I haven't seen it on any recent threads, so I was wondering if there ever was a topic about the Roman Catholic Church and their desire to hold back communinion for politicians who support abortion.
There was a good editorial in my local paper (Cleveland Plain Dealer) about it and it made me wonder if the strongly Christian Hatrack had a say in it.
The article raises interesting points. One was how far do Bishops want to go with it? Will they refuse communion for people who vote for those types of politicians? Will they support ALL of the Catholic doctrines handed down by the Pope in this way? Meaning, the Pope has publicly stated that the War in Iraq is evil and unnecessary...does this mean people or politicians who support the war should be refused the holy host? What about people who support the right to choose, regardless of that choice is to abort or not to abort?
The article also pointed out the hypocrisy of the Church. Bernard Law, the man who actively hid the church's sexual molesting priests now has a sweet job somewhere else within the church. Some of those (if not all of those) accused of sexual molestation are also able to receive the wafer.
Thoughts? Repeat discussion?
fil
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
That whole thing makes me angry--the church isn't supposed to withhold communion from anyone. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
1.) The difference is that, presumably, the molestors and molestor-enablers have repented. Although they still need to be kept away from children, a sin which has been reconciled may not be used to withhold Communion.
2.) The abortion teaching is tied in closely with one of the two doctrines ever declared by a Pope to be infallible - the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which involves as a necessary predicate that human life is fully bestowed at conception. Very few other teachings ar ethis integral to being a Catholic.
3.) The teaching on the war in Iraq was the Pope's opinion. As Catholics, we must listen to it and take it seriously. And we must follow the underlying teachings that inform those opinions. But there is room for individual conscience in applying those teachings, even on subjects the Pope has spoken about.
4.) My preferred method is that of the California Bishop who reminded people that being in full communion with the Church was necessary to receive Communion, and that failure to provide laws to protect human beings from the moment of conception is not consistent with some of the most sacred doctrines of the Church. The Bishop then left it the individuals to decide.
5.) Priests have a duty to withhold Communion from people known not to be in full communion with the Church.
Dagonee
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Interesting points, Dag. What about capital punishment? I would think the one thing that supercedes Church Doctrine would be the 10 Commandments, which clearly prohibits killing (there are no asterisks with exceptions after it, either). This would mean supporting killing of other humans for any reason to be outside the bounds. While I could see self defense as being legit, capital punishment or attacking a country without provocation would be below the "defense" threshhold.
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:The teaching on the war in Iraq was the Pope's opinion.
As the Holy See, doesn't the Pope represent God's will on earth? Wouldn't this "teaching" need to be a bit more than "taken seriously?" This isn't some random thought that the aged Pope mutters under his breath. He actively scolded Bush on this when the met a while back. I don't know. Smacks of some sort of hypocrisy to me.
How is advocating of killing of ANY sort in line with the Catholic church?
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Unless you understand the difference between Church dogma/teachings and Church commentary on the events of the world, I can't explain the difference.
Of course the Pope's writings should be taken very seriously, and acting contrary too them should be viewed as a sign that prayerful consideration is needed. But the Pope does not have all the information about every situation.
And if you can see self-defense (or even better, defense of others) as possibly justified, then you've already added an asterix. The same sections of the Bible that have the commandments specify the death penalty for certain crimes, so clearly the prohibition is not absolute.
Is the death penalty still justified in today's world, especially in the U.S.? Maybe not. But the Church has recognized reasons it might be necessary. Abortion, in and of itself, is never considered morally correct, although operations necessary to save a mother's life that have the effect of destroying the unborn child are.
Dagonee
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
So what is the Sin? The act of having an abortion? The act of performing the abortion? Or supporting the woman's right to choose? Since Kerry has not had or performed an abortion, why is the sin of it on his hands to the point where the holiest of sacrements is being kept from him?
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There are two sins. First is the rejection of a teaching of the Church. Presumably, if Kerry thought an unborn child was fully human and alive at the moment of conception, he wouldn't think it OK to allow people to choose to kill them. If he does believe an unborn child is fully human and alive just as you and I are, but still thinks it is OK to allow others to kill them for any reason whatsoever, he is acting even more monstrously.
Second, he is enabling abortions by voting for legislation that supports them (including federal funding).
Dagonee Edit: You know, I'm actually impressed with how well this conversation is going. Your thread title is not doing justice to you or the other people in the forum.
[ June 27, 2004, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
What I always hated about communion was the wafers passed off as "bread"
Surely they can find some other bread than that paper-thin stale cracker.
How about some nice sourdough sacrament. Or an olive loaf (*drools).
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Yeah, the wafer really is "wafer thin." I was at a UCC church where they have communion (but not weekly) and it was a nice hunk of french bread, fresh. Hmmm....sacrilicious.
quote: Edit: You know, I'm actually impressed with how well this conversation is going. Your thread title is not doing justice to you or the other people in the forum.
Yeah, I was worried about it and had a "safer" sounding title but I thought a reference to the Soup Nazi would have more pizzazz! It also puts my opinion on the surface with it a bit, too. The Soup Nazi had a difficult to remember and understand ritual that needed to be followed to get his glorious soup. I think the Church might be doing the same thing, giving the sacrement to some and not to others.
fil
[ June 27, 2004, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Dag, the Church does not make it the authority of humanity to judge people for their actions, though. Free will, God's greatest blessing and curse, seems to dicate that we have been given a healthy length of rope to hang ourselves if we so choose. If Kerry supports the right for women to choose, he isn't advocating for abortions...simply saying that a woman has to make up her own mind whether or not to spare the life of her child. Only the Pro-Life people translate the "right to choose" as "you must abort." If Kerry has actively performed an abortion or paid for one out of his own money knowingly or, in an odd fit of biology, had one of his own then I could see the church saying "No soup for you!" But to simply leave that decision up to the individual woman seems like a reasonble take on things.
fil
[ June 27, 2004, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Only the Pro-Life people translate the "right to choose" as "you must abort."
No. They translate it into a refusal to provide the basic protections of law for an entire class of humans.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
fil, there's no use pointing out the hypocrisy (real or imagined) of the Catholic church. Frankly, I agree with you, but the church hierarchy does not and will not. They don't see the "10 Commandments" as somehow trumping church law. They see church law and the commandments as entirely consistent, and you pointing to a difference that you perceive just will indicate to them that you understand this all at a superficial level.
The only sure way to change church doctrine is to become Pope.
I think most outsiders believe that every word that drops from the Pope's lips is considered infallible. That's not true at all. That doesn't mean they won't defend the papal pronouncements if pressed. But they aren't going to excommunicate people over it.
But really, I'm surprised the church took this route of "no communion." It is a defacto excommunication. But they fail to go all the way with it. And that does surprise me. I think if a politician tried to force the issue, they would indeed formally excommunicate him or her. It's a step I think neither the church nor the politician wants to take.
But the alternative is irrelevance in the debate. And the church doesn't like being irrelevant. Or being treated like it is. Especially on something like abortion, which really is a central issue for the church, not something peripheral that they can ignore.
[ June 27, 2004, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But really, I'm surprised the church took this route of "no communion."
It's actually an issue left to individual Bishops, not the Church as a whole. There's a lot more discretion within the Catholic Church, both for lay people and clergy, than most people (even Catholics) appreciate.
Dagonee
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
I guess I don't understand what the big deal is about this.
If a person wants to be a Catholic, he or she has to follow certain teachings. If that person doesn't want to follow the teachings, then why does s/he want to be Catholic anyway? Why do they want communion from the Church if they don't believe in its authority?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Dag, you are doing a great job... I'd jump in but you are nailing it.
Just didn't want you to feel all alone...
edit: as Speed alomst points out, the commandment is actually "do not murder"
[ June 27, 2004, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks!
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I think I'll chime in here with Jim-Me. Dag's already said anything I might have already.
Yozhik really makes a good point. They've already chosen that they don't want to be a full Catholic. So why is it such a big deal for the Church to respect that decision?
