Same-sex marriage grounds for firing Catholic school’s guidance counselor, appeals court says

[FireDragon76]

The Catholic Church doesn’t have the right to ask that its employees have the same moral standards that they do? I believe these people agreed to do that and then didn’t keep their end of the bargain

I don't think institutions like that should receive social privileges. Quite the opposite. Bigotry isn't a virtue our society needs to promote.

 

[Valletta]

I don't think institutions like that should receive social privileges. Quite the opposite. Bigotry isn't a virtue our society needs to promote.

Freedom of religion was the reason why the early Europeans came to America. Our founding document recognizes that our rights come from God, and that is the greatness of America. Catholics, like any religion, have the right to practice their religion free from government tyranny. The government had no right to decide on Catholic personnel, nor to void a contract when one party lies. Our state and other states are discriminating against Christian schools.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Freedom of religion was the reason why the early Europeans came to America.

Freedom from persecution motivated many, yes. But not freedom of religion as we have it today.

Catholics, like any religion, have the right to practice their religion free from government tyranny.

Not in colonial Massachusetts or many of the other colonies.

Catholics avoided Massachusetts during the colonial period after laws passed in 1647 and 1700 forbade Catholic priests to reside in the colony under pain of imprisonment and execution.

It was not until the founding of the Constitution that our secular nation provided for freedom of all religions (at the federal level).

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

No, it's not a separate issue. 2 different sins. One gets fired for being gay. The priest punishment for rape, is getting sent to another church. We're he can rape and ruin more peoples lives. As for the Gay person getting fired. That's a church issue. The person fired should work in a non- religious work place.

The first incident with the priests was handled improperly and with nefarious intent to hide the corruption and cover the sins instead of root them out. That was wrong, and has been evidenced with numerous massive lawsuits and settlements.

The second is merely a a contractual issue. The person knew what was agreed in terms of employment due to the religious nature of the employer and failed to do so.

 

[Landon Caeli]

When I see a nun in the street wearing a habit, it gives me the same feeling as if I've seen a KKK in their pointy white hat.
I hate hate groups.

So you just called the CC a hate group on CF... That's gutsy!

...You should apologize now.

 

[stevil]

So you just called the CC a hate group on CF... That's gutsy!

...You should apologize now.

I should apologise for recognising that the CC are picking on the LQTBQ, refusing to hire anyone in that group and firing anyone that they discover are in that group?

 

[Valletta]

I should apologise for recognising that the CC are picking on the LQTBQ, refusing to hire anyone in that group and firing anyone that they discover are in that group?

A Catholic conduct contract allows termination for sexual co-habitation or promoting such outside of marriage. That applies to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Parents who send their children to Catholic schools and pay the tuition expect the schools to teach that as part of Catholic teaching. Consider the sports athlete who signs a conduct agreement. Maybe he gets drunk in public and that violates the contract. Is it the team who is "picking on" athletes who likes to get drunk it public? While sports teams and religious organizations are all subject to contract law, religious organizations have an added Constitutional right to practice their religion. Now I can't get a grant or funding from some funds and foundations because I am not LGBTQ. Will you complain to those organizations because they are picking on me?

 

[stevil]

You're an atheist, right? If so, then you may not think much of religious freedom.

I'm all for religious freedom and for freedom from religion. People should be allowed to believe whatever they want.
But some religious groups are trying very hard to force their religion onto others. force their religious based morals into law. For example, many would try to outlaw gay marriage even for atheists getting married.

There are often times where religious freedom and government do need to resolve disputes. This mostly happens with regards to discrimination vs antidiscrimination laws.

I do recognise that a catholic school is a private organisation, an exclusive club and they have the legal right to discriminate. I am merely saying that I don't like that, and it makes me view such organisation as the CC very poorly. Certainly, it makes me want to avoid providing any support for the CC, e.g. I will never donate money to them, and I will never send my kids to their schools and I would never encourage anyone to do so..

 

[Landon Caeli]

I'm all for religious freedom and for freedom from religion. People should be allowed to believe whatever they want.
But some religious groups are trying very hard to force their religion onto others. force their religious based morals into law. For example, many would try to outlaw gay marriage even for atheists getting married.

There are often times where religious freedom and government do need to resolve disputes. This mostly happens with regards to discrimination vs antidiscrimination laws.

I do recognise that a catholic school is a private organisation, an exclusive club and they have the legal right to discriminate. I am merely saying that I don't like that, and it makes me view such organisation as the CC very poorly. Certainly, it makes me want to avoid providing any support for the CC, e.g. I will never donate money to them, and I will never send my kids to their schools and I would never encourage anyone to do so..

You also don't support all Jewish, Islamic, or Protestant organizations... Because you think they're all "hate groups", right?

...But you're not Islamophobic, right?

 

[stevil]

You also don't support all Jewish, Islamic, or Protestant organizations.

Anyone that discriminates. Anyone that openly shames minorities.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Anyone that discriminates. Anyone that openly shames minorities.

So you do then, consider Protestant organizations to be "hate groups", just like you do the CC.

...What's fair is fair, afterall. Don't get cold feet now!

 

[Landon Caeli]

Let's not act like we can discriminate against Catholicism all willy-nilly, and act like that's okay as long as it's not the other denominations.

...You think we give free passes to insult Catholicism here?

 

[stevil]

And pray tell what does the Church teach about ectopic pregnancies? I bet you that you are wrong.

