Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
Switch to Forum Live View
Locked: No one's talking about this one!
4 years ago  ::  May 20, 2010 - 10:26PM #1
Lovey-Dovey
Posts: 170

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st...


What do you think?


I think this is just one more example of men trying to control women (and women's bodies!) to further their own agendas/propaganda!  So......the hospital should have let the pregnant mother die?  There was no other alternative!  Scary stuff!  (Anyone ever read The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood?)


Many blessings all, 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 20, 2010 - 10:38PM #2
mountain_man
Posts: 39,687

May 20, 2010 -- 10:26PM, Lovey-Dovey wrote:

...I think this is just one more example of men trying to control women (and women's bodies!) ....



Please. Do not include ALL men with that too broad of a brush. SOME men, almost exclusively religious fundamentalists, try to control women in that way. The rest of us support women and the right of women to control their own bodies.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 20, 2010 - 10:48PM #3
LeahOne
Posts: 16,402

I might develop some respect for the Church if they'd excommunicate that idiot bigot Olmstead jerk.


I wonder what that sleaze Olmstead would've told that woman's grieving widower and their four children.....

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 20, 2010 - 11:01PM #4
jane2
Posts: 14,295

May 20, 2010 -- 10:26PM, Lovey-Dovey wrote:


www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st...


What do you think?


I think this is just one more example of men trying to control women (and women's bodies!) to further their own agendas/propaganda!  So......the hospital should have let the pregnant mother die?  There was no other alternative!  Scary stuff!  (Anyone ever read The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood?)


Many blessings all, 




The story itself is not new and the hospital did not let the mother die. The hoopla now is over Bishop Olmstead's actions against one of the administrator's, a Religious Sister of Mercy. Olmstead is a reactionary. His ex-communication applies only his diocese. The ban preludes Sister Mc Bride from receiving Catholic sacraments in his diocese. The right-wing Catholic bishops and probably some others need day jobs. This was a joint decision by those who were in place in this Catholic hospital during a crisis and most of us know this: most Catholics that are not right-wing applaud the decision by the hospital admin.


In actuality the bishop does not control the hospital. I worked inthe office of a Catholic hospital started and run by the Sisters of Mercy in a city in the northeast, college summers in the late fifties. I knew the RSM administrator and those who ran the office. When they said jump, bishops asked how high.


The active orders of Catholic women religious in the US are being investigated by a Cardinal Rode of Slovenia and some in the Vatican right now. My college was founded and run by the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, some of the most talented, mostly highly educated women I have ever known. Bishops were ceremonial only and had no say in how the college was run. Many of us think Rode should go back to Slovenia.


Some Catholic bishops have a strange need to control, others not so much. Olmstead needs to do some real work for a change, like driving his own car and having it serviced, shop for groceries and cook his own meals, yada, yada.


Jane




discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 20, 2010 - 11:36PM #5
Larosser
Posts: 413

What do I think of it? I think it's dispicable.


I think the Ethical and Religious Directives on which the bishop based his decision are intentionally inconsistent and hypocritical, in order to allow the leaders of the church to wash their hands of responsibility for gut wrenching decisions like the one made by Sister Margaret McBride.


Bishop Olmstead no doubt based his decision to excommunicate the sister on Directive 45 which states that abortion (defined as any procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnacy before viability) is never permitted.


However, Directive 47 states that "operations, treatments and medications" required to cure a serious condition in a pregnant woman may be administered even if they result in the death of the child.


Had the bishop chosen to, he could have determined that the procedure had another effect - the saving of the mother's life - and was therefore permitted. Had Sister Margaret been more wily and hypocritical, she could have chosen to have the pregnancy terminated by some "operation, treatment or medication" that had a stated purpose of curing the mother.


Instead, the bishop stuck with the wheezy old rule that says the child cannot be done to death to save the mother and the mother cannot be done to death to save the child -  which makes no more sense to me than saying that if you can't save both a mother and child from a burning building, don't save either one.


Sister Margaret made a sad but medically sound decision, and rather than supporting her, he chose to add to her sorrows by separating her from her church. Bah on him.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 20, 2010 - 11:53PM #6
jane2
Posts: 14,295

May 20, 2010 -- 11:36PM, Larosser wrote:


What do I think of it? I think it's dispicable.


