I am expected to teach artificial contraception to women

[IanBoyd57]

Can you please explain how any Catholic worth their sand who is actively complicit with promoting and promulgating an intrinsic evil and in actuality trying to “help the world”?

Catholics are called to be discerning and discriminate in their thoughts, words and deeds. Concensus has never been the basis for God’s truth and morality.

Is not the welfare of one’s eternal soul more important than the body in your Catholic worldview?

I know there’s no possible way that you could be wrong in your own mind, but every other religious person in every other religion thinks the exact same way. If you aren’t willing to deal with logical humanistic principles of morality that exist outside your religious moralities of “God says and that’s all that matters” then how can you expect anyone else to?

How can you argue with muslim people who are sexist when they think their morality and their God say that’s how it should be?

Religions become dangerous when they allow unnecessary real damage to be done in this world, for some ideal in the next.

I know you think you are perfect, and just like everyone else, can’t be wrong in your religion, but when the suicide bombers smashed into the world trade centers ending thousands of innocent lives, they had the same mindset as you do.

Anyway, 9/10 americans have premarital sex. Same stats even with your grandparents. Sex is extremely natural and although christians pin it as wrong and bad in certain circumstances, like it or not, it is happening in excess everywhere. You have a responsibility as a human being to help your fellow humans, and this has to come before your particular individual beliefs if we expect to advance as a society. The WTC bombers failed to do this and look where it got us.

Stay with me here. This is very important. You have to be able to step outside of your limited perspective (and I’m not saying this at you; everyone only has a narrow view of the world because we each only live one walk of life) and be able to look at the world from other’s viewpoints. Realize that no matter how confident you are of your religion, all the other people, jews, muslims, mormons, are all as confident, no matter how silly their beliefs seem to you. This has been a huge cause of pain and death throughout all of history. No matter which religion is right, it is still important for everyone to be willing to explain and defend all their views in terms of humanistic principles.

Unfortunately, having sex to become closer and have fun and share your body with someone else without the possibility of having a child causes no unnecessary harm and cannot be justified as evil outside of the Christian religion. In the same sense, discrimination against women cannot be justified outside of Islam (and I suppose christianity if you take the bible literally).

For this reason we have to be willing to look from other’s viewpoints. If you believe contraception is evil then you are probably extremely conservative and have not done this very much if at all. My parents are Catholic and very moral but they don’t see this as wrong. It’s not logical or intuitive and pretty much impossible to justify without invoking God.

Even beyond all that, she’s a nurse. Their job is to help people live better. If this was not helpful, she would not be assigned to do it, moral or not.

 

[CatholicGal1977]

There’s nothing you can do. If that’s what the patient chooses after you present all viable options THEN that’s what they choose. That person is simply using their free will that God gave them to choose what is best for them.

Not all choices are moral choices. That means we have an obligation not to participate in another’s sin.

I’m sorry, but I don’t see it as participating in someone ele’s sin if I was a nurse providing all viable options and then letting that person make up their own mind.

IMHO, I did my job and the person made their choice.

CatholicGal1977:

However, if you continually back out because it conflicts with your beliefs as a Catholic then you wouldn’t be doing what you went to school for - now would you?

fix:

The definition of a nurse does not include doing things that are immoral, no matter what certain secular authorities declare or teach.

I disagree. The person is paying that person to be a nurse and do their job even if the nurse feels it’s immoral based on religious principals.

If I’m a nurse in Africa and am told to hand out condoms and contraceptive pills even though I felt it was wrong I’d do it anyway. AIDS is running rampent in Africa and if they won’t abstain from sex to stop it from spreading then I have to help do the second best thing and give 'em the condoms and pills and tell them to properly protect themselves. It’s not my job to say I will or won’t do things based on my religious convicitions. It’s my job to do what they tell me to do.

CatholicGal1977:

Present the PROs and CONs of the pill. Let her decide. There is no encouraging or discouraging of to do or not to do expect in that she needs to be comfortable with whatever decision she chooses for herself.

fix:

Would you say that for abortion, too? What are the Pros of choosing an immoral means to a good end?

