The Official Catholic Thread

Discussion in 'Christian Fellowship' started by Galadriel, Mar 11, 2012.

  1. kanozas

    kanozas Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    8,070
    Media:
    1
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    31,374
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Feeling a little lost culturally but KNOWING absolutely that I am not lost spiritually, given that the great sacrifice has occurred through the CHRIST and that all was foreshadowed, leading up to Jesus. Passover and Yom Kippur are those traditions that beckon me and make me feel left out but then again, this is all part of the road. I'm not left out, actually, I'm written in! May everyone's names be written in the Book of Life and may all be inscribed for a good year!

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02054a.htm
    Day of Atonement
    Help support New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

    (Hebrew Yom Hakkippurim. Vulgate, Dies Expiationum, and Dies Propitiationis — Leviticus 23:27-28)

    The rites to be observed on the Day of Atonement are fully set forth in the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus (cf. Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 23:27-31, 25:9; Numbers 29:7-11). It was a most solemn fast, on which no food could be taken throughout the whole the day, and servile works were forbidden. It was kept on nineteenth day of Tischri, which falls in September/October. The sacrifices included a calf, a ram, and seven lambs (Numbers 29:8-11). But the distinctive ceremony of the day was the offering of the two goats.

    He (Aaron) shall make the two buck-goats to stand before Lord, in the door of the tabernacle of the testimony: and casting lots upon them both, one to be offered to the Lord and the other to be the emissary-goat: That whose lot fell to be offered to the Lord, he shall offer for sin: But that whose lot was to be the emissary goat he shall present alive before the Lord, that he may pour out prayers upon him, and let him go into the wilderness . . . After he hath cleansed the sanctuary, and the tabernacle, and the altar, let him offer the living goat: And putting both hands upon his head, let him confess all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their offences and sins, and praying that they may light on his head, he shall turn him out by a man ready for it, into the desert. And when the goat hath carried all their iniquities into an uninhabited land, and shall be let go into the desert, Aaron shall return into the tabernacle of the testimony. (Leviticus 16:7-10, 20-23).

    The general meaning of the ceremony is sufficiently shown in the text. But the details present some difficulty. The Vulgate caper emissarius, "emissary goat", represents the obscure Hebrew Azazel, which occurs nowhere else in the Bible. Various attempts have been made to interpret its meaning. Some have taken it for the name of a place where the man who took the goat away used to throw it over a precipice, since its return was thought to forbode evil. Others, with better reason, take it for the name of an evil spirit; and in fact a spirit of this name is mentioned in the Apocryphal Book of Henoch, and later in Jewish literature. On this interpretation—which, though by no means new, finds favour with modern critics—the idea of the ceremony would seem to be that the sins were sent back to the evil spirit to whose influence they owed their origin. It has been noted that somewhat similar rites of expiation have prevailed among heathen nations. And modern critics, who refer the above passages to the Priestly Code, and to a post-Exilic date, are disposed to regard the sending of the goat to Azazel as an adaptation of a pre-existing ceremonial.

    The significant ceremony observed on this solemn Day of Atonement does but give a greater prominence to that need of satisfaction and expiation which was present in all the ordinary sin-offerings. All these sacrifices for sin, as we learn from the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews, were figures of the great Sacrifice to come. In like manner these Jewish rites of atonement speak to us of the Cross of Christ, and of the propitiatory Sacrifice which is daily renewed in a bloodless manner on the Eucharistic Altar. For this reason it may be of interest to note, with Provost Maltzew, that the Jewish prayers used on the Day of Atonement foreshadow the common commemoration of the saints and the faithful departed in our liturgies (Die Liturgien der orthodox-katholischen Kirche des Morgenlandes, 252).
     
    Galadriel likes this.
  2. Galadriel

    Galadriel Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,981
    Likes Received:
    9,097
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Where The Busy People Are
    Beautiful words spoken and I love the background information on the Day of Atonement.
     
    kanozas likes this.
  3. kanozas

    kanozas Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    8,070
    Media:
    1
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    31,374
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A big shout-out to St. Michael the Archangel! He did it! THANK YOU, St. Michael, for helping us. It was specific and he came and fixed it. What a sign of relief. Thank you, L-rd, for your providential care! I had come upon a problem and sought out which saint is for which. Someone invoked the help of St. Michael and their situation was a little similar. Well, I went into prayer fully expecting him to help. Didn't happen yesterday when I read that testimony but today, it happened after I still had the faith it was going to happen. It just happened and I'm so happy about it. We're not just in this life waiting for heaven, all the angels and saints are rooting for us :toocool: Another "thank you" to St. Philomena who interceded for us and we got the confirmation the same day! Thank you, blessed one! I got friends, y'all :lachen:
     
    AtlantaJJ, Lucia and Belle Du Jour like this.
  4. Belle Du Jour

    Belle Du Jour Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    13,324
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    20,710
    Trophy Points:
    113
    “The Most Holy Virgin in these last times in which we live has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Rosary to such an extent that there is no problem, no matter how difficult it is, whether temporal or above all spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families…that cannot be solved by the Rosary. There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we cannot resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary.”

    ~Sister Lucia dos Santos, Fatima seer~

    Do you agree???
     
