Splitting the Roman Catholic Church

[SpiritMeadow]

I have asked for the same proof from SM and have gotten no response. The only Idea I can come up with is that this was said by a dissident journalist or even a dissident member of the clergy. I cannnot fathom anyone having Pontifical sanction saying anything like this.

This is highly disingenuous of you elts. I did answer your request and told you where to find the links I listed as well as indicated that a couple of other RC’s added additional ones. Nobody, including me vouched for the accuracy of the claims. It prompted the questions is all. You and a few others seem intent on making this a debate of the links. It is not. We have been having a fairly civil and straightforward discussion here about the issues presented.

If you claim there is no divisiveness internally within the RCC, and that the Vatican has not through spokemen indicated some concern, then feel free to do so and offer your links to your sources. I have stated I don’t know enough about the sources to vouch for them, I present them, two from Catholic sources, one from the Times. You are free to disagree with them and present evidence they are wrong. I certainly am not upholding them as truth. I have no reason to. I’m merely interested in the issue, since most every church it seems is faced with internal conflict of one sort or another, my own included.

 

[Matariel]

I can’t speak for any doctor, but I’m not sure they would claim that it does no harm. Yet presumably the AMA and other medical ethicists are in agreement that doctors who perform abortions are not violating their Hippocratic Oath. You might want to consult a doctor and see what they say.

The Hippocratic Oath was altered after abortion became legal. The original Hippocratic Oath forbids performing an abortion or proscribing an abortifacient drug. Those clauses were removed after abortion was legalised.

If an oath is altered at will, it isn’t much of an oath, IMHO.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Where does it say in the CCC that the conscience is the be all and end all of all decisions? Funny, I thought the CCC said the Pope and the magestarium was the final arbitare of this issue.

Oh silly me…I guess I was wrong. Well my conscience all of a sudden told me to rob a bank and shoot the teller… So it must be ok then…Who wants to rob a bank with me??

Wonderful logic you have there…

It’s not my logic. I read the text as requiring that after all is said and done, each individual is required to follow his own conscience. If you determine it differently that’s your opinion.
I find it ironic that I have to drag out my worn copy of the CCC because no Catholics here can find the section. LOL…read CCC 1776-1802

I would say that you might have a very strange sense of conscience if you think you should rob banks.

Your sarcasm is not appreciated nor warranted. I’m being civil. Why can’t you be?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow;5361942:

I think the term “Primacy of Conscience” is difficult to understand and even more difficult to explain. The problem I see being most folks take Primacy of Conscience to mean individual conscience is the only thing which directs an individual. For instance, in the abortion issue, I “may” (which I don’t) think being pro choice is okay, after all that is what my conscience tells me. What is forgotten is Church teaching about Absolutes. One needs to check to see if one is in accord with Church teaching before being absolutely sure their conscience is leading them in the right direction. THEN, we have the issues of misunderstanding Church teaching. So you see, Primacy of Conscience is no easy matter.

Church teaching over rides Primacy of Conscience. We may disagree with what the Church teaches regarding Absolutes, but we MUST obey her direct word.

I don’t see that limitation in the CCC. If Dogma must be followed, then essentially there is not such thing as Primacy of Conscience. This is a very old argument here. Basically it always breaks down along the lines of “traditionalists” vs non-traditionalists even among Catholics I have found.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

No such thing as “pro-choice”. It’s a ridiculous label that attempts to put social responsibility on another.

I think its the appropriate label. Pro-life hardly is appropriate for a great many who favor the death penalty, war, and denial of health care to those who cannot afford it. It certainly doesn’t shift responsibility to anyone but the person to whom it belongs, the woman herself. Anti-abortionists wish to take on the responsibity for another’s body and then not take on the costs and responsibilities of the result. But that’s my opinion.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You know Spirit, after this past Pres. election, I find myself “suspecting” everyone. My naivety took a big hit on Nov. 5, 2008.

I hear ya. I on the other hand thanked the Good Lord that the country seemed to have regained some sanity at last.

 

[Matariel]

I can’t speak for any doctor, but I’m not sure they would claim that it does no harm. Yet presumably the AMA and other medical ethicists are in agreement that doctors who perform abortions are not violating their Hippocratic Oath. You might want to consult a doctor and see what they say.

