C
catharina
Guest
Guess you didn’t read my post.
Ok. Whatever … .
- Status
Ok. Whatever … .
C
catharina
Guest
Inaction is preferable to an act of deliberate killing.
Death being probable for both, inaction means death happens.
Killing means one of the two is killed.
When were doctors elected God?
S
seekerz
Guest
Notwithstanding the sarcasm, you have finally gotten round to dealing with my question on whether sins of commission are more serious than sins of omission. I may make that visit to my priest after all…to seek a second (more authoritative) opinion.
B
Brendan
Guest
The Church hasn’t specifically addressed .300 Weaterby Magnum cartriages either; that doesn’t mean I can use one to deliberately kill an innocent person.
Sure, there migh be morally good uses of .300 Weaterby, like putting food on the table for a hungry family. But it is enought for the Church to say that deliberatly targeting an innocent person to kill them is more than enough offically from the Church, isn’t it?
S
seekerz
Guest
Does Methotrexate directly target an innocent person or does it deliberately target a wrongly situated placenta that is threatening two lives? It also harms the fetus and ultimately results in its death; so may several other licit treatments in pregnancy where those effects are considered unintended consequences of treatment of a disease. Why not in ectopic pregnancy as well?
C
catharina
Guest
Visiting your priest? Perhaps you listened to rence? Whatever … .
Also you’re welcome, (for your unspoken thanks).
R
ryecroft
Guest
It may be a bit before I become a full fleged “RN” nurse - but I can at least validate that the uterus has a great deal to do with the blood pressure - you can wind up with placental abruption - I must say that not knowing exactly everything that’s occured with this situation, that many things are possible. WHat I do know is that this occured at a Catholic Hospital. The doctors that I know that have worked at Catholic Hospitals have been informed of the rules they are to go by. Being on the Ethics committee, I honestly believe this nun understood that two lives were about to be lost - be it by placental abruption, by bleeding out or having the uterus detach (if there had been a c-section). I believe that she saw NO GOOD comming of two deaths - and there is no doubt in anyones mind that had it been feezable for the there to be a c-section, I’m sure they would have tried it regardless of the fact that an 11 week old pregnancy can not survive outside of the womb. I’m so glad many of us are able to play fast and loose with other’s lives- personally, I WANT my doctors to have a little bit of a God complex- some of the best doctors (including the one that saved my life when I was pushing to continue a pregnancy that was killing me) have this - otherwise they would crumble in a quivering heap of nerves when surgeries and life and death situations came down to the nitty gritty.
Elizabeth 502 said "The problem is, that if, given medical case histories and medical training, it is clear that with inaction both will definitely die, and soon, but that with action to save the only likely survivor, that one (mother or child) will live, it appears that the moral mandate would be the rescue option, whether that’s mother or child. That’s very different from saying, “Just to be safe and ensure the mother’s survival, we’ll do this.”
For the life of me, I will never understand why it is always the mother that is required to die because the pregnancy is causing problems that put her life in danger and jeopardy. I agree, do everything you can to save both, but when that doesn’t work, there has to be something else- two deaths are NOT better than just one. As someone who has been in this situation, I will say that it was really sad that I couldn’t continue with the pregnancy - but I am so happy that I had a doctor and a husband who let me know how valuable I was and that I had almost gone too long to be saved myself. I would never condemn either of them and I honestly believe that God will not condemn me or either of them. I also intend to let my other children know about this and although I was extemely sad to have lost their brother, I was thrilled to be able to continue on and have them. I grew up in Japan, and we will honor the memory of their little brother. They will also know they have someone in Heaven who can help them. I am not heartless but I don’t have a death wish, either. I also wish to say that there are religious who agree that we had no other alternative. It’s very easy to sit there and say "well do everything and then if nothing else can be done to save both, just make them as comfortable as possible. This isn’t a cancer death where you can just give them diazapam and morphine to calm them. This is an often “here one moment and bleeding out the next” type of moment. When this type of situation hits home and it’s your daughter or you daughter in law or sister or wife then it’s not the obvious choice anymore. I would do anything I could to help a child of mine - but I will not sit by while my husband watches both of us die because we were following some rule book to the letter - and I don’t know of a lot of priests who would tell me to do so. I agree do all you can to save both lives- but don’t loose both lives when one can be saved.
God Bless
Rye
p.s. I agree with those that have mentioned that the Church is not aware of everything going on in the medical fields - for this reason, I have a very hard time accepting what they say can/should be done when even the religious on here said ](JReducation) "Medical knowledge is not the competency of the Church. The competency of the Church is morals.
