Wow... Have you even tried to read the OP and the rest of the post, or did you see the title and just thought: "What the hell, I'll make an (un)educated guess"?
It was a medically necessary abortion, she was brought to that hospital because it's a medical emergency and thus she had no time to go to another one. Now read the thread and then post again.
My turn to ask "Wow... Have you even tried to read the OP and the rest of the post, or did you see the title and just thought: "What the hell, I'll make an (un)educated guess""
Mostly because you are perpetuating the falsehood that she was brought to that hospital because it's a medical emergency and thus she had no time to go to another one.
Because, at least the first time she went, she did have time to go to another one. They sent her home and she came back the next day. The discussion about ambulances always taking you to the nearest hospital is relevant to the overall issue, but *not* to the specific case.
Wow... Have you even tried to read the OP and the rest of the post, or did you see the title and just thought: "What the hell, I'll make an (un)educated guess"?
It was a medically necessary abortion, she was brought to that hospital because it's a medical emergency and thus she had no time to go to another one. Now read the thread and then post again.
My turn to ask "Wow... Have you even tried to read the OP and the rest of the post, or did you see the title and just thought: "What the hell, I'll make an (un)educated guess""
Mostly because you are perpetuating the falsehood that she was brought to that hospital because it's a medical emergency and thus she had no time to go to another one.
Because, at least the first time she went, she did have time to go to another one. They sent her home and she came back the next day. The discussion about ambulances always taking you to the nearest hospital is relevant to the overall issue, but *not* to the specific case.
I did read the thread. And we're talking about a woman almost giving birth. Yes, a posteriori we can easily say she would've made it to another hospital, but given that she did not know so at the time, I can hardly blame her for not driving and X amount of time to the next-nearest hospital.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
My turn to ask "Wow... Have you even tried to read the OP and the rest of the post, or did you see the title and just thought: "What the hell, I'll make an (un)educated guess""
Mostly because you are perpetuating the falsehood that she was brought to that hospital because it's a medical emergency and thus she had no time to go to another one.
Because, at least the first time she went, she did have time to go to another one. They sent her home and she came back the next day. The discussion about ambulances always taking you to the nearest hospital is relevant to the overall issue, but *not* to the specific case.
Yeah, it is absolutely her fault that they deceived her about her medical status.
She could have gone elsewhere to get her abortion, except she was never informed she had a high risk of dying if she didn't get one. That is the hospitals fault and whoever is in charge of making their policies.
She could have gone elsewhere to get her abortion, except she was never informed she had a high risk of dying if she didn't get one. That is the hospitals fault and whoever is in charge of making their policies.
I don't think I've seen anyone here arguing to the contrary. At the veyr least, I haven't been.
Well the question is certainly "Why did they refuse to perform an abortion themselves?"
Any and all doctors and hospitals are well within their rights to refuse to perform abortions. Some states require that doctors and hospitals doing so refer the patient to one willing to, but thats a separate issue.
Indeed, usually one reason for deviating from "standard procedure" is because of a unique case in the patient. More recently, it's being used by pediatricians; your unvaccinated son because you fear TEH AUTIZM!!!1 is a biological time bomb and should not be allowed near other children, thank you very much.
And, what would that case be? Let's assume we have a directive from the conference stating "No Catholic Hosptials are permitted to perform abortions or refer patients to abortion providers".
Keeping in mind that most Catholic hospitals are not under the control of the Conference of bishops (they have their own governing boards), and look to the conference for ethical guidance, what is your legal theory for liability of the conference of Catholic Bishops?
Edit: I'm trying to find out if this specific one is owned by the Catholic Church or not, but I don't have the time to do the required digging right now. I suppose that would be a difference. If it has it's own governing board and ethics board that uses the conference as a guideline, then the conference wouldn't be liable under any theory I can think of.
Money can influence people, though. The US doesn't let AIDS groups receiving money give condoms to prostitutes, even though prostitutes being able to insist their clients use condoms would go a long way to fighting AIDS.
I thought any and all doctors were supposed to "do no harm." Ignoring complications and refusing to perform a procedure that could avoid them sounds quite relevant to me.
So many vows, they make you swear and swear. Do no harm, but this drug could kill the patient if he ODs on it. Don't perform procedures without informed consent, but save that woman who OD'd on sleeping pills's life. Then the politicians come in: Keep the patient's confidence, until the next moral panic about drugs leads to a law requiring you disclose all patients' drug history. Then the media tell your patient what they need, and suddenly a fifty-year-old diabetic male, smoker, 40 pounds overweight, blood pressure 240/90, cholesterol 230, HDL cholesterol 30, thinks vitamin pills work better than your prescription and lifestyle recommendations, and thinks vitamin pills qualify as a "lifestyle recommendation", but you never give lifestyle recommendations (other than "quit smoking, lose weight, and get to a gym"). Then come the funding issues. Suddenly abortions of any kind, even to save the mother's life, are something you're not allowed to do.
This has been not only one of the bigger fights on the abortion issue but the Obamacare issue as well. The attempt is made to either preserve or chip away at the Free Exercise Clause:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....
The article mentions the suit is against the Bishops because it's their no abortion directives hamper proper care of pregnant women in medical distress that's why it's against them and not a general malpractice suit. With the above noted Free Exercise Clause the ACLU doesn't really have much ground to stand on especially as it has a history of acting in defense of Free Exercise.
That clause. I do not think it means what you think it means. Employment Divison, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith says the free exercise clause only counts if it's not neutrally enforced.
Otherwise, at the risk of Godwin's law, the World Church of the Creator could just ride through town, pass by every synagogue, and shoot anyone they saw, because it's their religion, dammit!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
That clause. I do not think it means what you think it means. Employment Divison, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith says the free exercise clause only counts if it's not neutrally enforced.
Otherwise, at the risk of Godwin's law, the World Church of the Creator could just ride through town, pass by every synagogue, and shoot anyone they saw, because it's their religion, dammit!
I think it means exactly what I think it means. And no law is created in the American Constitutional framework that allows for wanton shooting just because of religious views, that's an egregious and completely out of touch debasement of free exercise that has no moral alignment with the clause or the rest of the foundation it springs from. Ergo, anyone suggesting something like that under the umbrella of free exercise is a complete idiot and not even worth discussing this with.
CAMILLA: You, sir, should unmask.
STRANGER: Indeed?
CASSILDA: Indeed it's time. We all have laid aside disguise but you.
STRANGER: I wear no mask.
CAMILLA: (Terrified, aside to Cassilda.) No mask? No mask!
To put this issue in perspective, if you were bleeding out and transported to a Jehovah's Witness affiliated hospital that refused to do blood transfusions on religious grounds, what would your reaction be?
FYI- Witnesses to not have a dogmatic restriction that keeps them from performing blood transfusions on non-witnesses. My charge nurse at the hospital was a Witness and we had this discussion more than once when new people found out. He performed transfusions all the time. It seems beside the point, but the reason I bring it up is that I think where the line should be drawn is at imposing your religious beliefs on a patient who does not share them (and vise versa). I am willing to respect almost any religious requirement, but this kind of medical proselytizing is irresponsible and unethical. If you serve the public then your mandate is to serve them on all legal terms, not on those that you are choosing to. If you want to be a doctor or run a hospital, then you must treat them based on their needs, if they walk in your church then you can tell them how they are going to hell.