    Rsgal, Lucia and kanozas like this.
  5. Belle Du Jour

    Belle Du Jour Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    13,324
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    20,710
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes Michael comes through in the paint. :yep:
     
    Lucia and kanozas like this.
  6. kanozas

    kanozas Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    8,070
    Media:
    1
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    31,374
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is only part of the larger discussion and I offer this as part of that which is the work of the moralists of the church.

    https://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT
    INDIRECT ABORTION
    (Taken from "Medical Ethics" by Edwin F. Healy)

    IN DIRECT abortion a living and nonviable fetus is removed from the
    uterus. The reason for the removal is that the pregnancy, added to
    some pathological condition from which the mother is suffering,
    increases her difficulties or even lessens her chances of survival.
    No condition exists, however, which makes the removal of the uterus
    itself necessary as a means of saving the mother's life.

    The abortion is termed indirect when the pregnant uterus itself is
    excised because its condition is such that its removal is medically
    necessary. If the uterus contains a living and nonviable fetus, the
    fetus will of course inevitably die. There is no direct attack upon
    the fetus, however, and its death is merely permitted as a secondary
    effect of an act which needs to be performed and which, as we shall
    see immediately, it is permissible to perform.

    It is licit to excise a diseased uterus which is gravely dangerous,
    even though the operation will indirectly kill the fetus which is
    enclosed in the womb. The reason is that we may rightly apply the
    four conditions of the principle of the twofold effect. The first
    condition is fulfilled, for the operating surgeon's intention is to
    save the life of the mother. He, of course, foresees the death of the
    fetus, but he does not desire this evil effect. The second condition
    is fulfilled, for the surgeon's act consists in ridding the woman of
    a diseased part of her body which is jeopardizing her life. Hence
    that which he sets out to accomplish is licit. If the fetus were not
    present, the surgical operation of removing a diseased and dangerous
    part of the woman's body, the cancerous uterus, would obviously be an
    act which of its nature is not evil. The presence of the living fetus
    in the diseased womb does not alter the nature of the act which the
    surgeon performs. The operation is directly remedial regarding the
    mother's body and is in itself unconnected with the pregnancy. The
    third condition is fulfilled, for the evil effect (the death of the
    fetus) does not cause the good effect (saving the life of the
    mother). Whether the fetus were harmed by the operation or not would
    make no difference in regard to producing the good effect. The fourth
    condition is fulfilled, for safeguarding the mother's health is a
    proportionately grave reason for permitting the death of the fetus.

    The physician who performs an operation of this kind should have a
    nurse procure beforehand a basin of lukewarm water in which the fetus
    may be baptized immediately after the uterus is removed from the
    mother. When the diseased womb has been extracted from the woman's
    body, it should be cut open at once and the fetus should be baptized.
    If the fetus is very small, baptism by immersion would be preferable.
    If the fetus is enclosed in the sacs or membranes, the latter must of
    course be removed, so that in the baptism the water will touch the
    head of the infant.

    In all such operations, where the surgery has important bearing on
    two lives and not merely one, the surgeon must be sure that the
    reason for operating is a proportionately grave one. If, for example,
    the fetus is near viability and an immediate hysterectomy would only
    probably, and not certainly, diminish the danger of death to the
    mother, the operation would be illicit. In this case the pregnant
    uterus may not be excised; for since the surgery would bring certain
    death to the fetus, the latter's certain right to life must take
    precedence over the mother's right to a doubtful benefit. Again, if
    excising the uterus would only probably indirectly cause the death of
    the fetus, surgery would be licit if needed to remove probable danger
    to the mother's life. If, moreover, the operation would rarely result
    in death for the fetus, it would be licitly performed when necessary,
    not to save the mother's life, but to cure her of a grave disease. A
    remote hope of saving the mother justifies surgery which is necessary
    to prevent death of both the mother and the child, for the surgeon is
    doing all in his power to save both. It is taken for granted that
    there are no other effective means which would not endanger the
    fetus.

    Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy

    In the tubal ectopic pregnancy the fertilized ovum lodges in some
    part of the Fallopian tube. The reason that it does not continue its
    descent into the uterus may be the pathological condition of the tube
    itself or of the ovum. Once the fertilized ovum takes up its nesting
    place in the tube, it begins to bore into the wall of the tube,
    seeking as it does life-giving nourishment. This "boring-in" action
    on the part of the tiny embryo perforates the inner layers of the
    tube and the tube soon becomes weakened by internal hemorrhaging.
    There is present a pathological condition of the tube, caused by the
    erosive action of the trophoblast which is destroying the muscle wall
    and penetrating blood vessels. The growing fetus causes the tube to
    swell, and this swelling dangerously stretches the tube's outer wall.
    Left in this condition, the tube will ordinarily rupture; and unless
    surgery is performed very soon after the rupturing, the mother may
    die.

    When the Fallopian tube is in this condition, would it be licit to
    slit it open and remove the fetus? Obviously this action would be
    gravely evil, for it would constitute a direct, unjust attack on the
    life of an innocent fetus. It would, in short, be murder. In such a
    procedure the operating surgeon would set out to destroy the fetus as
    a means of curing the mother, and thus he would directly intend its
    death. The same conclusion would follow if the physician used drugs,
    X ray, or any other method directly to terminate the life of the
    fetus.

    Would it, however, be likewise illicit to excise a Fallopian tube
    which contains a living fetus? If the tube itself is healthy, there
    would of course be no justifying reason for the excision. But in the
    case of an ectopic pregnancy the Fallopian tube is in a definitely
    pathological condition. Its inner portion is riddled, greatly
    weakened, and full of internal hemorrhaging.

