The Church has got to be kidding on this one, right?

[DVIN_CKS]

This is a great thread! I’ve tried explaining - not very well - why the church teaches what she teaches. It isn’t just a bunch of RULES to make us miserable human beings (as many want to believe). The whole purpose is to get souls to heaven.

The problem is that people don’t have their eyes set on the eternal goal. They are too busy focusing on the worldly things…sex being one of them. Sex being a HUGE obstacle for many. It would be easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than for a married man/woman to have to give up their sex life (for medical reasons or any of the other reasons the OP listed). It’s really sad that sex (or lack thereof) has such a hold on so many souls.

 

[Bella3502]

Traditional Ang:

Bella3502:

They also divorce at the same rate as the rest of society, while those who follow the Church’s teaching divorce at a rate of 4%.

catholic-pages.com/morality/fatal.asp

When you have time, you might want to read Humanae Vitae, paying special attention to what Pope Paul VI said would happen if Christians refused to submit to the Moral Teaching of the church and conformed themselves to the ethics of this age.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

I’m surprised that I have to remind Catholics that the first Christian denomination to OK Artificial Contraception was the Church of England at the Lambeth Quadrilateral in 1931. I wonder how many know that it’s ECUSA (the Branch of the C of W in the USA) and the Church of Canada (the C of E in Canada) that have OK’d Abortion, ordained sexually active gays and lesbians to be priests and bishops, blessed “gay marraige”, taken a whole series of positions at odds with the Bible and the Tradition of the Church and criticized the Pope for standing up for the Faith.

Do you really wnt to follow that lead?

I don’t - As a member of the TAC, I just want to weep over the whole situation and beg for God’s forgiveness.

In Christ, Michael

So… what is your point???

I don’t use birth control, and I have no desire to read H.V.

TAC membership??? Are those Catholics more special that those who choose to use birth control? Do they get into Heaven faster…?

What lead are you referring to??

 

[JMJ_Theresa]

DVIN CKS:

This is a great thread! I’ve tried explaining - not very well - why the church teaches what she teaches. It isn’t just a bunch of RULES to make us miserable human beings (as many want to believe). The whole purpose is to get souls to heaven.

The problem is that people don’t have their eyes set on the eternal goal. They are too busy focusing on the worldly things…sex being one of them. Sex being a HUGE obstacle for many. It would be easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than for a married man/woman to have to give up their sex life (for medical reasons or any of the other reasons the OP listed). It’s really sad that sex (or lack thereof) has such a hold on so many souls.

I totally agree!! Our sexual appetites are so corrupted, I have to wonder if the apple in the Garden of Eden was related to sexuality.

It is interesting that the sex drives are so strong. I always thought it was because God loves babies so much, but after reading this thread, I’m beginning to think the unitive act must cut so close to the image of God. He greatly desires that we covenant in marriage and renew that covenant often–it must be a way of growing closer to Him.

stupid Adam and Eve

 

[Pug]

Seatuck:

The church has not ruled that it is morally permissable to remove body parts for fear they may someday get diseased. It has said we may removed diseased body parts.

Perhaps we need to consider the side issue of whether or not one may donate a kidney (edit…that is a living healthy person donate the kidney to another living person). In that case a perfectly healthy organ is removed, voluntarily. If this is okay to do, then it is possible to remove a currently healthy organ, if the right criteria are met.

I suggest the direction that one must have overall health in mind. Say they are already in your abdomen for some condition. Since they are already there, could they remove the appendix, even if it wasn’t currently an issue? I think yes, it might be okay, assuming there is no detriment to the total health of the person, and it reduces risk of death in the future. However, I would not say you could perform surgery on a person just to remove a healthy appendix. Surgery carries risk. But if you are already in there, it is different. This analysis assumes that an appendix is essentially useless to the person and they won’t miss it.

But a uterus is not so useless, so there is a difference.

 

[setter]

Pug:

Perhaps we need to consider the side issue of whether or not one may donate a kidney …If this is okay to do, then it is possible to remove a currently healthy organ, if the right criteria are met.

I suggest the direction that one must have overall health in mind. Say they are already in your abdomen for some condition. Since they are already there, could they remove the appendix, even if it wasn’t currently an issue? …This analysis assumes that an appendix is essentially useless to the person and they won’t miss it.