Judaism has a basic tenet that the first obligation is always to take care of the physical body- if an ultra-orthodox Jewish Rabbi is starving and there is no other sustenance then they are not breaking any Jewish law by eating a sack full of bacon cheeseburgers. Then again, we don't believe in proselytizing under any circumstances either. I will respect your religious and ethical practices when I take care of you, and you damn well better do the same for me if you want the privilege of treating the public. If you can't respect that then find a profession or specialty where you will not be put in that situation.
There has never been (and never will be) a consensus that abortions are ever medically necessary, and I doubt there ever will be.
That is not true, there have been individual cases of necessity, and we should be treating individuals not statistics.
Taking your other example into consideration, there might be a better argument for. However, I feel that it is ANYONES right to object to performing...a procedure for religious reasions.
Then you do not deserve to have the right to take care of people outside of your faith. If you do take care of such people, then you have no right to endanger them based on your own personal beliefs. That would be forcing your beliefs on them, and the patient is the most important party in that interaction.
Actually, a doctor would be anyone who passes the required exams - what they choose to do with that is, thankfully, their choice and not something we force on them. Furthermore, several hospitals are simply not equipped to do certain procedures that may be medically necessary, perhaps they have no brain surgeon on staff.
That is utterly beside the point, small hospitals are obligated to do everything that is legal within their medical judgement to help any patient. Sometimes that means transferring a patient, but sometimes that means doing everything possible with what they have. If a patient has a negative outcome they are legally protected as long as they can show that they acted with the best intention to provide the best life saving care possible in the circumstance. Since a doctor has to be able to perform surgeries such as an abortion to get their license it is still possible for them to do in an emergency even if they are not the most qualified person. A doctor is, before anything, obligated to save the physical life of the patient they are in direct charge of and if they can't do that then they need to find another profession. Same goes for a hospital. If a patient will not survive transfer, then the facility is obliged to do what they can.
Has zero to do with hatred, nice mischaracterization there. Sanctity of life anyone? Bingo.
Catholics don't want to perform abortions, bottom line. Don't go to a Catholic Hospital if your goal is to have one.
People who are anti religious of course have no problem with attempting to dictate actions that go against religious beliefs because they just want what they want and could care less how important someones' beliefs are to them. A world full of Veruca Salts attempting to act morally outraged, hahahaha what a sham.
Nope, the Catholic Church is very anti-woman to the point of where they tell a woman to get AIDS because condoms are abortion.
It was the Church's unofficial position until the 1800s that a fetus didn't have a soul until quickening. And the modern Church jumping into bed with fascism and genocide in Europe doesn't buttress your point about "sanctity of life," unless you consider Romani, Jews, and Slavs to be non-human. These lives just weren't worth it to the Church of the 30s and 40s.
As someone who understands statistics... so what? Also, as someone who hasn't seen the data... [needs citation]. "A long history of comparativists saying ...", absent any citation, is roughly equivalent to "well, my Dad told me once that..."
No, to the Church, Condoms are a sin due to a long history of Church teaching and traditions that includes but is not limited to the story of Onan. Abortion is also a sin, but to say that the church considers abortion and condom use *the same* is factually wrong. They are both sins, yes, but they are not the same sin. Any more than lying is the same sin as sex outside of marriage.
I'm fairly certain that if you look at actual Church teachings, instead of Jack Chick [or whatever the secular version of his view on Catholicism would be], you'd find its quite a fair bit more nuanced than that.
Samuel Huntington, the father of modern American comparativism, wrote in "Political Order and Changing Societies" that the Catholic Church is correlated with authoritarianism. Examples include the Church's stance in the Revolutions of 1848, jumping in bed with fascists in the 20s and 30s, and the inherent authoritarianism in canon law and papal infallibility.
The Church considers coitus interruptus the same as an abortion, anything that interferes with the making of babies is a mortal sin. Mortal sins are different from venial sins in that mortal sins are unforgivable and a blatant violation of God's law, as opposed to venial sins. Mortal sins result in the spiritual death of the soul. When a religion's role for a woman is to shut up in Church, submit to her husband, and produce a lot of babies, you can see why these are mortal sins.
The Church's "ancient" justification for making contraception a mortal sin is that the Romans viewed babies as worthless until the 4th day, when he or she received a soul. It was quite legal in ancient Rome to dump babies in the sewers before the 4th day.
I was raised in the faith and one of the members of my graduate committee was an established Catholic political theorist, so the idea that I learned about Catholicism from evangelical tracts is hilarious.
Nope, the Catholic Church is very anti-woman to the point of where they tell a woman to get AIDS because condoms are abortion.
The point is moot. It remains moot and will continue to be moot. You want to know why because if the Catholicism means enough for you to follow it you are most probably going to accept the doctrine of celibacy (Something which Catholicism is big on.) as well making the chances of contracting an std by sexual means less likely.
If you are a lifelong adherent to Catholicism or in other words do what the Pope wants you to do you are either going to have...
1) No partner and no sex
2) One partner and no sex
3) One partner and as many times sex as you have children ie 1 - 5 times
So how anyone can think that any of that promotes the spread of std's is beyond me. This is off course predicated on actually following the teachings of Catholicism which is assumed if you want to make the argument that something a church teaches is bad for the people who follow it.
To think that any institution that has the doctrine of celibacy not just until marriage but even in a round about way in marriage as well promotes the spreading of any STD's is unfair to the point of being ridiculous. OK I get it a lot of people do not like churches but is it too much to ask that the criticism they level be at least rooted in reality?
Samuel Huntington, the father of modern American comparativism, wrote in "Political Order and Changing Societies" that the Catholic Church is correlated with authoritarianism. Examples include the Church's stance in the Revolutions of 1848, jumping in bed with fascists in the 20s and 30s, and the inherent authoritarianism in canon law and papal infallibility.
Again, as someone who knows statistics... so what? You've been arguing correlation. By the same token, were you aware that intelligence is directly correlated with shoe size? The bigger your shoe size the smarter you get.
The reason for the correlation in my example is because infants don't tend to be very smart, while adults do. In other words, the two facts are correlated not because one causes the other (as I implied with my phrasing), but because they have a common cause.
The point being that simply stating that "there is a long history of comparativists saying that Catholicism is correlated with authoritarian regimes:" is meaningless because it fails to establish any causation. Also becasue it fails to say what "correlated with" means in this case.
Does it mean that the Church tends to increas in power as authoritarian regimes increase in power?
Does it mean that the Church tends to support authoritarian regimes? In which case "correlates" is the wrong word to use.
The Church considers coitus interruptus the same as an abortion, anything that interferes with the making of babies is a mortal sin.
The Church considers contraception as being in the same *category* of sins as abortion (mortal sins). It does not consider them to be the *same* sin. Abortion is the act of taking another human life. Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14)
Thus, as I said, they are not the same sin. Any more than using contraception and murder are "the same". Or contraception and blasphemy are "the same".
Mortal sins are different from venial sins in that mortal sins are unforgivable and a blatant violation of God's law, as opposed to venial sins. Mortal sins result in the spiritual death of the soul. When a religion's role for a woman is to shut up in Church, submit to her husband, and produce a lot of babies, you can see why these are mortal sins.
What's more, you show a further lack of understanding of catholic doctrine in your assertion that mortal sins are unforgivable. In point of fact, a mortal sin is a sin which will condemn a person to hell if they die in a state of unrepentance. ("To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him forever by our own free choice" (CCC 1033).) In contrast, a venial sin does not condemn a person to hell.
You further show a lack of understanding of Catholic teaching, or at least a very uncharitable interpretation of it (see below about Jack Chick) when you say the Church considers the role of women to be "to shut up in Church, submit to her husband, and produce a lot of babies."