As for the death penalty, the Catechism, at least, recognizes that nations have the right to execute criminals in some circumstances, but adds the disclaimer that it should not be necessary, and that if there is a more humane alternative, it is to be used.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Here's an example. The Church is in favor of feeding the hungry. Particular members of the Church might come out for or against a particular welfare bill, but there would be no moral failing in truly believing a bill different than the one desired by the Bishop is better served to feed hungry people.
The disagreement would be over the understanding of the socio-economic effects of a particular bill, not over a matter of faith. Given the flexibility hinted at in the Catechism about the death penalty, there are relevant, worldly issues that Catholics of good conscience can disagree on while still agreeing with the actual teaching. The same goes for the war in Iraq. Different conclusions can be reached without disagreeing with an article of faith.
The same is not possible for abortion, especially first-trimester abortion on demand.
I think anyone who declares himself to be a Catholic is bound to explore the positions of the Church leadership on particular political issues, but only bound to follow those that are fully informed by issues of faith.
Dagonee
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
I would also like to support Dagonee's comments. As I am not the best Catholic, I am not aware of any Priest actively preventing a person from receiving communion, yet. They have drawn a line and expect those that are affected to seek redemption or to change their stance on the issue at hand.
As far as the Sacrament of Communion, good Catholics are not supposed to partake in Communion if they do not go to mass at least once a week. We all know the rules, but sometimes we have a hard time admitting they apply to us or are serious enough to govern over the way we live our lives.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
That's very true, Alucard. And the church has been struggling with what to do about lapsed Catholics for a long time. On the one hand, they like to consider EVERYONE as belonging to the Catholic church, but certainly if you were baptized and confirmed in the Church, you are Catholic. If you leave the church you aren't required to tell them. And if you decide to come back, they've recently come up with a "sacrament of reconciliation" (or so I've heard, maybe someone can describe this to us or correct me if I've created a false impression).
But it has sort of grown into a tradition in American Cathoicism that one can call themselves Catholic while not necessarily attending mass or believing the tenets of the faith, major or minor.
Why anyone would want to do that, I don't know.
But in particular it might get someone votes if they claim to be Catholic, but not too Catholic.
I think the church has a right to be upset if they are being used that way. It is hypocritical and misrepresentative of what the church teaches.
Dag, you are absolutely correct about people in the Church not knowing what it teaches. I blame the church for that, by the way, but then I grew up in the era when Catholics were discouraged from reading the Bible, and many churches never bothered to instruct people on church doctrine after the sacraments of Communion and Confirmation were conferred. Certainly, some families seemed very well informed, but the vast majority of Catholics probably don't even know that the pope has to specifically invoke infallability or the scriptural basis for the various social and moral stands that the church takes.
Frankly, it's a convenience thing. The people don't want to know (most of them) because of the fear that they'd disagree so much with the Church's position that they'd have to leave it. And the Church doesn't want to lose parishioners as a result of explaining its stances and how it arrived at them. Until recently, it's been more or less a nod and a wink. At least in America. But now I think the church leaders have realized that this isn't workable either. The church seems to be shrinking even while it tried to accommodate the free-thinking Americans. So now it's taking a harder line and insisting that people at least know and profess to believe the major tenets.
Good for them.
I hope they stick with it. Better a loyal core of believers than a bunch of "in name only" Catholics.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Bob, the "sacrament of reconciliation" is just another name for confession - which is and has always been the sacrament a Catholic needs to receive to "come back" to the Church. It also happens to be a sacrament I'm not very good at receiving, but that's a personal problem.
As for your take on the Church, I can't speak to how it is outside of my parishes, which have never really deemphasized doctrine as you descibed. But I do know a lot of people who fit your general description, so I'm sure it happens. Ironically, what's not known about the Church is often it's more compassionate doctrines, which causes a lot of self-doubt and guilt that is totally unneccessary.
I just attended the pre-wedding weekend for our diocese, and they were up-front about the two big areas of "dissent" - pre-marital relations and birth control. There's no way anybody walked out of that weekend doubting the Church's positions.
It was thought provoking to hear the reasonings behind the birth control rules, as well as couples talking about the physical, emotional, and spiritual benefits of natural family planning to them.
But what got us most is the idea that marriage is key to the idea of being made in the image of God. First, the "one flesh" idea is the closest human's can come to experiencing what God experiences as part of the Trinity. Second, it's the means for humans to experience a part of the creative powers of God. And finally, it's a way to practice living as Christ did - feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, and teaching our children how to be close to God.
I also love that it's the only sacrament given by laypeople absent an emergency. Husband and wife give the Sacrament of Matrimony to each other; the priest is a witness.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm with Yozhik. Why claim a religion if you don't believe the tenets?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Kath, its all about social status. I have known of many people where that question was put to them and there are two most common answers. They grew up that particular religion and therefore it is their tradition. So, since it is only "tradition" anyway they seek to change the religion to make it more palatable to their unbelief. Personally, I see this as an act of religous war. That is, to my estimation, why the Catholic church has a right to treat those not in compliance any way they want within the rules of law.
The other was that if they were to claim otherwise than they would be austraciced by their family, friends, nieghbors, etc. They see it as a form of protection. Personally, I think those answers make them look weak and cowardly.
[ June 28, 2004, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Here is my problems with this idea.
1) It smacks of the Centurian in Temple Garb-- someone in the church is more interested in making a name for himself, getting on TV, raising an issue and being well known, than he is interested in being a servant of God.
This is not a problem that can be argued. Its the personality of the new Arch Bishop of St. Louis that I am refering too. He was one of the people who started this idea back when he was Bishop in Milwaukee or somewhere.
2) The capital punishment comparison has been rightly argued down. Lets take the argument to the extreme. The Catholic Church believes that they are the only true church. To save the souls of everyone, everyone needs to be converted. Isn't to deny communion to a politician because he did not do all in his power to stop abortion the same as denying communion to any church member who has not done their duty and done everything in their power to convert others?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Quoting once again from my favorite source, an atheist organizer who started his career in the city I live in now and who shook things up in the city I grew up in:
quote:Each year, for a number of years, the activists in the graduating class of a major Catholic seminary near Chicago would visit me for a day just before their ordination, with questions about values, revolutionary tactics and such. Once, at the end of such a day, one of the seminarians said, "Mr. Alinsky, before we came here we met and agreed that there was one question we particularly wanted to put to you. We're going to be ordained, and then we'll be assigned to different parishes, as assistants to - frankly - stuffy, reactionary, old pastors. They will disapprove of a lot of what you and we believe in, and we will be put into a killing routine. Our question is: how do we keep our faith in true Christian values, everything we hope to do to change the system?"
That was easy. I answered. "When you go out that door, just make your own personal decision about whether you want to be a bishop or a priest, and everything else will follow."
--Saul D. Alinksy, "Rules for Radicals"
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Occasional,
Oh, I can come up with theories, but I wonder if someone who does that could say? I'm thinking there has to be more to it than mere human pride, and I'll bet the full picture would quite interesting.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Legitimate Dissent:
quote:Criteria For Dissent 1. Responsible dissent distinguishes between the degrees of authority of different teachings--ordinary and extraordinary magisterium. 2. Responsible dissent follows when the only remaining reason left for holding a position is that it is being taught by the magisterium though not adequately supported by convincing arguments. That is, when the only option left after prayerful and reasonable consideration is blind faith. 3. Responsible dissent is proportionate to the competence of the person to make an assessment of the teaching at stake.
Guidelines for Dissent 1. Affirm the teaching authority of the Church. Still repect the teaching authority for further and other issues. 2. Be concerned for the means. There are ways of going about dissenting in one's heart--no need to go on TV. 3. Contribute toward the reformulation of the teaching. For theologians, don't trash the Church, but contribute towards a change for the good. 4. Count the cost--what is involved in the dissent?
