What are the *True Facts* Regarding the Abortion-Approving Nun?

[Elizabeth502]

Thank you, Christopher, especially for this:

Calling on government to purify others’ hearts and minds opens Pandora’s box, pushes us farther down a very slippery slope. If I give a government the power to force you to accept my values, I also give them the power to force me to accept your values at some point in the future.

This is exactly what so many of us have been saying for years – including believers of other faiths, whose faith informs their everyday decisions, and which faiths they cherish as much as we cherish ours. Also, merely from a politically pragmatic point of view, the independent mind-set that has always existed in this country (the individual’s protection from government oppression) would oppose any rigid ethical system that would give even the illusion of a theocracy. What a universally dictated value system would do is create a powerful backlash against religion in general and Catholicism in particular. That would serve no good purpose and is not something that anyone on this board should desire. That is also very different from a voluntarily cooperative value system, something I have advocated for years.

Catholic hospitals have a right to set policy for medical decision-making within their walls, but keep in mind (as Rence and maybe others have pointed out), that to maintain that consistency is also to exclude the participation of those not sharing absolutely every single feature of that moral mindset. Financially that can become unworkable. An alternative is to have many fewer hospitals with greater consolidation among Catholic medical institutions, which may result in less of a Catholic medical presence in any given region, not to mention no presence in certain geographical areas.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you, Christopher, especially for this:

This is exactly what so many of us have been saying for years – including believers of other faiths, whose faith informs their everyday decisions, and which faiths they cherish as much as we cherish ours. Also, merely from a politically pragmatic point of view, the independent mind-set that has always existed in this country (the individual’s protection from government oppression) would oppose any rigid ethical system that would give even the illusion of a theocracy. What a universally dictated value system would do is create a powerful backlash against religion in general and Catholicism in particular. That would serve no good purpose and is not something that anyone on this board should desire. That is also very different from a voluntarily cooperative value system, something I have advocated for years.

Catholic hospitals have a right to set policy for medical decision-making within their walls, but keep in mind (as Rence and maybe others have pointed out), that to maintain that consistency is also to exclude the participation of those not sharing absolutely every single feature of that moral mindset. Financially that can become unworkable. An alternative is to have many fewer hospitals with greater consolidation among Catholic medical institutions, which may result in less of a Catholic medical presence in any given region, not to mention no presence in certain geographical areas.

This is not about a theocracy. It’s about morals. No government has the authority to legalize immorality. Whether a person of another faith or culture believes that abortion is not immoral is irrelevant. The fact is that it is immoral and these people are wrong and are being lied to. They have bought into the lie. Government has not right to promote a lie. What we are doing is giving government the authority to legalize immorality. No Catholic can ever agree to that. That’s why Catholic politicians have come under the microscope, because they are more concerned about government than about their souls and the souls of the people they represent.

God gives the state authority to protect its citizens, not to provide opportunities to damn them to hell or to hurt others.

It may come to pass that there will be a minimal Catholic presence in healthcare, if it means that we have to cut out a number of people from our employ. It’s unfortunate, but it’s the greater good. Having more hospitals run by people who justify abortion under any circumstance is not the greater good. Hospitals are not their own source of revelation. God revelas the moral code and it subsists in its entirety and infallibly in the Catholic Church and in no other place. When the Church says that something is immoral, it behooves Catholics to be the first citizens to demand a correction from a hospital or a legislator. This is not a theocracy. You’re not turning the government over to the clergy. But you are demanding that your government make moral choices, not popular choices. Plurality is a good thing when the highest good is protected and promoted. When an immoral situation prevails in a pluarilistic society, in that particular case, not every other case, but in that case, pluralism is not serving the higher good and must be ignored. Pluralism is not the highest good. It is a good, but not the highest. It is entitled to exist as long as it is consistent with the higher good.