I was raised in the faith and one of the members of my graduate committee was an established Catholic political theorist, so the idea that I learned about Catholicism from evangelical tracts is hilarious.
I'm fairly convinced that Jack Chick and his organization actually knows a *lot* about the Catholic Church. It's how he's able to convince so many people (and he has convinced a lot of people) that the Church is "evil". He has just enough stuff correct, that the wrong stuff doesn't look so wrong.
It's the same tactic that you are employing (whether wittingly or not) here, which was the comparison I was making. I don't think you actually learned it from Jack Chick.
(As a side note, do you have a link to something describing what a "comparativist" is? All I can find is a dictionary link that links back to com·par·a·tist noun \kəm-ˈper-ə-tist, -ˈpa-rə-\
: one that uses a comparative method (as in the study of literature) which is obviously not what you mean)
3) One partner and as many times sex as you have children ie 1 - 5 times
That's not even remotely true. Catholics can have plenty of sex in marriage and have no kids and be following Church teaching just fine. Natural family planning (aka tracking when the woman is fertile and when she isn't, and planning accordingly) is one way. Plain bad luck is another way.
The Catholic Church does not teach that you must have a child every time you have sex. It teaches that you must not act (attempt) to make it physiologically impossible when you have sex. The later is contraception.
And the modern Church jumping into bed with fascism and genocide in Europe doesn't buttress your point about "sanctity of life," unless you consider Romani, Jews, and Slavs to be non-human. These lives just weren't worth it to the Church of the 30s and 40s.
I assume you are referring to Corwell's book "Hitler's Pope" and Pope Pius XII? (If not, please correct me).
If I'm correct, and you are referring to Cornwell, and the general theories he presented, note that "[Cornwell] has moderated some of his allegations, since publication of the book. In 2004, Cornwell stated that Pius XII "had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by Germany." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_Pope
And, from the criticisms section in the wiki entry on Hitler's pope (id.):
"A major response to Hitler's Pope came from University of Mississippi law professor Ronald J. Rychlak in his 2000 book on the subject, Hitler, the War, and the Pope.[19] Rychlak was acknowledged by the Vatican to have been given special access to their closed archives for his research.[citation needed] [check quotation syntax][check quotation syntax] Rychlak disagreed with Cornwell's claim of having found a "time bomb letter", arguing that the letter in question had actually been written not by Pacelli but by his assistant, and moreover had been fully published and discussed in a 1992 book by Emma Fattorini (a highly respected docent at the University of Rome).[20] With respect to Cornwell's allegations of antisemitism, Rychlak stated that "When Pius XII died in 1958, there were tributes from virtually every Jewish group around the world".[21][22]
Rychlak also alleged that Cornwell manipulated the photograph on the front cover of the American edition of the book, and incorrectly dated the photo as having been taken in March 1939, the month that Pacelli was made Pope. Rychlak charged that this had been deliberately in order to give the impression that Pius had just visited Hitler when, in fact, the photo had been taken in 1927 as Pius was leaving a reception held for German President Paul von Hindenburg.[23] Robert Royal has also repeated this allegation.[24]
In his 2005 book The Myth of Hitler's Pope, the historian and rabbi David G. Dalin countered Cornwell.[25] Dalin suggested that Yad Vashem should honor Pope Pius XII as a "Righteous Gentile," concluding that "[t]he anti-papal polemics of ex-seminarians like Garry Wills and John Cornwell...of ex-priests like James Carroll, and or other lapsed or angry liberal Catholics exploit the tragedy of the Jewish people during the Holocaust to foster their own political agenda of forcing changes on the Catholic Church today."[26] Dalin called the book's conclusions "unverified" and "strongly anti-religious".[27] Eugene Fisher, who has a PhD in Hebrew culture and education, said it was a "sad commentary on the secular media that this anti-Catholic screed was ever published".[27]
In his book The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice, Philip Jenkins said that Hitler's Pope could not be understood except as a series of "very low blows against the modern Catholic Church, and specifically the papacy of John Paul II."[28]
Ken Woodward, writing in Newsweek, stated that Hitler's Pope has "errors of fact and ignorance of context [that] appear on almost every page."[29]
In an historical assessment of Pope Pius XII, the Encyclopedia Britannica addressed Conrnwell's book in the following terms: "John Cornwell's controversial book on Pius, Hitler's Pope (1999), characterized him as anti-Semitic. [The depiction], however, lack[s] credible substantiation". The Encyclopedia further assessed his role in aiding Jews during the Holocaust as follows: "Although he allowed the national hierarchies to assess and respond to the situation in their countries, he established the Vatican Information Service to provide aid to, and information about, thousands of war refugees and instructed the church to provide discreet aid to Jews, which quietly saved thousands of lives".[30]
3) One partner and as many times sex as you have children ie 1 - 5 times
That's not even remotely true. Catholics can have plenty of sex in marriage and have no kids and be following Church teaching just fine. Natural family planning (aka tracking when the woman is fertile and when she isn't, and planning accordingly) is one way. Plain bad luck is another way.
The Catholic Church does not teach that you must have a child every time you have sex. It teaches that you must not act (attempt) to make it physiologically impossible when you have sex. The later is contraception.
No really it is.
Although all three principal discussions of marriage in the New Testament (Matthew 19, I Corinthians 7, and Ephesians 5) omit any reference to generating children, later Catholic moral doctrine consistently emphasized that the only proper purpose of sexual relations was to conceive children.[14] During the entire Middle Ages, the question of when intercourse was allowed and when it was not, was very important. Intercourse was banned on all Sundays and all the many feast days, as well as the 20 days before Christmas, the 40 days before Easter, and often the 20 days before Pentecost, as well as three or more days before receiving Communion (which at that time was offered only a few times a year). These forbidden days altogether totaled about 40% of each year.[15] Penalties of 20 to 40 days of strict fasting on bread and water were imposed on transgressors. Clergy routinely warned believers that children conceived on holy days would be born leprous, epileptic, diabolically possessed, blind, or crippled. Intercourse was also forbidden during the menstrual period and pregnancy, partly out of concern for protecting the fetus. Pope Gregory I decreed abstinence should continue until a baby was weaned. Because intercourse was only allowed for procreative reasons, various penitentials (rule books) also forbade intercourse between sterile or older partners, although never assigning a penalty. Oral and anal intercourse were often punished by more years of penance than for premeditated murder, as they prevented conception from occurring.[16] Although practice varied, menstruating women were often forbidden to attend Mass or receive Communion, and women who died in childbirth could not be buried until they had undergone a purifying ritual to forgive their sexual activity.[17] Canon law until 1917 labeled contraception as murder.[18]
3) One partner and as many times sex as you have children ie 1 - 5 times
That's not even remotely true. Catholics can have plenty of sex in marriage and have no kids and be following Church teaching just fine. Natural family planning (aka tracking when the woman is fertile and when she isn't, and planning accordingly) is one way. Plain bad luck is another way.
The Catholic Church does not teach that you must have a child every time you have sex. It teaches that you must not act (attempt) to make it physiologically impossible when you have sex. The later is contraception.
No really it is.