Responsible dissent in the church rests upon the conviction that the achievement of truth in the church is a process in which we all have a responsibility. Teaching and learning are a communal experience. Dissent is a part of the process by which we learn. When it comes at the end of the process of docile and respectful reflection, it can play a significant part in the purification and development of the church's understanding of its apostolic inheritance. If we serve the church well by receiving its teaching with a thoughtful and critical spirit, the church will be a more effective community." --Richard Gula, "Reason Informed by Faith"
The Catholic Bishops of the United States issued three critera for responsible dissent: 1. the reasons for dissent must be serious and well-founded 2. the manner in which one dissents must not impugn the teaching authority of the church 3. the dissent must be such as not to give scandal.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Isn't to deny communion to a politician because he did not do all in his power to stop abortion the same as denying communion to any church member who has not done their duty and done everything in their power to convert others?
First, because there is a lot of room for interpretation with regards to "everything in their power to convert others." Cases can be made that certain proseletyzing activities cause people to turn away from the Church. Again, it's a question of "technique," essentially a worldy, not theological question on means of persuasion. This argument directly parallels my feed the poor analysis from above.
Second, it's not a question of not doing all in ones power to stop abortion; it's a question of directly enabling it by voting to remove the legal protections enjoyed by almost every other human being in this country.
Dagonee
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
I was a good bad Catholic. I didn't go often as a young lad (when I could avoid going in my teens) but when I did go, I usually didn't pretend I was up to date on my Confession and attendance and take Communion. I was fine sitting it out. I wonder how many others are like this? Are people who take the Communion without "meeting the requirements" as bad as a politician who supports a woman's right to choose? I would guess there are more of the former than the latter, but it is interesting that the public sees the latter. Which supports the political grandstanding idea.
I still haven't found out why it is a sin to wash one's hands of something vs. actually doing it. I heard you Dag on the "not doing enough" bit, but as Dan pointed out, then there should be a WHOLE lot of Catholics sitting out Communion every week. If a person doesn't do abortions, have abortions or even advocate for abortions (by supporting Choice, you can still advocate to keep the child...but the choice is the mother's, not the politicians). What if said politician voted yea on a bill that supports Choice, but in their other parts of their life supported the birth of children by donating money to adoption agencies, family planning centers, etc.?
I would fit that bill. I support the right to choose but in all other ways personally, I support the life of the unborn child but stop short of telling other people what to do. Is that a sin? Again, if so, then Host passing time should be mighty thin in most churches.
And since when is a politician's private life (especially Church life) up for public debate? I would be incensed if a reporter dug into this, but to have a Bishop stand up and make such a public stance...shouldn't that be between the politician, his priest and God?
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Which is why I said my preference is for the public reminder, with the decision left up to each person. But Kerry has not been private about either his pro-choice stance or his Catholicism, so I think public commentary is warranted.
Dagonee
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:a sin to wash one's hands of something vs. actually doing it
Because it'd be a sin of omission instead of a sin of comission.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: Second, it's not a question of not doing all in ones power to stop abortion; it's a question of directly enabling it by voting to remove the legal protections enjoyed by almost every other human being in this country.
If a politician is responsible for every aborted fetus because a law gave the choice to the mother, then couldn't this be the case for other laws? What about reducing all public highway speed limits to 35 miles per hour? Is allowing cars to travel at high speeds (which in turn cause more fatal car crashes) just as bad? Deaths occur and have they done enough to stop it? How about guns? By supporting laws that allow people to carry guns, are they supporting the potential deaths of hundreds of people due to bad choices made? Should more be done? What about alcohol? This is one of the dangerous substances that we are legally allowed to ingest. It is the root cause for thousands of deaths, crimes, broken families and lost jobs and it is a legally supported and taxed substance. Are we doing enough to get this out of people's homes, public restaurants and off the street? I don't think so.
Having fast cars, lots of booze and handguns is enabling all sorts of chaos. Does a politician wear these sins on their soul, too?
fil
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Cars and alcohol can both be used safely. And, in fact, there are laws prosecuting the misuse of these things.
When an abortion is performed, someone dies every single time. And there's no law to stop it.
[ June 28, 2004, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Go back to my original response to your "what's the sin" question. We're starting to repeat.
To sum up, the only way to be Catholic and pro-choice is to either disbelieve the Church teachings on when someone becames a human being with the full dignity and respect due all human beings, or to believe that it's OK to let some people kill human beings because they don't believe they're human yet.
The Church does not maintain that everything that's immoral should be illegal. It has maintained that civil and criminal laws should take into account the dignity of human life.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, That's not actually true, you know. There's a big leap between thinking that people shouldn't have abortions and thinking that you are obligated to stop them from having them by the use of force. There's a further leap between wanting to support a politician who wants to make abortion illegal and making this the only issue worth considering. If, for example, a Catholic believed that the war in Iraq constituted an Unjust War, I imagine that it would be extremely difficult for them to support or vote for George Bush, no matter what his stance on abortion was.
Being pro-choice, even for a politician, is not techincally considered a sin by the Catholic Church. Not yet. The bishops (if things haven't change since I last looked at this, it's 4 out of the 300 American Bishops) who have said that they will deny pro-choice politicians (and, some of them, people who vote for pro-choice politicians) the sacrament of Communion have done so not on the bounds that it is a sin. They don't have the authority to say what is a sin and what isn't. They are exercsing their perogative to control the administration of the sacraments within their diocese.
It's important for people to realize that this is not an official Church issue. This is the action of a certain number of bishops - as I said, I think 4 - exercising their personal perogative. The Church has called a council for 2005 to discuss these very issues. Despite what you may think, there will be many influential voices at this conference opposed to the denial of sacraments basewd on political voting. It's not a cut and dried issue that just needs to be formalized.
The Church is ambivilent over its role in influencing the politics of other countries. It is also ambilivent over its role in permitting or denying sacraments to people. The issues of the Chruch's stance towards political support of abortion is a great deal more complex than the issue of abortion itself.
---
As an aside, I was unaware that the Catholic Church currently accepted the death penality as morally ok in any circumstances. I thought that the thought under Pope John Paul II was that it was considered as uniformly bad as abortion - part of the "culture of death", just that it wasn't classified so at as high a level as abortion. Is this a case where people think that it's ok to disagree with the Pope's firm stance against capital punishment in all it's forms, perhaps because of the prior statements of the church, or am I missing nuances in the current stance of the Church?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Nevermind, found it myself. From the Cathechism:
quote:2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."
You know, it would be interesting to see if the Catholic Church bans Joh nKerry from Communion, would they also ban Antonin Scalia because of his unflinching, unuanced support of the death penalty. I suspect not, as I think that most Catholics who support the use of power in the abortion case are favorably disposed to the death penalty, far beyond what is suggested by the Cathechism.
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
No fair, Im Jewish.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I've said all along that this is an isue of discretion for individual Bishops. I'm explaining why it is consistent with Catholic teaching for the Bishops to make this denial. I've not said it should always be done.
However, you are flat our wrong when you say being pro-choice (allowing elective abortions, even only in the first trimester) is not in and of itself a sin. To be pro-choice because the person doesn't think a pre-born child is alive requires denying a tenet of faith that is considered essential - that of the immaculate conception. To be pro-choice while accepting that tenet requires condoning killing of innocents with no justification. Both are rejections of core Church teachings.
The Pope has never spoken from the chair on capital punishment, and official teaching still allows it in some circumstances. The circumstances are defined as worldly questions, not as theological ones, and so are left to the individual conscience of believers.
As for voting for a pro-choice politician because of other stances informed by your faith, that is not necessarily sinful if, in balance, the voter expects the politician to have little real impact on the abortion issue but to have potentially larger impacts on other important issues.
The control they are exercising over the sacrament, while not subject to review, is also not supposed to be unfettered. So the Bishop is making a ruling of faith that is binding on parishoners within the diocese.
The 2005 conference will create no binding authority; each Bishop will still have personal discretion.
Dagonee
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: They don't have the authority to say what is a sin and what isn't.
Then who does? Sure, one could argue "nobody" but then the word "sin" becomes pretty meaningless.