There are going to be areas where pluralism is consistent with the higher good and we accept it. There are other areas, where it is in conflict with the higher good and we must then defend the higher good, even at the expense of pluralism. Just look at the history of the early Church. It never tried to run Egypt, Greece or Rome, which were the greatest empires of the time. It left them in peace until they defied the commandments. When they did, the apostles when after them and denounced them. That’s what got them killed. They didn’t try to set up a theocracy. They denounced what was immoral in the pluarility, not the plurality itself. We can see this in our rituals. The Catholic Church is made up of 22 individual churches, each with a culture, history, its own laws, its own leadership, its own liturgy and its own language. But all 22 are united under the pope. Catholics maintain pluralism, while teaching moral law, even to our own people. They’re not free of sin either.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[catharina]

This is not about a theocracy. It’s about morals. No government has the authority to legalize immorality. Whether a person of another faith or culture believes that abortion is not immoral is irrelevant. The fact is that it is immoral and these people are wrong and are being lied to. They have bought into the lie. Government has not right to promote a lie. What we are doing is giving government the authority to legalize immorality. No Catholic can ever agree to that. That’s why Catholic politicians have come under the microscope, because they are more concerned about government than about their souls and the souls of the people they represent.

God gives the state authority to protect its citizens, not to provide opportunities to damn them to hell or to hurt others.

It may come to pass that there will be a minimal Catholic presence in healthcare, if it means that we have to cut out a number of people from our employ. It’s unfortunate, but it’s the greater good. Having more hospitals run by people who justify abortion under any circumstance is not the greater good. Hospitals are not their own source of revelation. God revelas the moral code and it subsists in its entirety and infallibly in the Catholic Church and in no other place. When the Church says that something is immoral, it behooves Catholics to be the first citizens to demand a correction from a hospital or a legislator. This is not a theocracy. You’re not turning the government over to the clergy. But you are demanding that your government make moral choices, not popular choices. Plurality is a good thing when the highest good is protected and promoted. When an immoral situation prevails in a pluarilistic society, in that particular case, not every other case, but in that case, pluralism is not serving the higher good and must be ignored. Pluralism is not the highest good. It is a good, but not the highest. It is entitled to exist as long as it is consistent with the higher good.

There are going to be areas where pluralism is consistent with the higher good and we accept it. There are other areas, where it is in conflict with the higher good and we must then defend the higher good, even at the expense of pluralism. Just look at the history of the early Church. It never tried to run Egypt, Greece or Rome, which were the greatest empires of the time. It left them in peace until they defied the commandments. When they did, the apostles when after them and denounced them. That’s what got them killed. They didn’t try to set up a theocracy. They denounced what was immoral in the pluarility, not the plurality itself. We can see this in our rituals. The Catholic Church is made up of 22 individual churches, each with a culture, history, its own laws, its own leadership, its own liturgy and its own language. But all 22 are united under the pope. Catholics maintain pluralism, while teaching moral law, even to our own people. They’re not free of sin either.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Brother, thank you so much. Perfect response to all the twists and inaccuracies.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Brother JR, I’d just like to say that your posts are always superb and informative and I enjoy reading them.

 

[Elizabeth502]

When government dictates morals that are “absolutist” and spring from a religious base, that is a theocracy. The point is, the Church doesn’t want to separate itself from its theology, in the influence over the public square. Nor would it make sense to do so. What all religions can do, however, is to join together in finding common ground to influence public policy. There will be some differences among those religions that will not admit of compromise, and those non-compromising positions will have to be limited to the believers of those religions in their individual decision moments. But that is not what we have been talking about here, nor is it ever the position taken by those on CAF who advocate for “morality” in legislation. It’s not about common religious ground informing a fundamental moral consensus. It’s about Us vs. Them. It’s about All or Nothing. It’s about The Church = The Only Correct Way. A consensus does not limit any individual of any religion, or any atheist, from going beyond that moral code, or from rejecting that moral code entirely. But I submit that it does provide an opportunity for the Church to make its voice heard on key issues, in a way that other religions and the non-Churched can respect and may be receptive to. But positions which admit of no compromise will be judged to be theocratic, no matter what technical definitions anyone on CAF wants to give them. Public perception of what they are will dictate how they’re received, which has always been true.