Because of this, I have to question the Church’s competancy when it comes to giving deffinitive answers regarding medicine. I also have problems when there is supposedly, no exception to the rule. For instance, even one of the Priest’s on here, Fr. Serpa has come out and said that in certain circumstances, it’s alright to use birth control that could cause abortions. ( I can put it up again if needed) I really have problems believing that there are never exceptions to the rule of "abortion is always 100% wrong.
Elizabeth 502 said "The problem is, that if, given medical case histories and medical training, it is clear that with inaction both will definitely die, and soon, but that with action to save the only likely survivor, that one (mother or child) will live, it appears that the moral mandate would be the rescue option, whether that’s mother or child. That’s very different from saying, “Just to be safe and ensure the mother’s survival, we’ll do this.”
For the life of me, I will never understand why it is always the mother that is required to die because the pregnancy is causing problems that put her life in danger and jeopardy. I agree, do everything you can to save both, but when that doesn’t work, there has to be something else- two deaths are NOT better than just one. As someone who has been in this situation, I will say that it was really sad that I couldn’t continue with the pregnancy - but I am so happy that I had a doctor and a husband who let me know how valuable I was and that I had almost gone too long to be saved myself. I would never condemn either of them and I honestly believe that God will not condemn me or either of them. I also intend to let my other children know about this and although I was extemely sad to have lost their brother, I was thrilled to be able to continue on and have them. I grew up in Japan, and we will honor the memory of their little brother. They will also know they have someone in Heaven who can help them. I am not heartless but I don’t have a death wish, either. I also wish to say that there are religious who agree that we had no other alternative. It’s very easy to sit there and say "well do everything and then if nothing else can be done to save both, just make them as comfortable as possible. This isn’t a cancer death where you can just give them diazapam and morphine to calm them. This is an often “here one moment and bleeding out the next” type of moment. When this type of situation hits home and it’s your daughter or you daughter in law or sister or wife then it’s not the obvious choice anymore. I would do anything I could to help a child of mine - but I will not sit by while my husband watches both of us die because we were following some rule book to the letter - and I don’t know of a lot of priests who would tell me to do so. I agree do all you can to save both lives- but don’t loose both lives when one can be saved.
God Bless
Rye
p.s. I agree with those that have mentioned that the Church is not aware of everything going on in the medical fields - for this reason, I have a very hard time accepting what they say can/should be done when even the religious on here said ](JReducation) "Medical knowledge is not the competency of the Church. The competency of the Church is morals.
Because of this, I have to question the Church’s competancy when it comes to giving deffinitive answers regarding medicine. I also have problems when there is supposedly, no exception to the rule. For instance, even one of the Priest’s on here, Fr. Serpa has come out and said that in certain circumstances, it’s alright to use birth control that could cause abortions. ( I can put it up again if needed) I really have problems believing that there are never exceptions to the rule of "abortion is always 100% wrong.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
If I can give my two cents here-
In theory, this should all be irrelevant to the pro-life, pro-choice arguements.
Why?
Because with abortion made illegal, Doctors will be forced to figure out methods that save BOTH the baby and the Mother. No longer will abortion be an option; thus, they will be forced to come up with better medical technigues that save not one, but both.
I understand your point, ryecroft, but at the same time the Church has made her ruling. I am completely powerless to disagree. I must conform to her teachings to remain a Catholic in good standing. And she says abortion is wrong in ALL circumstances. So I must agree.
In theory, this should all be irrelevant to the pro-life, pro-choice arguements.
Why?
Because with abortion made illegal, Doctors will be forced to figure out methods that save BOTH the baby and the Mother. No longer will abortion be an option; thus, they will be forced to come up with better medical technigues that save not one, but both.
I understand your point, ryecroft, but at the same time the Church has made her ruling. I am completely powerless to disagree. I must conform to her teachings to remain a Catholic in good standing. And she says abortion is wrong in ALL circumstances. So I must agree.
C
catharina
Guest
Agree.
While I offer my sympathy, ryecroft, for your loss and the misinformation you might have been given I must state that I would be very interested to learn exactly what Fr. Serpa said. Your vague quote of his words seems unlikely.
A claim that Fr. Serpa siad that ‘birth control that is abortifacient is OK’ seems far-fetched to me.
S
seekerz
Guest
So you think they haven’t been trying? Abortion was made legal barely 30 yrs ago. Were they just twiddling their thumbs before that?