Yes, I would.

…

If a young girl walked into the nurse’s office at the university campus I was working in and told me she she wanted to have sex with a young boy she liked and didn’t want to get pregnant I’d tell her to abstain and why … ESPECIALLY if she was Catholic like me. However, if she insisted regardless of what I said then I can’t stop her from making the decision she has made for herself. But I can keep her safe from getting STDs or from having an unplanned pregnancy by giving her a condem or helping her get on the pill. My religious convictions may tell me contraception is wrong, but she didn’t come to see me to hear that. She came to see me to keep her safe as a heathcare professional and that’s eactly what I’d do.

 

[fix]

I’m sorry, but I don’t see it as participating in someone ele’s sin if I was a nurse providing all viable options and then letting that person make up their own mind.

IMHO, I did my job and the person made their choice.

Not all options are good or reasonable. That something can be done does not mean it ought to be done. Medicine is supposed to be about restoring health and preventing disease. That all must happen within the bounds of morality, not outside morality. A nurse’s job does not mean doing anything simply because it is legal or prescribed by an authority if such things contradict the moral law.

By your rational we all must follow any law even if unjust. Can you see where that reasoning leads?

I disagree. The person is paying that person to be a nurse and do their job even if the nurse feels it’s immoral based on religious principals.

The job of a nurse is not defined as doing things that are immoral. What the issue is here is what is moral and who gets to define it. So-called religious principles are not some minor inconvenience in a box that never get used. They order our life. These actions we perform will be called to account when we die and face our Lord.

If I’m a nurse in Africa and am told to hand out condoms and contraceptive pills even though I felt it was wrong I’d do it anyway. AIDS is running rampent in Africa and if they won’t abstain from sex to stop it from spreading then I have to help do the second best thing and give 'em the condoms and pills and tell them to properly protect themselves. It’s not my job to say I will or won’t do things based on my religious convicitions. It’s my job to do what they tell me to do.

Can you imagine that excuse used in the 1940s during the war trails?

Yes, I would.

…

If a young girl walked into the nurse’s office at the university campus I was working in and told me she she wanted to have sex with a young boy she liked and didn’t want to get pregnant I’d tell her to abstain and why … ESPECIALLY if she was Catholic like me. However, if she insisted regardless of what I said then I can’t stop her from making the decision she has made for herself. But I can keep her safe from getting STDs or from having an unplanned pregnancy by giving her a condem or helping her get on the pill. My religious convictions may tell me contraception is wrong, but she didn’t come to see me to hear that. She came to see me to keep her safe as a heathcare professional and that’s eactly what I’d do.

Abortion and contraception are not sectarian beliefs. They are matters of the natural moral law that bind us all no matter our belief or lack of belief. If a patient asks you to do an immoral act do you do so because you are odered to do so?

A good end is never justified by an evil means. That not all have properly informed consciences does not mean we each get to lead another into sin.

 

[jman507]

One needs to decide the extent one can participate, one could cut the line at I’ll say what’s available, or objectively say advantates and disadvantages of each but nothing further than that, or one could actively do the intervention, or one could avoid it all together. “I was just following orders,” but at the same time one knowing what one was doing was morally wrong, does not take one off the hook. One needs to make a good reasoned judgement to know where the lines are in order to keep good moral integerity. If it is going to come into questions as a job duty, one should also make the employer aware too.

Do you want your health care provider to be of poor moral integrity? Do you want the health care provider of your elderly parents or young children to be of poor moral intergirty? I for one knowing each has their own idea of morality that varies from the next would like to get an idea of what the health care provider’s morality is, and if they set a standard of morality he or she tries to meet.

 

[fix]

I know there’s no possible way that you could be wrong in your own mind, but every other religious person in every other religion thinks the exact same way. If you aren’t willing to deal with logical humanistic principles of morality that exist outside your religious moralities of “God says and that’s all that matters” then how can you expect anyone else to?

