholic status over surgery, but that wasn’t what led the Bishop to his decision. As the National Catholic Bioethics Center indicated in their released statement:
This really backs up what I said earlier about this one case: this case alone would have probably gone unnoticed in another Catholic institution, and that this case is getting the attention it is getting because of the relationship between the hospital and the Bishop over the past 7 years. This was a difficult case, and the treatment was done emergently, which leaves little time to mill about trying to figure out if it is compliant with canon.
IMO, this one case has little to nothing to do with the hospital losing its Catholic status.
Going back to the first premise of your post, this was the scenario that I saw when I worked on professional liability claims against hospitals (Catholic and otherwise) and physicians for 14 years. It does not matter to medical providers if patients do not consent to the proposed surgical or medical treatment. If the patient does not wish to undergo a proposed surgery or medical treatment, the only concern left is documentation that the patient exercised an informed refusal of the treatment. The same way if the patient decides to treatment by signing a pre-procedure consent form.
.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I am surprised that anyone as interested in this topic as you clearly are (as am I) would not have kept abreast with the prominent names that are hard to miss in the pro-life movemnt, especially in the Catholic media (many media), but additionally in the secular media. Big article about him in the *New York Times *several weeks ago. Featured as the guest on EWTN’s *The World Over *, published a significant journal piece for the Ivy League, featured right here on CAF (Social Justice forum), etc. The burden is not “up to me,” because Professor Robert George is not the main topic on the thread. I’m sure you’re an educated person. If you care to learn about who he is in the Catholic world, you’ll take the time to investigate. By contrast, I did not demand that do all my work for me when you passed along a Catholic physician’s name whom you respect; I figure, as an educated person like yourself, I should acquaint myself with him instead of playing games about that. I consider it respectful when posters offer me a name to investigate, and unless it’s extremely obscure, I consider it my responsibility, in the environment of mutual exchange, to look it up myself.
In case other posters start ranting about the NYT, even Fr. Bernard Groeschel reguarly reads it. He often complains about them and to them, but also reports when he’s pleased with an opinion piece or a feature article. I haven’t personally heard him reference the George article, but he could have. I try to catch Groeschel whenever I can (TV & radio), but I can’t watch everything.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I don’t work in a hospital. I never said I did. I’m disabled with a degenerative disease. Perhaps that is where part of the problem in communication lies - we are looking at this situation through different lenses. I’ve been a patient numerous times, had several surgeries, a very ill mother, and a child who almost died at birth and who spent weeks in ICU in a children’s hospital. I’ve dealt with the bureaucracy from a patient’s POV and a daughter’s POV and a mother’s POV. I never signed a consent form for any treatment my son received. The only consent I ever gave (and it was via phone) was for him to be involved in a study in which the experimental group would receive blood products; right at the worst time possible for the transfer of HIV; how utterly ignorant we were. And he was in the experimental group and he did receive blood products. I never saw a physician who was involved in my son’s treatment. Not one single time. But somehow someone decided that I was going to remove my son from the hospital AMA, which is the last thing I would ever have done. And right then he was removed from my custody - nobody even asked me if the charge was true. I never asked for an AMA form. In fact, I didn’t even know such a thing existed. They took him and that started a whole horror story which concluded in an illegal adoption, a death threat against my mother, and I have a strong feeling that lots of money changed hands. Little boys are worth a lot, money-wise.No, you don’t know the doctors I know. And apparently I don’t know the doctors you know, or the hospitals in which you work. I have never seen the Ethics Committee called by a doctor or a patient over a patient’s refusal to prescribed treatment. And I know a lot of doctors. Refusing treatment is not a big deal. All the doctor needs for legal backup is a witness (nurse, another doctor, etc) and their signature and he is released of liability. Almost every day someone on my unit alone refuses some type of treatment.
Sorry - I didn’t mean to go off-topic. My point is that you see this situation from where you stand and I see it from where I stand. It seems that you are more trusting of hospital staff and you must have your reasons; I have my reasons for not trusting hospital staff.
Which article are you referring to? If it’s the one presented in the OP I would have to say it was misleading from the title alone. It wasn’t just the abortion (I don’t know why the title didn’t just come out and say “abortion”) that led to the removal of the Catholic affiliation. You are correct. It was much, much more - all those years of contraceptives and sterilizations and other procedures which go against Church teaching. It was very misleading.
IMO, this one case was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The bishop did what he was supposed to do and I think we all agree on that.
But it took seven years of ignoring Church teaching. That’s why I have stated several times that the USCCB needs to have a clear protocol for cases like this. Look at the way we’re arguing about this; I mean all of us. We’re all Catholic and we’re acting like little kids in a schoolyard fight. If we were all face-to-face we’d probably be at the shoving point now. And I’m including myself.
So the Church has theologians and the hospital has theologians and they can argue and argue and argue until what happened disappears in a haze of angry words. The most important aspect about this case is that a little baby lost its life through a direct abortion. I have no evidence to back me up, I have to rely on my gut feeling, but I do think that the emphasis has been moved from the killing of the baby to other issues. I understand there was a time factor in the Arizona case and I can see how that would put immense pressure on the hospital staff. I can imagine myself as the physician in charge and wondering what to do. Even if I were a Catholic physician, if I weren’t trained in Church teaching I would want so desperately to help and maybe I might even find myself performing a direct abortion because I would be so afraid of the mother losing her life, too. Then later on, after I realized I had excommunicated myself on top of murdering a defenseless child…I don’t think I could continue to live.
I pray for all the staff involved in this case. I’m not saying they are bad people (some might be but certainly not all). Maybe praying is what we should be doing instead of arguing. Arguing isn’t getting us anywhere. Prayer has enormous power.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Elizabeth, will you please stop with the name dropping, the lack of links, the ignoring of warnings from the moderator, the discussing of other forum members? If you refuse to follow debate decorum, fine. Nobody cares anymore, OK? Please?
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
I would not be surprised if this is an additional or incidental reason, kimmie. The apparent reasons that the Vatican is investigating U.S. women religious orders are to find out why there is a decline of vocations, why there are orders of nuns acquiescing to the disappearance of religious life and why nuns distance themselves from the CC. There seems to be concern at the Vatican for the secular mentality and ‘feminist’ spirit that has spread in these religious families.
Let’s hope we are not seeing an alliance or grouping of sisters orders on one hand (it’s sisters orders that invariably run Catholic hospitals) and the bishops conferences and the Vatican on the other hand. Let’s also hope that the lead investigator (a nun herself) Mother Mary Clare Millea, the superior general of the Superior of the Apostles of the Sacred Heart of Jesus-- an order based in Rome, but with over 100 members in the US-- is guided by the Holy Spirit as an agent of truth (not spin) towards positive change for our beloved Church.
.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
She is in my prayers.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
I don’t think it’s Nuns who have gone to the “feminist” hmmmm.thing
It seems to be set in some orders or individual Sisters.
We have to differentiate between Sisters and Nuns - they take different vows.
Personally, I’d like to see more Nuns and maybe even Brothers involved with our Catholic Hospitals.
We need to pray
- Status