    Once the tube has ruptured externally, the physician may and should
    immediately tie off the arteries which supply blood to the tube and
    then remove the tube by surgery. This operation is obviously
    justified, for in it are fully verified the four conditions required
    for the application of the principle of the twofold effect. The
    excision of this ruptured and gravely dangerous part of the mother's
    body is similar, in respect to the moral law, to the removal of a
    pregnant uterus whose cancerous condition is at present gravely
    threatening the mother's life.

    But let us suppose that the tube in the case of an ectopic pregnancy
    has not yet ruptured. Must the surgeon, before the excision, wait
    until an external rupture occurs? The answer is that, if the tube is
    at present in a gravely dangerous condition and if its excision
    cannot be delayed without a notable increase of danger to the mother,
    this Fallopian tube may be removed at once. This conclusion is based
    on two principles: ( 1) Mutilation is licit if it is required to
    conserve the health of the whole body. (2 ) An act which has two
    effects, one good, the other bad, may be licitly performed, given
    certain conditions. The latter principle is correctly applied to the
    present case. The first condition is fulfilled, for the surgeon's
    intention is good. He has as his purpose in operating the saving of
    the mother's life. He foresees, it is true, that the fetus will die
    when the tube where it is resting is removed from the woman's body,
    but he does not desire its death. This is a merely permitted evil
    effect. The second condition is fulfilled, for the surgeon's action
    is not intrinsically evil. That which he sets out to accomplish is
    cutting away a pathological or diseased part of the woman's body. The
    third condition is fulfilled, for the action's evil effect (the death
    of the fetus) does not cause the good effect (the preserving of the
    mother's health). Whether the fetus died or not would hardly affect
    the mother's health. It is the ridding the body of a seriously
    corrupted part which directly promotes the mother's well-being. It is
    not the fetus which at present constitutes the threat to the mother's
    life; it is the diseased organ. The fourth condition is fulfilled,
    for there is due proportion between the evil effect and the good
    effect. The death that will result for the fetus is compensated for
    by the life that will be saved for the mother.

    In the analysis of the application of the fourth condition to our
    present case, it is well to bear in mind the following facts. Tubal
    pregnancies practically never go to term. In about ninety-nine cases
    out of a hundred the fetus is aborted (and usually this will occur
    before the twelfth week), or the tube ruptures externally; and in
    either case the fetus will perish. Hence when one considers excising
    a dangerously weakened but externally unruptured tube in ectopic
    pregnancy, the choice lies between the following two modes of
    procedure: ( 1) permitting the tube to remain in the woman's body
    until it ruptures externally. This will bring death to the fetus and
    will imperil the life of the mother; or (2) excising the tube at
    once. This latter operation will bring to the mother safety but to
    the fetus death. In the first procedure the fetus is, practically
    speaking, just as certain to die as in the second procedure. As far
    as the fetus is concerned, the difference between the first procedure
    and the second procedure is that in the first procedure its life
    probably would be lengthened by a few weeks. Hence in evaluating the
    fourth condition the physician must have sufficient cause for
    permitting the life of the fetus to be shortened because of the
    excision of the tube.

    Is it, then, licit in every case of ectopic pregnancy to excise the
    diseased Fallopian tube? The answer is that the operation is licit
    if the tube is at present gravely dangerous to the mother, or if
    putting off the operation would involve grave danger. The physician
    is the one who must decide when the tube may be considered to be
    gravely dangerous. He must judge each individual case on its own
    merits. The general rule which should be followed is this: If delay
    in excising the diseased Fallopian tube would gravely jeopardize the
    mother's life, the physician may operate at once. The ultimate
    decision in a particular case is in the hands of the physician. It
    may be that in most cases where an ectopic pregnancy is found, the
    removal of the tube at once is required to avert existing and grave
    danger from the mother. But this is not true in all cases. In some
    few cases at least there is no grave danger to the mother when the
    ectopic is first discovered. In these few cases the immediate removal
    of the tube is not licit. The diseased tube may not be excised until
    it is a source of grave danger to the mother. To excise the tube
    before this time would indirectly shorten the life of the ectopic
    fetus without a sufficient reason, and this would be illicit. Hence
    in all cases in which grave danger is not actually present the
    physician must adopt the expectant treatment.

    There are cases in which the surgeon discovers an ectopic pregnancy
    during the course of a surgical operation; for example, an
    appendectomy. May he immediately excise the tube if to wait would
    necessitate performing another grave operation? In this event,
    because the expectant treatment would involve so great an added
    danger to the mother, the surgeon may at once remove the pathological
    tube. The same solution is to be given when the patient would have to
    be kept under constant observation in a hospital and she refuses to
    be hospitalized because she cannot afford the expense.

    There are circumstances when the physician will sincerely doubt about
    the gravity of the danger in a particular ectopic pregnancy. In that
    event he may and should give the mother the benefit of the doubt. The
    reason is that an immediate operation will probably have the good
    effect of saving the mother's life, and will probably have the bad
    effect of indirectly shortening to some extent the fetus' life. The
    good effect will thus greatly outweigh the evil effect. Hence the
    physician preferably will excise the diseased tube at once.

