Vatican excommunicates a Catholic hospital for saving a woman's life

[removeduser_487563287433]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...pital-abortion

Apparently Arizona's largest hospital cannot be considered Catholic because they consider themselves to be in the business of saving people's lives. I hope they hold their heads up high during Christmas as moral people and true Christians who have bravely stood up to archaic witch doctors.

[Monarchist]

Ooh, I like that! Arizona isn't too bad after all.

[ly0_ly0]

Woah i thought he only excommunicates in MTW2 Anyways that's ed up.

[Monarchist]

The pro-cruel-murder people say "what is this: honour to the continuance your mother's life?", and the pro-life people say "what is continuance without honour?"; that is, what's the point of life after destroying another life? The Catholic Church is in the business of saving souls first, not lives. Don't look at this in humanist terms.

Anyway, that poor religious sister (not a nun) doesn' even have her habit on! What a schismatic.

[The Dude]

The pro-cruel-murder people say "what is this: honour to the continuance your mother's life?", and the pro-life people say "what is continuance without honour?"; that is, what's the point of life after destroying another life? The Catholic Church is in the business of saving souls first, not lives. Don't look at this in humanist terms.

Anyway, that poor religious sister (not a nun) doesn' even have her habit on! What a schismatic.

For someone who's named after Thomas Aquinas you would do well to actually read into his ethics and see that he's actually found it in himself to justify what this hospital did.

[Monarchist]

For someone who's named after Thomas Aquinas you would do well to actually read into his ethics and see that he's actually found it in himself to justify what this hospital did.

Point me to the question, article, and answer in the S. Theologiae that deals with this, and I will gladly read it! If not there, point me to wherever he wrote it.

[The Dude]

Point me to the question, article, and answer in the S. Theologiae that deals with this, and I will gladly read it! If not there, point me to wherever he wrote it.

Sure,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect

Question 64, Article 7.

And the Stanford elaboration on it:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/

[Monarchist]

Sure,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect

Question 64, Article 7.

And the Stanford elaboration on it:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/

Friend, I prefer not to read elaborations and third-party explanations. You just needed to give me the part, question, and answers. Modern explanations of great saints' works hardly ever speak for the saints, who have spoken for themselves already!

Notice, first of all, that St. Thomas places this under the list of those actions to be imputed to JUSTICE; i.e. what is due to God and men. Whenever St. Thomas spoke of Justice, he meant "that which must be rendered a person in his due", and what is deserved. Since this list about murder is under the wider heading of JUSTICE (Second Half of Part II, qq. 57-122), it must be remembered that he assumes we never want to terminate a human life in the womb. This is due, in justice, to other human beings - who deserve our mercy and love because God implanted a spark in them which is holy and divine.

Perhaps not as importantly (but still important), have you ever heard of the Pseudo-Dionysian Principle of the Integral Good? It states that something can only be called good if it is good in all its causes and effects; for example, giving a homeless man money for the sake of his life is entirely good, but giving a homeless man money for the sake of demonstrating your holiness to others is rendered bad. The effects may be good, but the cause is not at all righteous, and causes more harm to you in the end, due to your arrogance. In like manner, murdering one baby to save one woman is entirely bad even though the end (preserving a life) is good. Something must be integrally good, in all aspects.

Here is the direct text of the Summa on this... it's actually not in answer to a specific objection, but his general answer to the argument:

I answer that,

Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one's life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in "being," as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], "it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense." Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's. But as it is unlawful to take a man's life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity."

Notice immediately that Aquinas quotes himself and many other learned scholars on law and philosophy from hundreds of years before his time. Augustine, Aristotle, Boethius, St. Paul, and the Psalmist are quoted regularly throughout the Summa. You must be aware, and read the whole thing as a whole: not as a set of doctrinal answers, but as a system of deduction. St. Thomas is probably pretty irritated that we're using his answers as a set of "things to be believed or else"; in my opinion, he was trying to expound more of a way of thinking than was trying to give us specific answers.

I don't care what you say about saving a mum's life, because two passive deaths through medical inability is better than one active death via homicide of the child. This may just be my high-mindedness talking, but I think I would refuse to kill one passenger on a lifeboat to feed the other twenty. It's just wrong to do evil so good may come of it.

To my Catholic friends and family, I will wish them a "Merry Hypocrisy" day this year. I can think of all sorts of witty retorts to the decisions of that pedophile-protecting institution, but they all sound like Jedi quotes from Star Wars, and I my head spins at moving from the sublime to the ridiculous as I find wisdom in 1970s sci-fi while finding insanity in a real life religion.

My dear fellow, you're basing your judgment of the actions of members of the Church on two different criteria, then conflating them. The Church is explicitly dogmatically against abortion; as a matter of faith, you must believe that it is evil in order to be a Catholic. On the opposite side, the Church is explicitly dogmatically against sex outside marriage; as a matter of faith, you must believe that is evil in order to be a Catholic. Members of the Magisterium (nuns, priests, etc.) regularly break 'the rules' because they are sinners, like us. How is the Church hypocritical in ex-communicating a nun, in contrast to sending paedopriests to monasteries where they can never see another altar boy ever? Remember that the Church teaches an ordained priest is changed ontologically; in his soul, he is different, and that cannot be changed even by grave sin. "Thou art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek".

Remember: any church IS the sum of their followers. Too easy to stick to "leaders bad, followers good"...its a cop-out.