Although all three principal discussions of marriage in the New Testament (Matthew 19, I Corinthians 7, and Ephesians 5) omit any reference to generating children, later Catholic moral doctrine consistently emphasized that the only proper purpose of sexual relations was to conceive children.[14] During the entire Middle Ages, the question of when intercourse was allowed and when it was not, was very important. Intercourse was banned on all Sundays and all the many feast days, as well as the 20 days before Christmas, the 40 days before Easter, and often the 20 days before Pentecost, as well as three or more days before receiving Communion (which at that time was offered only a few times a year). These forbidden days altogether totaled about 40% of each year.[15] Penalties of 20 to 40 days of strict fasting on bread and water were imposed on transgressors. Clergy routinely warned believers that children conceived on holy days would be born leprous, epileptic, diabolically possessed, blind, or crippled. Intercourse was also forbidden during the menstrual period and pregnancy, partly out of concern for protecting the fetus. Pope Gregory I decreed abstinence should continue until a baby was weaned. Because intercourse was only allowed for procreative reasons, various penitentials (rule books) also forbade intercourse between sterile or older partners, although never assigning a penalty. Oral and anal intercourse were often punished by more years of penance than for premeditated murder, as they prevented conception from occurring.[16] Although practice varied, menstruating women were often forbidden to attend Mass or receive Communion, and women who died in childbirth could not be buried until they had undergone a purifying ritual to forgive their sexual activity.[17] Canon law until 1917 labeled contraception as murder.[18]
I do not know if you think I'm anti Catholic Blatch but I just want to tell you I'm not.
I know you aren't. That doesn't exempt you from being wrong about Catholic teaching though. This is a case where you are wrong. Whether it did historically or not, the Church does not currently teach that sex in an infertile married couple is wrong. It also doesn't teach that if your sex didn't lead to a baby, you sinned.
I'm not sure how much you know about the reproductive process, but lots of people who actively try to have kids have sex for a while before they manage to actually get pregnant. Heck, my parents decided two years after I was born that they wanted another child. My younger brother is 5 years younger than me. Do the math.
Again, as someone who knows statistics... so what? You've been arguing correlation. By the same token, were you aware that intelligence is directly correlated with shoe size? The bigger your shoe size the smarter you get.
The reason for the correlation in my example is because infants don't tend to be very smart, while adults do. In other words, the two facts are correlated not because one causes the other (as I implied with my phrasing), but because they have a common cause.
The point being that simply stating that "there is a long history of comparativists saying that Catholicism is correlated with authoritarian regimes:" is meaningless because it fails to establish any causation. Also becasue it fails to say what "correlated with" means in this case.
Does it mean that the Church tends to increas in power as authoritarian regimes increase in power?
Does it mean that the Church tends to support authoritarian regimes? In which case "correlates" is the wrong word to use.
The Church considers contraception as being in the same *category* of sins as abortion (mortal sins). It does not consider them to be the *same* sin. Abortion is the act of taking another human life. Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14)
Thus, as I said, they are not the same sin. Any more than using contraception and murder are "the same". Or contraception and blasphemy are "the same".
What's more, you show a further lack of understanding of catholic doctrine in your assertion that mortal sins are unforgivable. In point of fact, a mortal sin is a sin which will condemn a person to hell if they die in a state of unrepentance. ("To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him forever by our own free choice" (CCC 1033).) In contrast, a venial sin does not condemn a person to hell.
You further show a lack of understanding of Catholic teaching, or at least a very uncharitable interpretation of it (see below about Jack Chick) when you say the Church considers the role of women to be "to shut up in Church, submit to her husband, and produce a lot of babies."
I'm fairly convinced that Jack Chick and his organization actually knows a *lot* about the Catholic Church. It's how he's able to convince so many people (and he has convinced a lot of people) that the Church is "evil". He has just enough stuff correct, that the wrong stuff doesn't look so wrong.
It's the same tactic that you are employing (whether wittingly or not) here, which was the comparison I was making. I don't think you actually learned it from Jack Chick.
(As a side note, do you have a link to something describing what a "comparativist" is? All I can find is a dictionary link that links back to com·par·a·tist noun \kəm-ˈper-ə-tist, -ˈpa-rə-\
: one that uses a comparative method (as in the study of literature) which is obviously not what you mean)
The reason why I say comparativism (as in the study of comparative politics, the field in which political scientists compare governments at its most basic) has an established tradition of it is because comparativists went the whole hog until the Third Wave of Democratization and said Catholic countries can't be democratic period. That was one of the reasons why they explained Latin America to be authoritarian and under junta rule. Interestingly enough, the Church buttressed junta rule in Latin America rather than suppressed it, and excommunicated priests who espoused liberation theology and helped the people who were being oppressed by the military. So comparativists were wrong about democratization, but were right in other ways.
The Church considers Plan B and emergency contraception to be abortion, which shows that they are way out of touch with the medical community and established facts. Thickening the uterine walls 5 minutes after the act of coitus is completed is not abortion. They have an unnecessarily broad idea of what an abortion entails, which apparently isn't disturbing enough.
The Church actually considers abortion worse than murder, as we've seen with cases like the one in New York where a man confessed to the murder of a child to a priest and the cops didn't find out about it until 20 years later. At my Church they had a tombstone on the front fence facing the street that was for all the aborted babies. Meanwhile there's nothing about all the people who have been murdered, or all the children who were abused by the Church. I'm guessing in your Church they never taught you about "the laundries." Why would they?
I should have been more specific. They're unforgivable to God through prayer, which is why you have to go to a priest to ask for penance for mortal sins. This makes sense in the Church's mind somehow.
Nope, that's the Church's idea about women, thanks to I and II Corinthians and the various Church fathers like Tertullian and Augustine who had an extremely horrible view on women. It resulted in witch trials and the laundries.
There's a reason why they call us "recovering Catholics." Because the Catholic Church has abused many throughout history. Most of the female members of my family were molested by priests and it was covered up, but when an institution is the bride of Christ it gets away with a lot.
I assume you are referring to Corwell's book "Hitler's Pope" and Pope Pius XII? (If not, please correct me).
I've never heard of the book but the Church kept very quiet about fascism and Nazism. Which isn't surprising for an institution that perpetuated the same old anti-Semitism for 2000 years.
I assume you are referring to Corwell's book "Hitler's Pope" and Pope Pius XII? (If not, please correct me).
I've never heard of the book but the Church kept very quiet about fascism and Nazism. Which isn't surprising for an institution that perpetuated the same old anti-Semitism for 2000 years.
Silence is death.
Given that your argument here is fundamentally the same argument that was raised in the book (whether you read it or not, and I believe you when you say you didn't), the criticisms of that argument are generally applicable here as well. Do you have any responses to them?
The reason why I say comparativism (as in the study of comparative politics, the field in which political scientists compare governments at its most basic) has an established tradition of it is because comparativists went the whole hog until the Third Wave of Democratization and said Catholic countries can't be democratic period. That was one of the reasons why they explained Latin America to be authoritarian and under junta rule. Interestingly enough, the Church buttressed junta rule in Latin America rather than suppressed it, and excommunicated priests who espoused liberation theology and helped the people who were being oppressed by the military. So comparativists were wrong about democratization, but were right in other ways.
I'm still not sure I understand what you are saying here -- are you saying that the Catholic Church actively supported authoritarian regimes? And if so -- I would ask you to provide evidence (presumably, the comparativists relied on some evidence or arguments in making their assertion, we could probably start there.)
If that is not what you are saying then coudl you clarify? Because I'm not following.
The Church considers Plan B and emergency contraception to be abortion, which shows that they are way out of touch with the medical community and established facts. Thickening the uterine walls 5 minutes after the act of coitus is completed is not abortion. They have an unnecessarily broad idea of what an abortion entails, which apparently isn't disturbing enough.