I'm very interested to learn that the life from conception argument is based on immaculate conception. It seems consistent. The LDS church doesn't have a doctrine on the subject, though there seem to be members who go with conception as the beginning of life because it is the most conservative view.
So if a birth control method can prevent conception, why is this bad? How is avoiding relations on days when conception is unlikely different from preventing conception? (A lot of LDS use both kinds of pills, I don't support pills because I believe they harm the potential mother's body).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's based on a different teaching, about the purpose of sexuality/marriage. I don't have time to do it justice here, but even abstaining on fertile days is not given a free ride. It's only supposed to be done prayerfully for a valid reason. Valid reasons can include financial state, but the Church has a stricter definition of financial needs than most Americans do.
However, this is exactly the type of decision that is rightfully left to people's conscience, because no one is really cpable of judging how someone else is evaluating their ability to care for a child.
There is a respect for life aspect to the reason for birth control restrictions, but it has a different foundation than the abortion restriction.
However, because of the view that life beigns at conception, not implantation, the abortion teaching comes into play with some birth control methods.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, Could you explain the immaculate conception thing to me? I don't get how that's relevant to abortion.
I disagree with your view of being pro-choice as being intrinsically a sin. I am pretty darn sure that it is not considered techinically so by the Church. Having or performing one, yes, but not using force to prevent them, no. A politician or someone who votes for a politician may believe that abortion is wrong, that no one should have abortions, and yet not believe that it is within their responsibility to force people not to have abortions. Or a politican may see themselves as the represntative of a population who is largely pro-choice (I don't really like that term, but pro-abortion is not inclusive enough a description and anti-anti-abortions is too cumbersome) and feel obligated to duly represnt his constituents' wishes.
If you were trying to say, as I did, that this isn't the Catholic Church doing this, but a very few bishops (who have been opposed in this by more prominent American Bishops and Cardinals), that didn't come across to me. This is a dinstinction that I think is usually lost when people report on or talk about this issue, leading it to be blown way out of proportion. Elsewhere, someone claimed that John Kerry had to scramble to find a place where he could freely receive Communion. My thought was that, if he had to scramble to find one of the 296 dioceses where he could receive Communion, the man was pretty stupid, even for a politician.
The 2005 conference will result in a coherent statement that represents the Church's stance on this. It may not be binding (actually, I didn't know that), but it will present a much different face to these issues than what now exists. I also believe that it will present a much different stance than some people seem to expect, and will state that it is specifically not the policly of the Catholic Church to deny Communion to people based solely on political stances. I could be completely wrong in that, but my read of the situation is that a large number of the Church hierachry are unwilling to adopt a more coercive role in nations politcs.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:However, this is exactly the type of decision that is rightfully left to people's conscience, because no one is really cpable of judging how someone else is evaluating their ability to care for a child.
Can you explain this to me? The last sentence is confusing. Are you saying no one is judging parents ability to care for a child? I was wondering if you could explain or restate this a bit. It is an interesting point, if I am reading it correctly. It might be if I am reading it incorrectly, too, come to think of it!
fil
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
pooka, The Catholic Church has some pretty strict rules about the offices and/or contexts that confer authority to do certain things. There are offices and contexts the confer the authority to declare something a sin or not. The bishopforic (I didn't spell that right, did I>) doesn't confer that authority. They can have personal opinions on the matter and can use the authority they are given to express these personal opinions, but I don't think anyone, no even the priest under their direction, are obligated to regard these personal opinions as binding. That is to say, the priests under the 4 bishops in question are prohibited from granting Communion to certain people, but they are not obligated to view these people as being in a state of sin.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
fil,
All I meant was that any decision that requires you to evaluate the world in order to make the morally correct decision is much harder to second guess. So if a couple decides not to have kids because they can't afford it, the Church isn't going to come audit their finances and tell that they really can. A priest might remind people in a homily that living up to the typical American two-income middle class lifestyle does not represent true financial difficulty. And if a couple soought counseling, a priest might tevaluate their finances with them. But because so much discretion is needed to make a good decision, it is basically left to the conscience.
MrSquicky, the doctrine of the immaculate conception is that Mary, "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." (It's not about Jesus's conception, as many believe).
The doctrine presumes that Mary existed at the first instance of her conception, since only a human being can posess original sin, and therefore only a human can be exempted from it.
I'd be interested to hear a rational that starts from the premise that at the moment of conception an unborn child is fully human that ends with it being OK to exempt that human being from the protection of homicide laws that doesn't violate another teaching of the Church. That's what is required to be anti-anti-abortion and in full communion with the Church.
(By the way, I'm referring to elective abortion solely based on the decision of the mother, with no complicating factors).
Dagonee
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Aren't individual politicians supposed to act as the voice for the people they represent? Is it possible to fight for something that you find morally abhorrent because the people who have put their faith in you are behind it? Or what if you feel it should be legal given the current state of laws (not a question of *should* it be legal or *is* it really legal. Please don't answer either of those questions).
Can you deny a politician communion based on what they fight for if it's not necessarily what they believe is morally right? Can the Church say, "This is what you believe in and that makes you not Catholic enough for communion" despite someone’s protests that that isn't, in fact, what they believe in? Isn't this whole communion thing between God and the receiver anyway? Who are you to tell someone what level of Catholicism they've reached? Doesn't God sort all of that out in the end?
Just some stream of consciousness there.
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
Okay, I have a question. How does voting for someone make me prochoice? If I vote for bush because I am prolife does that mean I am prowar? I'm not sure who I will vote for in the upcoming election. But what if I research both candidates and find out that other than the abortion thing I agree with almost all of Kerry's ideas and none of Bush's? Do I vote for Bush because he's prolife? Is he likely to actually change the laws even if he is?
Oh and pooka no one can say if a person's sinned because no one but that person knows what is going on in a person's mind. Sin is a conscious choice to do something wrong. One of the first requirements for sinning is that you must know that it is wrong. Or at least, that's what I was taught in grade school.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I specifically mentioned that voting for a prochoice politician is not automatically a problem.
Dagonee
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
Yes I was more thinking of the last thread where this was discussed and voting was more the topic of debate. It is more clearly stated here. But it's still not clear to me as a Catholic up here in liberal liberal new england what the Church is teaching. I am originally from one of the most conservative diocese in the country and am quite astonished by how radically different the teachings are. While I agree that many things are up to interpretation and opinion it's mindboggling how frequently the two conflict each other.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Now see, this is a difference from what I remember of my Catholic upbringing. I know many of my Catholic relatives had tons of kids, but it was more of something to giggle about. I am not saying you are wrong, Dag, as it fits but in church (and CCD) we never got the "have babies until it hurts" sort of teaching. Wow. That is interesting stuff.
fil
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You know, I've been approaching this from the perspective of the people sinning geting an abortion, not of the humans being killed by being aborted. Your approach is much more compelling, Dag and one I really should have considered. I'll have to think about it a little more.
Right now, the best I can come up with is 1) to ask at what level is the morality of the necessity to protect life established and 2) to say that, politicians bear responsibility, both to their constituents and to the Constitution (as ammended by the Supreme Court (whose decision in Roe vs. Wade I personally think is bs)), which, if taken seriously, may prevent them from voting to ban abortion, no matter what their personal beliefs may be.
Other than that, yeah, right now, I can't see how they could defend their actions in terms of being consistent with Catholic doctrine. Of course, that still leaves the question of whether it is appropriate to ban them from receiving Communion, and, if them, why not politicians who are whole-hearted supporters of the death penalty, such as a Supreme Court Justice who publically disagrees with the Church's stance.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I am not saying you are wrong, Dag, as it fits but in church (and CCD) we never got the "have babies until it hurts" sort of teaching.
I think they wait until you're getting married to tell you. I didn't learn it quite that way in CCD either.
Squick, I'm not sure they should be banned from communion either; I'm just showing the rationale used by the Bishops who do and making a case for it being consistent with Catholic teaching.
