# Ethical to refuse treatment to Catholics? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 28, 2012, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-to-refuse-treatment-to-catholics/614288 "2012-02-28T22:03:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-to-refuse-treatment-to-catholics/614288/41 "2012-03-01T17:21:05Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Isn’t it a defining part of Catholic doctrine that the Pope is kept right by divine fiat? The RCC teaching as I understand it is that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra. It’s also inarguable that a lot of Catholics think the Church and the Pope are wrong on a bunch of issues. You can argue they’re bad Catholics or “not really” Catholics, but they identify as Catholics and I’m inclined to accept their view: it doesn’t matter to me one way or the other, and I’m a non-Catholic who has a very low opinion of the church and the Pope. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-to-refuse-treatment-to-catholics/614288/42 "2012-03-01T17:24:14Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > The RCC teaching as I understand it is that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra. It’s also inarguable that a lot of Catholics think the Church and the Pope are wrong on a bunch of issues. You can argue they’re bad Catholics or “not really” Catholics, but they identify as Catholics and I’m inclined to accept their view: it doesn’t matter to me one way or the other, and I’m a non-Catholic who has a very low opinion of the church and the Pope. If this is the case, then it seems that respecting Catholic doctrine on a matter is pointless, and the birth control debate has no leg to stand on. But it sounds to me like the defenders want it both ways. We don’t want to hold Catholics responsible for being Catholics, because maybe they’re not really Catholic, but we want to grant them all the other authority that comes from identifying as a Catholic. Such convenient affiliations are less than persuasive to me. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-to-refuse-treatment-to-catholics/614288/43 "2012-03-01T17:25:11Z")
If I’m a defender, would you mind explaining what I’m defending? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-to-refuse-treatment-to-catholics/614288/44 "2012-03-01T17:30:04Z")
The view that Catholics don’t have to be Catholic to be Catholic, so we shouldn’t engage them assuming they’re Catholic, even if they say so. It’s a reasonable position. For instance, I identify as an American but around the world such identification carries a host of assumptions, like I am fat and believe evolution is wrong. The president is elected and represents the country, and if that representation is poor, making such associations against the population which disagrees could be seen as a sort of reckless generalization. I am not opposed to the idea that self-identification doesn’t suggest that I believe any particular thing anyone cares to associate with the group. But once we admit that, members lack the standing to appeal to group membership as a justification for anything as well, for precisely the same reason. eta: I see the problem. I didn’t say you were a defender of the RCC’s position on birth control (or whatever!). ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-to-refuse-treatment-to-catholics/614288/45 "2012-03-01T17:32:29Z")
No. Never. That doesn’t change the fact that the Catholic hierarchy is morally bankrupt and irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-to-refuse-treatment-to-catholics/614288/46 "2012-03-01T17:37:12Z")
This is a really, really dumb idea. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-to-refuse-treatment-to-catholics/614288/47 "2012-03-01T17:45:03Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > But once we admit that, members lack the standing to appeal to group membership as a justification for anything as well, for precisely the same reason. OK. So? I’m not Catholic, I don’t agree with the RCC position on birth control (or its position on most other things), and I do think religiously-affiliated companies should be required to provide health insurance that covers birth control. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-to-refuse-treatment-to-catholics/614288/48 "2012-03-01T17:46:53Z")
Right. I didn’t say otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![zweisamkeit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zweisamkeit/32/4360_2.png) [@zweisamkeit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zweisamkeit)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-to-refuse-treatment-to-catholics/614288/49 "2012-03-01T21:44:52Z")
I have a few points wrt others’ posts, and then my own question for the OP at the end. > [@florez](#): > > Right you are, but besides abstinence, the only other non artificial contraception that I am aware of is the rhythm method, which is a ridiculously ineffective and unreliable form of birth control. It could only work if a woman’s cycle was completely regular, and many are not, and even in the case that a woman does have a cycle like clockwork, sperm can live up to five days in a woman’s body…so this natural form of birth control is really almost a joke. Incorrect. The Rhythm Method is not what the RCC endorses; they endorse Natural Family Planning (NFP). NFP _is_ highly effective when followed correctly, but it’s pretty damn involved. You don’t assume your cycle is “standard” like in the Rhythm Method, but you track the cycle every single day, taking your temperature _right_ after waking (literally; you need to avoid excess movement like sitting or walking to the bathroom), observing the consistency of vaginal discharge/mucous, etc. You record all of the needed data, every.single.day. It takes a couple/few months to gather enough data to even begin using the information for contraceptive purposes, because you’ll have multiple cycles recorded. Your fertile window _is_ detectable with this method and it’s nothing like the Rhythm Method. The main drawback is that it’s a pain in the ASS to do all the steps correctly and consistently, so you really need a reason/motivation to use it instead of just slipping on a condom or popping a pill. Devout Catholics can fall into this category, but so can women who don’t want to use hormonal contraceptives. It also can be quite helpful when you _want_ to conceive, because you know the window of peak fertility. Also, the RCC does a brief overview of NFP with couples marrying in a Catholic church (who need to go to several classes that cover Catholic issues related to getting married, married life, etc), and by “brief” I mean 1-2 hours. They stress that if you are interested in actually using NFP, you _need_ to go to the actual classes, which are far more detailed and meet quite a few times. > [@spankthecrumpet](#): > > Then they should not remain members. By doing so they are implicitly endorsing it. They should quit and tell the church why. I understand the sentiment, but isn’t it another flavor of “if you don’t like it, YOU CAN LEAVE!”, which is often said when someone criticizes, say, American politics/policies? Why is leaving the only acceptable way to try to enact change? It’s perfectly valid to push for change from within. > [@Grumman](#): > > Isn’t it a defining part of Catholic doctrine that the Pope is kept right by divine fiat? You can no more believe the Pope has no special insight into these matters and be a Catholic than you can be a Christian who doesn’t believe Christ was the son of God who bought you a ticket to heaven, or a (male) homosexual who has no interest in other men and is only attracted to women. This is a common misunderstanding. Yes, the pope _can_ make infallible statements, but only when he is officially speaking **Ex Cathedra** , which is extremely rare. In fact, it has only actually happened _twice_ in the history of the RCC. And now my question to the OP: How would you actually determine who is Catholic? Is it just based on the person’s say-so? That would probably result in Catholics lying in order to receive treatment. If its based on the RCC’s rulings, then anyone who’s been baptized Catholic is basically fucked, even if they have renounced the RCC. > [@](#): > > Since Omnium in mentem took effect on 9 April 2010, defection from the faith no longer has any canonical effect. “Defection” does not release one from ecclesiastical law, including the observance of canonical form in marriage. > > Once a Catholic, always a Catholic is not just cultural, or emotional… it is juridical. Baptism to death, friends. > > From 23 November 1983 until 9 April 2010 if one formally “defected” from the faith, one was released from certain merely ecclesiastical laws, including the observance of canonical form ofr marriage. > > Merely walking away or attending a non-Catholic Church does not qualify as a formal defection. That makes one a “lapsed Catholic”. – [Source](http://douglawrence.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/father-z-once-a-catholic-always-a-catholic-no-outs/) (chosen because it’s a quick summation, but the omnium in mentum can be read [in its entirety here](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20091026_codex-iuris-canonici_lt.html). And if you need it in English instead of Latin for _some_ reason ;), [here’s the translation](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20091026_codex-iuris-canonici_en.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-to-refuse-treatment-to-catholics/614288.md?page=2)