Darth Pontiff will not even approve the use of condoms to contain the spread of HIV.
I said everything I needed to say in the other thread. You have offered nothing new, and so I don’t have any need to offer more of a response. You have not provided one piece of evidence that the RCC is trying make birth control illegal in the US. We all know that they don’t want Catholics to use it. Big whoop.
Please. The Catholic church would never make contraception illegal. Where would they get all those delicious young boys to rape and destroy.
The quote CLEARLY says they want any contraception that could, according to their ridiculous definition, lead to an abortion, treated the same as abortion:
And guess what…every type of contraception except for condoms could potentially lead to the failure of a zygote to implant (which, you have to remember, Catholics, as the apogee of their insanity, consider to be an abortion).
They’re saying it, without saying it. They’re saying it but also trying to avoid the “gotcha” quote, even though both their supporters and opponents can clearly see what the meaning is. That they are trying to put a veneer of deceit over this abhorrent position only makes it more evil.
I think I may have not written that as well as would have been possible, I agree, this is why I started a new thread, to find an answer without derailing.
A wholesale ban, no but a pretty broad spectrum of current medications.
There is plenty of evidence that they are, within their powers, you may have issues with birth control being provided to minors without their consent, but that is the law of the land.
FYI Young women already have access to birth control with no requirement for consent, some with the same type of action as Plan B.
They will also refuse service for non-catholics, along with DNR, IVF etc… Which is painful in areas of the world where they have bought up most of the Hospitals.
Given the political climate, it’d be wise to not specifically claim to want contraception outlawed. So their lack of position on this is not, in my view, particularly compelling evidence. But without it, we’ve got to look elsewhere.
- If it is a “mortal” or “grave” sin, what else is such a sin? Are these things the Church wants outlawed?
- Have they ever suggested it should be outlawed, perhaps when public opinion (or their own authority) were different?
I’m asking the OP, but anyone’s answer to these would be appreciated.
You have a citation for these claims?
It is quite possible that IVF is not permitted in Catholic clinics and hospitals. (Given the expense, I doubt that it is even much in demand in places where the RCC has gobbled up all the medical facilities, but I can see the concern.)
DNR? I know that Catholic hospitals in the U.S. employ it. Pope Pius XII laid the groundwork for accepting DNR back around 1957 and no one since then has done anything to demand that his statement be reversed. It is probable that Catholic hospitals are prohibited from withholding food or water, even in cases such as Terry Schiavo, but a simple DNR does not violate any Catholic teaching.
As to refusing service to non-Catholics: That is simply false, (unless you are thinking of some tiny clinic far from the real world that is not even following church doctrine).
-
I am not versed well enough to say so
-
Yes, they were instrumental with other Christians in the purity movement in the late 1800s.
They also publicly fought against the repeal of such laws but they were not the only church to do either.
The big issue is that in 1869, Pope Pius IX declared that all abortion is murder, previous to that it was acceptable until “quickening” which was 40 days for boys and 80 days for girls.
This is the main cause of friction now, the current belief of the Church is that life begins at the time of conception.
This is why they fight against Plan-B, although the drug may delay or prevent egg release it will also prevent a released egg from implanting in the uterus.
Thus it is an “abortive” in their view as mentioned previously.
My main issue with his first claim was the “never” claim.
Actually, they invented the concept.
Small poor towns like Seattle or Vancouver Washington?
They just acquired Swedish, in the part of the city I live in, unless I need a trauma center I will be sent to a Catholic facility, they are slowly taking on more and more of the Catholic restrictions.
In relation to DNR the Catholic position is that if there is reasonable hope that resuscitation would preserve the patient’s life, and that to do so would not represent an undue burden to the patient, then resuscitation would be part of the minimum standard of care despite the wishes of the patient.
Also most DNR living wills also include DNI which is exactly you are talking about.
Obviously they will not agree to follow our right to die laws, the acquired facilities will still advice it is a right but I expect that to change as the church takes more control over time.
http://www.azfamily.com/news/Nun-excommunicated-after-abortion-that-saved-womans-life-93995789.html
And yes, they will not provide those services to non-Catholics so the restrictions are on non-members also.
Cite for refusal to do abortions.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nicolebrodeur/2016564664_nicole21m.html
OK. You are saying that services that they refuse to provide to Catholics are also refused to non-Catholics.