As for the Constitutional issue, it helps that Roe is one of the most poorly reasoned cases since Plessy, and Casey is worse in most respects.
But it still leaves amendments open to politicians and a host of restrictions that are already deemed Constitutional.
Dagonee
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:That's based on a different teaching, about the purpose of sexuality/marriage. I don't have time to do it justice here, but even abstaining on fertile days is not given a free ride.
So does there have to be a possibility of conception? I understand if you don't want to go into that.
Sarah- I agree that sin has to be intentional. The reason I changed to pro life is not because I do think life begins at conception (I argue a physiological theory of 7 weeks gestation). I am pro-life because I feel that stance is closer to my belief that abortion may sometimes be a necessary evil. I think it should be a medical intervention, and not a "right" or a "freedom".
To say that life begins at conception makes no more sense to me than that life begins with the consent of the parents to have sex. Given that non-consenting sex (rape) would be a scenario where abortion would be permissable in my view, I guess this could be argued.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So does there have to be a possibility of conception? I understand if you don't want to go into that.
*in a delicate voice*
To technically be in full compliance with Catholic teachings, each act must be such that conception is a possibility, with no attempt being made to reduce the chance of conception by that individual act.
Which is why NFP is considered OK and condoms, which have no abortificient possibility, are not. The way NFP intereferes with conception is by a conscious choice not to commit the act, not a choice to interfere with the natural consequences of the act.
Dagonee
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Thanks, Dagonee. I think I understand.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
quote: To say that life begins at conception makes no more sense to me than that life begins with the consent of the parents to have sex
Can you explain this and your "seven weeks gestation physiological theory"? Maybe it's because I just got up, but this period of time isn't ringing a bell.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It's the stage when a female embryo will have formed all the eggs she ever may potentially contribute to the genome. It's not really a start of life standard so much as a point at which the embryo's life is of interest to the community/species.
Someone mentioned in passing once that females apparently can undergo gametogenesis later in development but I haven't seen anything outside of hatrack about it.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
So an embryo's life isn't of interest to "the community" until it has reproductive potential?!?
I hate to say it, but that sounds a lot like the attitude some of us pro-lifers are accused of having--that women are only valuable as wombs. I don't naturally associate personhood with ability to reproduce. I hope I'm misunderstanding you.
{Edit} If you're talking on a purely biological basis--the embryo is of no benefit to the gene pool--I understand on that level but find it difficult to believe you'd apply this to a moral issue in that way.
[ June 29, 2004, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
I just found our local Bishop making some very interesting statements counter to what the Bishop in Colorado is saying about Communion. Check it out:
quote:The altar is a place of unity, healing, nourishment and grace. It is not a place for confrontation
Nifty.
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I like this statement. Here's a link to the whole thing.
Here's an excerpt I think needed to be included in the news story:
quote:No one should mistake reservations about refusing Communion or public calls to refrain from Communion as ignoring or excusing those who clearly contradict Catholic teaching in their public roles.
Here's an excerpt that explains more of the reasoning behind the pro-choice/pro-life issue in light of Church teaching:
quote: At this time, abortion is a fundamental human rights issue for all men and women of good will. The Church gives its urgent attention and priority to the unborn because they are the most vulnerable members of the human family. In the United States, policy and practice allow for thousands of abortions each day. This destruction of unborn human life diminishes reverence for life in other areas. As a nation, we just acknowledge that the principle of protecting innocent life from direct attack is being systematically eroded. We are all made more vulnerable.
When it comes to abortion, we have not reached a national consensus on the basic question of whether it is a public issue and, therefore, to be regulated by law…whether it is a private issue and, therefore, subject only to the dictates of personal conscience. For those who describe themselves as “pro choice” advocates, abortion is a matter of private morality and they assert the State should not control or regulate a women’s choice to have a child.
In Catholic moral doctrine, abortion is an issue of public morality. The reason is that for us the issue is not the simple issue of the woman’s right to have a child or not. For us, there are three actors not one. For us, it is an issue of the conflict of rights—the rights of the woman and the rights of the unborn child, and we reason that where there is a conflict of rights, there is a legitimate place for the State to be involved. Our formulation of the issues, then, involves a woman, the child and the State and for us it is an issue of public not merely private morality.
The problem we presently encounter in the public discussion of this issue derives at least to some degree from the failure to define the terms accurately. If an office holder believes that abortion is wrong but doesn’t oppose it through the legitimately available democratic processes, then in effect that office holder is saying that he or she believes it is a matter of private morality – a unitary issue of the right of the women to have or not to have a child.
But, if an office holder believes that abortion is wrong, that it involves a conflict of the rights of the woman and the rights of the child and that the destruction of the unborn child has a significant impact on the public good, then that office holder, in effect believes that it is a matter of public morality. In this case, logic as well as conscience would indicate that such an office holder should make use of the democratic processes to control and regulate abortion and should use the right of free speech to persuade public opinion in favor of his or her position. This cannot reasonably or justly be alleged as imposing one’s personal views on others for as John Courtney Murray quite rightly stated: “Any minority group has the right to work toward the elevation of public morality in the pluralistic society through the use of the methods or persuasion and pacific argument.”
As Catholics, we have the religious and moral responsibility of advocating social policies and laws that safeguard the rights of the unborn and the well-being of the mother. This means advocating for a comprehensive system of prenatal and postnatal services, financial and material support, adoption, counseling and a variety of other alternatives to abortion. Our actions must follow our teachings.
The particular vocation of the Catholic public official is to be affirmed and respected. I want to express my appreciation for the dedicated and competent manner in which so many Catholic men and women have taken up the call to public service. Their call to leadership in the complex yet noble art of politics is highly valued by our Church, our community, state and nation. They deserve our appreciation and prayers.
I also believe that public officials, especially Catholics, have a moral obligation to support policies and legislation that protect the weakest and most defenseless among us. Moral convictions have no other meaning except to be translated into choices and actions. It is my view that the true measure of a politician is the consistency of that politician’s moral conviction, public expression, and conduct in the policy arena.
I do not wish to be misunderstood or misinterpreted about these reflections. I am not suggesting that Catholic public officials are obligated to incorporate all precepts of divine and moral law in civil statutes. Nor am I suggesting that Catholic public officials are not free in conscience to disagree with their bishops on public policy questions. However, the Catholic public official must have an informed conscience and become acquainted with the social and moral teachings of the Church and not act out of political expediency. Catholic public officials are called to “bring together consistently their faith, moral principles and public responsibilities.” (Faithful Citizenship-3). I invite them to view their elected position in the light of their faith and not in spite of it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, I certainly wouldn't argue the point with you. I do, however, find it fascinating that in Talmudic tradition, the fetus does not develop into personhood until the moment of "quickening" (at least, that is my understanding). Of course, there are many perspectives of Judaism that Christianity did not adopt -- but I wonder, why not this one? Does it indeed have to do with a change of perspective regarding the conception in Mary?
I don't actually know what the timing of the events was. One possibility is science. I'm not sure when people realized that conception was the joining of two gametes, each with half the genetic code of the resulting person. Didn't people think up until the middle ages that the sperm contained the entire "homonoculus," which would make it difficult to imagine conception as we know it, and would make conception a much less important time in development.
Also, according to tradition, John the Baptist quickened when his mother came into the presence of Mary while she was pregnant with Christ.
Again, these are just the thoughts that occurred to me; I have no idea what the actual answer to your question is. I'll look into it, but this type of research is harder for a non-theologian than looking into what the Church teaches now.
Dagonee P.S., I want to say, I do appreciate how respectful and curious everyone has been in this thread. This touches on those doctrines of the Catholic Church which separate it the most from other denominations, and I've seldom seen it discussed without hysteria on one side or both.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: I do, however, find it fascinating that in Talmudic tradition, the fetus does not develop into personhood until the moment of "quickening" (at least, that is my understanding).
Erm, I haven't done any recent research on the subject, but while I believe that "quickening" is one of the possibilities discussed in the Talmud, it is NOT the one that was the majority opinion. (The Talmud frequently lists many different opinions, and does not always make clear which is the commonly accepted, majority opinion.)