 

[Elizabeth502]

God gives the state authority to protect its citizens, not to provide opportunities to damn them to hell or to hurt others.

“others” don’t accept that they are being “damned to hell,” or causing “hurt” to others. Citizens are not required to believe that when they are not Catholics.

It may come to pass that there will be a minimal Catholic presence in healthcare, if it means that we have to cut out a number of people from our employ. It’s unfortunate, but it’s the greater good.

I agree that that is a better solution than forcing non-believers to accept the Catholic point of view. I think it would make Catholics and non-Catholics alike more satisfied with that solution. I agree also that it is unfortunate, but I think it may be necessary. I said that in my post. That’s precisely what I suggested.

 

[Soutane]

“others” don’t accept that they are being “damned to hell,” or causing “hurt” to others. Citizens are not required to believe that when they are not Catholics.

I agree that that is a better solution than forcing non-believers to accept the Catholic point of view. I think it would make Catholics and non-Catholics alike more satisfied with that solution. I agree also that it is unfortunate, but I think it may be necessary. I said that in my post. That’s precisely what I suggested.

Christ gave us a mission to convertYou either believe Catholicism is the Truth or you don’t.It is not a religion for the faint of heart nor apologists for the words of Christ.Pick up your cross and follow Him and NEVER compromise.W.The Truth is uncompromising as the pharisees found out to their chagrin.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Christ gave us a mission to convertYou either believe Catholicism is the Truth or you don’t.It is not a religion for the faint of heart nor apologists for the words of Christ.Pick up your cross and follow Him and NEVER compromise.W.The Truth is uncompromising as the pharisees found out to their chagrin.

I am none of the negative things you are ascribing to me. I don’t place myself among the “others” that I referenced above. I was speaking about non-Catholics. You have no basis for the statements about me you just made. They are pure speculation, without foundation, and filled with insult. Do not issue commands to me about “picking up my cross.” You have no insight into the sufferings of a single soul except your own, certainly not mine. (Exactly what “cross” of mine were you referring to? My replies here have absolutely nothing to do with any personal point of view on my part. I did not reference any “cross” of my own, nor complain about any personal suffering. Your response is merely random.) You need to cease and desist your misplaced and unwise persecution of me. I’m not one of your convenient labels. You are showing enormous disrespect in this and in many of your posts.

My posts refer to issues in society, about which the Church has to grapple, as evidenced in real life, in real news stories. They have nothing to do with my personal, uncompromising beliefs. Why do you persist in attacking people who do not provide any rational basis for such attacks, but who are merely contributing to intellectual discussion? You don’t seem to actually read posts for content, but merely to react to everything that you imagine is somehow not in line with what you wanted to hear at that very moment.

 

[catharina]

When government dictates morals that are “absolutist” and spring from a religious base, that is a theocracy. The point is, the Church doesn’t want to separate itself from its theology, in the influence over the public square. Nor would it make sense to do so. What all religions can do, however, is to join together in finding common ground to influence public policy. There will be some differences among those religions that will not admit of compromise, and those non-compromising positions will have to be limited to the believers of those religions in their individual decision moments. But that is not what we have been talking about here, nor is it ever the position taken by those on CAF who advocate for “morality” in legislation. It’s not about common religious ground informing a fundamental moral consensus. It’s about Us vs. Them. It’s about All or Nothing. It’s about The Church = The Only Correct Way. A consensus does not limit any individual of any religion, or any atheist, from going beyond that moral code, or from rejecting that moral code entirely. But I submit that it does provide an opportunity for the Church to make its voice heard on key issues, in a way that other religions and the non-Churched can respect and may be receptive to. But positions which admit of no compromise will be judged to be theocratic, no matter what technical definitions anyone on CAF wants to give them. Public perception of what they are will dictate how they’re received, which has always been true.