    Misconceptions concerning the principles involved can arise because
    of the fact that the diseased condition of the tube is due to the
    fetus. Is it not true, one may argue, that the tube's weakened and
    hemorrhaging condition was brought about by the fetus? Is not the
    excision of the tube intended to rid the mother of the fetus, the
    cause of her danger? We reply to this objection by admitting that
    the fetus did cause the present riddled condition of the tube; but,
    we add, the tube itself is now seriously diseased and would remain
    diseased quite independently of the fetus. It is the tube itself, not
    the fetus, which constitutes the present grave danger to the mother;
    and so, given certain conditions, it may be excised.

    Some who are not acquainted with the facts believe that the Catholic
    Church has changed her attitude in regard to the licitness of doing
    surgery on ectopic pregnancies. Up to the present day the Church has
    made only a few official pronouncements on this question, and these
    pronouncements refer to the direct attack of the surgeon on the fetus
    or to the direct removal of a nonviable fetus from the mother's womb.
    Such procedures even today are condemned by all Catholic moralists.

    On these questions the Church has not changed her view. Catholic
    ethicians, however, have changed their view with regard to the
    licitness of excising the unruptured Fallopian tube in an ectopic
    pregnancy, but this change of opinion stemmed from new medical
    findings on this matter.
    Fifty years ago there was little medical
    knowledge available with reference to the pathology of an ectopic
    pregnancy. When medical authorities provided the information that the
    diseased condition of the Fallopian tube, even before its external
    rupture, in many cases of ectopic pregnancy constituted a grave and
    present danger to the mother's life, the moralists declared that the
    excision of the tube was licit even though the death of the fetus
    could not be prevented. The moralists made no change in regard to
    principles or in the application of principles. They merely applied
    the principles to new facts and arrived at a new conclusion. It is
    for physicians accurately to present the facts to the moralist. He
    depends on them for medical information. Given the medical
    information necessary, he will then apply the ethical principles to
    the case and pronounce upon the licitness or illicitness of certain
    procedures.

    Ovarian and Abdominal Pregnancies

    If an ectopic pregnancy is clinging to an ovary or to the woman's
    viscera, may the surgeon remove it? The solution to this case is
    similar to that given in the case of a tubal pregnancy. If the organ
    to which the fetus is clinging has become so diseased or weakened
    that it is now a grave source of danger to the woman, the organ may
    be licitly excised.
    The organ may have become diseased independently
    of the fetus or it may have become riddled and weakened because of
    the "boring-in" action of the fetus. The initial source of the
    danger does not matter. If at present the condition of the organ is
    actually pathological and if it is a grave threat to the mother's
    life, that part of her body may licitly be removed in order to
    preserve the rest of the body. The same norms about delaying the
    operation when delay is possible apply in this case as in that of a
    tubal pregnancy.

    It will be noted that, in all the solutions which have been given,
    the fetus itself is never directly attacked. A pathological organ
    which is threatening the mother's life is removed, just as it would
    be removed if it contained no fetus; and the death of the fetus is
    permitted as a secondary effect of the operation.
    It is conceivable
    that there might be a rare case in which the fetus has taken up its
    lodging next to a vital organ which cannot be removed, such as the
    liver. If the fetus continues its riddling process, the organ will
    soon be destroyed and the mother will die. Should such a case ever
    occur in medical practice, the only thing that could be done to save
    the mother would be to remove the fetus; and the only argument that
    could be alleged to justify the removal would be that the fetus, now
    actually attacking a vital organ of the mother, is an unjust
    aggressor. The claim that the fetus can ever be, under any
    circumstances, an unjust aggressor cannot be accepted as correct. The
    fetus is a living human being. It has been placed by nature where it
    now resides. It had no voice in the decision. It cannot be called an
    unjust aggressor, for it is engaged in a purely natural process.
    Surely we may not call nature unjust. To do so would be to call into
    question the justice of God, the Author of nature, and this is
    unthinkable. Hence we must conclude that the fetus may, in no
    conceivable set of circumstances, be directly killed, for this would
    be murder. This judgment is confirmed by the words of Pius XI: "What
    could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct
    murder of the innocent? . . . Who would call an innocent child an
    unjust aggressor?"
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2016
  7. kanozas

    kanozas Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    8,070
    Media:
    1
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    31,374
    Trophy Points:
    113
    http://www.cuf.org/2004/04/ectopic-for-discussion-a-catholic-approach-to-tubal-pregnancies/

    A Catholic Approach to Tubal Pregnancies

    CUF
    CUF
    From the Jan/Feb 2004 Issue of Lay Witness Magazine

    ISSUE: What is an ectopic, or “tubal,” pregnancy? What moral principles must be taken into account in treating a tubal pregnancy? What alternatives are available that respect both the mother’s life as well as the life of her unborn child?

    RESPONSE: A woman’s egg or ovum descends from an ovary through the fallopian tube to the uterus. While on this path, the egg is fertilized and naturally continues this descent and implants in the uterus. Sometimes, however, the egg is impeded in its progress and instead implants somewhere along the way. This is called an ectopic pregnancy. “Ectopic” means “out of place.” Ectopic pregnancies are often called “tubal” pregnancies because over 95 percent occur in the fallopian tubes. (fertilized eggs can also implant in the abdomen, ovaries, or within the cervix).

    A mother facing a tubal pregnancy risks imminent rupture of the fallopian tube. While the doctor would opt for the least risk and expense to the mother, all the options presented to her involve terminating the pregnancy. The mother, however, must respect both her life and that of her child.