In Jewish Law, as I understand it, conception is significant but does not equal the start of life. Rather, the potential for one. At 40 days post-conception (which, intriguingly (to me, anyway), we now know to be when the placenta becomes fully functional and the amniotic cavity is complete), it is now a life. (However, until birth, it is not a (um, translation issue) "complete" life.)
At about 10-15 weeks post conception, there is some additional surety in the fact that this is a pregnancy that is confirmed and likely to continue to term. (That would cover both the issue of earliest possible "quickening," and the lowered risk of miscarriage.) However, that pretty much just translates into what can be done to try to save the potential life (violating the Sabbath, for example). Given a choice between it and the mother's life/health, she still is given priority.
All of which, of course, may have little or no relevance to Catholic theology. Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
This probably belongs in its own thread, but there is a tie to the two topics of religion and abortion.
Hopefully, all of you are familiar with the morning after pill, which can cause spontaneous abortion if the mother has had unprotected intercourse.
Being a pharmacist, I am required by law to fill any prescription that a doctor has prescribed for the patient, even if it interferes with my religious beliefs.
Concordantly, my company has fired and/or reprimanded 3 or 4 pharmacists for exercising their supposed rights to not fill a presciption because of their religious beliefs (of which there is no legal documentation to allow for this decision-making).
What this means is that I can be fired if I refuse to dispense a pill that causes an abortion, because of religious beliefs. Not only that, if I were investigated by the board, my license could be revoked/suspended, or I could be put on probation.
Does this scare me? No. I have my own personal beliefs and I handle the situation in my own way. My partner is a devout Catholic, and we agree that morning-after pills are against what the Catholic Church teaches.
But still, if the drug were on my shelf, I am required to dispense it, or lie and tell the patient that it is not. Since I hate to lie, I just do not carry it.
All in all, this is a very frustrating topic for me, and I hope all of you can expand a bit on what you think about it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If you are allowed to not carry it, I think that seems like a viable option. In a big city, I doubt the number of pharmacists exercising their right of conscience would end up having a deliterious effect. In a small town, though, I could see the state trying to force you to carry it.
Not sure what the outcome of that would be. If pharmacies aren't an emergency care provider, your free exercise rights might have a good shot at winning out. It'd be an interesting case, anyway.
I'd be interested to know that Planned Parenthood's take on this would be...
Dagonee
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
If they don't carry it in a small town I suspect that they'd be required to provide some alternate method of supplying the drug. Say, be mail order from a nearby urban centre. Of course, by the time all the red tape was cut through it would be too late for the woman in question (assuming this sort of thing hasn't already happened. For some reason I’m pretty sure it has).
As for you moral quandary, Alucard, it would be the height of arrogance for your coworker to inflict their religion on someone who depends on them for pharmaceuticals if they both refused to provide the drug and refused to assist the patient in finding it. It is the patients right to make an informed decision regarding their care. They could talk to the patient about the pill if they so chose, but they couldn't refuse to provide it.
In my professional humble opinion of course
Of course, this opens up a whole realm of questions. When is a drug considered a pharmaceutical product that patients have the right to? I'm thinking along the lines of marijuana here, or naturopathic remedies. Is it the FDA that decides? Maybe this shouldn’t’ be in this thread.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:it would be the height of arrogance for your coworker to inflict their religion on someone who depends on them for pharmaceuticals.
This isn't just "their religion." It's the belief that the pills actually can kill aliving human being. Doctors can't be forced to perform abortions. Why should pharmacists.
It would be the height of arrogance to think the desire to protect human life is arrogance. I find it as reprehensible as the Fugitive Slave Act was to many Northerners.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
*ahem*
You've gone and misquoted me. I'm not saying they have to hand over the drug in the classic paper "pharma bag". I'm saying that if they choose not to they must assist the person in finding another source. Be that pointing them to the pharmacy down the street or providing them with the means to get it from a city. I'm so sure this has come up before, you're making me want to get off my rear and look on google.
I believe doctors that won’t perform abortions have to provide referrals, do they not?
And a doctor cannot arbitrarily perform circumcision nor withhold blood transfusions. Like I said, the patient has the right to make an informed decision regarding their care. You must go and see the doctor to get a prescription for the pill. You've made your decision; the pharmacist fills in the order. I understand the important aspect the pharmacist plays in making sure medications don’t combine with negative results in your system, but they don’t have a say into the selection of your care beyond making sure you know what you’re getting into (and even that should have already occurred by the time a patient gets to the pharmacy).
Edit: I should be clear. I only know how the Canadian system works. It could very well be that American pharacists play a different role in care. If that's the case, I'll pack up my soapbox and go back up North.
[ July 04, 2004, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Dear Dag and Bob,
Maybe this would clear up the role of the pharmacist in the above scenario. One pharmacist refused to provide the medication or any professional assistance to the patient because it was against personal beliefs. That pharmacist was fired from my company. A second pharmacist refused to fill the prescription but provided the information to the patient that enabled her to fill the prescription at another pharmacy by another pharmacist.
For me personally, if I fill such a prescription, I have failed the Chruch and its stance on abortion and family planning. If I do not fill the prescription, I fail the patient and refute the laws and regulations that very clearly state that I must fill any prescription deemed necessary etc etc...accorting to the laws and regulations that make a prescription valid etc etc...
Does that make sense? My partner and I do not force our views on anyone at all. We are both rather introverted and private about our faith and rarely discuss religion. We just agree that we do NOT stock such an obscure medication. In the 9 years I have been practicing, I have only had one request for the drug, and it was via phone. If it helps any, I did offer to order the medication, but as is the nature of the need of such a medication, she looked elsewhere.
Of course, to a scrutinizing person, I am refusing therapy by simply not stocking a drug. So I have conveniently created an escape clause for myself. Well before you might judge me a bigot or fanatic, I do not stock morphine in a vial either. I had to turn away a terminal patient who is a good patient of mine today, and that hurt. There are just too many drugs to stock in one pharmacy!
[ July 04, 2004, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
BtL, even that could be considered too much helping for some people. And there's a far cry from the unasked for circumcision and refusing either the morning after pill or a blood transfusion. The latter two are about refusing to assist in the commission of a sin - a matter of personal responsibility. The first is battery, the second is choosing what you do.
If I understand correctly, many doctor's offices don't stock transfusion supplies. So there are a lot of medical fields available to those who wish to be doctors and not transfuse. Someone with that religious principle would not be justified in choosing surgery or another field that required them, because they would have to refuse to perform a task that is integral to their job, probably every day. But there's lots of medical jobs they could take.
As Alucard points out, it is unlikely that every pharmacy stocks every drug. I don't think you'd advocate letting pharmacists choose which drugs to stock for business reasons but not for religious ones. There are pharmacists who won't dispense certain drugs because they think they're too dangerous. A pharmacist can't dispense the morning after pill without the patient having seen a doctor. The doctor is in a position to dispense it right there (some do) or tell the patient where to obtain it. Emergency rooms can also dispense it. Even if they couldn't, it's not fair to force a person from their profession for choosing for religious reasons not to dispense a very small handful of drugs from the thousands available.
Dagonee
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Heavy discussion. I wonder, in a point to kind of bring this topic around to the original thread intent, could a pharmacist who dispenses the morning after pill be denied Communion? Should they? Or if they do give this medicine, are they covered if they go to Confession and do their penance each time they give it out? Just wondering.
Also, morning after pills should actually PREVENT conception, not necessarily abort a fertilized egg. If I recall my biology class from the last century, cell division doesn't start for 24 hours after sperm and egg get better aquainted. Meaning, if you get it on a 9 PM Friday night and you take the pill at 9 AM Saturday morning...there was no conception. Just a thought.