The Hippocratic Oath was altered after abortion became legal. The original Hippocratic Oath forbids performing an abortion or proscribing an abortifacient drug. Those clauses were removed after abortion was legalised.

If an oath is altered at will, it isn’t much of an oath, IMHO.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

That isn’t true. If a procedure is elective, such as abortion always is, a doctor can refuse to perform it. In the case of a lawyer, unless he is court ordered, he can refuse to handle a case, particularly if the case is civil.

I’m not sure that’s the case in a public hospital where a doctor is on staff. Certainly it is wrong for any attorney to pick and choose those clients he agrees with. If that is your sense of how justice should be dealt with, then democracy is on the way out. That is anathama to the code of ethics for lawyers and I would say doctors too.

You cannot try to drag in by the back door what you can’t get in the front door.

 

[Matariel]

elts1956;5362833:

I don’t see that limitation in the CCC. If Dogma must be followed, then essentially there is not such thing as Primacy of Conscience. This is a very old argument here. Basically it always breaks down along the lines of “traditionalists” vs non-traditionalists even among Catholics I have found.

CCC 1792. Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement of one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

So you see, a conscience is not an infallible guide, and the Church clearly states that a conscience is only properly formed when in line with God’s Law. Otherwise, if it is not, it is a distortion.

Frankly, I don’t see why you’re attempting to use the Catechism, since you’re not even a Catholic Christian…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The Hippocratic Oath was altered after abortion became legal. The original Hippocratic Oath forbids performing an abortion or proscribing an abortifacient drug. Those clauses were removed after abortion was legalised.

If an oath is altered at will, it isn’t much of an oath, IMHO.

My suspicion is that that section was added long after the original to account for the fact that abortions were illegal before Roe v Wade. After that, it probably reverted to its original status. So it probably is the closer to the original oath after all.

And worse, would you have a law avoided by a small group of individuals because they were the only persons capable of enforcing it? You really need to think beyond the scope of a single issue when you willy nilly suggest that doctors should just en mass refuse to follow a law. It can eventually directly impinge on your rights you know.

 

[Matariel]

I hear ya. I on the other hand thanked the Good Lord that the country seemed to have regained some sanity at last.

Sanity? Please. Massive spending, the illegal and unconstitutional setting up of czars, expanding the executive branch, embryo killing and cloning policies, tax evasion by public officials in the Obama administration, and Obama’s near silence condemning the atrocious human rights violations during the uprising in Iran, are all a return to sanity? I don’t think so. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Matariel]

My suspicion is that that section was added long after the original to account for the fact that abortions were illegal before Roe v Wade. After that, it probably reverted to its original status. So it probably is the closer to the original oath after all.

Nope, you’re suspicions are incorrect. I checked it out. The original text condemns abortion, abortifacients, and euthanasia.

And worse, would you have a law avoided by a small group of individuals because they were the only persons capable of enforcing it?

“A law avoided by a small group of individuals because they were the only persons capable of enforcing it?” I fail to see what you mean by this sentence.

You really need to think beyond the scope of a single issue when you willy nilly suggest that doctors should just en mass refuse to follow a law. It can eventually directly impinge on your rights you know.

Where did I ever suggest such?

 

[Marsha_Adams]

I’m not sure that’s the case in a public hospital where a doctor is on staff. Certainly it is wrong for any attorney to pick and choose those clients he agrees with. If that is your sense of how justice should be dealt with, then democracy is on the way out. That is anathama to the code of ethics for lawyers and I would say doctors too.

You cannot try to drag in by the back door what you can’t get in the front door.

If no honest attorney will agree to represent someone, the court will order an attorney to do so, so justice will be dealt with fairly. Public hospital staff doctors don’t do a lot of elective surgery, but if a doctor does not believe in murdering the unborn, he just might have to say take this job and . . . Of course, why go to a public hospital for an abortion when you can go to Abortions R Us on the corner, where clearly the murd . . . er . . . physicians don’t have a problem with baby killing.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

And worse, would you have a law avoided by a small group of individuals because they were the only persons capable of enforcing it? You really need to think beyond the scope of a single issue when you willy nilly suggest that doctors should just en mass refuse to follow a law. It can eventually directly impinge on your rights you know.

What law are you talking about? There is no law that says a physician must perform abortions. And if there was, the doctor would have to refuse to follow it. If the right of conscience is taken away from doctors, many will just stop practicing medicine and there aren’t enough doctors as it is.

