I **am **familiar with the topic, which is why I am asking **you **to give cites for **your **claims that directly contradict **my **understanding of the RCC’s positions on abortion and one of the Sacraments.
The church isn’t a public organization like a government. They can make, change, and enforce their own rules as they see fit. I don’t know why people are surprised by this or even expect them to enforce internal rules logically.
No, they don’t boil down to that.
I have not, in this thread, criticized the church for its Canon Law regarding abortions. I did not know, before this thread, about the principle of latae sententiae excommunication, and now that i know about it, i’m not especially shocked or horrified by it. I do disagree with it, but it seems consistent with church practices and beliefs more generally.
My own position on this is that the church is not only being run contrary to my own preferences, but, in the case of pedophiles priests, is being run contrary to the values and the beliefs that the Church itself claims to defend. I guess it’s possible that there is something in Canon Law or other Church doctrine that condones child molesting, and that requires bishops and cardinals and popes to do everything in their power to protect priests who molest children. But in my (admittedly limited) understanding of Catholic teachings, i don’t remember ever seeing any such guidelines.
Let me ask you a very simple question: do YOU think the Church’s actions in dealing with child molesting priests have been appropriate?
You said, in your response to me:
Do you really think these three things are equivalent? Because, even though i support punishing abusers, ordaining women, and allowing abortion, i certainly don’t think they’re all equivalent.
If the Catholic Church wants to refuse to ordain women, and to oppose abortion, good luck to them. I’ll disagree with them, and fight them in areas of public policy, but for the most part my response to Catholics who complain about these policies is, “If you don’t like it, then quit the fucking church.” As you and others have noted, it’s a voluntary organization.
But when they go out of their way to cover up crimes against minors, simply to preserve the name of the church, that’s something different altogether. You have, in the past on these boards, made quite clear that you believe certain actions are fundamentally immoral, and that’s how i feel about an organization that protects abusers. I believe that anyone who defends the church’s practices on this issue is clearly acting immorally.
As for this particular thread, and the relationship between your arguments and the OP, i can only agree with Enderw24, above.
Uzi: And no one else has any obligation to respect those rules, especially when they conflict with real laws - something our learned friend **Bricker **is having trouble grasping.
Don’t be disingenuous. You don’t “attempt to explain things”. You habitually take up the mantle of any and every reactionary or conservative cause, and defend it with relentless bloviation. It’s like you feel you MUST defend the indefensible, to maintain your cred as a bastion of conservatism on this “liberal” message board.
And don’t think for a second that I actually buy that this:
actually means this:
You’re a contemptuous, smug apologist, with no respect for anyone who isn’t a conservative mouthpiece. You’re not worth arguing with, and I can’t for the life of me figure out why people continue to engage you.
That said, this is the last time I will do so. Have a wonderful life.
Of course not. I’m just trying to point out the absurdity of Ogre’s claims.
My response to you is to that the hospital followed the US Conference of Catholic Bishops Directive 47, which provides:
This implements the principle enunciated in Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae. (IIa-IIae Q. 64), where if the intended end is life-saving, the action is permissible even though it has the unintended secondary effect of the death of the unborn child. And it flows naturally from the superseding proposition on all matters that a mortal sin does not occur without full advertance of the will, on a gravely serious matter.
Even if we assume, as you suggest, that the particular operation done was intrinsically disordered, it seems clear that the nun in question did not think so, since she relied on the provisions of Directive 47 in reaching her decision.
And therefore, by the provisions of Can. 1323 2ƒ, she is not liable to a penalty because she was:
So… you’re saying you DIDN’T have that knowledge you claimed a little while ago?
Shocker!
Do you feel you run the church?
But I don’t see why this is such a big deal anyway, seeing as how section II of the Concordat of Worms clearly allows the laity to absolve such sins by having 5 cream pies smashed into their faces on the first Tuesday after a full moon.
It’s not really about him, it’s for the benefit of readers who are susceptible to mistaking erudition for reason - those who might think he actually had good points arising from a comprehensive, reasoned analysis on a topic if it weren’t quickly and heavily rebutted.
All Bricker wants is to feel he’s “won” a discussion, and won’t shut up until he can get to that point, however laughably it may appear. That’s all. sad as it is.