But a uterus is not so useless, so there is a difference.

There is a vastly significant difference. The reproductive organs (uterus) are different from other bodily organs in that they are part a basic human good, the reproductive good. It is never morally justified to act against/attack a basic human good, as in via contraceptive intercourse of contraceptive [direct] sterilization.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Some food for thought, that may - or may not - help to synthesize the Church teachings on this subject.

The marriage covenant between a man and a woman, is the same marriage covenant entered into by Christ on the cross, with us - His Bride. Read through the Passion story, and read it with a view to the preparations for marriage undertaken by the groom. See Christ on the cross refer to Mary as ‘Woman’ - as He did at the marriage banquet in Cana. See the Blood and water flowing from His side as the consummation of the marriage - Life, and that more abundantly. The groom gave His life for His Bride - are we to give less for our Groom?

Now - see the act of procreation between a man and woman, as the procreative act undertaken by Christ with and through us - as we are told to go and teach, as a Priestly nation, therefore an act of procreation in the spiritual realm. (Co-redemptive work) Would you scorn that act by Christ through us? Would you hinder it? Would you cut it off? Would you turn away and deny Him, at the act of consummation - to Martyrdom (for example)?

Then why deny life in any of it’s other forms, specifically having a child?

He who loves his life will lose it - He who Loves NOT his life, even to death - will have eternal life.

Are we not told to ‘Fear Not’? Then why, if told by His Church NOT to practice contraception for ANY REASON, including the risk of a ‘Mortal pregnancy’ do we do it?

Is not the way of our life summed up by St. Paul: “I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live. Yet not I, but Christ lives in (and through) me. The life I now live in the flesh, I live by Faith in the Son of God - who loves me and gave himself for me”

Taking that statement, and a boatload of other verses in Holy Scripture, to their logical conclusion - along with the infallible teaching of the Church - what possible excuse could there be to contraception - and therefore denial of Christ???

It is not those who pay lip service to the Gospel, or those who ‘Do their own thing’ thinking that that must be pleasing to Christ - because it is pleasing to them - but those who ‘Do the will of my Father in heaven’ who will see the kingdom. Even if those things we do appear to be ratified by God - such as by healings, or other miracles - it is those who do the will of God who will see the kingdom.

Food for thought.

Peace

John

 

[setter]

pgoings:

This seems rather facile. In many case the uterus has been damaged through pregnancy and childbirth, something that would not happen to a single, celibate woman. Further, it is now suggested by several studies that a uterus which has been damaged in such a way that would make further pregnancies risky is probably already pre-cancerous, making a hysterectomy generally both medically advisable and morally licit. It is only when the risk is solely and unquestionably associated with a future pregnancy that a hysterectomy becomes morally problematic.

Regarding your above statement, if it has been medically determined/assessed “that the preservation or functioning of a particular organ provokes a serious damage or constitutes a threat to the complete organism”, then:

Three things condition the moral permission of a surgical operation requiring an anatomical or functional mutilation;

(1) that the preservation or functioning of a particular organ provokes a serious damage or constitutes a threat to the complete organism;

(2) that this damage cannot be avoided, or at least notably diminished, except by the amputation in question and that its efficacy is well assured;

(3) that it can be reasonably foreseen that the negative effect, namely, the mutilation and its consequences, will be compensated by the positive effect: exclusion of a damage to the whole organism, mitigation of the pain, etc., then these Three things condition the moral permission of a surgical operation requiring an anatomical or functional mutilation.

ewtn.net/library/PROLENC/ENCYC102.HTM

I represent the following statement because although it is prone to be readily discarded out of hand as coming across as overly simplistic and appears inadequate to consider all the various medical nuances, I have found that it remains wholly consonant with Catholic moral theology and the instruction found in Humanae Vitae * and other authoritative Church statements:* A simple way to determine whether a proposed treatment that impacts a woman’s fertility is morally acceptable or not is to consider whether the same treatment would be necessary for a single or celibate woman. If the answer is no, then the proposed drug or procedure is immoral. **