    There is no treatment available that can guarantee the life of both. The Church has moral principles that can be applied in ruling out some options, but she has not officially instructed the faithful as to which treatments are morally licit and which are illicit. Most reputable moral theologians, as discussed below, accept full or partial salpingectomy (removal of the fallopian tube), as a morally acceptable medical intervention in the case of a tubal pregnancy.

    As is the case with all difficult moral decisions, the couple must become informed, actively seek divine guidance, and follow their well-formed conscience.

    DISCUSSION: According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC),[1] ectopic pregnancies have increased in frequency and now number roughly 100,000 a year.

    Though detection and treatment have greatly improved, ectopic pregnancies still pose a serious health risk to the mother. Ectopic pregnancies are the leading cause of maternal deaths in the first trimester. While they often end in early miscarriage, waiting indefinitely for miscarriage to occur poses a grave threat to the mother. By ten weeks (in the case of a tubal pregnancy), the fallopian tube will likely rupture, causing severe hemorrhaging that can result in death. Such cases most often occur when the ectopic pregnancy is not diagnosed. Hence, most deaths caused by ectopic pregnancies each year are among minority groups and the poor whose access to prenatal care is limited.

    Who are at risk for an ectopic pregnancy? All women are susceptible. However, there are factors that can increase the risk, namely: smoking, sexually transmitted diseases, tubal sterilizations, fertility drugs, and previous occurrences.

    Moral Principles

    In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the lives of both the mother and child are placed at risk. The moral teachings of the Church call for medical treatment that respects the lives of both. Most recently, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reiterated these principles:

    In the case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.[2]

    Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.[3]

    On one hand, there can be no direct attack on the child (direct abortion) to save the life of the mother. On the other hand, the life of the mother is equally valuable and she must receive appropriate treatment. It might be that the only available remedy saves the life of the mother but, while not a direct abortion, brings about the unintended effect of the death of the child. Morally speaking, in saving the life of the mother, the Church accepts that the child might be lost.


    This principle applies in other pregnancy complications as well. With severe hemorrhaging, for example, if nothing is done, both will die. In respecting the life of the mother, the physician must act directly on the uterus. At that time the uterus loses its ability to support the life of the embryo. The mother’s life is preserved and there has been no intentional attack on the child. The mother and the uterus have been directly treated; a secondary effect is the death of the child.

    Another example arises in the treatment of uterine (endometrial) cancer during a pregnancy. The common treatments of uterine cancer are primarily hysterectomy (surgical removal of the uterus) and sometimes chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Again, taking the life of the baby is not intended, but a hysterectomy does mean the removal of the womb and the death of the child. Yet, if a hysterectomy must be performed to save the life of the mother, the Church would deem the procedure morally licit.

    Thus, a moral distinction must be made between directly and intentionally treating a pathology (a condition or abnormality that causes a disease) and indirectly and unintentionally causing the death of the baby in the process.

    This distinction is derived from a moral principle called “double effect.” When a choice will likely bring about both an intended desirable effect and also an unintended, undesirable effect, the principle of double effect can be applied to evaluate the morality of the choice. The chosen act is morally licit when (a) the action itself is good, (b) the intended effect is good, and (c) the unintended, evil effect is not greater in proportion to the good effect. For example, “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not” (Catechism, no. 2263, citing St. Thomas Aquinas).

    Proposed Treatments

    Catholic Theologians typically discuss the morality of three common treatments for ectopic pregnancies according to the principle of double effect.[4] One approach utilizes the drug Methotrexate (MTX), which attacks the tissue cells that connect the embryo to its mother, causing miscarriage. A surgical procedure (salpingostomy) directly removes the embryo through an incision in the fallopian tube wall. Another surgical procedure, called a salpingectomy, removes all of the tube (full salpingectomy) or only the part to which the embryo is attached (partial salpingectomy), thereby ending the pregnancy.

    The majority of Catholic moralists reject MTX and salpingostomy on the basis that these two amount to no less than a direct abortion. In both cases, the embryo is directly attacked, so the death of the embryo is not the unintended evil effect, but rather the very means used to bring about the intended good effect. Yet, for an act to be morally licit, not only must the intended effect be good, but also the act itself must be good. For this reason, most moralists agree that MTX and salpingostomy do not withstand the application of the principle of double effect.

    The majority of Catholic moralists, while rejecting MTX or a salpingostomy, regard a salpingectomy as different in kind and thus licit according to the principle of double effect. What is the difference?

    A partial salpingectomy is performed by cutting out the compromised area of the tube (the tissue to which the embryo is attached). The tube is then closed in the hope that it will function properly again. A full salpingectomy is performed when implantation and growth has damaged the tube too greatly or if the tube has ruptured. These moralists maintain that, unlike the first two treatments, when a salpingectomy is performed, the embryo is not directly attacked. Instead, they see the tissue of the tube where the embryo is attached as compromised or infected. The infected tube is the object of the treatment and the death of the child is indirect. Since the child’s death is not intended, but an unavoidable secondary effect of a necessary procedure, the principle of double effect applies.

    Dr. T. Lincoln Bouscaren,[5] an early 20th-century ethicist and canon lawyer, argues that though the pathological condition is caused by the presence of an embryo in the fallopian tube, nonetheless “the tube has become so debilitated and disorganized, or destroyed by internal hemorrhage, that it now constitutes in itself a distinct source of peril to the mother’s life even before the external rupture of the tube.”[6]

    Bouscaren admits that this is a “fine distinction,” but he essentially argues that the infection in the tube, though related to the pregnancy, is sufficiently distanced from the pregnancy to constitute a pathological condition of its own. He maintains that the inevitable rupture is the final end of a single pathology, i.e., a diseased and ever-worsening tube.

