R
Rence
Guest
Should I conclude otherwise? And by what proof? Who am I to judge them? Isn’t it the job of the priests and bishops to determine whether or not aboslution is deserved? And whether or not they’re reconciled?
- Status
R
Rence
Guest
Thank you for your understanding, I truly appreciate that. A lot of things really don’t make sense to me, or even sound right. I usually just talk to my priest about any questions I have.
I agree. Blanket statements are not useful in unique and complex situations that come up in emergency situations.
C
catharina
Guest
Yes - so it is not for you to state that they have sought or received absolution -
because how would you possibly know that?
You wouldn’t.
R
Rence
Guest
Likewise, it’s a bit presumputous to state they haven’t.
C
catharina
Guest
So why did you state anything at all -
as if you have some “insider” knowledge?
Also if any of those involved believe they’d do it all again -
then there’s no repentance required for absolution.
I have no idea what has transpired for any of the principals as to seeking absolution.
Nor do you.
So why did you state otherwise?
This is what you actually posted:
"That’s why I think everyone involved not only did the right thing by protecting their patient, and preserving her life in a lose-lose situation, but by being reconciled with the Church after absolution.
Why say that with no facts to support it?
B
Brendan
Guest
Sure it does. You are claiming that one person has a right to delibrately kill another, innocent person to preserve their own life.
Isn’t that your claim?
C
catharina
Guest
It does seem to be her claim.
R
Rence
Guest
Notice, I started with, “that’s why I think…” Which means, I gave an opinion, rather than stated a claim. IMOHO, these people acted in the best interest of their patient, and IMOHO, if they did so, in good conscience, they can be reconciled with the Church. There is no indication that they would repeat what they did, especially since the CEO is working with the Bishop for more explicit guidelines to put in their written policies. In addition, Sister was removed from her capacity and put in another position so that she doesn’t have to make such a decision again and risk being in trouble again. So I do believe they will take steps to avoid offending the Bishop by breaking any Church laws in the future. And there really isn’t any indication that they mean to continue being outside of the teachings of the Church if they’re working with the Bishop to make the rules more explicit.
I hope that explains my opinion better and why I think that’s the case. Again, you don’t really need to support an opinion with facts, only reaons why you think that way. OTOH, if I was making a claim, I’d have to provide proof I guess. I can’t see how one can make any claims either way, as we only know what the articles have printed: a pregnant woman was admitted to the hospital, was examined by physicians who said her life was in danger due to the extra stress on her body of the pregnancy, and she, her family, her phsyicians and the ethics committee all deemed it necessary for her to have an abortion to save her life. She had the abortion, and now everyone involved is in trouble with the Bishop. If they want to be in communion with the Church again, they need absolution. Period. We know nothing else either way, and everything else is an opinion.
R
Rence
Guest
It doesn’t to me. And I’m sorry, that’s not what I claim. The topic is abortion in life-threatening situations for the mother.
S
seekerz
Guest
Explicit? Really? What is licit treatment for a twin pregnancy where one is normally situated and the other is embedded in the cervix? Is it abortion to surgically deliver the baby in the type of case described in the OP? How about this: you’re in a remote area of the third world with no access to surgical facilities unexpectedly faced with a malformed live baby that cannot be delivered naturally because it’s head is bigger than the birth passage - do you let mother and child die or do you perform a surgical procedure on the baby’s head which will likely (but not necessarily directly or immediately) result in its death? (Theoretically the baby could be transported elsewhere for care after the urgent matter of delivery is addressed, though in practice such care is unlikely to be considered or offered).
None of these cases are common - neither are they unheard of. Since women are the child-bearers (and quite often the caregivers) in our society, maybe they need explicit instruction on how such situations should be handled, rather than to be punished after they use their best judgment?
Really? Ever heard of the term indirect abortion?
C
catharina
Guest
Thank you for acknowledging the facts.
I’ll add it’s not a question of being “in trouble with the Bishop.”
The issue is that a number of people failed to be Catholic, to act in a Catholic manner, while employed in a Catholic healthcare setting. The Bishop’s response is secondary.