Also, another question for the religious pharmacist... Dag made a point that I find curious. In short, if I get him correctly, even using "the rhythm method" to prevent pregnancy could be considered sinful because it is preventing a potential life. That aside, is it sinful for a pharmacist to stock and sell OTC birth control like condoms, spermicidal jelly and so on? Do you avoid this by not stocking these, as well? Is it just as sinful to sell these? What about selling birth control pills? Do you stock those, even though they go against the church teachings? What about stocking them for woman who need the birth control pills to bring their monthly periods under control and not for birth control? Just curious where a pharmacist's power to dictate their beliefs on customers begins and ends. Like people said, in a large city it isn't a big deal...these days, walk two extra blocks and you see 5 new pharmacies. In a small town, though, this could be a bigger deal. Interesting.
fil
[ July 05, 2004, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Alucard - "your partner?"
Your business partner I assume?
As to the role of employing your religion in your business practices, I generally find the idea distasteful for the simple fact that I find most religion capricious and whimsical.
A very good friend of mine is gay and by most traditional faiths, he is condemned to Hell. For a circumstance of birth. There is precious little any organization can say to convince me of the righteousness of their cause when they choose to condemn an entire segment of the population in such a manner.
Of course, I am the one who would execute pedophiles and serial sex offenders cheerfully, so take my ranting with a grain of salt.
However, you are not required (nor able) to stock every possible drug available. Choosing not to stock a drug that offends you is a perfectly valid decision, although certainly not the criteria most business people would choose to use.
I don't even think a pharmacist is required to provide referrals for alternate sources of care - although as Bob pointed out, the circumstances may differ in each situation. And you have offered to order the drug if so pressed.
So, in summation, you have found a reasonable way to exercise your moral views without inflicting them overmuch on your customers.
-Trevor
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
AFAIK, women who use different types of "birth control" medication strictly to regulate their menstrual cycles or other types of health maintenance are *not* running afoul of Catholic teachings at all, so a pharmacist stocking them would also be "in the clear," so to speak.
Condoms and other OTC birth control methods seem to be found in just about any Walmart or KMart, so I also don't see a problem with a privately-run pharmacy not stocking them. I wouldn't think there would be stocking requirements for OTC medications, given that a pharmacy mainly exists to dispense prescription medication. Such a pharmacist might lose business for not stocking such items, but if they did so because of their beliefs, I don't think you could take them to court for it.
Also AFAIK, the "morning after pill" acts as such by preventing or ending the implantation of the fertilized egg, and therefore is a type of abortifacient (sp?). I was not aware that it either kills sperm/eggs or prevents ovulation.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Dagonee, thank you for posting Bishop Pilla's very concise, clear, and illuminating text. I really enjoyed reading it.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
quote: morning after pills should actually PREVENT conception, not necessarily abort a fertilized egg. If I recall my biology class from the last century, cell division doesn't start for 24 hours after sperm and egg get better aquainted. Meaning, if you get it on a 9 PM Friday night and you take the pill at 9 AM Saturday morning...there was no conception. Just a thought.
Okay, here is the gist of the situation: The morning after pill is chemically identical to birth control pills. In fact, for women who cannot find the morning after pill, a doctor can prescribe a pack of birth control pills and they can be taken in a way to terminate pregnancy.
As for the mechanisim of action, birth control pills and the morning after pill work in 3 ways:
1. They prevent ovulation. 2. They alter the mucus and endometrium and thicken this protective barrier, preventing sperm implantation. 3. They prevent a fertilized ovum from implanting into the cervical wall and prevent gestation.
In fact, the morning after pill will technically prevent a fertilized ovum that has adhered to the cervical wall from taking hold and will cause spontaneous abortion.
This is what makes the dispensing of this medication so difficult for someone who is against abortion.
I myself see thousands of prescriptions for birth control pills that say "As directed" for the instructions. As to how or why the patient uses them is out of my control. So yes, I am most likely responsible for the death of an unborn child, and that is a a very hard issue to deal with.
quote: As to the role of employing your religion in your business practices, I generally find the idea distasteful for the simple fact that I find most religion capricious and whimsical.
Wee! I feel whimsical now! I just killed the son I can never have! I am fancy free!
Or should I take the humanistic and scientific approach and keep monitoring my clipboard, typing commands into my keyboard to keep my conscience at bay?
Sorry, this issue is not that black and white.
quote: Heavy discussion. I wonder, in a point to kind of bring this topic around to the original thread intent, could a pharmacist who dispenses the morning after pill be denied Communion? Should they? Or if they do give this medicine, are they covered if they go to Confession and do their penance each time they give it out? Just wondering.
If I willingly dispensed the morning after pill and turned my back on my faith, I would not be going to Communion. But yes, I would accept that fate. As for birth control pills and condoms, the Church as you know, only endorses the rhythm method. I do not consider it a sin to stock these items, but some Christian Pharmacists do. That is my own personal belief and I do not claim to be right or wrong.
However, I do not consider the rhythm method to be sinful or cause culpability of sin.
But here is the heart of the matter: birth control pills work the same way as the morning after pill, and can be substituted for the morning after pill. So how, in good conscience, can I dispense oral contraceptives and suddenly become righteous when it comes to someone consciously terminating pregnancy. Theoretically, a woman may have several fertilized ova that are never given the chance to deevelop, all due to the use of birth control.
This is why the Catholic Church does not allow the use of them, in detail.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: I hate to say it, but that sounds a lot like the attitude some of us pro-lifers are accused of having--that women are only valuable as wombs. I don't naturally associate personhood with ability to reproduce. I hope I'm misunderstanding you.
I guess you may misunderstand me if you wish. In response to CT, I would say male embryos have equal rights to female embryos and should be protected from the same age. I was just making an effort to establish a physical stage of development at which an argument could be made for the embryo making a unique contribution to the species. The "from conception" argument I had been aware of in the past was based on the embryo's own genome being unique. I'm not saying people are only valuable insofar as they reproduce.
I lived on a military base overseas for a while, and we only had two doctors. One was Pentacostal Christian and the other was LDS. The Pentacostal Christian refused to write BC Pill prescriptions. I think the LDS doctor did, but his wife was pretty annoyed about it. I guess they were used to being in the opposite role.
As far as writing the prescriptions and confessing, is intending to sin and then confess counted? In the LDS church, confession is not such a formal thing. Planning to sin in the hope of repenting later is seen as not really repenting.
I only know of an anecdotal case where an LDS doctor was excommunicated for performing abortions. Generally, medical records are confidential so who is going to know? But according to a relative of the doctor, testimony was giving by other church members who had taken their daughters to the doctor for abortions. The relative seemed to think it was kind of a plea-bargain arrangement, but I don't know how accurate that is. I've never heard of plea-bargaining in a church court before. But maybe that unit of the church had gotten mixed up in some legalistic formalism.
Still, I know a lot of LDS women who use BCPs. There is no official doctrine on when life begins but Brigham Young is quoted as agreeing with the "quickening" tradition. And church guidelines are similar to insurance reimbursement language: Abortion can be considered in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the mother.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
While you're right, the morning after pill is available from other locations, it's quite likely the patient isn’t aware of that. The pharmacist has a moral and legal obligation to inform them of alternative places to obtain the drug. Like I keep saying, this isn’t about the pharmacist, this is about the right of a patient of sound mind to make informed decisions regarding their care. They depend on care workers to help them uphold that right. The pharmacist cannot simply say, "I'm sorry, I believe that would be murder. I cannot help you," and leave the patient in the lurch. To do so is to decide for the patient and strip them of that right. If that's considered too much of a breach of faith by the pharmacist in question then yes, they should seek another profession as they're unable to meet the requirements of their current one. Not all jobs are for everybody.
Alucard, like I've said, what you've decided to do is fine. Like you say, it's not commonly sought after. When a request did come in you tried to help them. For what it's worth, I sympathize. I'm a vegan and my job requires me to occasionally run tests on animals (interesting to note that almost half the people in our unit don't eat meat). Heck, even studies we do with humans/human organs can be squicky. There's nothing like the health profession to provide you with moral hoops that need jumping through. Sometimes, no matter what you do, you feel like you're failing someone.