That is not true. The Catholic Church is the sum of God's power inserted into the world by Christ. Even if you don't believe that, it's what the Church says: it is the mystical bride of Jesus. Believing that a Church is the sum of its followers is a remnant of protestantism. Sorry, but they don't look at it that way! Catholics who never repented and are in Hell are not considered members of the Church - not because they sinned and never repented, but because God cut them off when they ignored Him enough times. He is the measure, not us!

[basics]

Ferrets54,

A bit of double standards here showing that all life is not as sacred as we are expected to believe. The Guardian says,

" But Olmsted did not see it that way. He drew on the advice of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops' doctrinal committee, which distinguishes between direct abortions that are never justifiable and indirect terminations that happen incidentally as a result of life-saving medical procedures that can be allowed on narrowly-defined grounds."

" Narrowly defined grounds " it would appear are not the will of God, rather distinguished by men titled bishops. I mean first priority must be given to the mother because if she dies where then does that leave the foetus? In this case was she supposed to live only as long as she could so that a child could be born? How obscene is that? Where was the love for that woman when that bishop had to enquire what others thought?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Ferrets54,

A bit of double standards here showing that all life is not as sacred as we are expected to believe. The Guardian says,

" But Olmsted did not see it that way. He drew on the advice of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops' doctrinal committee, which distinguishes between direct abortions that are never justifiable and indirect terminations that happen incidentally as a result of life-saving medical procedures that can be allowed on narrowly-defined grounds."

" Narrowly defined grounds " it would appear are not the will of God, rather distinguished by men titled bishops. I mean first priority must be given to the mother because if she dies where then does that leave the foetus? In this case was she supposed to live only as long as she could so that a child could be born? How obscene is that? Where was the love for that woman when that bishop had to enquire what others thought?

I don't understand your point.

[basics]

" I don't understand your point. "

Ferrets54,

To Roman Catholics all life is supposed to be sacred. My point is a jagged one in that in this case the woman's was less sacred than that of her foetus. And who makes these rules? Why the bishop along with other bishops them never knowing whether the foetus would live but if it did they would possibly have condemned the woman to death. I wonder if they asked her for her opinion?

[Hmmm]

I especially loved this part:

" "The baby was healthy and there was no problems with the pregnancy...

Apparently a near 100% risk of death if the mother continued with the pregnancy does not count as "problems with the pregnancy". I'd be damned...

[removeduser_487563287433]

" I don't understand your point. "

Ferrets54,

To Roman Catholics all life is supposed to be sacred. My point is a jagged one in that in this case the woman's was less sacred than that of her foetus. And who makes these rules? Why the bishop along with other bishops them never knowing whether the foetus would live but if it did they would possibly have condemned the woman to death. I wonder if they asked her for her opinion?

Oh right so you're actually saying the bishops were wrong? Good good.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

For once, I'm with Ferrets here. The mother's life was in danger.

[Nanny de Bodemloze]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...pital-abortion

Apparently Arizona's largest hospital cannot be considered Catholic because they consider themselves to be in the business of saving people's lives. I hope they hold their heads up high during Christmas as moral people and true Christians who have bravely stood up to archaic witch doctors.

To my Catholic friends and family, I will wish them a "Merry Hypocrisy" day this year. I can think of all sorts of witty retorts to the decisions of that pedophile-protecting institution, but they all sound like Jedi quotes from Star Wars, and I my head spins at moving from the sublime to the ridiculous as I find wisdom in 1970s sci-fi while finding insanity in a real life religion.

[LordKainES]

I´m against Abortion, but in this cases i can´t understand the point of view of that bishop... its preferible to save a life than lost 2... it´s common sense...

[cottontail]

To my Catholic friends and family, I will wish them a "Merry Hypocrisy" day this year. I can think of all sorts of witty retorts to the decisions of that pedophile-protecting institution, but they all sound like Jedi quotes from Star Wars, and I my head spins at moving from the sublime to the ridiculous as I find wisdom in 1970s sci-fi while finding insanity in a real life religion.

Wow, what a great way to treat your friends and family

The Catholic Church may be at the forefront of some of the world's greatest sins, but there is no need to treat people who follow it like dicks. Most of them follow the good teachings of the Church and in no way deserve to be associated with the other acts of the institution. It's like calling all Muslims terrorists because a few blow up market stalls. Most of the people follow the good parts of the religion, and should be commended, not insulted.

The bigger point is, what have YOU done for humanity that your Catholic friends and family have not? What great way have YOU benefited humanity, and what ways have your family and friends proven a detriment to humanity? Because it sounds like you are being hypocritical, not them.

[Nanny de Bodemloze]

My family and friends can handle a healthy debate, thanks very much . It would be like a red flag to a bull to them, and we'd have a heated and interesting discussions and good laughs after.

Remember: any church IS the sum of their followers. Too easy to stick to "leaders bad, followers good"...its a cop-out.

You don't know anything about me mate, or what I do (or how I screw) humanity, so how can you say I'm being hypocritical? LOL I'll rep you though mate, because you have given me my morning chuckle!

[cfmonkey45]

The thread title is misleading, because St. Joseph's is only excommunicated from the diocese headed by Bishop Olmsted. The Vatican had nothing to do with it.

[removeduser_487563287433]

That's not especially relevant to how the Catholic Church has set out to punish people better than they can ever hope to be for saving a life.