[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Beryana

But medicine does have morals and ethics, correct? Upon what are those based? are they just arbitrary or is there reasons behind them? Catholic social teachings are no different.

No ones morals or ethics are arbitrary. Catholic social teachings are based specifically on theology and tradition. Medical morals and ethics may have been influenced by religious teachings - though based in the Classical tradition - but have, in my opinion, grown more and been more willing to change as society and science have. Whether that is positive or not is a matter of opinion.

[QUOTE=dekeguy;1932309]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Raised Roman Catholic, attended Catholic grade school, High School, and attended a Jesuit University. My Catholic cred is solid, yo. But most people here know that at least to some extent so I don't mind sharing.

==============================

You have very solid cred.
In my case I was raised, still practicing, and convinced RC, Catholic Parochial School, Jesuit High School (except for two years at Eton), Jesuit University,
active with Jesuit community at Campion Hall when I was doing an MA in comparative law at Oxford, and still an active parishoner and usher at Farm Street Jesuit Church when I am in London. While I was in Law School I was active in a Jesuit parish attached to another Jesuit University. Oro pro Societas!

While moderately conservative I tend to think that God the Father, who we have been urged by Christ to address as 'Abba', which is the Aramaic diminuative form of Father, better translated as 'Daddy', is not terribly preoccupied with condemning his children. I suspect that one would have to be ESSENTIALLY negative to face serious sanction. I use 'Essentially' in the Thomistic sense here.
I suggest we might kick this around a bit as I would like to hear your take on not only this but broader related issues as well.

I tend to agree with you although quite frankly I'm up in the air about my personal beliefs at this point. I think, baptised or not, most people are pretty good people. Short minded and selfish at times, but few are cruel and few deserve afterlives of eternal torment/absence from the presence of God. However, looking biblically there's such a contrast between OT God and NT God that while Jesus talked about Abba, the Hebrews... well not so much.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Medical ethics are based on an understanding of the medical issues. The problem with slapping a basic religious tenet onto a complex medical issue is that it becomes arbitrary as I have easily pointed out. In the end, people terminate their ectopic pregnancies and just fall in under the "all ectopics are the same" mentality that protects them from being excommunicated. In actuality, they are no different than the women in the case we are discussing from the beginning. I understand that the church has to evolve over time, but using Thomas Aquinas to determine how to categorize medical therapies that didn't exist during his time is strange. How about we have some current church leaders put in some thought on the matter?

Mostly because to them at least the ethics is the same, the current leaders typically base their logic on the great theologians from the past. And remember, if you're a priest/brother/sister in the Church, speaking out and supporting something like abortion puts you in a position of being excommunicated. Not that there haven't been theologians who've discussed these things, they're just not in charge and possibly not listened to.

[QUOTE=dekeguy;1932328]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Yikes. There's just way too much gender in there. Cringe.
======================

Last time I looked Jesus was a Man, and the last time I prayed the Lord's Prayer it began "Our Father Who art in heaven..."

Seems to me that it is kind of hard to ignore gender when discussing Christianity considering that we believe Jesus to be the "only begotten Son of God".

Gender neutrality seems oddly placed in a discussion regarding a Son who tells us of a loving Father we should think of as our Daddy.

Just as a side thought, I always tended to think that since we are told that we were made in the image and likeness of God then it seems to me that God the Holy Spirit should be seen as the female aspect of God. We are male and female and we are made in the image and likeness, so, doesn't it follow?

Jesus is obviously male. I instinctively refer to God as male because, well I grew up that way, but as the Holy spirit is never drawn as a female figure, most of the feminine divine ends up placed on Mary, although never enough to have her raised to the level of deity herself of course.

The Church's teachings on Mary are another sticky point I have, but that's a story for another thread.

Originally Posted by dekeguy

=======================

Dr Phil,

Entirely possible. Infallibility is not my strong suit. Where did I screw up?

Make sure your quotes have (/quote) at the end, but replace the parentheses with the square brackets.