Edit: The first bit was a reply to Dagonee. I started typing this a while ago and then work kicked in and I only just got back to it now.
[ July 05, 2004, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
quote:Sometimes, no matter what you do, you feel like you're failing someone.
I do, literally. We all have our crosses to bear. As far as in response to Pooka and you BTL, I would never knowingly hurt an unborn child or promote the loss of life. But I would be naive or at worst, lying to myself, if I believed for one minute that I have not indirectly assisted someone in terminating a pregnancy.
Bob, as you said so eloquently, we have many hoops to jump through in our positions. You forgot to mention that frequently they are also on fire. You are one helluva guy, Bob. Thanks for the insights.
I must sit and hum, meditating, in front of the "As seen on TV rack". Magic Meatballs always helps me focus.
P.S. I also wanted to mention that if I did dispense the morning after pill, I would feel compelled to go to confession, and I would pray that I was forgiven.
My father was once in confession about 30 years ago. He mentioned to the priest one of his sins and the priest misheard him. Evidently, what the priest thought he had heard was very severe, and he told my father emphatically that he could NOT grant absolution for my father's sins. You can imagine my father's surprise!
He got out of the confessional after a LOT of explaining, and I do believe the priest gave him a hefty penance, just for good measure.
[ July 05, 2004, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Thank you, Pooka. I was wondering if you had missed my post. I'm sorry if I disturbed you, but your position simply struck me as an odd one to take. If it makes sense to you...well, I can say it's better than abortion on demand, anyway.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Storm, thank fil - if he hadn't posted the article, I wouldn't have even known this existed.
quote:The pharmacist cannot simply say, "I'm sorry, I believe that would be murder. I cannot help you," and leave the patient in the lurch.
I don't know - how hard is it for someone to find another pharmacist? I know we're postulating a small town, but I still can't see why that response isn't appropriate. The whole thread is really about why some sins can be left to the individual (private morality, as the quoted statement calls it) and why some require actual opposition to (public morality). If we are to have a pluralistic society, we HAVE to let people exercise their conscience like this. Otherwise, it becomes necessary for people with such views to campaign to shift actions from the realm of private morality to public morality.
Dagonee
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Yes, I'd think a doctor or pharmacist who chose to enforce their moral choices upon others, rather than give them full information and allow them to make their own choices, would be doing a far worse wrong in that way. Free agency is as important a moral principle as any can be. Denying someone free agency is an extremely severe act and should not be done lightly under any circumstances.
The reason doctors and pharmacists have the power over others to enforce their own choices is because they are by law the only ones given that authority to prescribe or dispense drugs. If they then don't do it according to the law, then by what authority do they act? Aren't they then sort of like free-lance renegade drug dispensers and not legal ones? Doesn't that begin to move them over into the morally questionable ground of a drug dealer?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What information beyond, "I don't believe in this treatment for this reason, you need to see another pharmacist" needs to be given them?
Dagonee
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
quote: The reason doctors and pharmacists have the power over others to enforce their own choices is because they are by law the only ones given that authority to prescribe or dispense drugs. If they then don't do it according to the law, then by what authority do they act? Aren't they then sort of like free-lance renegade drug dispensers and not legal ones? Doesn't that begin to move them over into the morally questionable ground of a drug dealer?
Exactly, ak.
If a doctor writes a prescription for a patient for a reason that is deemed outside the scope of acceptable medicine, I am not required to fill it.
For example, a doctor sees a patient who is addicted to Vicodin. I call the doctor, questioning the medical diagnosis. The doctor explains, "Well, they are just addicted to it." In that case, I do not have to dispense the prescription. If the doctor says, "Yes they have left plantar fasciitis, and they DO love their Vicodin." I am required to fill the prescription, as long as the patient is not abusing the medication by either filling it too soon, or by not taking it appropriately.
However, in the case of the morning-after pill, there is no way for a pharmacist to refuse to fill that prescription on terms of medicine. Because of this rigid set of laws and regulations, we are usually safeguarded from becoming legalized drug dealers.
The breakdown occurs when one of the doctor-pharmacist-patient relationships break down, and I have seen all the possible scenarios. They are not pretty.
quote: What information beyond, "I don't believe in this treatment for this reason, you need to see another pharmacist" needs to be given them?
Dag, this response would get me fired, or suspended. But I would be a good Catholic.
[ July 05, 2004, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
quote:Yes, I'd think a doctor or pharmacist who chose to enforce their moral choices upon others, rather than give them full information and allow them to make their own choices, would be doing a far worse wrong in that way. Free agency is as important a moral principle as any can be. Denying someone free agency is an extremely severe act and should not be done lightly under any circumstances
That's a pretty big charge to make. Please. Now, I chose not be be an obstetrician partly so that I wouldn't have to say no to performing tubal ligations. I stayed away from urology because I don't want to do vasectomies. And yet, as an internist, I get asked quite often for birth control, usually for non-contraceptive reasons, occasionally for contraception. I've come to an uneasy balance with that, over the years. I'm not happy about it. I could say a lot more about that choice, but I don't want to.
I draw the line, however, at giving the morning after pill. I will not do it. I will explain the pros and cons, how it works, and then explain that she needs to go to planned parenthood or the ER or an after hours clinic. I am not enforcing my morals upon her, I am enforcing them upon myself. Some pharmacists feel the same way, and I think that is their right too.
I have told several patients who have already used the morning after pill or had other sorts of abortions in the past that I will not prescribe it should they need it again. Not one girl has shown any irritation at that statement. Most seemed grateful. I'm not really sure why.
I used to read this magazine for obstetricians each month. It was very, very pro-choice and aggressively so. One article claimed that "almost all pharmacists in America" wanted the morning after pill available without a prescription, to be handed out by pharmacists at their discretion after a personal interview with the pregnant girl to discuss risks and benefits. I found that_very_hard to believe.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
quote: I used to read this magazine for obstetricians each month. It was very, very pro-choice and aggressively so. One article claimed that "almost all pharmacists in America" wanted the morning after pill available without a prescription, to be handed out by pharmacists at their discretion after a personal interview with the pregnant girl to discuss risks and benefits. I found that_very_hard to believe.
Theca, that's because it is. I cannot even imagine one pharmacist who would want the responsibility of handing out medication without a prescription, let alone the morning after pill. A prescription is the check and balance to ensure safety and efficacy to the patient.
Because of the amazing powers of the human body, most patients do not permanently harm themselves with OTC medication, but the potential for harm is there. That is a very important part of my job. But to envision an OTC morning after pill administered by pharmacists? Pure bunk.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
It was a very big topic here too, the past couple years. It really looked like it might happen, from what I read, which wasn't much. I haven't heard anything since 2004 started, though.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
CT and Theca, there are already certain drugs that can be dispensed by a pharmacist in a behind-the-counter sort of classification.
In Florida, pharmacists can dispense Pyridium and other meds related to UTIs, but I am comfortable with that professionally.
What I am not comfortable with is dispensing meds that need the doctor-patient relationship to have the most successful therapeutic outcomes. (Which is just about everything)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Mabus- the main reason I don't go with the Life/personhood at conception position is because I feel that making it impossible for a woman to choose before she could even know she is pregnant is too great a burden that falls pretty much on the woman only.
I guess I've been more willing to debate this topic this week since my sister came to town and kept talking to my 7 year old about abortion. Once was in the context of reading the scriptures and discussing things some folks think are sins and others don't.
The other was in recounting for her tales of our ancestry which included a story about a man our Grandmother almost married who was terrified of transmitting epilepsy to his children and arranged for the woman he did marry to abort. This was in the 1930's or 40's, I would guess.
My sister has an 8 year old, but her child has a learning disability and I guess she has a tough time gauging what makes sense to discuss with a 7 year old Sure I overheard my mom talking about this stuff when I was 7, but I've been trying to do some stuff different with my kids.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Sure I overheard my mom talking about this stuff when I was 7, but I've been trying to do some stuff different with my kids.