Have you any idea how small or dependent an 11wk fetus is? Barring development of an artificial womb, there is likely no treatment that will ever be able to save a baby so small. Presently we can barely save them at twice that age!
When we cut a tube out of a woman with an ectopic pregnancy, are we treating both patients? I just think it’s time we get down from the clouds and get real.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
Of course I think they’ve been trying. But logically more Doctors would have to try harder were abortion made illegal. Right now, only pro-life doctors have motivation to look up treatments that would save both mother and child.
In any event, it’s not necessary, though ideal, for the 11 week fetus to be actually saved, merely to give the fetus the possibility to be saved.
EDIT: Also, medical technology has gotten better in 30 years.
I totally understand the other point of view here. But I simply can’t agree with it because the Church says I can’t.
In any event, it’s not necessary, though ideal, for the 11 week fetus to be actually saved, merely to give the fetus the possibility to be saved.
EDIT: Also, medical technology has gotten better in 30 years.
I totally understand the other point of view here. But I simply can’t agree with it because the Church says I can’t.
J
JReducation
Guest
You folks are making this a medical issue and a question of the Church’s competency in said field. This is not what it’s about. Also, it’s not about telling God that you let someone die because you followed your pro-life Church.
You let something happen according to God’s will, because you followed his law which has been infallibly taught by his Church. “This is not negotiable or up for debate” comes from God, not the Church." Don’t blame the Church because God won’t budge on this issue. The Church is the messenger here.
If you do meet God and you tell him that you killed an unborn child to save a mother’s life, what you will get is a blatant sentence from God for not observing what he has revealed through the Church. This is not a temporal decision here folks. This is Divine Revelation.
I don’t see where we come off the authority to even question what has been divinely revealed and infallibly proclaimed. Does anyone here question the abosolution they receive from their priest? Does anyone here question that there is no more bread and no more wine on the altar after the words of consecration? Does anyone here question that Jesus physically rose from the dead?
If we accept these teachings that have come to us from the Church and we accept that they are without flaw and they are Divine aboslutes that can never be discussed or negotiated, why is so difficult to accept that the moral law in this case is in the same Divine and infallible catergory as the Eucharist?
We either have faith or we don’t. It’s all or nothing. Christ does not give us options nor does he give us freedom to change his laws. The only freedom that we have is to sin or not sin. Let’s get this right. Let’s stop playing games here.
If I believe that bread and wine literally disappear and Jesus is literally present on the altar, because the Church says so, how can I then say that she is wrong on this other point of faith? Which is easier to believe, that both lives are equally sacred and if they both die they will both go to heaven or that bread and wine literally disappear and Christ is literally present on the altar? I find the former is more rational than the latter and I believe in the latter, therefore, I can do no more than give assent to the former.
Finally, we Catholics do not have the right to make these decisions. We have no right to make moral laws or find exceptions to them. There is only one pope and one college of bishops upon whom falls the responsbility of communicating what God wants from us. It is our obligation to follow what God teaches. It’s not always going to be easy.
Yes, you may have to the mother die, because you can’t save her unless you sacrfice the child. That’s the way that God allowed the situation to develop, because it’s part of his plan for salvation. We have no right to interfere in that plan.
The scientific community has been given the gift and duty to find solutions to man’s problems. The Church has been given moral AUTHORITY over the scientific community. Only she has the authority to tell the scientific community what is right and what is wrong with their solutions. They have no right to decide that on their own. If we listened to the Gospel for Pentecost Sunday, it was very clear. Jesus tells the apostles, “Whose sins you shall forgive, shall be forgiven and whose sins you shall retain, shall be retained.” There will be no such opportunity to say to Jesus that you decided not to follow your pro-life Church. Because Jesus’ answer will be, “The Church has full authority to retain someone’s sins and God will never rule against the Church in your favor.” As St. Paul said, “Scripture is not for private interpretation, but only for interpretation by the Apostles.” This means that only bishops and popes can interpret scripture, not us.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
You let something happen according to God’s will, because you followed his law which has been infallibly taught by his Church. “This is not negotiable or up for debate” comes from God, not the Church." Don’t blame the Church because God won’t budge on this issue. The Church is the messenger here.
If you do meet God and you tell him that you killed an unborn child to save a mother’s life, what you will get is a blatant sentence from God for not observing what he has revealed through the Church. This is not a temporal decision here folks. This is Divine Revelation.