As much as I'd like to talk with you about this issue, it should probably be spun off into another thread, or delayed until we talk about the compartivist thing -- I'm still hung up on you accusing the church of being in bed with the Nazis.
I propose we hash these debates/issues out one at a time rather than concurrently. Both for my sanity and for the sake of those trying to follow along.
I'm guessing in your Church they never taught you about "the laundries." Why would they?
Presumably my Church didn't teach me about them because I'm not Catholic. I just happen to know enough about Catholic theology to know that you aren't exactly correct in your statements about Church teaching. Thats also why, in support of my statements on Church teaching I provided citations to Church doctrine, rather than asserting that I was an expert myself.
The Church was either complicit or clerical authorities actively participated in junta rule of Latin America. Something that was brought up after Francis became Pope was the Dirty War in Argentina.
Google Translate should do the trick but I'll translate the important part: The ambassador of the Vatican to Argentina was asked by the generals what to do about the family of one "disappeared." The ambassador said that they would take political information from the family and wouldn't handle the body. The ambassador told Videlo, the bloodiest dictator of the Argentine dictatorship, that he would be granted favors (buenos oficios).
You are not a Catholic, yet you defend the Church as vehemently as any good believing Catholic. Why?
I assume you are referring to Corwell's book "Hitler's Pope" and Pope Pius XII? (If not, please correct me).
I've never heard of the book but the Church kept very quiet about fascism and Nazism. Which isn't surprising for an institution that perpetuated the same old anti-Semitism for 2000 years.
Silence is death.
The Myth of Hitler's Pope is a book that may appeal to you. You may want to read what A prominent Jewish historian has to say about the wartime Pope.
The Church was either complicit or clerical authorities actively participated in junta rule of Latin America. Something that was brought up after Francis became Pope was the Dirty War in Argentina.
Google Translate should do the trick but I'll translate the important part: The ambassador of the Vatican to Argentina was asked by the generals what to do about the family of one "disappeared." The ambassador said that they would take political information from the family and wouldn't handle the body. The ambassador told Videlo, the bloodiest dictator of the Argentine dictatorship, that he would be granted favors (buenos oficios).
Sadly, I don't read Spanish (I am semi-fluent in German though. Or at least I wast 12 years ago. I haven't used it recently).Google translate didn't really work for it, with some sentences making sense and others just being jibberish. As further emphasis of that point (the google trnaslate not helping) I couldn't find anything resembling what you said in the google translation. I'm not disputing that it says that, just saying Google translate didn't help me find it.
But anyway, from what I can find on the Catholic Church's involvement in the Dirty war, there were members of the Church involved on both sides of the issue.
Participation of members of the Catholic Church on both sides[edit]
On 15 April 2005, a human rights lawyer filed a criminal complaint against Jorge Bergoglio (now Pope Francis) accusing him of conspiring with the junta in 1976 to kidnap two Jesuit priests. So far, no hard evidence has been presented linking the cardinal to this crime. It is known that the cardinal headed the Society of Jesus of Argentina in 1976 and had asked the two priests to leave their pastoral work following conflict within the Society over how to respond to the new military dictatorship, with some priests advocating a violent overthrow. The cardinal's spokesman flatly denied the allegations.[245]
A priest, Christian von Wernich, was chaplain of the Buenos Aires Province Police while it was under the command of General Ramón Camps during the dictatorship, with the rank of inspector. On 9 October 2007 he was found guilty of complicity in 7 homicides, 42 kidnappings, and 32 instances of torture, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Some Catholic priests sympathised with and helped the Montoneros. Radical priests, including Father Alberto Carbone, who was eventually indicted in the murder of Aramburu, preached Marxism and presented the early Church fathers as model revolutionaries in an attempt to legitimise the violence.[246] A Catholic youth leader, Juan Ignacio Isla Casares, with the help of the Montoneros commander Eduardo Pereira Rossi (nom de guerre "El Carlón") was the mastermind behind the ambush and killing of five policemen near San Isidro Cathedral on 26 October 1975.[247]
Mario Firmenich, who later became the leader of the Montoneros, was the ex-president of the Catholic Action Youth Group and a former seminarian himself.[248] The Montoneros had ties with the Third World Priest Movement and a Jesuit priest, Father Carlos Mugica, SJ.[249] The Third World Priest Movement believed that the Church could not remain neutral in the conflict between the Peronist and anti-Peronists and a number of priests participated in the armed struggle.[250]
You are not a Catholic, yet you defend the Church as vehemently as any good believing Catholic. Why?
For several reasons,
First, because there does not appear to be anybody else on these boards who is willing and able to competently defend them, and without someone defending them it becomes a giant circle jerk of "look how ebul teh chirch iz".
Second, because even though I am not Catholic I am Christian and frequently actions and teachings of the Catholic Church are wrongly attributed to all Christians (see contraception issue).
Thirdly, because I don't like seeing people unjustly defaming anyone or any organization. Lets be honest, there is plenty of legitimate criticism that can and shoud be imputed to the entire church organization (the sex abuse cover up being an example). There is also plenty of illegitimate criticism that is either blatantly false (Hitler's Pope) or should not be imputed from the actions of a single individual or a small group of individuals onto the Church hierarchy.
And finally, because I believe in the adversarial process. If your argument cannot stand against an adversary than it is not a worthwhile argument and should not be considered. (I'm not saying yours isn't, I'm stating a general principle).
Sadly, I don't read Spanish (I am semi-fluent in German though. Or at least I wast 12 years ago. I haven't used it recently).Google translate didn't really work for it, with some sentences making sense and others just being jibberish. As further emphasis of that point (the google trnaslate not helping) I couldn't find anything resembling what you said in the google translation. I'm not disputing that it says that, just saying Google translate didn't help me find it.
But anyway, from what I can find on the Catholic Church's involvement in the Dirty war, there were members of the Church involved on both sides of the issue.
Participation of members of the Catholic Church on both sides[edit]
On 15 April 2005, a human rights lawyer filed a criminal complaint against Jorge Bergoglio (now Pope Francis) accusing him of conspiring with the junta in 1976 to kidnap two Jesuit priests. So far, no hard evidence has been presented linking the cardinal to this crime. It is known that the cardinal headed the Society of Jesus of Argentina in 1976 and had asked the two priests to leave their pastoral work following conflict within the Society over how to respond to the new military dictatorship, with some priests advocating a violent overthrow. The cardinal's spokesman flatly denied the allegations.[245]
A priest, Christian von Wernich, was chaplain of the Buenos Aires Province Police while it was under the command of General Ramón Camps during the dictatorship, with the rank of inspector. On 9 October 2007 he was found guilty of complicity in 7 homicides, 42 kidnappings, and 32 instances of torture, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Some Catholic priests sympathised with and helped the Montoneros. Radical priests, including Father Alberto Carbone, who was eventually indicted in the murder of Aramburu, preached Marxism and presented the early Church fathers as model revolutionaries in an attempt to legitimise the violence.[246] A Catholic youth leader, Juan Ignacio Isla Casares, with the help of the Montoneros commander Eduardo Pereira Rossi (nom de guerre "El Carlón") was the mastermind behind the ambush and killing of five policemen near San Isidro Cathedral on 26 October 1975.[247]
Mario Firmenich, who later became the leader of the Montoneros, was the ex-president of the Catholic Action Youth Group and a former seminarian himself.[248] The Montoneros had ties with the Third World Priest Movement and a Jesuit priest, Father Carlos Mugica, SJ.[249] The Third World Priest Movement believed that the Church could not remain neutral in the conflict between the Peronist and anti-Peronists and a number of priests participated in the armed struggle.[250]
You are not a Catholic, yet you defend the Church as vehemently as any good believing Catholic. Why?