Yet all law flows from morality - or ignores morality.
It’s an absolute truth that God defines morality for all.

It’s painful for all who were already adults to remember when “new laws” allowed abortion.
Prior to those changes, the common consensus recognized a univeral morality re this.
Then lobbying achieved the abandonment of morality. Better for the nation? No. Never.

Better for the self-centered, the greedy, the power-hungry,
fo those who choose to override the will of God, Who gives life? Yes.
To presume that God, the Author of life, can be mocked and/or ignored is error.
One morality exists for all - whether people choose to accept that or not.
We have a Judeo-Christian culture in this nation. Our laws are based in that fact
with recent and horrific exceptions. (Very recent, very horrific.)

Quoting founding father, James Madison,
the fourth president, ‘The Father of Our Constitution’ -

’We have staked the whole of all our political
institutions upon the capacity of mankind for
self-government, upon the capacity of each and
all of us to govern ourselves, to control
ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to
the Ten Commandments of God.'

Any laws that defy this understanding are indefensible for this nation.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

When government dictates morals that are “absolutist” and spring from a religious base, that is a theocracy. The point is, the Church doesn’t want to separate itself from its theology, in the influence over the public square. Nor would it make sense to do so. What all religions can do, however, is to join together in finding common ground to influence public policy. There will be some differences among those religions that will not admit of compromise, and those non-compromising positions will have to be limited to the believers of those religions in their individual decision moments. But that is not what we have been talking about here, nor is it ever the position taken by those on CAF who advocate for “morality” in legislation. It’s not about common religious ground informing a fundamental moral consensus. It’s about Us vs. Them. It’s about All or Nothing. It’s about The Church = The Only Correct Way. A consensus does not limit any individual of any religion, or any atheist, from going beyond that moral code, or from rejecting that moral code entirely. But I submit that it does provide an opportunity for the Church to make its voice heard on key issues, in a way that other religions and the non-Churched can respect and may be receptive to. But positions which admit of no compromise will be judged to be theocratic, no matter what technical definitions anyone on CAF wants to give them. Public perception of what they are will dictate how they’re received, which has always been true.

But government does do that. When an immigrant from a country that allows polygamy comes to the US, he is only allowed to sponsor his first wife. The other wives are not considered “legal” His religion might dictate for many wives, why does the US not recognize it?

Other religious beliefs allow for infant girls to be"circumcized", actually mutilated. Thankfully, this is not permitted in the US.

An embryo might be small, might be helpless, might be tiny…but it’s still a person. It isn’t unique to Catholics to be pro-life…if you search the internet you can even find “Pagans for Life”

Even the Supreme court justice Blackmun in his decision regarding Roe vs Wade said that we could not be sure if the embryo was a person, but if there was a way to determine it was a person, there could be no abortion.

In my last pregnancy I had complications all the way through. My baby was conceived in July 2008. In October 2008 I had complications. I had a sonogram to detemine if everything was ok. I had a regular sonogram, not a 3d sonogram. My baby had a little face that was distinguishable (he still looks similar) arms, legs, and the doctor was even able to determine he was a boy. He was 12 weeks at the time, just 1 more week than the little baby in this scenario.

 

[rmd13]

I post rarely, but I need clarification. There seems to be a view that we, as Catholics, should not “force” revealed Truth on the state or non-Catholics.
In essence, that we should find “common ground.”
But is that really what we are called to do? Are we truly called to pacify those who do not hold revealed Truth in esteem?
Aren’t we to witness to the Truth in charity (not “force”) and bring all to Christ, who is the Truth?

If an institution or individual calls itself Catholic, its witness should always be to divinely revealed Truth.
Catholics should not obfuscate Truth to please those who have their own personal truth for fear of reprisal or hurt feelings.
How can one deny or compromise to get ahead in public opinion polls or elsewhere and still serve God? To deny one aspect of His Truth is to deny Him.