Francis Cardinal George has already said that he will close the Catholic hospitals in his archdiocese before he will allow them to be forced into performing abortions, or handing out day after pills, etc.

 

[Matariel]

Spiritmeadow, why do you talk endlessly about primacy of conscience and then completely disregard the primacy of conscience of doctors in performing abortions? Sounds like you tailor your argumentation to your own predetermined beliefs.

 

[manualman]

My suspicion is that that section was added long after the original to account for the fact that abortions were illegal before Roe v Wade. After that, it probably reverted to its original status. So it probably is the closer to the original oath after all.

And worse, would you have a law avoided by a small group of individuals because they were the only persons capable of enforcing it? You really need to think beyond the scope of a single issue when you willy nilly suggest that doctors should just en mass refuse to follow a law. It can eventually directly impinge on your rights you know.

Spiritmeadow,

I’ve got an MD friend who went to special trouble to make the original Hippocratic oath and verified that it included the prohibition on providing abortions (chemical or surgical, IIRC). You should verify your suspicions better before you hit send.

On a similar note, you said several times in this thread that the label “pro-life” is a cynical marketing ploy designed by anti-abortion activists to manipulate. According to testimony by former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson that I’ve personally heard, it was the “pro-choice” label that was intentionally cooked up as a marketing tool FIRST. This was BEFORE Roe ever happened. He should know, he was part of the initial pre-Roe push to legitimize abortion in the minds of the public. His story is a stunning one. I strongly recommend you look him up and give him a read. Might surprise some of your assumptions about the history of abortion in America.

And thanks for the CCC links. I’ll read them tonight and digest them.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Sanity? Please. Massive spending, the illegal and unconstitutional setting up of czars, expanding the executive branch, embryo killing and cloning policies, tax evasion by public officials in the Obama administration, and Obama’s near silence condemning the atrocious human rights violations during the uprising in Iran, are all a return to sanity? I don’t think so. Quite the opposite in fact.

You have your opinion, I have mine and thank the Lord we have a democracy where we both get to vote. Obamaphobia is discussed on the 2009 politics forum I believe.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Nope, you’re suspicions are incorrect. I checked it out. The original text condemns abortion, abortifacients, and euthanasia.

I’m sure you don’t mean the oath goes back to Hippocrates himself, but I would be curious as to when the Hippocratic Oath was created. Since you have researched it, please let us know, and cite a source please. I’m afraid I’ve learned to distruct, “I checked it out” without more. I’m not disputing you in any case. I has almost nothing to do with the subject as it were.

“A law avoided by a small group of individuals because they were the only persons capable of enforcing it?” I fail to see what you mean by this sentence.

See when you make a statement it is important to see beyond merely the statement but what the statement of belief can lead to. Your statement leads to the result I stated, or could, and presumably we don’t want that. Our legal system would collapse if we allowed people this out.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

If no honest attorney will agree to represent someone, the court will order an attorney to do so, so justice will be dealt with fairly. Public hospital staff doctors don’t do a lot of elective surgery, but if a doctor does not believe in murdering the unborn, he just might have to say take this job and . . . Of course, why go to a public hospital for an abortion when you can go to Abortions R Us on the corner, where clearly the murd . . . er . . . physicians don’t have a problem with baby killing.

Marsha, I’m a lawyer. That’s not the way its done. Lawyers don’t as a matter of course hold themselves out this way. They would be out of business. You seem intent on winning this argument regardless of the facts. I don’t know your point any more. You are against abortion. We get that. I surely do. I am against abortion, but I allow that the woman involved can make that choice, not me for her. That’s the difference.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

What law are you talking about? There is no law that says a physician must perform abortions. And if there was, the doctor would have to refuse to follow it. If the right of conscience is taken away from doctors, many will just stop practicing medicine and there aren’t enough doctors as it is.

Francis Cardinal George has already said that he will close the Catholic hospitals in his archdiocese before he will allow them to be forced into performing abortions, or handing out day after pills, etc.

It would be helpful if you would calm down a bit and actually read before going off with incorrect conclusions. I did not say there was any law that ordered doctors to perform abortions. I said that I believed that in a public hospital, run by the state or country, such an option may not be available to a staff doctor. THis has ZERO to do with Catholic hospitals.