For several reasons,
First, because there does not appear to be anybody else on these boards who is willing and able to competently defend them, and without someone defending them it becomes a giant circle jerk of "look how ebul teh chirch iz".
Second, because even though I am not Catholic I am Christian and frequently actions and teachings of the Catholic Church are wrongly attributed to all Christians (see contraception issue).
Thirdly, because I don't like seeing people unjustly defaming anyone or any organization. Lets be honest, there is plenty of legitimate criticism that can and shoud be imputed to the entire church organization (the sex abuse cover up being an example). There is also plenty of illegitimate criticism that is either blatantly false (Hitler's Pope) or should not be imputed from the actions of a single individual or a small group of individuals onto the Church hierarchy.
And finally, because I believe in the adversarial process. If your argument cannot stand against an adversary than it is not a worthwhile argument and should not be considered. (I'm not saying yours isn't, I'm stating a general principle).
This wasn't a random priest aiding the Argentine people. This was the ambassador of the Vatican to Argentina being asked what to do about the desaparecidos. He was acting in an official fashion. There are many priests who defy the Church, like Father Roy Bourgeois.
Have you ever considered deferring to the experiences and knowledge of people who actually were members of the faith? If I come across an ex-Muslim, and she believes that Mohammed was a pedophile and that Islam oppresses women, I'm going to defer to her judgment and try not to convince her otherwise, because she may have had experiences in the faith I wouldn't understand. What the faith says and what it does sometimes can be two different things.
This wasn't a random priest aiding the Argentine people. This was the ambassador of the Vatican to Argentina being asked what to do about the desaparecidos. He was acting in an official fashion. There are many priests who defy the Church, like Father Roy Bourgeois.
You'll have to be patient, because I actually need to look things up and read about them. I will defend things as they come up, or as appropriate. If it is an incident I am not aware of it will take longer. (edit: To help me with my reading up--what was the Ambassador's name, and who is making the accusations/statements here?)
I know about the laundries, at least in part because of my interest in Irish culture, but also from some reading up on them that I have done. My statement was that I wasn't taught them in Church. To the best of my knowledge the laundries is one of the things that you can rightfully indict the Church for, or at the very least the national level organizations of the Church. -- and I don't think I've presented anything defending them on that count.
Have you ever considered deferring to the experiences and knowledge of people who actually were members of the faith? If I come across an ex-Muslim, and she believes that Mohammed was a pedophile and that Islam oppresses women, I'm going to defer to her judgment and try not to convince her otherwise, because she may have had experiences in the faith I wouldn't understand. What the faith says and what it does sometimes can be two different things.
In answer to your question: A resounding, and unequivocal no. I have not considered it. At all. Because being raised in the faith does not give one any ounce of expertise in it's teachings. People raised as devout Catholics frequently have incorrect ideas and understandings of Catholic Doctrine. Perhaps that's another indictment on the Church, but it's true.
If you can establish yourself (or someone else does this) as a credentialed expert of some sort, then yes. I would be willing to defer at least in some areas where my knowledge is shaky. But to an average lay person who just has had some experiences with the Church? No.
I'm willing to listen to your experiences, and your arguments -- and consider them. But I'm not going to defer to them. What would be the point of the debate forum, if nobody could contest you because you happen to be an ex-Catholic?
As to the difference between what a faith says, and what a faith does, a faith can do nothing. Individuals and organizations holding a faith can do things. So there are two questions at issue any time we discuss a matter like this: 1) did the organization of the RCC do something, and 2) did the thing done by the organization of the RCC comport with or contradict the teachings of the RCC? In order to properly indict the Catholic faith the answer to number 2 must be yes. In order to indict the Catholic Hierarchy / orgnaization only the answer to 1 need be yes.
This is why I can indict the RCC hierarchy for the cover up and mishandling of the abusive priests, but I cannot indict the Catholic faith for the same acts. Do you see the distinction? (not asking if you agree with it -- thats your prerogative, just asking if you understand what I'm saying).
My turn to ask "Wow... Have you even tried to read the OP and the rest of the post, or did you see the title and just thought: "What the hell, I'll make an (un)educated guess""
Mostly because you are perpetuating the falsehood that she was brought to that hospital because it's a medical emergency and thus she had no time to go to another one.
Because, at least the first time she went, she did have time to go to another one. They sent her home and she came back the next day. The discussion about ambulances always taking you to the nearest hospital is relevant to the overall issue, but *not* to the specific case.
I did read the thread. And we're talking about a woman almost giving birth. Yes, a posteriori we can easily say she would've made it to another hospital, but given that she did not know so at the time, I can hardly blame her for not driving and X amount of time to the next-nearest hospital.
Yeah, it is absolutely her fault that they deceived her about her medical status.
Nothing I said in that quote (or anywhere else in this thread) has put any blame on the woman who had the miscarriage for anything.
Your post makes no sense.
I don't think I've seen anyone here arguing to the contrary. At the veyr least, I haven't been.
Indeed, usually one reason for deviating from "standard procedure" is because of a unique case in the patient. More recently, it's being used by pediatricians; your unvaccinated son because you fear TEH AUTIZM!!!1 is a biological time bomb and should not be allowed near other children, thank you very much.
Money can influence people, though. The US doesn't let AIDS groups receiving money give condoms to prostitutes, even though prostitutes being able to insist their clients use condoms would go a long way to fighting AIDS.
So many vows, they make you swear and swear. Do no harm, but this drug could kill the patient if he ODs on it. Don't perform procedures without informed consent, but save that woman who OD'd on sleeping pills's life. Then the politicians come in: Keep the patient's confidence, until the next moral panic about drugs leads to a law requiring you disclose all patients' drug history. Then the media tell your patient what they need, and suddenly a fifty-year-old diabetic male, smoker, 40 pounds overweight, blood pressure 240/90, cholesterol 230, HDL cholesterol 30, thinks vitamin pills work better than your prescription and lifestyle recommendations, and thinks vitamin pills qualify as a "lifestyle recommendation", but you never give lifestyle recommendations (other than "quit smoking, lose weight, and get to a gym"). Then come the funding issues. Suddenly abortions of any kind, even to save the mother's life, are something you're not allowed to do.
That clause. I do not think it means what you think it means. Employment Divison, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith says the free exercise clause only counts if it's not neutrally enforced.
Otherwise, at the risk of Godwin's law, the World Church of the Creator could just ride through town, pass by every synagogue, and shoot anyone they saw, because it's their religion, dammit!
On phasing:
I think it means exactly what I think it means. And no law is created in the American Constitutional framework that allows for wanton shooting just because of religious views, that's an egregious and completely out of touch debasement of free exercise that has no moral alignment with the clause or the rest of the foundation it springs from. Ergo, anyone suggesting something like that under the umbrella of free exercise is a complete idiot and not even worth discussing this with.
Flaming infraction. - Blinking Spirit
STRANGER: Indeed?
CASSILDA: Indeed it's time. We all have laid aside disguise but you.
STRANGER: I wear no mask.
CAMILLA: (Terrified, aside to Cassilda.) No mask? No mask!
Judaism has a basic tenet that the first obligation is always to take care of the physical body- if an ultra-orthodox Jewish Rabbi is starving and there is no other sustenance then they are not breaking any Jewish law by eating a sack full of bacon cheeseburgers. Then again, we don't believe in proselytizing under any circumstances either. I will respect your religious and ethical practices when I take care of you, and you damn well better do the same for me if you want the privilege of treating the public. If you can't respect that then find a profession or specialty where you will not be put in that situation.