I am wondering if anyone has a better understanding if “preventative” or “preemptive” amputation/surgical mutilation (with the unintended consequence of sterilization) is morally licit if it a medically assessed that a potential risk exists for the continued presence of a body organ as fulfilling “constitutes a threat to the complete organism”.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Originally Posted by Traditional Ang
Bella3502:

They also divorce at the same rate as the rest of society, while those who follow the Church’s teaching divorce at a rate of 4%.

catholic-pages.com/morality/fatal.asp

When you have time, you might want to read Humanae Vitae, paying special attention to what Pope Paul VI said would happen if Christians refused to submit to the Moral Teaching of the church and conformed themselves to the ethics of this age.

vatican.va/holy_father/p…e-vitae_en.html

I’m surprised that I have to remind Catholics that the first Christian denomination to OK Artificial Contraception was the Church of England at the Lambeth Quadrilateral in 1931. I wonder how many know that it’s ECUSA (the Branch of the C of W in the USA) and the Church of Canada (the C of E in Canada) that have OK’d Abortion, ordained sexually active gays and lesbians to be priests and bishops, blessed “gay marraige”, taken a whole series of positions at odds with the Bible and the Tradition of the Church and criticized the Pope for standing up for the Faith.

Do you really want to follow that lead?

I don’t - As a member of the TAC, I just want to weep over the whole situation and beg for God’s forgiveness.

In Christ, Michael

So… what is your point???

I don’t use birth control, and I have no desire to read H.V.

TAC membership??? Are those Catholics more special that those who choose to use birth control? Do they get into Heaven faster…?

What lead are you referring to??

Michael,
Your points were obvious to me, and thanks for posting those links. You know, your advice to Catholics on these boards is much appreciated. If you hadn’t profiled your religion as Anglican, one would never know!

 

[Linnyo]

JMJ Theresa:

I totally agree!! Our sexual appetites are so corrupted, I have to wonder if the apple in the Garden of Eden was related to sexuality.

It is interesting that the sex drives are so strong. I always thought it was because God loves babies so much, but after reading this thread, I’m beginning to think the unitive act must cut so close to the image of God. He greatly desires that we covenant in marriage and renew that covenant often–it must be a way of growing closer to Him.

stupid Adam and Eve

If only everybodies sex drives were as strong as they should be when they’re married. I, for one, do not have a sex drive and don’t know what the fuss is about. I would love to have more kids but, put it this way, abstinence is a great form of contraception!

 

[Pug]

Linnyo:

I guess both. I am as yet not sure due to various references to Jesus’ brothers/sisters/brethren depending upon version of the Bible.I know she was a virgin whan she conceived Jesus but it doesn’t make her any less holy if she went on to consummate her marraige with Joseph after. In fact, the RCC seems to teach that married couples should not deny each other sexual relations. Does this not seem to be a contradiction?

It is a perfectly holy thing for a man and wife to have relations. It is not a mar or stain. I agree with you there.

I think I see what you are saying. It would not be very holy for a wife to deny her lawful husband, so since Mary was holy, you question or wonder about her possibly denying Joseph. Maybe the solution for you lies in considering that it is traditionally understood that she had a perpetual vow of virginity from her youth, and this was known when Joseph became betrothed to her, and they agreed upon it. Then the dreams and angels came and they found out about Jesus and how their marriage would play out. The vow of virginity merely stayed in place during that. Thus, with Joseph being willing, there was no case of her denying him.

The vow of virginity makes sense in the context of her confused reply to the angel. She was betrothed and yet she couldn’t figure out how it could be that the prophecy of a baby would happen. The natural assumption would be that she would be with Joseph soon and conceive, unless she knew that was not going to happen. This is a reasonable way to explain her words to the angel.

I’m a bit worried about your reply about it being a bit of both. It is okay to have your reason be unable to see how something can be true, and yet still believe it is true because the Church has reliably told us it is true. I used to think it was preposterous that I’d ever want kids, but all my family told me that I would. I could have accepted their word (in hindsight, obviously I should have, since they were right in the end). I know, my example isn’t quite the same thing , but maybe it illustrates my point a little.

 

[snoopy]

setter:

There is a vastly significant difference. The reproductive organs (uterus) are different from other bodily organs in that they are part a basic human good, the reproductive good. It is never morally justified to act against/attack a basic human good, as in via contraceptive intercourse of contraceptive [direct] sterilization.