How can you argue with muslim people who are sexist when they think their morality and their God say that’s how it should be?

Religions become dangerous when they allow unnecessary real damage to be done in this world, for some ideal in the next.

I know you think you are perfect, and just like everyone else, can’t be wrong in your religion, but when the suicide bombers smashed into the world trade centers ending thousands of innocent lives, they had the same mindset as you do.

Anyway, 9/10 americans have premarital sex. Same stats even with your grandparents. Sex is extremely natural and although christians pin it as wrong and bad in certain circumstances, like it or not, it is happening in excess everywhere. You have a responsibility as a human being to help your fellow humans, and this has to come before your particular individual beliefs if we expect to advance as a society. The WTC bombers failed to do this and look where it got us.

Stay with me here. This is very important. You have to be able to step outside of your limited perspective (and I’m not saying this at you; everyone only has a narrow view of the world because we each only live one walk of life) and be able to look at the world from other’s viewpoints. Realize that no matter how confident you are of your religion, all the other people, jews, muslims, mormons, are all as confident, no matter how silly their beliefs seem to you. This has been a huge cause of pain and death throughout all of history. No matter which religion is right, it is still important for everyone to be willing to explain and defend all their views in terms of humanistic principles.

Unfortunately, having sex to become closer and have fun and share your body with someone else without the possibility of having a child causes no unnecessary harm and cannot be justified as evil outside of the Christian religion. In the same sense, discrimination against women cannot be justified outside of Islam (and I suppose christianity if you take the bible literally).

For this reason we have to be willing to look from other’s viewpoints. If you believe contraception is evil then you are probably extremely conservative and have not done this very much if at all. My parents are Catholic and very moral but they don’t see this as wrong. It’s not logical or intuitive and pretty much impossible to justify without invoking God.

Even beyond all that, she’s a nurse. Their job is to help people live better. If this was not helpful, she would not be assigned to do it, moral or not.

Can you see that your view is one of moral relativism. Your entire argument can be used to justify the things you argue against. If there is no objective morality and if we cannot understand and live by that objective morality then all we have is our feelings, as you show here, and that leads exactly to what you do not want such as the 911 bombers.

 

[jman507]

Can you see that your view is one of moral relativism. Your entire argument can be used to justify the things you argue against. If there is no objective morality and if we cannot understand and live by that objective morality then all we have is our feelings, as you show here, and that leads exactly to what you do not want such as the 911 bombers.

I can get the looking at things from the other’s perspective, it is important to understand why another might do this or that, but I don’t see how one can make a moral judgment on that, unless its just morally relative to the person’s subjective judgement. Sorry I’m just rehashing what you said.

“Their job is to help people live better. If this was not helpful, she would not be assigned to do it, moral or not.” How can one judge what is helpful if one cannot atleast have some objective moral principles, much less objective physcial principles of what well being is? Othwerwise what is helpful is just relative to each person that comes into the clinic and those that give care, and how any one can come up with an objective standard for a nurse to put to use.

 

[fix]

I can get the looking at things from the other’s perspective, it is important to understand why another might do this or that, but I don’t see how one can make a moral judgment on that, unless its just morally relative to the person’s subjective judgement. Sorry I’m just rehashing what you said.

What I find most troubling in this thread is the thinking that allows for Catholics, who have access to properly form their consciences, to disregard moral reasoning because other folks do not grasp absolute truth yet.

How is that logical or reasonable? It seems to be a mixture of relativism and extreme Americanism combining to form consciences that think the ends justify the means and not participating in evil is imposing oneself on another.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

What I find most troubling in this thread is the thinking that allows for Catholics, who have access to properly form their consciences, ***to disregard moral reasoning ***because other folks do not grasp absolute truth yet.

How is that logical or reasonable? It seems to be a mixture of relativism and extreme Americanism combining to form consciences that think the ends justify the means and not participating in evil is imposing oneself on another.

fix
Those are your words not others. I think most have spoken correctly, it is because the weigh the Catholic teachings, they know.