    Dr. Bouscaren arrives at the same conclusion as the majority of Catholic moralists, that both the partial and full salpingectomy is licit. Some critics of this conclusion argue that salpingectomy is morally indistinguishable from salpingotomy or MTX. Therefore, Dr. Bouscaren’s explanation is helpful and would benefit from further elaboration by contemporary moral theologians.

    There are two circumstances that make the use of any of these treatments morally acceptable. The first occurs when an ectopic pregnancy has been diagnosed, but no signs of life exist. The morality of treatment for ectopic pregnancies concerns the absolute value of human life. Conversely, there is no such moral consideration if the embryo has succumbed—there is no taking of human life (assuming a reasonable effort has been made to detect life).

    The second circumstance occurs when the fallopian tube ruptures, whether or not the embryo is alive. A ruptured tube presents an immediate threat to both mother and child. If nothing is done, both will die. The doctor is morally obligated to act, even though only one life can be saved. The rupture is the cause of the child’s death, not any procedure the doctor performs. These two circumstances, miscarriage and rupture, present fundamentally different moral questions from instances in which both mother and child are alive and the fallopian tube itself does not pose an immediate threat to the mother’s life.
     
  8. kanozas

    kanozas Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    8,070
    Media:
    1
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    31,374
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wait and See

    Catholic moralists generally assume in their discussion of treatments for ectopic pregnancy that treatment will not be postponed. Perhaps most moralists believe there is no reasonable possibility to save the child. There are options, discussed below, but the availability of these options is virtually non-existent at this time. Other options are generally not even considered, because the standard protocol calls for only one of the three treatments that have been discussed thus far.

    Surgical treatments, however, increase the risk of future ectopic pregnancies and/or reduce fertility, and there are situations in which postponing surgical intervention can be medically advantageous. “Expectant therapy” (or “expectant management”) is basically close observation in the hope that the pregnancy will resolve itself naturally. A combination of reduced hormone levels (movement toward miscarriage) and location of the embryo in a less constrictive part of the tube can indicate a decreasing chance of rupture.

    While there are anecdotal accounts of fetuses living to six months without the tube rupturing, postponing surgery indefinitely is dangerous, given the virtual certainty of rupture long before viability. So, it’s one thing to wait a short period of time for miscarriage to occur spontaneously. It’s quite another to forego intervention altogether in anticipation of a life-threatening tubal rupture. Such a high-risk course of action is rightly discouraged and can even be indicative of a reckless disregard for the life of the mother.

    If Only

    There is a case that took place in 1915 in which a doctor, in the process of removing a tumor from a uterus, discovered an early tubal pregnancy. The operation on the tumor had left an incision in the uterus. The doctor transferred the embryo to the uterus through the incision. The embryo implanted, and the mother eventually gave birth to a healthy baby. The same hospital allowed further attempts at embryo transferal. Only a very small percentage were successfully implanted and born. Of those, the majority did not live very long. Most died between the ages of six and 12 years. With such low odds of the birth of a healthy baby, it is rare nowadays for medical professionals to consider embryo transferal. Recently a doctor at a Catholic fertility institute attempted three embryo transferals with none surviving to birth.

    Among future possibilities might be the development of the artificial womb. Some shudder at such an option because of its possible abuse by those who want a child but wish to avoid pregnancy. However, a morally deficient motivation doesn’t nullify the potential of the technology itself. No one would question life support for a child who is born prematurely and cannot live on its own. An artificial womb could theoretically provide adequate life support for a child at an earlier stage.

    Prayerful Discernment

    It is the task and duty of those in the relevant professional fields, especially Catholics, to seek for means by which life at whatever stage can be preserved, protected, and nurtured. Unfortunately, the thrust of contemporary medical technology has been to terminate the tubal pregnancy as directly as possible without any consideration of ways to save the life of the embryo. This renders the application of the “double effect” theory to tubal pregnancies problematic, as the intended good of preserving the mother’s health seems to be accomplished directly through the efficient taking of the child’s life. This can be especially disturbing to Catholic couples who face this situation.

    While the Church has not spoken officially about the morality of specific treatment options, she does provide several principles rooted in the natural law concerning human life. In applying these principles, the great majority of moral theologians agree that the salpingectomy does not constitute a direct attack on the life of the baby and is morally licit. A couple may serenely choose this option in good faith without fear that they are violating Church teaching.

    Because the salpingectomy is considered by most theologians to be morally acceptable, the issue becomes how long to wait before proceeding with this invasive treatment, given the grave health risk posed by the ectopic pregnancy. This will vary from case to case. Sometimes the immediate risk is low and allowing the miscarriage to occur naturally preserves the mother’s fallopian tube. Conversely, there are also cases in which the fallopian tube itself is so compromised that it must be immediately removed to preserve the life of the mother.

    The course of treatment the woman chooses should be determined by her informed conscience. This means that she must strive to understand the natural law regarding the value of life—her own and the baby’s—and choose a course of action that will respect both. She must also become informed about alternative treatment and the facts related to her own condition. She can then prayerfully discern the course of action she will take.

    ——————————————————————————–

    [1] Much of the statistical information in this Faith Fact was gathered from the CDC

    [2] National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Ethical and Religious Directives for Health Care Services (Washington, DC: NCCB, 1994), 28

    [3] Ibid., 47.