I’m so glad that we agree with each other. I would never advocate sterilization, but I realize that sometimes sterilization is an indirect result of removing a uterus that is threatening a woman’s life. It would be uncharitable for anyone to second guess what a doctor and the woman decide when assessing whether she should have a hysterectomy or not. No one WANT’S to go through that surgery, but sometimes it is necessary, and most women will say that they feel much better afterwards. If a prolapsed uterus, or necessary bladder construction or an about to rupture uterus is causing pain, then by all means use your own judgement. No one else has a right to judge you for that.

 

[bones_IV]

Linnyo:

Don’t be ridiculous. It is not wrong of these priests to give permission for a woman to help her health. The only wrong is the church making such a rule in the first place! Well seeing the church is run by men who are unlikely to ever experience such difficulties. They will be the ones answerable for the suffering of the women who think they are doing the will of God by not taking medical advice!

sophistic reasoning.

 

[Pug]

setter:

The reproductive organs (uterus) are different from other bodily organs in that they are part a basic human good, the reproductive good.

I think you are saying something like marriage is a basic human good, and furthermore so is being a parent? We ought not randomly take away a person’s ability to ever become a parent. That would be awful.

I think if a woman were, say, 55, she is no longer going to use that uterus for becoming a parent. I find it difficult in that scenario to see harm to the good of possible parenthood there if it were removed for some health issue. Also, there is no risk of being tempted to use the action as a rationalization to secretly be doing contraception.

However, say the woman is 45 and truly has been told she cannot get pregnant again (too dangerous), and so after the birth of her current child she is going to abstain for the remainder of her fertile years. Also, she is in a category of special risk for uterine cancers, so it would be desirable on that basis to remove the uterus at a convenient time, and her upcoming cesarean section would be highly appropriate. I don’t particularly see a removal of her uterus at that point to be a harm to her reproductive good. She is not going to use it again. It is not going to serve any reproductive purpose, as it can’t be fixed. Maybe other medical or psychological purposes, but not reproductive. Note that in this example, uterine isolation or tube cutting would not substitute for what is being done…cancer prevention. Raw sterilization is not what is being sought.

In such a case it might be possible to view a removal in this case to be okay. This line of reasoning cannot ever pass a test of being for a celibate woman, because it relies on the woman being about to undergo a cesarean, which is why the removal of the uterus does not involve undue risk. This line of reasoning bothers me somewhat, but I am unable to pin it down.

 

[Pug]

snoopy:

If it can’t even hold a mere pregnancy, something that it was designed to do, it can’t be healthy. And if an organ is unhealthy and worn out and dangerous, by all means get rid of it. There is nothing in the church that says if an organ is sick and diseased, that it can’t be removed.

I think my previous post addresses part of your post here, but not all. If I had an organ that was unhealthy and dangerous, but only dangerous if I ate cabbage, well, I’d take abstaining from cabbage over full abdominal sugery, which carries more risk than a paucity of cabbage.

Hehehe. I bet you’re wondering if I like or dislike cabbage at this point. Yes, marital relations is not cabbage! My point, though, is that there might be an option besides sugery. (I can’t really eat cabbage, there’s your answer. My digestion is defective).

If an organ is not too dangerous, there is something that could prevent it’s removal…the availability of less risky options.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Bella:

The point is that the difference in divorce rates beween those who contracpt and those who don’t has to do with the fact that the couples’ wilful use of Artificial Contraception blocks the action of the Holy Spirit and of the Grace of God on their marraiges. It’s that Grace that helps the people to listen to each other, to be patient with each other, to be faithful to each other and not to just use each other for his or her own self-gratification, among other things…

Bella3502:

So… what is your point???

I don’t use birth control, and I have no desire to read H.V.

TAC membership??? Are those Catholics more special that those who choose to use birth control? Do they get into Heaven faster…?

What lead are you referring to??

I assume you meant H.I.V,. The use of Artificial contraception, as harmful as it is to the longterm health of the marital relationship, has little, if anything, to do with the spread of H.I.V. I’m sure that condoms’ 90-95% effectiveness in blocking the H.I.V is counterbalanced by the increased number of sexual partners.