I don’t see where we come off the authority to even question what has been divinely revealed and infallibly proclaimed. Does anyone here question the abosolution they receive from their priest? Does anyone here question that there is no more bread and no more wine on the altar after the words of consecration? Does anyone here question that Jesus physically rose from the dead?
If we accept these teachings that have come to us from the Church and we accept that they are without flaw and they are Divine aboslutes that can never be discussed or negotiated, why is so difficult to accept that the moral law in this case is in the same Divine and infallible catergory as the Eucharist?
We either have faith or we don’t. It’s all or nothing. Christ does not give us options nor does he give us freedom to change his laws. The only freedom that we have is to sin or not sin. Let’s get this right. Let’s stop playing games here.
If I believe that bread and wine literally disappear and Jesus is literally present on the altar, because the Church says so, how can I then say that she is wrong on this other point of faith? Which is easier to believe, that both lives are equally sacred and if they both die they will both go to heaven or that bread and wine literally disappear and Christ is literally present on the altar? I find the former is more rational than the latter and I believe in the latter, therefore, I can do no more than give assent to the former.
Finally, we Catholics do not have the right to make these decisions. We have no right to make moral laws or find exceptions to them. There is only one pope and one college of bishops upon whom falls the responsbility of communicating what God wants from us. It is our obligation to follow what God teaches. It’s not always going to be easy.
Yes, you may have to the mother die, because you can’t save her unless you sacrfice the child. That’s the way that God allowed the situation to develop, because it’s part of his plan for salvation. We have no right to interfere in that plan.
The scientific community has been given the gift and duty to find solutions to man’s problems. The Church has been given moral AUTHORITY over the scientific community. Only she has the authority to tell the scientific community what is right and what is wrong with their solutions. They have no right to decide that on their own. If we listened to the Gospel for Pentecost Sunday, it was very clear. Jesus tells the apostles, “Whose sins you shall forgive, shall be forgiven and whose sins you shall retain, shall be retained.” There will be no such opportunity to say to Jesus that you decided not to follow your pro-life Church. Because Jesus’ answer will be, “The Church has full authority to retain someone’s sins and God will never rule against the Church in your favor.” As St. Paul said, “Scripture is not for private interpretation, but only for interpretation by the Apostles.” This means that only bishops and popes can interpret scripture, not us.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
catharina
Guest
Wonderful and full of clarity, Brother. Thank you for saying it all.You folks are making this a medical issue and a question of the Church’s competency in said field. This is not what it’s about. Also, it’s not about telling God that you let someone die because you followed your pro-life Church.
You let something happen according to God’s will, because you followed his law which has been infallibly taught by his Church. “This is not negotiable or up for debate” comes from God, not the Church." Don’t blame the Church because God won’t budge on this issue. The Church is the messenger here.
If you do meet God and you tell him that you killed an unborn child to save a mother’s life, what you will get is a blatant sentence from God for not observing what he has revealed through the Church. This is not a temporal decision here folks. This is Divine Revelation.
I don’t see where we come off the authority to even question what has been divinely revealed and infallibly proclaimed. Does anyone here question the abosolution they receive from their priest? Does anyone here question that there is no more bread and no more wine on the altar after the words of consecration? Does anyone here question that Jesus physically rose from the dead?
If we accept these teachings that have come to us from the Church and we accept that they are without flaw and they are Divine aboslutes that can never be discussed or negotiated, why is so difficult to accept that the moral law in this case is in the same Divine and infallible catergory as the Eucharist?
We either have faith or we don’t. It’s all or nothing. Christ does not give us options nor does he give us freedom to change his laws. The only freedom that we have is to sin or not sin. Let’s get this right. Let’s stop playing games here.
If I believe that bread and wine literally disappear and Jesus is literally present on the altar, because the Church says so, how can I then say that she is wrong on this other point of faith? Which is easier to believe, that both lives are equally sacred and if they both die they will both go to heaven or that bread and wine literally disappear and Christ is literally present on the altar? I find the former is more rational than the latter and I believe in the latter, therefore, I can do no more than give assent to the former.
Finally, we Catholics do not have the right to make these decisions. We have no right to make moral laws or find exceptions to them. There is only one pope and one college of bishops upon whom falls the responsbility of communicating what God wants from us. It is our obligation to follow what God teaches. It’s not always going to be easy.
Yes, you may have to the mother die, because you can’t save her unless you sacrfice the child. That’s the way that God allowed the situation to develop, because it’s part of his plan for salvation. We have no right to interfere in that plan.
