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

[Beryana]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Thanks for the explanation, it doesn't really answer my question, but basically that is the problem when you let people trained in areas other than medicine make decisions involving very complicated medical problems. These justifications are very simplistic and self-serving. Medically, the distinctions are meaningless.

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.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Thanks for the explanation, it doesn't really answer my question, but basically that is the problem when you let people trained in areas other than medicine make decisions involving very complicated medical problems. These justifications are very simplistic and self-serving. Medically, the distinctions are meaningless.

Yes medically the distinctions are meaningless. But this is more about what the moral and ethical choice is. What about doctors that refuse to perform abortions for instance?

[dekeguy]

[QUOTE=Drolefille;1932271] 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.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Yes medically the distinctions are meaningless. But this is more about what the moral and ethical choice is. What about doctors that refuse to perform abortions for instance?

Doctors who perform terminations for ectopics and other early pregnancies to save the mother's life do not call them abortions. Most OB-GYNs do NOT perform abortions but do perform these necessary procedures for their patients.

[AOII Angel]

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.

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?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Beryana

And I have never alluded to being an expert on Catholic Theology and definitely not on Canon Law. However, I am amused by those who DO feel they know both topics very well. I am a lowly graduate student in Catholic Theology. For the most part, I'm staying out of this conversation as I have had experience with the other players in this conversation (and have also deleted many of the posts which I WAS going to post) and despite my belief that I have a firm grasp on Catholic social teachings many of those involved in this conversation are set in their beliefs that some of the teachings of the Catholic Church are antiquated.

If you really care to know what the Catholic Church teaches, or even the systems in place for dealing with various wrongdoings, I'm more than happy to direct you to them - and they do not include newspapers or wikipedia.

Thanks for announcing this. Woohoo.

Originally Posted by Beryana

(And it doesn't take too much effort to figure out that I am a 'she'. . . .)

More effort than it's worth, but thanks for letting me know.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

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.

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

(Since this thread is about a bunch of stuff.)

[Psi U MC Vito]

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?

Well the modern Catholic Church has been known for a while being rather hide bound. And there is a difference I think between a standard tubal pregnancy and this case. But you never answered our question. You said that medical ethics are all about medical decisions? Then explain why my friends can't get their tubes tied for instance.

[dekeguy]

[QUOTE=Beryana;1932303] For the most part, I'm staying out of this conversation as I have had experience with the other players in this conversation (and have also deleted many of the posts which I WAS going to post) and despite my belief that I have a firm grasp on Catholic social teachings many of those involved in this conversation are set in their beliefs that some of the teachings of the Catholic Church are antiquated.

==============
Beryana,

Please don't stay out of this conversation. You surely have an excellent and current knowledge of RC teachings and the structure by which the Church imparts her teachings.

So many people have little or no understanding of the 'why' behind the practices and teachings of the Church that your cred as a grad student in Theology could be a great way to explain so many aspects of Catholocism to all of us. Last time I looked I was neither a moral theologian nor the Pontifax Maximus so I for one would really appreciate your take on this and broader issues.
By the way, are you lay or religious? I am lay, sed oro pro Societas.

[DrPhil]

dekeguy, Jesus weeps when you don't quote properly.

[dekeguy]

[QUOTE=DrPhil;1932317]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?

[dekeguy]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

dekeguy, Jesus weeps when you don't quote properly.

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

Dr Phil,

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

[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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Actually a interesting question. Of those who posted in this thread, how many actually are or were Roman Catholics?

As I have said, not me. It's been a while, but I've noted before that I'm a life-long Presbyterian, and I inherited that historical (and now faded) Presbyterian penchant for valuing solid theological and ecclesiological study among the laity.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Or studied Catholicism for some reason?

This = me, and I have no problem at all with someone telling me I'm getting it wrong.

Beryana, please contribute to the conversation. But please don't assume that others who may not be Catholic are just relying on the newspapers or the Wiki. No need to be amused.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

I have to admit that this claim always bothers me. The "NT God" that Jesus talks about can be found all through the OT, the psalms and the prophets in particular. Meanwhile, the "OT God" sure seems to make an appearance in Revelation and elsewhere in the NT.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Well the modern Catholic Church has been known for a while being rather hide bound. And there is a difference I think between a standard tubal pregnancy and this case. But you never answered our question. You said that medical ethics are all about medical decisions? Then explain why my friends can't get their tubes tied for instance.

Bold- There is a difference. It's a different diagnosis. The way they are the same is that both will kill the mother, and both require a termination of the pregnancy to save the life of the mother. By calling it a "salpingectomy", catholics have given themselves a little out, like, oh, I'm not really terminating the pregnancy, I'm just cutting out the fallopian tube. No, you are cutting out the misplaced (ectopic) pregnancy that is growing into the wrong structures and threatening to KILL the mother. Ectopic pregnancies are not always in the fallopian tubes either. They can occur on the ovary, in the peritoneal cavity, in the junction between the fallopian tube and uterus. You don't always have to remove another structure to remove the ectopic, either. It is an abortion.

Underline- I don't understand your question.