That is not true, there have been individual cases of necessity, and we should be treating individuals not statistics.
Then you do not deserve to have the right to take care of people outside of your faith. If you do take care of such people, then you have no right to endanger them based on your own personal beliefs. That would be forcing your beliefs on them, and the patient is the most important party in that interaction.
That is utterly beside the point, small hospitals are obligated to do everything that is legal within their medical judgement to help any patient. Sometimes that means transferring a patient, but sometimes that means doing everything possible with what they have. If a patient has a negative outcome they are legally protected as long as they can show that they acted with the best intention to provide the best life saving care possible in the circumstance. Since a doctor has to be able to perform surgeries such as an abortion to get their license it is still possible for them to do in an emergency even if they are not the most qualified person. A doctor is, before anything, obligated to save the physical life of the patient they are in direct charge of and if they can't do that then they need to find another profession. Same goes for a hospital. If a patient will not survive transfer, then the facility is obliged to do what they can.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
Nope, the Catholic Church is very anti-woman to the point of where they tell a woman to get AIDS because condoms are abortion.
It was the Church's unofficial position until the 1800s that a fetus didn't have a soul until quickening. And the modern Church jumping into bed with fascism and genocide in Europe doesn't buttress your point about "sanctity of life," unless you consider Romani, Jews, and Slavs to be non-human. These lives just weren't worth it to the Church of the 30s and 40s.
Samuel Huntington, the father of modern American comparativism, wrote in "Political Order and Changing Societies" that the Catholic Church is correlated with authoritarianism. Examples include the Church's stance in the Revolutions of 1848, jumping in bed with fascists in the 20s and 30s, and the inherent authoritarianism in canon law and papal infallibility.
The Church considers coitus interruptus the same as an abortion, anything that interferes with the making of babies is a mortal sin. Mortal sins are different from venial sins in that mortal sins are unforgivable and a blatant violation of God's law, as opposed to venial sins. Mortal sins result in the spiritual death of the soul. When a religion's role for a woman is to shut up in Church, submit to her husband, and produce a lot of babies, you can see why these are mortal sins.
The Church's "ancient" justification for making contraception a mortal sin is that the Romans viewed babies as worthless until the 4th day, when he or she received a soul. It was quite legal in ancient Rome to dump babies in the sewers before the 4th day.
I was raised in the faith and one of the members of my graduate committee was an established Catholic political theorist, so the idea that I learned about Catholicism from evangelical tracts is hilarious.
The point is moot. It remains moot and will continue to be moot. You want to know why because if the Catholicism means enough for you to follow it you are most probably going to accept the doctrine of celibacy (Something which Catholicism is big on.) as well making the chances of contracting an std by sexual means less likely.
If you are a lifelong adherent to Catholicism or in other words do what the Pope wants you to do you are either going to have...
1) No partner and no sex
2) One partner and no sex
3) One partner and as many times sex as you have children ie 1 - 5 times
So how anyone can think that any of that promotes the spread of std's is beyond me. This is off course predicated on actually following the teachings of Catholicism which is assumed if you want to make the argument that something a church teaches is bad for the people who follow it.
To think that any institution that has the doctrine of celibacy not just until marriage but even in a round about way in marriage as well promotes the spreading of any STD's is unfair to the point of being ridiculous. OK I get it a lot of people do not like churches but is it too much to ask that the criticism they level be at least rooted in reality?
Again, as someone who knows statistics... so what? You've been arguing correlation. By the same token, were you aware that intelligence is directly correlated with shoe size? The bigger your shoe size the smarter you get.
The reason for the correlation in my example is because infants don't tend to be very smart, while adults do. In other words, the two facts are correlated not because one causes the other (as I implied with my phrasing), but because they have a common cause.
The point being that simply stating that "there is a long history of comparativists saying that Catholicism is correlated with authoritarian regimes:" is meaningless because it fails to establish any causation. Also becasue it fails to say what "correlated with" means in this case.
Does it mean that the Church tends to increas in power as authoritarian regimes increase in power?
Does it mean that the Church tends to support authoritarian regimes? In which case "correlates" is the wrong word to use.
The Church considers contraception as being in the same *category* of sins as abortion (mortal sins). It does not consider them to be the *same* sin. Abortion is the act of taking another human life. Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14)
Thus, as I said, they are not the same sin. Any more than using contraception and murder are "the same". Or contraception and blasphemy are "the same".
What's more, you show a further lack of understanding of catholic doctrine in your assertion that mortal sins are unforgivable. In point of fact, a mortal sin is a sin which will condemn a person to hell if they die in a state of unrepentance. ("To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him forever by our own free choice" (CCC 1033).) In contrast, a venial sin does not condemn a person to hell.
You further show a lack of understanding of Catholic teaching, or at least a very uncharitable interpretation of it (see below about Jack Chick) when you say the Church considers the role of women to be "to shut up in Church, submit to her husband, and produce a lot of babies."
I'm fairly convinced that Jack Chick and his organization actually knows a *lot* about the Catholic Church. It's how he's able to convince so many people (and he has convinced a lot of people) that the Church is "evil". He has just enough stuff correct, that the wrong stuff doesn't look so wrong.
It's the same tactic that you are employing (whether wittingly or not) here, which was the comparison I was making. I don't think you actually learned it from Jack Chick.
(As a side note, do you have a link to something describing what a "comparativist" is? All I can find is a dictionary link that links back to com·par·a·tist noun \kəm-ˈper-ə-tist, -ˈpa-rə-\
: one that uses a comparative method (as in the study of literature) which is obviously not what you mean)
That's not even remotely true. Catholics can have plenty of sex in marriage and have no kids and be following Church teaching just fine. Natural family planning (aka tracking when the woman is fertile and when she isn't, and planning accordingly) is one way. Plain bad luck is another way.
The Catholic Church does not teach that you must have a child every time you have sex. It teaches that you must not act (attempt) to make it physiologically impossible when you have sex. The later is contraception.
I assume you are referring to Corwell's book "Hitler's Pope" and Pope Pius XII? (If not, please correct me).
If I'm correct, and you are referring to Cornwell, and the general theories he presented, note that "[Cornwell] has moderated some of his allegations, since publication of the book. In 2004, Cornwell stated that Pius XII "had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by Germany."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_Pope
And, from the criticisms section in the wiki entry on Hitler's pope (id.):
No really it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_teachings_on_sexual_morality
I do not know if you think I'm anti Catholic Blatch but I just want to tell you I'm not.
I know you aren't. That doesn't exempt you from being wrong about Catholic teaching though. This is a case where you are wrong. Whether it did historically or not, the Church does not currently teach that sex in an infertile married couple is wrong. It also doesn't teach that if your sex didn't lead to a baby, you sinned.
I'm not sure how much you know about the reproductive process, but lots of people who actively try to have kids have sex for a while before they manage to actually get pregnant. Heck, my parents decided two years after I was born that they wanted another child. My younger brother is 5 years younger than me. Do the math.
The reason why I say comparativism (as in the study of comparative politics, the field in which political scientists compare governments at its most basic) has an established tradition of it is because comparativists went the whole hog until the Third Wave of Democratization and said Catholic countries can't be democratic period. That was one of the reasons why they explained Latin America to be authoritarian and under junta rule. Interestingly enough, the Church buttressed junta rule in Latin America rather than suppressed it, and excommunicated priests who espoused liberation theology and helped the people who were being oppressed by the military. So comparativists were wrong about democratization, but were right in other ways.