The scientific community has been given the gift and duty to find solutions to man’s problems. The Church has been given moral AUTHORITY over the scientific community. Only she has the authority to tell the scientific community what is right and what is wrong with their solutions. They have no right to decide that on their own. If we listened to the Gospel for Pentecost Sunday, it was very clear. Jesus tells the apostles, “Whose sins you shall forgive, shall be forgiven and whose sins you shall retain, shall be retained.” There will be no such opportunity to say to Jesus that you decided not to follow your pro-life Church. Because Jesus’ answer will be, “The Church has full authority to retain someone’s sins and God will never rule against the Church in your favor.” As St. Paul said, “Scripture is not for private interpretation, but only for interpretation by the Apostles.” This means that only bishops and popes can interpret scripture, not us.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
The problem here is that we’re not just letting the mother die. We’re letting the mother AND child die. In one scenario both mother and child die, in another mother lives and child dies, but only if baby is killed. Except baby would’ve died either way.
I understand that this is a thorny moral dilemma. Extremely so. But in the end, as JReducation said, the Church has spoken. She said that abortion is wrong 100% of the time and that the ends do not justify the means. So I have no authority to interject my own, fallible opinion on the subject. I cannot think contrary to the Church’s infallible opinion.
I understand that this is a thorny moral dilemma. Extremely so. But in the end, as JReducation said, the Church has spoken. She said that abortion is wrong 100% of the time and that the ends do not justify the means. So I have no authority to interject my own, fallible opinion on the subject. I cannot think contrary to the Church’s infallible opinion.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Such a statement, and the one that followed it, reveal how little knowledge about the medical community and medicine so many have, who claim that the Catholic Church is all-knowing in fields other than theology.
(1) “forced to figure out”??? You don’t think they are way ahead of most of the nonmedical community in being motivated to seek alternatives? They deal with these tragedies daily. More than you will ever know are they motivated to figure it out. What an offensive assumption.
(2) You thnk that motivation is enough? The entire legitimate medical community (not those engaged in immoral, unscrupulous activity such as selling body parts, engaging in euthanasia to traffic in organs, etc.) is very much invested in elimination of tragedy, preservation of as many lives as possible, ethical management of pain that does not artificially shorten life. But motivation and vision alone are not enough to “come up with better medical techniques” faster than the research can enable that to happen. Many obstetricians envision painless but drug-free childbirths – partly to preserve their hearing – but that hasn’t happened yet either – not for any lack of motivation.
Some on CAF (I hope not on this thread) have caricatured the medical community unfairly and contemptuously without grounds, and assume that whenever a woman is told that she has limited options with regard to childbirth, the “doctors are giving her incorrect information.” Really? How would such posters know that? With a medical degree? In any case, assuming the worst about medical professionals is not much better than lay or non-Catholics who broad-brush the entire priethood/clergy because of the revolting and sick sexual abuse of innocent, vulnerable children by selected clergymembers.
J
JReducation
Guest
The Church says that we can’t because this has been revealed to the Church by Jesus Christ. The Church cannot change revealed truth.
My only hope is that the sister in question will reconcile with the Church. Otherwise, she may find herself homeless. At some point her community will have to ask her to move out.
I’m remembering a much less complicated case in my own order’s history. In the 1200s we had a Vicar General who disobeyed our Holy Father Francis, because he believed that Francis’ rule was too austere. But the rule has a catch in it. Francis wrote that all of the brothers were bound to obey him, even after his death and that they were to obey without question under pain of excommuncation. The Vicar General disobeyed and softened the rule while Francis was on a trip to the Holy Land. When Francis got back he had the Vicar General excommunicated and expelled from the house. Francis made it very clear that rules were not meant to be softened by anyone once the pope had spoken. Our rule had been sealed by Pope Honorius so that no one could change it, ever, not even today.
Fortunately, this brother soon realized the grave danger in which his soul was in and reconciled himself with Francis. Francis petitioned the pope to lift the excommunication and it was done. That brother later succeeded Francis as the Superior General. He died a very holy death. But he never again tried to soften rules given by authority and declared unchangeable by popes.
This is the lesson to be learned here. Rules are not created so that others can find the loophole or can soften them. Only the pope can do that, becaus only he has the direct influence and guidance of the Holy Spirit on ALL matters of faith, morals and sacraments.