It is not necessary to thunder and roar to reveal Truth, nor is it necessary to compromise Truth to help others see it “our way” (which is the way it was stated in a previous post, but I prefer “His way”). God is heard in the quiet breeze.

*So, the clarification I seek in a longwinded nutshell is the following question: are we as Catholics to serve man or God first?
And if we say we serve God first, then how can we rationalize diminishing His Truth to serve man? *

Because I believe this is the real issue at the heart of what happened in this sorrowful event in Arizona…

rmd

 

[Rence]

Christ gave us a mission to convertYou either believe Catholicism is the Truth or you don’t.It is not a religion for the faint of heart nor apologists for the words of Christ.Pick up your cross and follow Him and NEVER compromise.W.The Truth is uncompromising as the pharisees found out to their chagrin.

Yes, Christ gave us a mission to convert, but not by coersion or by force. Those who are to be Catholic must be Catholic by choice and by their own free will. Forcing people to be Catholic and adhere to Catholic’s teachings is NOT what Christ said to do, and it is immoral to do so. People have the right to follow the religion of their choice, as well as the right to follow no religion at all. What we were given the mission to do, was to spread the word of God. If it is not received, we are to “shake the dust off your feet” and be on your merry way leaving those behind to do as they believe according to the words of Christ.

 

[Rence]

I
*So, the clarification I seek in a longwinded nutshell is the following question: are we as Catholics to serve man or God first?
And if we say we serve God first, then how can we rationalize diminishing His Truth to serve man? *
rmd

Catholics have the responsiblity, the duty, to follow the commandments of the Catholic Church YES, but not to force non-Catholics to do the same.Catholics are called to spread the Word of God, but not to force non-Catholics to follow it. Being Catholic must be consensual, of ones own free will, and by their own uncoerced choice. It is evil to force another person to accept another faith, even if that faith is Catholic. According to the Gospels:

Matthew 10:14
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet.

Mark 6:11
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you; going forth from thence, shake off the dust from your feet for a testimony to them.

Luke 9:5
And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off even the dust of your feet, for a testimony against them.

Christ said to go out and spread the word, and to leave the place behind if the word was not accepted, not to force people to accept it. Catholics are responsible for following the rules of the Church, non-catholics are NOT. They answer to God, not to us.

It’s truly beyond me why people think they can twist that into meaning something it’s not. It does not mean to force people to accept the rules of the Church, one way or another.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I post rarely, but I need clarification. There seems to be a view that we, as Catholics, should not “force” revealed Truth on the state or non-Catholics.
In essence, that we should find “common ground.”

I think you’re confusing what I said about common ground to mean that there is no revealed truth or something. Not what I meant. Sorry about the confusion. I am referring strictly to the interface with non-Catholics and the practical legal boundaries and political boundaries of that. The All or Nothing approach does not work in the U.S.A. (“You either except my way, or it’s the highway for you.”) The argument seems always to be, We Catholics (lay, religious, ordained) want to influence public policy. But we won’t try to do any influencing if we can’t have the entire Megillah. Non-Catholics must accept every tenet of Catholic moral theology, or our influence is somehow non-authentic. No. And btw, that wasn’t true in the past. Catholics did accept an influential role in public policy making, without demanding that the entire non-Catholic world come on board with Catholic moral theology.

My point about common ground (with non-Catholics) is that it’s a start. It sets some basic terms of agreement, and the important thing is that it makes a moral presence visible and underscores its credibility to society in general. It doesn’t mean that, for a Catholic, what is agreed to in common-ground statements is the limit of that Catholic’s moral responsibility. Of course not.

 

[Rence]

I think you’re confusing what I said about common ground to mean that there is no revealed truth or something. Not what I meant. Sorry about the confusion. I am referring strictly to the interface with non-Catholics and the practical legal boundaries and political boundaries of that. The All or Nothing approach does not work in the U.S.A. (“You either except my way, or it’s the highway for you.”) The argument seems always to be, We Catholics (lay, religious, ordained) want to influence public policy. But we won’t try to do any influencing if we can’t have the entire Megillah. Non-Catholics must accept every tenet of Catholic moral theology, or our influence is somehow non-authentic. No. And btw, that wasn’t true in the past. Catholics did accept an influential role in public policy making, without demanding that the entire non-Catholic world come on board with Catholic moral theology.