I belong to an ecclesiastical community called the Traditional Anglican Communion. We’re the Anglicans who split off from the rest of the Anglican Communion, who have been actively seeking union with the Holy Father and have been negotiating with Pope John Paull II and Pipe Benedict XVI since 1994. The Treaty of Brest took 30 years to negotiate. We’re trying to do it in less than 20.

One reason so many orthodox Catholics ended up coming to this thread is that the one defending the Catholic Faith was an Anglican.

The first major Christian denomation to OK Artificial Contraception was the Anglican Communion headed up by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Before then, the teaching ot the Church for some 1,900 years had been that the wilful use of artificial Contraception, or of sterilization in any form, was sinful and blocked the action of the Holy Spirit on the marital relationship and in the marriage embrace.

You see, the very act that is sinful outside of marriage confers grace inside of marriage, and that the primary kind of grace that is confered is the kind hat allows us to live Godly lives. It has been the teaching of the Church that Artificial Contraception blocks the confering of that Grace.

I am asking you to take a long look at the sad state of the the Anglican Communion, esp. of those members which embraced the use of Artificial Contraception (ECUSA in the USA, the Church of Canada, the Church of England and their affiliated churches in Europe and elsewhere). What you’ll find is a body rank with Apostacy and Heresy, denying the divinity and resurrection of Christ.

These are the people who are leading the way in using Artificial Contraception. If you want the Catholic Church to have the same divorce rate as the rest of society, and to be confused as to who Jesus Christ is and what He did, please continue promoting and defending the widespreaduse of Aritificla Contraception by Catholics. But, If you want a Catholic Church were marriage is for life, and where Catholics know that believe the following statements to be absolutely true…:

The Apostles’ Creed
creeds.net/ancient/apostles.htm

The Nicene Creed
creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm

The Athanasian Creed
newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm

… Then, Please defend the Teaching of the Church against those who would promote the widespread use of Artificial Contraception by Catholics and try to learn why the Church teaches what it does instead of just objecting to it.

And, if you want a Church that knows what it’s about instead of having the problems every Catholic has seen reported in the Press, we had all better help spread the most prophetic document of the last 1/2 century, Humanae Vitae.

If you don’t know how prophetic it is, just read it:
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Pug:

In such a case it might be possible to view a removal in this case to be okay. This line of reasoning cannot ever pass a test of being for a celibate woman, because it relies on the woman being about to undergo a cesarean, which is why the removal of the uterus does not involve undue risk. This line of reasoning bothers me somewhat, but I am unable to pin it down.

Pug:

It bothers you, because you’re still STERILIZING the woman NOW because of a FUTURE risk of cancer.

It would be one thing if the uterus had a cancer in or on it which necessitated its removal NOW, but it’s quite another when we have genetic tests indicating that a woman may get cancer in the FUTURE.

Our Lord said to not worry about the future except to take prudent actions now which are not against the Law of God. We’ve already answered that, absent a clear and presnt danger to the woman’s life in the form of a disease of disease process (i.e., cancer or excessive bleeding of the uerus) removal of the uterus would be wrong.

Moral Law is not supposed to be rocket science. Eventually, it’s about our relationship to God and to each other, and what God has created us for.

I hope this makes your misgivings clear.

Goodnight.

In Christ, Michael

 

[setter]

I think you are saying something like marriage is a basic human good, and furthermore so is being a parent? We ought not randomly take away a person’s ability to ever become a parent. That would be awful.

I am stating the Church understanding that the reproductive good is a basic human good. To this end, one may never morally act against/attack a basic human good, unless the the principles of Catholic morality allow for the choice between the lesser of two evils or the unintended consequence negativelt effecting a human good. To do so otherwise is considered to do an evil.

I think if a woman were, say, 55, she is no longer going to use that uterus for becoming a parent. I find it difficult in that scenario to see harm to the good of possible parenthood there if it were removed for some health issue. Also, there is no risk of being tempted to use the action as a rationalization to secretly be doing contraception.

The reproductive good is good in itself, i.e., independent of one’s age or state in life (married, single, celibate, widowed, divorced).