I think the Ethical and Religious Directives on which the bishop based his decision are intentionally inconsistent and hypocritical, in order to allow the leaders of the church to wash their hands of responsibility for gut wrenching decisions like the one made by Sister Margaret McBride.


Bishop Olmstead no doubt based his decision to excommunicate the sister on Directive 45 which states that abortion (defined as any procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnacy before viability) is never permitted.


However, Directive 47 states that "operations, treatments and medications" required to cure a serious condition in a pregnant woman may be administered even if they result in the death of the child.


Had the bishop chosen to, he could have determined that the procedure had another effect - the saving of the mother's life - and was therefore permitted. Had Sister Margaret been more wily and hypocritical, she could have chosen to have the pregnancy terminated by some "operation, treatment or medication" that had a stated purpose of curing the mother.


Instead, the bishop stuck with the wheezy old rule that says the child cannot be done to death to save the mother and the mother cannot be done to death to save the child -  which makes no more sense to me than saying that if you can't save both a mother and child from a burning building, don't save either one.


Sister Margaret made a sad but medically sound decision, and rather than supporting her, he chose to add to her sorrows by separating her from her church. Bah on him.


 




LR


Discussion is a good thing but you do love to get on your high horse about internal Catholic matters.


Why?


The Catholic hospital made the right decision--basically end of story.




discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 21, 2010 - 12:18AM #7
Larosser
Posts: 413

May 20, 2010 -- 11:53PM, jane2 wrote:


LR


Discussion is a good thing but you do love to get on your high horse about internal Catholic matters.


Why?


The Catholic hospital made the right decision--basically end of story.








Jane, this is an open discussion board, specifically called "hot topics". Lovey Dovey posted a link to an article and asked "what do you think?".  I responded  with my opinion, which seems the proper thing to do.



To my recollection, I've started one thread about the Catholic Church, and posted on this one.  I've also participated in threads about Jimmy Carter, National Day of Prayer,  banning the burqa, evangelical christian affairs, and other issues on which I have an option.


 


I don't have  a particular vendetta against the catholic church, there just happen to have been two issues in the news recently on which I disagree with the behavior of at least some catholics, and I said so. I believe that's appropriate. I haven't universally condemned Catholics,  or gone to the Catholic discussion boards and trolled, or started personal arguments with individual Catholics, or anything else that I consider uncivil or inappropriate.


 


It's become rather clear to me that I irritate you, and I am sad that's the case. I have found your posts to be interesting and thought provoking, and I'm sorry you don't find mine the same. I'd suggest that since you don't find value in my opinions you ignore them.


 


Best regards


La

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 21, 2010 - 7:17AM #8
Lovey-Dovey
Posts: 170

I appreciate all your knowlegeable and thoughtful responses to my query.  It's sooooo refreshing to find some thinking people (and especially Christians!) out there who don't just knuckle under to whatever the hierarchy dictates.  And thanks also, Mountain Man, for your reminder, of course you are right.  It's just that....you'd think the church would be the one place where women are no longer beaten down.....or anyone else for that matter.  Blessings all, 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 21, 2010 - 12:40PM #9
dblad
Posts: 1,703

May 21, 2010 -- 7:17AM, Lovey-Dovey wrote:


....you'd think the church would be the one place where women are no longer beaten down.....or anyone else for that matter.  Blessings all,




From the OP


"In the case of priests who are credibly accused and known to be guilty of sexually abusing children, they are in a sense let off the hook," Doyle says.


Doyle says no pedophile priests have been excommunicated. When priests have been caught, he says, their bishops have protected them, and it has taken years or decades to defrock them, if ever.


"Yet in this instance we have a sister who was trying to save the life of a woman, and what happens to her? The bishop swoops down [and] declares her excommunicated before he even looks at all the facts of the case," Doyle says.



The official position of the Catholic Church on homosexuality;


  Sexual activity between persons of the same sex. It is not a normal condition, the acts being against nature are objectively wrong." The Catholic Encyclopedia. 2


 
 "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, [140] tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered'." Catechism of the Catholic Church. §2357.


 


So, Yes, it is more than just women being beaten down. When do you think the Catholic Church will catch up with modern times?


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 21, 2010 - 1:02PM #10
REteach
Posts: 14,812

Good for Sr. McBride!  Catholic sisters are often a lot more in touch with reality than some of their priestly counterparts, probably because they live more in the real world--which is why the Vatican is auditing them. 

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook