 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
catholic
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | Dublin, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 34 |
| First Name: | Paul | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Non-Specific Protestant -> Catholic (Latin Rite) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 5th, 2008 12:19 am |
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030302832.html
The last paragraph seems like a distortion of what the Church teaches about abortion.
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm#2271
Am I missing something? 
____________________
"A teacher who is not dogmatic is simply a teacher who is not teaching."
Gilbert K. Chesterton
|
|
|
Didi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Oregon USA |
| Posts: | 168 |
| First Name: | Didi | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Catholic; almost left; Now an On-Fire Catholic! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 5th, 2008 12:38 am |
|
You are right -- the last paragraph does not reflect the teaching of the Church (so frustrating). We do not have a right to make our own decision and "dissent from this teaching."
The two instances listed are not primarily abortions -- they are medically neceessary procedures.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1792 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 5th, 2008 12:52 am |
|
Bioethics is a very complex discipline, Paul. I’m not an expert in it, but my pastor is. Following his teaching, I’ll try to explain a little of what is involved in this letter to the editor so that CHNI Forum users will have at least some knowledge, even if I can’t give a complete analysis.
Concerning the final comment about the Church’s stand on abortion being the product of scientific knowledge alone, this is false. If it were true, it would not be the Church’s domain to issue a condemnation of abortion as morally wrong, since Christian morality is based on revelation, not human science. This does not mean that the Church cannot use human science to back up God’s revelation, since biological truth is part of God’s creation and therefore cannot contradict his self-revelation.
Concerning the two “exceptions” offered by the author in his second paragraph, these are strictly speaking not abortions but operations on the mother. The point of the first (removing a cancerous uterus) is that if the mother dies of the cancer, the baby will surely die as well. And even if the mother doesn’t die, the cancer will probably kill the baby anyway in one of several possible ways. So removing the uterus is not really affecting the viability of the baby. It is therefore morally acceptable to remove the uterus, and thus the cancer, to save the life of the woman.
In the second scenario (ectopic pregnancy), again the condition is lethal to both mother and child. The baby has no chance to live regardless of what is done, so an operation to save the mother will allow at least one of them to live.
Both of these examples follow the principle of “double effect,” whereby the intent is to save a life, even if the other is unsavable. So one lives and the other dies rather than both dying.
David
|
|
|
catholic
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | Dublin, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 34 |
| First Name: | Paul | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Non-Specific Protestant -> Catholic (Latin Rite) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 5th, 2008 01:57 am |
|
David W. Emery wrote:
Bioethics is a very complex discipline, Paul. I’m not an expert in it, but my pastor is. Following his teaching, I’ll try to explain a little of what is involved in this letter to the editor so that CHNI Forum users will have at least some knowledge, even if I can’t give a complete analysis.
Concerning the final comment about the Church’s stand on abortion being the product of scientific knowledge alone, this is false. If it were true, it would not be the Church’s domain to issue a condemnation of abortion as morally wrong, since Christian morality is based on revelation, not human science. This does not mean that the Church cannot use human science to back up God’s revelation, since biological truth is part of God’s creation and therefore cannot contradict his self-revelation.
Concerning the two “exceptions” offered by the author in his second paragraph, these are strictly speaking not abortions but operations on the mother. The point of the first (removing a cancerous uterus) is that if the mother dies of the cancer, the baby will surely die as well. And even if the mother doesn’t die, the cancer will probably kill the baby anyway in one of several possible ways. So removing the uterus is not really affecting the viability of the baby. It is therefore morally acceptable to remove the uterus, and thus the cancer, to save the life of the woman.
In the second scenario (ectopic pregnancy), again the condition is lethal to both mother and child. The baby has no chance to live regardless of what is done, so an operation to save the mother will allow at least one of them to live.
Both of these examples follow the principle of “double effect,” whereby the intent is to save a life, even if the other is unsavable. So one lives and the other dies rather than both dying.
David
I don't disagree with the "exceptions" and you explain them well. The link from the CCC explains them too.
I cringed about the bit on conscience. The Catechism says nothing like what was implied.
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art6.htm
____________________
"A teacher who is not dogmatic is simply a teacher who is not teaching."
Gilbert K. Chesterton
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1792 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 5th, 2008 02:25 am |
|
I cringed about the bit on conscience. The Catechism says nothing like what was implied.
Correct. The Catechism devotes a significant amount of space and effort on bioethic topics, especially contraception and abortion, because they are “big topics” in the contemporary world. Seeing that you had already referred to the Catechism in your pondering of the letter, I chose to approach your question from a different perspective.
The author of the letter mentions “conscience” in a manner that indicates he favors what is known as “situation ethics,” which has been formally condemned by the Church. In case you would like to delve deeper: William E. May, in An Introduction to Moral Theology (Our Sunday Visitor), gives a thorough analysis of the reasons behind this condemnation.
David
|
|
|
catholic
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | Dublin, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 34 |
| First Name: | Paul | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Non-Specific Protestant -> Catholic (Latin Rite) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 5th, 2008 02:47 am |
|
David W. Emery wrote:
I cringed about the bit on conscience. The Catechism says nothing like what was implied.
Correct. The Catechism devotes a significant amount of space and effort on bioethic topics, especially contraception and abortion, because they are “big topics” in the contemporary world. Seeing that you had already referred to the Catechism in your pondering of the letter, I chose to approach your question from a different perspective.
The author of the letter mentions “conscience” in a manner that indicates he favors what is known as “situation ethics,” which has been formally condemned by the Church. In case you would like to delve deeper: William E. May, in An Introduction to Moral Theology (Our Sunday Visitor), gives a thorough analysis of the reasons behind this condemnation.
David
Thanks for the reference. That is exactly what I was getting at. There was a good series on Church teaching on medical ethics about a year ago. It was called Gospel of Life in Healthcare hosted by Fr. Stephen Torraco.
I have been challenged on the Church teaching on contraception by another Catholic. I grabbed a binder of materials used in my parish RCIA program. One addressed Church teaching on contraception. The pamphlet is from St. Anthony Messenger Press with an imprimatur and implicitly challenges Church teaching on contraception by misrepresenting the role of conscience.
____________________
"A teacher who is not dogmatic is simply a teacher who is not teaching."
Gilbert K. Chesterton
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1792 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 5th, 2008 03:45 am |
|
St. Anthony Messenger Press is known for its forays into the hinter regions. And imprimaturs are still available, it seems, for just about anything. I’ve actually seen Vatican demands that an imprimatur be removed from theological works.
David
|
|
|
Current time is 09:50 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