    [4] Cf. William E. May, Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 2000), 182-83.

    [5] T. Lincoln Bouscaren, Ethics of Ectopic Operations (Chicago, IL: Loyola University Press, 1933).

    [6] Ibid., 160-61.

    Recommended reading:

    Holy Bible (Catholic edition)

    Catechism of the Catholic Church

    Vatican II Documents

    Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life by William May

    Medicine and Christian Morality by Thomas J. O’Donnell, S.J

    Other Available FAITH FACTS:

    • Moral Conscience • Principle of Double Effect • Hope: The Pilgrim’s Virtue • Where Do We Go From Here: The Concept of Limbo • Canonical Misconceptions: Pope Pius IX and the Church’s Teaching on Abortion

    Call 1-800-MY-FAITH (693-2484).

    FAITH FACTS are a free membership service of Catholics United for the Faith.

    Catholics United for the Faith
    827 N. Fourth St., Steubenville, OH 43952
    (800) 693-2484

    www.cuf.org

    © 2004 Catholics United for the Faith

    Last edited: 12/3/2003
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2016
  9. kanozas

    kanozas Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    8,070
    Media:
    1
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    31,374
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did anyone witness that shameless indirect endorsement of the RCC for Trump at that dinner? It's no coincidence Cardinal Dolan was seated next to Hilary and that Trump said that she hates catholics. Just awful. As they tell us to prayerfully consider our candidates, they had no business with this at all. And Trump is not pro-life at all. He's a flip-flopper. And tell me why the Repubs had their chance to overturn Roe vs. Wade but didn't? Because they wanted to be the incumbent for the following elections. None of them are actually pro-life, from conception to natural death. And here they are, with that flagrant display of endorsement of this racist, genocidal rapist, all decked out in cardinal splendor. I'm disgusted.
     
    Galadriel likes this.
  10. Galadriel

    Galadriel Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,981
    Likes Received:
    9,097
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Where The Busy People Are
    I believe the moral principle in play is the "double effect," whereby you do a good action with a good intent/for a good purpose, even though it may have a negative, unintended after-effect. So attempting to save a mother's life is good, and carefully removing the fetus (not directly killing or harming the fetus) even if the fetus may not be viable, is the negative after-effect. A similar case would be a pregnant woman who must undergo chemotherapy or take certain life-saving medication. What we would consider immoral would be a direct assault on the fetus or a direct killing of the fetus. Perhaps that's what they're getting at?
     
    theRaven and kanozas like this.
  11. Galadriel

    Galadriel Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,981
    Likes Received:
    9,097
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Where The Busy People Are
    Yes, I just don't believe he's genuinely pro-life.
     
    kanozas likes this.
  12. kanozas

    kanozas Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    8,070
    Media:
    1
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    31,374
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly!! @Galadriel It wasn't that I was promoting illicit direct abortion. I've explained my usage of the term "indirect abortion" and have had a miscarriage before. Guess what they referred to it as? Spontaneous abortion. It's the details that matter. I'm as orthodox as any other orthodox catholic to have posted this material, to have comprehended this material and to comprehend, as they have mentioned in these articles, that the couple in such a situation must remain prayerful and seek council from their priest. I don't know if any such thing would go through the tribunal (quick medical decisions waiting) but I believe as they, the moralists, that the Church allows for such cases. There basically are no direct mentions of such cases by the Magisterium, to my knowledge. Shrugs.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2016
    Galadriel likes this.
  13. kanozas

    kanozas Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    8,070
    Media:
    1
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    31,374
    Trophy Points:
    113
    None of them are, in the true sense of "pro-life" because it's from conception until natural death with all stages in between. Why didn't the Republican majority repeal Roe vs. Wade when they had the chance? Re-election, that's why. They are NOT pro-life. Lies, lies and more lies. They can say they are pro-minority but their actions prove otherwise. Why should I or anyone else take them at face value? SMH. They all lie.
     
    Galadriel and Lucia like this.
  14. Belle Du Jour

    Belle Du Jour Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    13,324
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    20,710
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was trying to say this in another thread. This is treatment. The church would not call this "abortion" and say this form of "abortion" is licit. This scenario is licit because you are treating the mother. Obviously if the fetus dies that was never the primary intent.
     
    Galadriel likes this.
  15. kanozas

    kanozas Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    8,070
    Media:
    1
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    31,374
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They use the term "abortion" medically and it was fully explained. My interest was the technical term only. It's a general term, actually. There are all kinds of sins...some are mortal, others are venial...they are still sins.
     
    Galadriel likes this.
  16. Belle Du Jour

    Belle Du Jour Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    13,324
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    20,710
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Completely understand from a medical perspective what the term abortion means (spontaneous, missed, induced, etc). I maintain the church does not approve of any form of induced abortion. The church approves of treatment to save the life of the mother.
     
    Galadriel likes this.
  17. kanozas

    kanozas Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    8,070
    Media:
    1
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    31,374
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Indirect abortion per the article is treatment. Yes, to save the life of the mother, which I maintained ad nauseum. Surgery for ectopic pregnancy is still indirect abortive treatment. It's going to terminate the pregnancy indirectly as the child will not survive. I don't know why you're sweating me on the terminology because it's the same thing I'm talking about lol. Granted, you loathe the term "abortion" because it often means directly, with intent, to kill an unborn child. That is not the usage of the term here. I haven't said otherwise and is obvious in the medical perspective.