My point about common ground (with non-Catholics) is that it’s a start. It sets some basic terms of agreement, and the important thing is that it makes a moral presence visible and underscores its credibility to society in general. It doesn’t mean that, for a Catholic, what is agreed to in common-ground statements is the limit of that Catholic’s moral responsibility. Of course not.

The thing is, unless one is willing to obey and conform to the rules of another person’s religion (for example, the Jewish, or Muslim religion), they really have no business trying to make another person obey and conform to the rules of their religion. We each have the right to follow the religion of our choice, or to not have religion at all.

I certainly would fight it tooth and nail, if a muslim tried to institute full body and face cover up with head coverings for women. Or if Muslim or Jewish tried to outlaw pork. etc. These are serious teachings in their own religion and I’m sure it pains them that we don’t follow it. But I refuse. That is not my way. Therefore, if I refuse to budge on another person’s faith with regards to how I live my life, why and how can I possibly try to enforce my religious views on someone else. It works both ways.

 

[Christopher68]

This is not about a theocracy. It’s about morals. No government has the authority to legalize immorality. Whether a person of another faith or culture believes that abortion is not immoral is irrelevant. The fact is that it is immoral and these people are wrong and are being lied to. They have bought into the lie. Government has not right to promote a lie. What we are doing is giving government the authority to legalize immorality. No Catholic can ever agree to that. That’s why Catholic politicians have come under the microscope, because they are more concerned about government than about their souls and the souls of the people they represent.

God gives the state authority to protect its citizens, not to provide opportunities to damn them to hell or to hurt others.

It may come to pass that there will be a minimal Catholic presence in healthcare, if it means that we have to cut out a number of people from our employ. It’s unfortunate, but it’s the greater good. Having more hospitals run by people who justify abortion under any circumstance is not the greater good. Hospitals are not their own source of revelation. God revelas the moral code and it subsists in its entirety and infallibly in the Catholic Church and in no other place. When the Church says that something is immoral, it behooves Catholics to be the first citizens to demand a correction from a hospital or a legislator. This is not a theocracy. You’re not turning the government over to the clergy. But you are demanding that your government make moral choices, not popular choices. Plurality is a good thing when the highest good is protected and promoted. When an immoral situation prevails in a pluarilistic society, in that particular case, not every other case, but in that case, pluralism is not serving the higher good and must be ignored. Pluralism is not the highest good. It is a good, but not the highest. It is entitled to exist as long as it is consistent with the higher good.

There are going to be areas where pluralism is consistent with the higher good and we accept it. There are other areas, where it is in conflict with the higher good and we must then defend the higher good, even at the expense of pluralism. Just look at the history of the early Church. It never tried to run Egypt, Greece or Rome, which were the greatest empires of the time. It left them in peace until they defied the commandments. When they did, the apostles when after them and denounced them. That’s what got them killed. They didn’t try to set up a theocracy. They denounced what was immoral in the pluarility, not the plurality itself. We can see this in our rituals. The Catholic Church is made up of 22 individual churches, each with a culture, history, its own laws, its own leadership, its own liturgy and its own language. But all 22 are united under the pope. Catholics maintain pluralism, while teaching moral law, even to our own people. They’re not free of sin either.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you for your reply. You have clarified what I suspected, in that we view the role of government much differently.

You essentially say that pluralism is good, as long as it coincides with Catholic teachings. However, by definition pluralism will not always coincide with Catholic teachings. Do you think people are more likely to embrace Catholicism if they are coerced into submission by the force of government, or if they are persuaded to embrace it voluntarily?