The Church considers Plan B and emergency contraception to be abortion, which shows that they are way out of touch with the medical community and established facts. Thickening the uterine walls 5 minutes after the act of coitus is completed is not abortion. They have an unnecessarily broad idea of what an abortion entails, which apparently isn't disturbing enough.
The Church actually considers abortion worse than murder, as we've seen with cases like the one in New York where a man confessed to the murder of a child to a priest and the cops didn't find out about it until 20 years later. At my Church they had a tombstone on the front fence facing the street that was for all the aborted babies. Meanwhile there's nothing about all the people who have been murdered, or all the children who were abused by the Church. I'm guessing in your Church they never taught you about "the laundries." Why would they?
I should have been more specific. They're unforgivable to God through prayer, which is why you have to go to a priest to ask for penance for mortal sins. This makes sense in the Church's mind somehow.
Nope, that's the Church's idea about women, thanks to I and II Corinthians and the various Church fathers like Tertullian and Augustine who had an extremely horrible view on women. It resulted in witch trials and the laundries.
There's a reason why they call us "recovering Catholics." Because the Catholic Church has abused many throughout history. Most of the female members of my family were molested by priests and it was covered up, but when an institution is the bride of Christ it gets away with a lot.
I've never heard of the book but the Church kept very quiet about fascism and Nazism. Which isn't surprising for an institution that perpetuated the same old anti-Semitism for 2000 years.
Silence is death.
Given that your argument here is fundamentally the same argument that was raised in the book (whether you read it or not, and I believe you when you say you didn't), the criticisms of that argument are generally applicable here as well. Do you have any responses to them?
Works for me. I wasn't familiar with the term, and searching was getting me a fat lot of no results. Thanks.
I'm still not sure I understand what you are saying here -- are you saying that the Catholic Church actively supported authoritarian regimes? And if so -- I would ask you to provide evidence (presumably, the comparativists relied on some evidence or arguments in making their assertion, we could probably start there.)
If that is not what you are saying then coudl you clarify? Because I'm not following.
As much as I'd like to talk with you about this issue, it should probably be spun off into another thread, or delayed until we talk about the compartivist thing -- I'm still hung up on you accusing the church of being in bed with the Nazis.
I propose we hash these debates/issues out one at a time rather than concurrently. Both for my sanity and for the sake of those trying to follow along.
Sidenote:
Presumably my Church didn't teach me about them because I'm not Catholic. I just happen to know enough about Catholic theology to know that you aren't exactly correct in your statements about Church teaching. Thats also why, in support of my statements on Church teaching I provided citations to Church doctrine, rather than asserting that I was an expert myself.
I don't know if you read Spanish but here is a link discussing the Dirty War: http://www.elmundo.es/america/2012/07/22/argentina/1342973581.html
Google Translate should do the trick but I'll translate the important part: The ambassador of the Vatican to Argentina was asked by the generals what to do about the family of one "disappeared." The ambassador said that they would take political information from the family and wouldn't handle the body. The ambassador told Videlo, the bloodiest dictator of the Argentine dictatorship, that he would be granted favors (buenos oficios).
You are not a Catholic, yet you defend the Church as vehemently as any good believing Catholic. Why?
The Myth of Hitler's Pope is a book that may appeal to you. You may want to read what A prominent Jewish historian has to say about the wartime Pope.
Sadly, I don't read Spanish (I am semi-fluent in German though. Or at least I wast 12 years ago. I haven't used it recently).Google translate didn't really work for it, with some sentences making sense and others just being jibberish. As further emphasis of that point (the google trnaslate not helping) I couldn't find anything resembling what you said in the google translation. I'm not disputing that it says that, just saying Google translate didn't help me find it.
But anyway, from what I can find on the Catholic Church's involvement in the Dirty war, there were members of the Church involved on both sides of the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War#Participation_of_members_of_the_Catholic_Church_on_both_sides
For several reasons,
First, because there does not appear to be anybody else on these boards who is willing and able to competently defend them, and without someone defending them it becomes a giant circle jerk of "look how ebul teh chirch iz".
Second, because even though I am not Catholic I am Christian and frequently actions and teachings of the Catholic Church are wrongly attributed to all Christians (see contraception issue).
Thirdly, because I don't like seeing people unjustly defaming anyone or any organization. Lets be honest, there is plenty of legitimate criticism that can and shoud be imputed to the entire church organization (the sex abuse cover up being an example). There is also plenty of illegitimate criticism that is either blatantly false (Hitler's Pope) or should not be imputed from the actions of a single individual or a small group of individuals onto the Church hierarchy.
And finally, because I believe in the adversarial process. If your argument cannot stand against an adversary than it is not a worthwhile argument and should not be considered. (I'm not saying yours isn't, I'm stating a general principle).
This wasn't a random priest aiding the Argentine people. This was the ambassador of the Vatican to Argentina being asked what to do about the desaparecidos. He was acting in an official fashion. There are many priests who defy the Church, like Father Roy Bourgeois.
And let me tell you a little bit about the laundries, what happens when the Church and state work in tandem to oppress women and create a culture of silence--http://world.time.com/2013/02/07/the-magdalene-laundries-irish-report-exposes-a-national-shame/
Have you ever considered deferring to the experiences and knowledge of people who actually were members of the faith? If I come across an ex-Muslim, and she believes that Mohammed was a pedophile and that Islam oppresses women, I'm going to defer to her judgment and try not to convince her otherwise, because she may have had experiences in the faith I wouldn't understand. What the faith says and what it does sometimes can be two different things.
Just something to think about as you proceed.
You'll have to be patient, because I actually need to look things up and read about them. I will defend things as they come up, or as appropriate. If it is an incident I am not aware of it will take longer. (edit: To help me with my reading up--what was the Ambassador's name, and who is making the accusations/statements here?)
I know about the laundries, at least in part because of my interest in Irish culture, but also from some reading up on them that I have done. My statement was that I wasn't taught them in Church. To the best of my knowledge the laundries is one of the things that you can rightfully indict the Church for, or at the very least the national level organizations of the Church. -- and I don't think I've presented anything defending them on that count.
In answer to your question: A resounding, and unequivocal no. I have not considered it. At all. Because being raised in the faith does not give one any ounce of expertise in it's teachings. People raised as devout Catholics frequently have incorrect ideas and understandings of Catholic Doctrine. Perhaps that's another indictment on the Church, but it's true.
If you can establish yourself (or someone else does this) as a credentialed expert of some sort, then yes. I would be willing to defer at least in some areas where my knowledge is shaky. But to an average lay person who just has had some experiences with the Church? No.
I'm willing to listen to your experiences, and your arguments -- and consider them. But I'm not going to defer to them. What would be the point of the debate forum, if nobody could contest you because you happen to be an ex-Catholic?
As to the difference between what a faith says, and what a faith does, a faith can do nothing. Individuals and organizations holding a faith can do things. So there are two questions at issue any time we discuss a matter like this: 1) did the organization of the RCC do something, and 2) did the thing done by the organization of the RCC comport with or contradict the teachings of the RCC? In order to properly indict the Catholic faith the answer to number 2 must be yes. In order to indict the Catholic Hierarchy / orgnaization only the answer to 1 need be yes.
This is why I can indict the RCC hierarchy for the cover up and mishandling of the abusive priests, but I cannot indict the Catholic faith for the same acts. Do you see the distinction? (not asking if you agree with it -- thats your prerogative, just asking if you understand what I'm saying).