The rest of us were not given that authority or the right to question it. Our attempt to question it is nothing more than entitlement on our part. Which is the sin of pride. Pride comes before the fall.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
Fair enough. I have ABSOLUTELY no background in the medical fields. I was not trying, IN ANY WAY, to be offensive at all, and if it appeared so I heartily and completely apologize to all who know more about this than me. I was simply trying to use logic effectively. Apparently I was faulty. Sorry then.Such a statement, and the one that followed it, reveal how little knowledge about the medical community and medicine so many have, who claim that the Catholic Church is all-knowing in fields other than theology.
(1) “forced to figure out”??? You don’t think they are way ahead of most of the nonmedical community in being motivated to seek alternatives? They deal with these tragedies daily. More than you will ever know are they motivated to figure it out. What an offensive assumption.
(2) You thnk that motivation is enough? The entire legitimate medical community (not those engaged in immoral, unscrupulous activity such as selling body parts, engaging in euthanasia to traffic in organs, etc.) is very much invested in elimination of tragedy, preservation of as many lives as possible, ethical management of pain that does not artificially shorten life. But motivation and vision alone are not enough to “come up with better medical techniques” faster than the research can enable that to happen. Many obstetricians envision painless but drug-free childbirths – partly to preserve their hearing – but that hasn’t happened yet either – not for any lack of motivation.
Some on CAF (I hope not on this thread) have caricatured the medical community unfairly and contemptuously without grounds, and assume that whenever a woman is told that she has limited options with regard to childbirth, the “doctors are giving her incorrect information.” Really? How would such posters know that? With a medical degree? In any case, assuming the worst about medical professionals is not much better than lay or non-Catholics who broad-brush the entire priethood/clergy because of the revolting and sick sexual abuse of innocent, vulnerable children by selected clergymembers.
C
catharina
Guest
Indeed, the grace of office.The Church says that we can’t because this has been revealed to the Church by Jesus Christ. The Church cannot change revealed truth.
My only hope is that the sister in question will reconcile with the Church. Otherwise, she may find herself homeless. At some point her community will have to ask her to move out.
I’m remembering a much less complicated case in my own order’s history. In the 1200s we had a Vicar General who disobeyed our Holy Father Francis, because he believed that Francis’ rule was too austere. But the rule has a catch in it. Francis wrote that all of the brothers were bound to obey him, even after his death and that they were to obey without question under pain of excommuncation. The Vicar General disobeyed and softened the rule while Francis was on a trip to the Holy Land. When Francis got back he had the Vicar General excommunicated and expelled from the house. Francis made it very clear that rules were not meant to be softened by anyone once the pope had spoken. Our rule had been sealed by Pope Honorius so that no one could change it, ever, not even today.
Fortunately, this brother soon realized the grave danger in which his soul was in and reconciled himself with Francis. Francis petitioned the pope to lift the excommunication and it was done. That brother later succeeded Francis as the Superior General. He died a very holy death. But he never again tried to soften rules given by authority and declared unchangeable by popes.
This is the lesson to be learned here. Rules are not created so that others can find the loophole or can soften them. Only the pope can do that, because only he has the direct influence and guidance of the Holy Spirit on ALL matters of faith, morals and sacraments.
The rest of us were not given that authority or the right to question it. Our attempt to question it is nothing more than entitlement on our part. Which is the sin of pride. Pride comes before the fall.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Not really. The scientific community includes Catholics and non-Catholics. It’s your belief that the Church’s moral authority reigns, but not theirs, not as a whole community. And your belief, and the belief of the entire Catholic church, does not bind the scientific community to agree with you that the Church has been given moral authority over it. Jewish morality does not coincide with Catholic morality when it comes to Life decisions, and yet Jews as a whole, and as a whole tradition, are among the most moral when it comes to the practice of medicine. (Not to mention, Jews make up a sizeable portion of the scientific community.) They are not bound by Catholic morality, and if you tell them that they will understandably laugh at the idea. (Or be offended.)
In addition, I have to say that there are so many areas in which the Church has been AWOL in modern medicine, and/or been Johnny-come-lately. I should have been on a Catholic ethical board, perhaps, years ago, when I was begging, pleading, for the church to get involved in the unconscionable, routine selling of sperm through sperm banks that are now out of control. Yet they were silent, and it was happening right under their noses. I could name other issues where there was extreme tardiness on the Church’s part, until things did get, have gotten out of hand.
To be viewed universally as “the” authority, an institution has to be comprehensive and timely, and the Church has been neither. And to say that it’s really not necessary to know the medical facts: Yes it is. It is necessary not only because pracitcal credibility is necessary as an element of authority, but because the very moral premises are dependent on the precise options available.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
The thing is, the Church has already spoken infallibly. So we are bound to agree with her.
- Status