No.
I do believe that now, May 2010, the Church has applied appropriate policies for going forward. Any accusation is reported to authorities, period. Any credible accusation results in removal of the priest, period, end - no possibility of reassignment.
I’d be curious to know if you feel what they’re doing NOW is lacking in any way.
That does not, of course, erase the actions (or inactions) of the past, and I absolutely feel those were reprehensible.
I agree.
Only to the extent that I, along with the other lay faithful, are part of the church.
Your cite agrees with my assessment and disagrees with yours. A woman may undergo a necessary lifesaving medical procedure that will have the secondary consequence of terminating the pregnancy; for instance, if I’m pregnant and I get in a car crash, and it damages my heart in a way that’s going to kill me, and I need a transplant right now, but the operation would force a miscarriage, that’s a-ok by the Church. However, if I’m a pregnant nine-year-old girl who would be killed by carrying my normal pregnancy to term, I may not abort that pregnancy to save my own life.
Note that the bishop in this particular case agrees with my assessment of the situation:
Abortion as a side effect of another lifesaving procedure: acceptable. Abortion as a lifesaving procedure: unacceptable.
You also did not address the issue of Reconciliation.
An abortion cannot have an unintended secondary effect of the death of the unborn child. The only treatments I’ve ever heard of as acceptable are partial or full salpingectomies–NOT abortions–because salpingectomies have the secondary effect where abortion can only have a primary effect of the death of the embryo.
“In the case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.”
It bears a striking resemblance to an attempt to make sure the woman is punished.
Not reporting all known problems, present or past, including the many they’ve paid/threatened/coerced victims into not reporting, to the real authorities for criminal prosecution. They have never cooperated except at virtual gunpoint.
True? :dubious:
How proud do you feel about your association with this institution, really?
Exactly. Honestly, I get the feeling the **Bricker **is doing the same scramble I did a few months ago. I’ve been atheist for years now, but I’d still thought that abortion was allowable in the RCC to save the life of the mother. Imagine my shock when someone told me it wasn’t, I started doing some research, and I found out they were right. Further confirmation that I made the right decision when I started falling away from the Church, IMO.
Why yes. What they’re doing NOW is continuing to hinder investigations into past allegations. So, no. I don’t think they have appropriate policies going forward.
Oh, and by the way, salpingectomies result in greater likelihood that the woman will suffer future ectopic pregnancies. From here:
So, more risk to women, more dead embryos, all to preserve some odd notion of “sanctity of life” that appears, as in the OP, to include child fucking.
How big a part of the church are you and other lay faithful?
Bricker, first, would you lay off Ogre, for the sake of the rest of us? Refusing to answer other peoples’ questions because he (probably mistakenly, I fully grant) indicated we all know all the answers is just being dickish.
For what it’s worth, I didn’t realize that excommunication like this was automatic. Evidently I’m excommunicated - neat! It’s an interesting point in an abstruse way.
But, as others have eloquently pointed out, it is almost entirely beside the point. Shall I rephrase my OP to read, “jumped right on this situation and pointed out that this action caused her to be excommunicated”? Because I don’t think doing that takes away from my point at all. Whether by affirmative, present action, or by passively maintaining pre-existing rules which state that such action is automatic, the church is doing evil, insane things.
And by the way, the Diocese of Phoenix disagreeswith your interpretation, and agrees with Shot From Guns’s. They say any D&C or D&E is absolutely prohibited, regardless of circumstances. I also happily grant that there is some degree of debate about this.
And let me remind you once again, that to those of us who are not willing members of the Catholic church, and probably to a large number of Catholics who happen not to be students of the club’s rules, this shit doesn’t matter. The point is an organization allowing horrors to be visited on minors for years and years, which it is finally, in a foot-dragging, incremental and whiny manner finally sort of addressing, yet having a right prompt and severe system for punishing members who would have the gall to save a woman’s life with an abortion.
And along the way, you finally said that you agree that this situation is not morally defensible, so I have to wonder, along with **Enderw24 **just what your purpose in focusing on a nitpicky detail in a misleading, inflammatory way is, other than that seems to be your MO in general.