    Was that comment about heretics a roundabout jab at me somehow? Hilary, who was mentioned previously, is not at all catholic. So, which catholics were you referring to as not being orthodox?
     
  18. Belle Du Jour

    Belle Du Jour Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    13,324
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    20,710
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm very surprised you would ask me if I was taking a jab at you and I'm curious what in my statement led you to believe that.

    I was simply referring to Catholics who are not in line with church teachings. A person cannot claim to be Catholic and pick/choose which doctrine to follow. You said all Catholics are orthodox by definition. I disagree. A baptized Catholic can very much be in heresy. If you don't fall into that category then clearly my statement doesn't include you :yep:
     
    Galadriel likes this.
  19. kanozas

    kanozas Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    8,070
    Media:
    1
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    31,374
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, I'm just asking. I wondered because it was the timing of the comment made as well as the discussion on "treatment" to save the mother of which I referred to it as "abortion." I was left wondering who that was made at since Hilary isn't even catholic. I assumed you were talking about her (supporting gay marriage and abortion) because much of the discussion evolved around her.
     
  20. Belle Du Jour

    Belle Du Jour Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    13,324
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    20,710
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please don't create something out of nothing...The first time I mentioned Catholics not being orthodox was in reference to priests:

    https://longhaircareforum.com/threads/2016-christian-random-thoughts.778459/page-12#post-23238903

    So clearly I was not referring to you or being backhanded.

    Then you said all Catholics were by definition orthodox and I disagreed:

    https://longhaircareforum.com/threads/2016-christian-random-thoughts.778459/page-12#post-23239411
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2016
  21. kanozas

    kanozas Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    8,070
    Media:
    1
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    31,374
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Oh, okay. Thank you for explaining. I thought you were miffed at me or something. My mistake. We all have differing opinions so that's not a problem.
     
    Belle Du Jour and Galadriel like this.
  22. Galadriel

    Galadriel Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,981
    Likes Received:
    9,097
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Where The Busy People Are
    I'll have to re-read the article, but I thought it was speaking of emergency c-section or its equivalent and not a direct, induced abortion?
     
  23. kanozas

    kanozas Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    8,070
    Media:
    1
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    31,374
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Appendectomies or other non-pregnancy related surgeries that will stress the child, ectopic pregnancies when their is imminent danger of massive hemorrhage, cancer of the uterus that is spreading. They were speaking on immediately baptizing the fetus. I couldn't be such a surgeon, I'd feel so badly each time. I bet they all do but they have what it takes to get over it quickly, I suppose. I'd be a mess. I've even heard of some fibroids being highly dangerous to the mother...all dealing with hemorrhaging, I bet.It's truly dangerous to be pregnant. Goodness. It's pretty long and you have to stop and think about a few things. Those 4 moral points having to be met are the basis. I don't think this particular info was ever discussed in my RCIA but then again, it's pretty uncommon.
     
    Galadriel likes this.
  24. kanozas

    kanozas Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    8,070
    Media:
    1
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    31,374
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I heard a discussion elsewhere and it disturbed me. Basically, die, if that's what will be the outcome. No treatment to preserve the mother. These were WOMEN. I was beside myself. How could we think our Church is so callous and unconcerned in this way? Well, I dunno how many Catholics were there but not all of them were. Of course, no direct intent to harm the child. Just pray, right? What if G-d made doctors and surgery? SMH.
     
  25. Belle Du Jour

    Belle Du Jour Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    13,324
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    20,710
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This discussion stems from another thread in which a statement was made "I Don't believe in any abortion except for that which our Church approves - in the event the life of the mother is endangered" and I replied that the church does not approve of abortion, rather treatment. I feel there is a distinction between the two terms. That's where the discussion originated so I was still countering that point not this article. I am fully aware that the church approves of treatment to save a mothers life even if the fetus is harmed in the process. However that is not the same as a direct or induced abortion.
     
    Galadriel likes this.
  26. kanozas

    kanozas Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    8,070
    Media:
    1
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    31,374
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wanted to share this from past Sunday. Alpha.org Bear Grylls!!!!



     
    Lucia likes this.
  27. Lucia

    Lucia Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    3
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,727
    Likes Received:
    6,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They just don't know how about the sacraments at all, or they just don't know how important they are for us imperfect humans living in this fallen world, or,they don't think they're Biblical (not true, they're in the Bible) and forgo them altogether.
     
  28. Lucia

    Lucia Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    3
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,727
    Likes Received:
    6,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ITA 100%
    The Roasary is a comfort and a weapon when needed.
     
    Galadriel likes this.
  29. Lucia

    Lucia Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    3
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,727
    Likes Received:
    6,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You've got friends in high places.

    Deuteronomy 20:4

    For the LORD your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory."

    Deuteronomy 31:8

    The LORD himself goes before you and will be with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged.

    Matthew 21:22

    If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer

    Isaiah 55:10-11

    As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
    so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.


    :amen:

    Alleluia! God be praised and thanks to all the Saints who interceded on your behalf. That's a blessing.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2016
  30. kanozas

    kanozas Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    8,070
    Media:
    1
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    31,374
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Our visitng priest today said to pray for those considering answering the call for the priesthood because it's difficult to live it out. Someone spat on his friend, also a priest. I believe it was over someone accusing all priests of being perverts. SMh.
     
    Lucia likes this.

Share This Page