 

[setter]

I know there’s no possible way that you could be wrong in your own mind, but every other religious person in every other religion thinks the exact same way. If you aren’t willing to deal with logical humanistic principles of morality that exist outside your religious moralities of “God says and that’s all that matters” then how can you expect anyone else to?

Note: My post is on a Catholic forum speaking from a Catholic faith perspective to a fellow Catholic poster. As far as dealing with “logical humanistic principles of morality” from a faith perspective, our current Pope Benedict correctly and succinctly identified the competing philosophies and ideologies lacking grounding in absolutism (i.e., the only truly tenable and rational belief system that there is one and only one truth), as resulting in the tyrannical “dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.”
vatican.va/gpII/documents/homily-pro-eligendo-pontifice_20050418_en.html

How can you argue with muslim people who are sexist when they think their morality and their God say that’s how it should be?

Religions become dangerous when they allow unnecessary real damage to be done in this world, for some ideal in the next.

I know you think you are perfect, and just like everyone else, can’t be wrong in your religion, but when the suicide bombers smashed into the world trade centers ending thousands of innocent lives, they had the same mindset as you do.

Again, this exactly what our current Pope Benedict was pointing out that when faith excludes God from reason, violence and evil in the name of god can be justified in an irrational logic:

Pope Benedict used Manuel II’s argument in order to draw a distinction between the Christian view, as expressed by Manuel II, that “not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature”, and an Islamic view, as explained by Khoury, that God transcends concepts such as rationality, and his will, as Ibn Hazm stated, is not constrained by any principle, including rationality.

In part of his explication of this distinction, Pope Benedict referred to a specific aspect of Islam that Manuel II considered irrational, namely the practice of forced conversion. Specifically, the Pope (making clear that they were the Emperor’s words, not his own) quoted Manuel II Palaiologos as saying: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only bad and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI_Islam_controversy

Anyway, 9/10 americans have premarital sex. Same stats even with your grandparents. Sex is extremely natural and although christians pin it as wrong and bad in certain circumstances, like it or not, it is happening in excess everywhere. You have a responsibility as a human being to help your fellow humans, and this has to come before your particular individual beliefs if we expect to advance as a society. The WTC bombers failed to do this and look where it got us.

Stay with me here. This is very important. You have to be able to step outside of your limited perspective (and I’m not saying this at you; everyone only has a narrow view of the world because we each only live one walk of life) and be able to look at the world from other’s viewpoints. Realize that no matter how confident you are of your religion, all the other people, jews, muslims, mormons, are all as confident, no matter how silly their beliefs seem to you. This has been a huge cause of pain and death throughout all of history. No matter which religion is right, it is still important for everyone to be willing to explain and defend all their views in terms of humanistic principles.

The Catholic Church is preeminent amongst faith beliefs in engaging the world in rational discussion of ideas, philosophies, world views, and is the most humane, as in humanism proper, of all faith perspectives. Understand, that [secular] Humanism as an ethical philosophy, excludes any reference to transcendence or faith, thus excluding the spiritual truth of man made in the image and likeness of God the Creator. Instead of being a “limited perspective”, the Catholic faith perspective encompasses the whole of reality and not just the empirical.

BTW – The WTC bombers justified their violence by excluding reason from their faith.

 

[setter]

Originally Posted by IanBoyd57
Unfortunately, having sex to become closer and have fun and share your body with someone else without the possibility of having a child causes no unnecessary harm and cannot be justified as evil outside of the Christian religion. In the same sense, discrimination against women cannot be justified outside of Islam (and I suppose christianity if you take the bible literally).

For this reason we have to be willing to look from other’s viewpoints. If you believe contraception is evil then you are probably extremely conservative and have not done this very much if at all. My parents are Catholic and very moral but they don’t see this as wrong. It’s not logical or intuitive and pretty much impossible to justify without invoking God.

Even beyond all that, she’s a nurse. Their job is to help people live better. If this was not helpful, she would not be assigned to do it, moral or not.

