Nun excommunicated for allowing abortion to save the life of a mother

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AGDee

http://www.examiner.com/x-27298-Indi...Holy-Eucharist

That is the problem, posted above. If you believe that, you cannot accept another denomination, even if you don't believe in all the man made rules the Catholic church has (birth control, abortion, etc).

Oh thank ye. I didn't feel like getting into the details but that article does an excellent job.

[dekeguy]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

The Episcopal Church is much the same. There is even a term for Episcopalians who still follow most of the beliefs of the RC church.

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

Yes, Lord Peter Wimsey described them as "Roaming Catholics" although the usual rendition is "Anglo-Catholics".

[dekeguy]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

But RC's believe that communion is only valid at a RC Church (or an Orthodox church but that's not reciprocal). There are certainly strong similarities but if you truly believe the dogma then there is no substitution.

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

Actually, that might be drawing the line a bit too restrictively. The (RC) Church recognizes the validity of the sacraments if the celebrant is in recognized Holy Orders. This would include all of the Oriental Rites of the Church which are in Communion with Rome. Also recognized (but not reciprocal) are Western rite churches not in communion with Rome such as Old Catholic, Polish National Catholic, and other break away sects which have been careful to preserve the validity of their Holy Orders through Apostolic Succession. Anglican orders are somewhat difficult in that many Curch of England Bishops and Priests were influenced by the Oxford Movement of the nineteenth century and arranged to be "re-ordained and re-consecrated" by Bishops of Orthodox and valid but schismatic churches. Anglican clergy tracing their orders to these Oxford Movement re-consecrated bishops are viewed as being in valid holy orders but not in communion with Rome.
It is interesting to note that the late Pope John Paul II invited Anglicans to receive RC Communion when in areas where it was not reasonably convenient to attend Anglican services. In the case of recognized Anglican clergy it would appear that this is a major move towards inter-communion.
Thoughts?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

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

Actually, that might be drawing the line a bit too restrictively. The (RC) Church recognizes the validity of the sacraments if the celebrant is in recognized Holy Orders. This would include all of the Oriental Rites of the Church which are in Communion with Rome. Also recognized (but not reciprocal) are Western rite churches not in communion with Rome such as Old Catholic, Polish National Catholic, and other break away sects which have been careful to preserve the validity of their Holy Orders through Apostolic Succession. Anglican orders are somewhat difficult in that many Curch of England Bishops and Priests were influenced by the Oxford Movement of the nineteenth century and arranged to be "re-ordained and re-consecrated" by Bishops of Orthodox and valid but schismatic churches. Anglican clergy tracing their orders to these Oxford Movement re-consecrated bishops are viewed as being in valid holy orders but not in communion with Rome.
It is interesting to note that the late Pope John Paul II invited Anglicans to receive RC Communion when in areas where it was not reasonably convenient to attend Anglican services. In the case of recognized Anglican clergy it would appear that this is a major move towards inter-communion.
Thoughts?

True points, although I would find taking communion at a church where the acceptance was not reciprocal to be a violation of their hospitality.

I'm not sure if it will lead toward intercommunion or if, following the current social and political developments of the Anglican/Episcopalian church(s?) it won't now instead lead to encouraged conversion to RCatholicism by conservative Anglicans and then a discouragement of cross-communion.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

It is interesting to note that the late Pope John Paul II invited Anglicans to receive RC Communion when in areas where it was not reasonably convenient to attend Anglican services. In the case of recognized Anglican clergy it would appear that this is a major move towards inter-communion.
Thoughts?

Isn't the general canon law that, under extraordinary circumstances, the bishop may give permission for any Christian not in full communion with Rome may receive communion in a Catholic church provided (1) they believe what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the Holy Eucharist and (2) they are deprived of access to a church of their own communion for a significant period of time?

Originally Posted by Drolefille

True points, although I would find taking communion at a church where the acceptance was not reciprocal to be a violation of their hospitality.

In the Presbyterian Church, any baptized Christian may take communion. In our congregation on occasions where it is known that more than the usual likelihood of visiters exists (like confirmation), it will be made clear that "those under a sprirtual discipline that would prevent receiving communion in a Presbyterian church" may come forward for a blessing. FWIW.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

In the Presbyterian Church, any baptized Christian may take communion. In our congregation on occasions where it is known that more than the usual likelihood of visiters exists (like confirmation), it will be made clear that "those under a sprirtual discipline that would prevent receiving communion in a Presbyterian church" may come forward for a blessing. FWIW.

Non-Catholics have the same option in Catholic churches. Anytime you walk up with your arms crossed over your chest (not necessarily all the way down the aisle but right before you get the priest or extraordinary minister) you get a blessing instead of a wafer.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Stricly speaking in the Episcopal Church it is open to all baptized Christians. However some churches, mine included, have it open to anybody called to receive. If you choose not to, same thing with the blessing.

[Drolefille]

Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over surgery

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix stripped a major hospital of its affiliation with the church Tuesday because of a surgery that ended a woman's pregnancy to save her life.

Bishop Thomas Olmsted called the 2009 procedure an abortion and said St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center - recognized internationally for its neurology and neurosurgery practices - violated ethical and religious directives of the national Conference of Catholic Bishops.

"In the decision to abort, the equal dignity of mother and her baby were not both upheld," Olmsted said at a news conference announcing the decision. "The mother had a disease that needed to be treated. But instead of treating the disease, St. Joseph's medical staff and ethics committee decided that the healthy, 11-week-old baby should be directly killed."

...

St. Joseph's does not receive direct funding from the church, but in addition to losing its Catholic endorsement, the 697-bed hospital will no longer be able to celebrate Mass and must remove the Blessed Sacrament from its chapel.

Hunt said the hospital will comply with Olmsted's decision but it will continue to operate under Catholic guidelines.

"We will continue in the Catholic heritage through words and deeds," she said. "We have removed the Blessed Sacrament from our tabernacle, we will have no Masses, but priests will see patients. We are still a hospital."

...

Olmsted's announcement came after months of talks between the Diocese, the hospital and the hospital's parent company, Catholic Healthcare West.

Dr. Charles Alfano, chief medical officer at the hospital and an obstetrician there, said Olmsted was asking the impossible from the hospital.

"Specifically the fact that he requested we admit the procedure performed was an abortion and that it was a violation of the ethical and religious directives and that we would not perform such a procedure in the future," he said. "We could not agree to that. We acted appropriately."

The rest at the source.

@ the bold:
There was a nearly 100% chance of death without the abortion in this case. I've looked all over on this case and not seen a single suggestion of alternative treatment for the woman other than a few suggestions of trying to "deliver" an 11 week old fetus which were not made by medical professionals and is implausible due to the size of the fetus and uterus.

I think the biggest shame here is that the chapel can no longer be used for Masses despite the fact that Mass can be performed in completely unaffiliated airport chapels. I don't think that the hospital itself will suffer.