However, say the woman is 45 and truly has been told she cannot get pregnant again (too dangerous), and so after the birth of her current child she is going to abstain for the remainder of her fertile years. Also, she is in a category of special risk for uterine cancers, so it would be desirable on that basis to remove the uterus at a convenient time, and her upcoming cesarean section would be highly appropriate. I don’t particularly see a removal of her uterus at that point to be a harm to her reproductive good

. She is not going to use it again. It is not going to serve any reproductive purpose, as it can’t be fixed. Maybe other medical or psychological purposes, but not reproductive. Note that in this example, uterine isolation or tube cutting would not substitute for what is being done…cancer prevention. Raw sterilization is not what is being sought.
Properly understood as a basic human good, removal of a woman’s uterous is a direct assault on the reproductive good, hence the conditions/criteria of the Principle of Totality (link) with the Principle of Double Effect (link) need to be met in order for the procedure to be morally licit.

In such a case it might be possible to view a removal in this case to be okay. This line of reasoning cannot ever pass a test of being for a celibate woman

, because it relies on the woman being about to undergo a cesarean, which is why the removal of the uterus does not involve undue risk. This line of reasoning bothers me somewhat, but I am unable to pin it down.
As I have attempted to point out, the principles of Catholic morality apply equally to anyone regardless of age or state in life.

 

[pgoings]

setter:

I am wondering if anyone has a better understanding if “preventative” or “preemptive” amputation/surgical mutilation (with the unintended consequence of sterilization) is morally licit if it a medically assessed that a potential risk exists for the continued presence of a body organ as fulfilling “constitutes a threat to the complete organism”.

A very good question, and one that hasn’t been authoritatively answered, to the best of my knowledge. It would clearly be immoral to remove organs and limbs willy-nilly; however, in the case of a woman with multiple deaths from breast cancer in the family, and who carries a genetic marker which predisposes one to develop such a cancer, who is advised to undergo mastectomy to prevent a life-threatening disease which is medically likely to occur, I think that it is premature to condemn such an act as illicit.

Any recommendations for a good book on medical ethics? Davis is excellent, but the scientific aspects are largely outdated, and my copy of Grisez hasn’t arrived yet.

Paul Goings

 

[pgoings]

Traditional Ang:

Our Lord said to not worry about the future except to take prudent actions now which are not against the Law of God. We’ve already answered that, absent a clear and presnt danger to the woman’s life in the form of a disease of disease process (i.e., cancer or excessive bleeding of the uerus) removal of the uterus would be wrong.

Given what is now known about genetics and the ability to reliably predict (within limits) the likelihood of certain conditions developing, I find it difficult to believe that existing cancer or excessive bleeding of the uerus are the only factors which constitute “a clear and presnt danger to the woman’s life” for the purpose of determining whether a hysterectomy is licit. One must consider totality over the lifetime of the person, not just totality at the moment; this is the very definition of prudence.

 

[fix]

**Re: Preventive surgery

Question from  on 10-23-2002:** Father Hogan--You stated in a recent post that it would be immoral for a woman to remove a healthy breast in order to prevent the possibility of breast cancer. There are some women who have the defective gene that predisposes them to breast cancer, and who have had numerous female relatives die of breast cancer, who have had this surgery done. These women are also at rist of ovarian cancer, and some have their ovaries removed when they are past child-bearing age, for the same reason. These women should not be made to feel that they are doing something immoral--they are trying to save their lives. I believe if you would speak to a doctor with expertise in this area, they would agree. This is not something which is done lightly, and most of these women do have reconstructive surgery following breast removal.

Answer by Fr. Richard Hogan - NFP Outreach on 10-25-2002: In fact, I think to remove a healthy breast because it might develop breast cancer is, as one physician friend of mine said, like using a shotgun to kill a fly. Even women with the gene you describe have a very, very good chance in not developing breast cancer. To ask her to undergo this type of surgery when there is a very, very good chance that the cancer will not develop is put her through severe trauma without much benefit.Morally speaking, one may not remove or alter a healthy, major, functioning part of the body on the chance that the organ or limb might develop a disease! A woman’s breast is certainly major and functioning! If it is healthy, it should not be removed. If she should develop a problem, then the physicians and surgeons can intervene. In this case, good medicine (not having this surgery) and morality are consistent (as they usually are when both are understood properly).

Thanks for writing.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=307247&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=breast+cancer&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=3&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=