Is to “invoke God” in your belief system a fatal flaw in rational argumentation? How does the Humanistic rejection of transcendent realities not incur the fatal flaw of argumentation and limit one’s search for truth and morality? How does Humanism not limit itself in determining what is good and bad for man by excluding the transcendent realities of man? Is man not created a moral being?

 

[fix]

fix
Those are your words not others. I think most have spoken correctly, it is because the weigh the Catholic teachings, they know.

Take one of the latest posts where abortion would be deemed a legitimate option to counsel a patient. What Catholic teaching would allow any Catholic to claim that is a morally licit option?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Take one of the latest posts where abortion would be deemed a legitimate option to counsel a patient. What Catholic teaching would allow any Catholic to claim that is a morally licit option?

The thread is on contraception

 

[fix]

The thread is on contraception

Right and recommending it as an option is sinful. Describing it may not be a sin, but recommending it as morally licit is.

Is it not like saying as a Catholic I think masturbation is wrong, but you as a non Catholic are free do it as it is not wrong for you? Some acts are wrong no matter who is doing them. Culpability varies as it always does, but the acts themselves are wrong. Why suggest others do wrong things?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Right and recommending it as an option is sinful. Describing it may not be a sin, but recommending it as morally licit is.

Is it not like saying as a Catholic I think masturbation is wrong, but you as a non Catholic are free do it as it is not wrong for you? Some acts are wrong no matter who is doing them. Culpability varies as it always does, but the acts themselves are wrong. Why suggest others do wrong things?

fix
You said that others did not. Others said things like NFP is a means of contraception which is factually correct, and always will be.

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

Hello everyone!

Sorry for my late reply. My computer access was affected by the Dec.26 quake off Taiwan which affected internet access in my country. I couldn’t access my Yahoo email where I stored my password for this site.

Anyway, this week we finally had our health teaching.

The pregnant woman who was assigned to me was a 16 year old, 7 months pregnant, unmarried girl who lived in the poor section of the city.

What struck me about her mother’s house, where I interviewed her, is that it had a picture of a big painting of Jesus and statues of the Sto. Nino (child Jesus) and rosaries prominently placed in their living room, which was quite uncommon in the other shanties in their area. Obviously, I was dealing with a poor Catholic family.

Somehow, those pictures reminded me that God was judging my actions in the work I do.

For this week, my instructor told us that we were to conduct health teachings by groups, with each group choosing their own topic. . My group, while I was gone, decided to get Family Planning (which I thought odd–because that was precisely the topic I had a dilemma with). I knew I needed to meet the challenge head on.

Then, the instructor said, "…those who will report on contraception …I don’t want you teaching about NFP…everyone knows about this already. "

I thought, THEY DO?—I didn’t even know how the methods were done until I studied it in Nursing school—I didn’t even study this in Dentistry! —what more the poor people who have no schooling?

She continued., “You must concentrate on other methods other than NFP.”

When the instructor said, “Any questions?” , I approached her in front of class but quietly told her that I had a dilemma about teaching only artificial contraception.

She called the class’ attention, “Class, class, we have here MORAL DILEMMA (with emphasis) here. She has a problem about teaching only artificial method because she is PROLIFE. I am transferring the topic to another group.”

Then, addressing my shocked groupmates, she instructed us to find another topic. Some of my groupmates seemed a bit pissed off with me. Some of them had a stoic expression, when I talked to them because they think I took away their chance for a high grade…

I said that wasn’t my intention at all to remove the topic from the group. I just wanted NFP to be given a fair chance. I didn’t know the instructor would choose to give the topic to another group because she wanted only artificial contraception to be taught. My instructor is bent in having her way to only teach artificial to the poor pregnant women in the community.

I felt bad that my patient and other patients would have to attend a lecture that is one-sidedly pro-artificial contraception. So, what I did was I wrote a letter to my patient telling her, in part, that NFP is the only one that is acceptable to the Catholic Church and that it is something she may want to consider. I packed it in with the used baby bag and baby clothes from a relative that I thought she might find useful.