C
catharina
Guest
Ahhh, another objector.
Do you recognize that the term abortion, as use in this case, is not indirect abortion?
I can’t undertsand why some who are Catholic attempt to muddy the waters in this way?
You want to explain that?
One thing (abortion as used in this case) is not the other (indirect abortion); why pretend?
R
Rence
Guest
You’re quite welcome
I really wasn’t aware that my posts indicating what I thought were so hard to understand. But I’m glad we understand each other now.
S
seekerz
Guest
Who’s the one pretending here? Really. Can you list the modes of medical treatment that might be offered to a woman which constitute a direct abortion as opposed to an indirect one? Has the Church given an official position on specific treatments that exist today and have existed for years? Do all Catholic hospitals agree for example that the use of Methotrexate constitutes a direct or indirect attack on the fetus? On what authority have they made that determination?
One cannot muddy that which is already so.
C
catharina
Guest
Again,
*
"Ahhh, another objector.
Do you recognize that the term abortion, as use in this case, is not indirect abortion?
I can’t undertsand why some who are Catholic attempt to muddy the waters in this way?
You want to explain that?*
One thing (abortion as used in this case) is not the other (indirect abortion); why pretend?"
Code:
I am not your teacher.
Yet teachers do exist in this matter.
Bioethics for clinicians: 27. Catholic bioethics
[cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/165/2/189](http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/165/2/189)
"The Catholic tradition rejects "direct" abortion on the grounds that it takes an innocent human life. Although there is some discussion as to what counts as a direct abortion, the generally accepted view is that any intentional termination of a pregnancy is a direct abortion, whereas an "indirect" abortion occurs when a tubal pregnancy or a cancerous uterus is removed. In such a case, the death of the fetus would be viewed as the unintended consequence of an action intended to save the mother's life."
Now you can go to google and read more:
[google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=catholic+bioethics%2C+abortion&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=catholic+bioethics%2C+abortion&gs_rfai=CedA3RQD4S535OYLeNcLi6c0CAAAAqgQFT9Bav_w&fp=6b11ef472c322b6a](http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=catholic+bioethics%2C+abortion&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=catholic+bioethics%2C+abortion&gs_rfai=CedA3RQD4S535OYLeNcLi6c0CAAAAqgQFT9Bav_w&fp=6b11ef472c322b6a)
Also, endless commentary and explanations on site Priests for Life.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OTOH, Chausa, (theoretically supporter of Catholic teaching, yet able to repudiate the Bishops's directive re obamacare) is one of the few "Catholic" sites that has supported abortion via use of methotrexate. Their decision re this is premature, flawed, highly questionable and not surprising.
Now, rather than claim confusion and ignorance, perhaps you willl decide to STUDY all.
R
ryecroft
Guest
Excellent point Rence!
R
ryecroft
Guest
I’m finding a new found respect for you, SEEKERS - you’re making some extremely good and overdue points.God Bless
Rye
B
Brendan
Guest
Here how I viewed your claim
.
Could you explain the difference between what you said above and how I view it.
Abortion,by definiton, IS the killing of another, innocent, person.
S
seekerz
Guest
Thanks for attempting to address the actual points in my post.
Regarding CHAUSA, how is their decision:
- premature? (As compared to what? Methotrexate has been available and in use for years and I am willing to bet that not one of the numerous church-going Catholic women in my circle of family/friends have any idea that it’s use is even a subject of debate. How long must women wait to learn about matters that relate to THEIR OWN bodies, lives and deaths?)
- flawed? (According to who which authority exactly? Has the Church made an official stand on this drug? How then can it’s use be considered either morally good or morally flawed when used to treat ectopics?)
- highly questionable? (Who is doing the questioning? If this is a matter of conscience then who’s to question?)
- not surprising? (I agree. At some point, the people who face these situations everyday have to take a stand on the matter, as the medical community that determines guidelines of care has already done.)
S
seekerz
Guest
Thanks. It sometimes feels like standing in a chamber of echoes: only my questions keep bouncing back to my ears - few real answers. How can one not feel for people involved in those real situations?
God Bless
Rye
- Status