The way you phrased the statement appeared to be saying that they would simply never serve non-Catholics for any services.
As to the DNR, Catholic hospitals do not have conservative theologians on staff who vet all diagnoses and prescribed treatment. No bishop is hovering over the nurses’ stations making sure that every possible effort is made to keep every patient alive. (The bishops I know would not even consider that sort of intrusive involvement.) DNI is a different situation, but DNR, (and even the use of opiates at levels that will suppress breathing in cases of extreme pain), are routine.
A link to show this is not just a local issue.
Most resuscitation involves intubation these days.
I provided a cite where they do have conservative theologians that will punish and excommunicate healthcare workers for breaking doctrine after the fact, that will have a chilling effect.
Intentionally letting a woman die vs. preforming a medically necessary abortion, or refusing to tie the tubes of a woman who had a C section and needs them tied for medical reasons is refusing service.
No. You provided a citation to a specific case in which a very conservative bishop, told by a third party about an abortion several weeks after the fact, decided that the decision was wrong and that the action resulted in excommunication for any Catholics involved. Several of the Catholic administrators and members of the ethics committee disagreed with the bishop. (In a fight, he wins; I am not denying that.) There was no conservative theologian hovering around the hospital looking to make judgment calls on hospital practices.
“Intentionally letting a woman die vs. performing a medically necessary abortion” is the stuff of fiction. In the Phoenix case, an extremely rare situation was decided in one direction by the medical staff (including the hospital’s ethics committee), and judged differently by the bishop.
I am not going to second guess the medical staff, but the news stories do not indicate that the patient was in imminent danger of death, only that the medical team feared that the pregnancy would kill her. The situation was tragic in either case, but procedures to save the mother that result in the death of the baby are undertaken in many cases in church hospitals.
It is the church’s position that one may not kill the baby. It is also the church’s position that a procedure to save the mother that results in the baby’s death is tragic but allowed. The problem in this instance was that the mother was not at the point of death, so the abortion was the only procedure undertaken.
This case was sufficiently rare, that one cannot extrapolate from it to a general situation. In general, women are not going to be left to die simply to avoid performing an abortion. It has not happened in the past, (old Tom Tryon movies notwithstanding), and it will not happen in the future. One may disagree with Bishop Olmstead’s decision, but that case is not one that allows a generalization about church practices.
I am not sure what this has to do with anything. People are removed from vents and allowed to die in Catholic hospitals all the time. They have been since the 1950s.
It does not matter how rare it is, although I would like a cite that this was the only and last time it has ever happened.
It does not change that due to a theological policy the woman would be dead as well as the baby. That may fit within what is right and correct in your world view, in my mind assigning someone to death without cause is morally repugnant.
I am not sure why their moral choice to allow that woman to die is valid but a secular persons opinion that it is pure and unadulterated evil to do so is not.
As for the chilling effect of “one rogue” Bishop, why was he not censured if he was Rogue?
it is not as rare as you claim
Are you looking to empty your barn of all that straw with which you are building your straw men?
I never said that this was the only time that a Catholic has gotten in trouble with a bishop for making a particular medical decision. I note only that the situation was sufficiently rare that no general practices–no “chilling effect”–is liable to result.
That the woman and baby would both be dead is speculation. That the woman would have died, at all, is speculation.
I have no desire to condemn the people who made the decision that was carried out. I do not have enough medical knowledge to argue that better choices were available. I do not necessarily agree with the bishop.
My point was and is that taking an extremely rare event with a peculiar set of circumstances and trying to generalize future actions from it is illogical and generally wrong.
Your claim that the bishop was “rogue” is in your imagination. Probably many bishops would have reacted in the same way to this peculiar event. I note two things:
the RCC did not and does not have political officers roaming the halls to ensure that all procedures are in strict accord with Vatican policy;
this event was sufficiently rare that it is not possible to legitimately extrapolate that women are going to begin dying off from neglect in Catholic hospitals.
That an increase of Catholic hospital corporations might begin to impinge on the ability of women in remote locations to obtain Constitutionally permitted abortions, tubal ligations, etc. would seem to be a legitimate concern for people who want those procedures available.
Making claims that the expansion of such systems is going to cause widespread misery and death are exaggerated.