My experience in this community work with regards to contraceptive teachings, is Its really hard being Prolife and when I’m in an environment where those who wield authority are Pro-choice. Sometimes I feel it is not a level playing field.

 

[fix]

fix
You said that others did not. Others said things like NFP is a means of contraception which is factually correct, and always will be.

This, of course, is false. NFP is not contraception. The distinction is important.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I am proud of you

It is clear there are several problems in that situation. What is sad to me is the instructor is refusing her primary responsibility. Education is not the biasing of others. The concept of Pro-Life conflicting boils my blood. By definition contraception prevents abortion thus the two never exist simultaneously. Similarly Pro-Choice is not and never will be a contraceptive. It is unfortunate and unprofessional of her to imply any particular form or class of contraception is all the student should learn. I am glad your issue has moved on with out. Have you considered either offering to teach NFP as a specialist or contacting the local NFP instructors about assisting the program where you work as an NFP specialist?

 

[jman507]

Wow thats kinda funny. First you get the topic of family planning. Then the instructor says, “Class, class, we have here MORAL DILEMMA (with emphasis) here. She has a problem about teaching only artificial method because she is PROLIFE. I am transferring the topic to another group.” Now what I find funny is that you are supposed to be covering the issue of family planning, but she said you have a dilemma about teaching only ABC. Was your topic family planning or ABC? Isn’t NFP part of the spectrum of family planning? Isn’t the FP in NFP family planning? NFP is by definition family planning! I don’t see how NFP could be off topic. Goodness, and some people here kinda make the point, if you take the job, you shouldn’t be withholding information about ABC even if you find it wrong, why on the other hand should NFP be excluded?

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

Hi again! : )

Thanks for your replies.

Texas Roofer, regarding what you said here:

By definition contraception prevents abortion thus the two never exist simultaneously. Similarly Pro-Choice is not and never will be a contraceptive.

The way I see it, some contraceptive pills are arbortifacient in that it prevents the implantation of an already fertilized ovum in the womb, therefore, this goes against the Catholic teaching that life begins at the time of conception. There is life—it’s just snuffed out because it is not allowed to implant where it should (the uterus). This to me is abortion.

Some mechanical contraceptive barriers like IUD can also sometimes affect the implantation of the fertilized ovum in its proper place.

So, to me, there are times that the contraceptives cross the line to abortion.

Regarding the post of jman:

Was your topic family planning or ABC?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Hi again! : )

Thanks for your replies.

Texas Roofer, regarding what you said here:

The way I see it, some contraceptive pills are arbortifacient in that it prevents the implantation of an already fertilized ovum in the womb, therefore, this goes against the Catholic teaching that life begins at the time of conception. There is life—it’s just snuffed out because it is not allowed to implant where it should (the uterus). This to me is abortion.

Some mechanical contraceptive barriers like IUD can also sometimes affect the implantation of the fertilized ovum in its proper place.

So, to me, there are times that the contraceptives cross the line to abortion.

The issue here is a change in the medical definition of pregnancy to implantation of a fertilized egg from the actual fertilizing of the egg. I to reject this definition. Thus those who accept that definition would claim a fertilized non-planted egg results in no pregnancy. It is true that some pills cause eggs to abort whether fertilized or not. However I warn you many will misrepresent the facts on this issue. The normal birth control pill has never been proven to cause abortions. The reason is natural losses of fertilized eggs, and errors in dosages (human forgetting to stay on schedule) far exceeds the break through eggs. So no one actually knows the real numbers. Some will claim ridiculous numbers but those numbers are clearly wrong. I would not say the normal pill never causes an abortive affect because the pill has been reasonably proven to thin the membrane, and thin membranes have reasonably been proven to reduce implantation. However since there is rarely an egg present and the rare egg would exit almost always regardless of the membrane thickness, then the problem is. In the cases of the rare egg being retained did the numbers shift. The fact is no one knows.

Hope that helps

If you want to real think through it, in the US about 1.1 million intentional abortions occur each year. So if contraception were practiced well over 1 million abortions per year would be eliminated! I would like to see that happen