Many years ago the political ‘left’ attempted to influence religion by preaching the ‘social gospel’. They attempted to use the force of government to help those they considered less fortunate. Many other Christians rebelled against this. The political ‘right’ capitalized on this discontent by saying that the social gospel was wrong, and by saying that government should be used to make people more moral instead. What neither side understands is that it is not the choice of goals - it is the use of force - that leads to bad consequences.

When you give government the power to enforce your moral beliefs, you are also implicitly giving government the power to enforce the opposite of your beliefs as well. You say that government should make correct decisions as opposed to popular decisions. However, when you give government the power to make moral decisions, they will be made by whoever has the most political power - i.e. popularity.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I certainly would fight it tooth and nail, if a muslim tried to institute full body and face cover up with head coverings for women. Or if Muslim or Jewish tried to outlaw pork. etc. These are serious teachings in their own religion and I’m sure it pains them that we don’t follow it.

Yes. Just listen sometimes to statements (both political and religious) by some fervent Muslims. They believe that God (Allah, as they understand him, and in the way they understand him, which is not Trinitarian or with the same Redemption, Mediation, etc. theology that we have) is absolute for the universe. Now, I personally believe, naturally (as must every believing Catholic) that God, as we Catholics understand that God, is universally potent, reigning, and the truth-source for the universe, but again, I am not allowed politically or legally in this country to require others to believe that, nor to require them to order their private behaviors around Catholic theology. That is a denial of their civil rights, were I to do so. I can try to influence them: I’m allowed to do that. But I am not allowed to use my religion to intimidate them by coercion.

 

[venerablejohn]

Not once in his statement excommunicating Sr McBride does Bishop Olmsted mention God, which seems a strange ommission, maybe you need to have studied Theology for a long time to manage this, and to stand infront of a woman and mother and tell her that her living children are to be deprived of her and that she must be allowed to die.

 

[momor]

Unfortunately, I have to agree that the Church may be forced to limit more services than it would like to. For instance, rather than closing a hospital completely, it may have to cut out obstetric/gynecological services all together so these moral decisions don’t have to be decided within their walls. If they don’t choose to draw an absolute line, the gov’t may force their hand by denying all Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement which makes up a very large percentage of hospital income.

In fact, I hope the hospitals are brave enough to make the decision themselves. But in reality I fear that many Catholic hospitals are not as closely tied to the faith as we like to believe and will choose to go where the money leads them. An archbishop in our state recently declared a hospital could no longer call itself Catholic because the hospital said it could not change a policy (don’t remember the specifics) due to some kind of contractual decision they had made and which they thought at the time was in accordance with the Catholic Hospital assoc. They chose to ultimately follow the money source.

 

[Soutane]

I am none of the negative things you are ascribing to me. I don’t place myself among the “others” that I referenced above. I was speaking about non-Catholics. You have no basis for the statements about me you just made. They are pure speculation, without foundation, and filled with insult. Do not issue commands to me about “picking up my cross.” You have no insight into the sufferings of a single soul except your own, certainly not mine. (Exactly what “cross” of mine were you referring to? My replies here have absolutely nothing to do with any personal point of view on my part. I did not reference any “cross” of my own, nor complain about any personal suffering. Your response is merely random.) You need to cease and desist your misplaced and unwise persecution of me. I’m not one of your convenient labels. You are showing enormous disrespect in this and in many of your posts.

My posts refer to issues in society, about which the Church has to grapple, as evidenced in real life, in real news stories. They have nothing to do with my personal, uncompromising beliefs. Why do you persist in attacking people who do not provide any rational basis for such attacks, but who are merely contributing to intellectual discussion? You don’t seem to actually read posts for content, but merely to react to everything that you imagine is somehow not in line with what you wanted to hear at that very moment.

Because I disagree with you and some of your facile arguementation,you consider that a personal attack,which it was not.If some of what I wrote stung that is not my problem.I speak from my heart and when I read things that accuse me of attacking people and not faulty logic or ideas it saddens me.