CC hospitals will not remove the fertilised egg on its own. They instead cut out a section of the Fallopian tube.
Non Catholic hospitals will not remove the fallopian tube as it is unnecessary to do so, unnecessary to permanently damage the woman. There is nothing wrong with her fallopian tube.

Catholic Church and abortion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Church Doctrine

Ectopic pregnancy​

An ectopic pregnancy is one of a few cases where the foreseeable death of an embryo is allowed, since it is categorized as an indirect abortion. This view was also advocated by Pius XII in a 1953 address to the Italian Association of Urology.[56]

Using the Thomistic Principle of Totality (removal of a pathological part to preserve the life of the person) and the Doctrine of Double Effect, the only moral action in an ectopic pregnancy where a woman's life is directly threatened is the removal of the tube containing the human embryo (salpingectomy). The death of the human embryo is unintended although foreseen.

 

[Michie]

CC hospitals will not remove the fertilised egg on its own. They instead cut out a section of the Fallopian tube.
Non Catholic hospitals will not remove the fallopian tube as it is unnecessary to do so, unnecessary to permanently damage the woman. There is nothing wrong with her fallopian tube.

Catholic Church and abortion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Church Doctrine

Ectopic pregnancy​

An ectopic pregnancy is one of a few cases where the foreseeable death of an embryo is allowed, since it is categorized as an indirect abortion. This view was also advocated by Pius XII in a 1953 address to the Italian Association of Urology.[56]

Using the Thomistic Principle of Totality (removal of a pathological part to preserve the life of the person) and the Doctrine of Double Effect, the only moral action in an ectopic pregnancy where a woman's life is directly threatened is the removal of the tube containing the human embryo (salpingectomy). The death of the human embryo is unintended although foreseen.

You realize that the fallopian tube is usually scarred hence the reason for the ectopic pregnancy? Mine ruptured. It was removed. As it should have been. Or they try to remove a part of it and remove the remaining scarring. Not usually all that helpful as far as conceiving again. It’s sort of a lose lose situation as far as an already defective fallopian tube goes. Keeping it or losing it. If that makes you sick, so be it. :shrug:

 

[stevil]

You realize that the fallopian tube is usually scarred hence the reason for the ectopic pregnancy? Mine ruptured. It was removed. As it should have been. It they try to remove a part of it and remove the remaining scarring.

The CC hospitals will just remove it even if there is no medical need. They do it because of the moral teachings of the church. They believe it is immoral just to remove the embryo alone. It is in my opinion, medical malpractice and doctors agreeing to do it are violating their Hippocratic oath.

 

[Michie]

The CC hospitals will just remove it even if there is no medical need. They do it because of the moral teachings of the church. They believe it is immoral just to remove the embryo alone. It is in my opinion, medical malpractice and doctors agreeing to do it are violating their Hippocratic oath.

Lol! Yeah I’m sure you are correct. Not.

Indirect Abortion | EWTN

EWTN is a global, Catholic Television, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News Network that provides catholic programming and news coverage from around the world.

www.ewtn.com

Choose compassion during complex pregnancies

Is the procedure that is required to save a mother’s life in the case of an ectopic pregnancy considered an abortion? Is it morally acceptable?

uscatholic.org

Each case is medically evaluated on its own merits. Ectopic pregnancies are not viable.

 

[stevil]

Lol! Yeah I’m sure you are correct. Not.

Indirect Abortion | EWTN

EWTN is a global, Catholic Television, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News Network that provides catholic programming and news coverage from around the world.

www.ewtn.com

Each case is medically evaluated on its own merits.

From your link

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.

So, because of the above moral judgement, they are instructed by the Church to destroy (by removing) the woman's fellopian tube.

Ectopic pregnancy

An ectopic pregnancy is when a fertilised egg implants itself outside of the womb, usually in one of the fallopian tubes.

www.nhs.uk

How an ectopic pregnancy is treated​

There are 2 main treatments for an ectopic pregnancy:

• expectant management – you're carefully monitored and 1 of the treatments below is used if the fertilised egg doesn't dissolve by itself
• medicine – an injection of a powerful medicine called methotrexate is used to stop the pregnancy growing
• surgery – keyhole surgery (laparoscopy) is performed under general anaesthetic to remove the fertilised egg, usually along with the affected fallopian tube

So from the above two articles we can see that the CC will not allow the Medicine approach which will not destroy the fellopian tube. and for the surgery approach rather then "usually along with the affeced fallopian tube" becomes "always along with th eaffected fallopian tube"

Methotrexate Treatment of Ectopic Pregnancy: Experience at Nizwa Hospital with Literature Review - PMC

Ectopic pregnancy occurs when the embryo fails to implant within the uterine cavity. Methotrexate, a folic acid antagonist has been widely used to treat ectopic pregnancy. The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy of methotrexate treatment ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Conclusion​

Methotrexate treatment of ectopic pregnancies is safe and effective with no major side effects. Intramuscular methotrexate has the advantage of tubal conservation and saves patients from requiring surgery. It is easier to administer than intraoperative route, which is by laparoscopy and needs expertise. Our study showed single dose methotrexate to be an effective treatment option for selected patients with unruptured tubal ectopic pregnancy.


In my opinion, by discarding the Methotrexate treatment option, the CC is unnecessarily permanently damaging the woman.

 

[Michie]

From The Catholic Health Association of the United States. (2011, January 19). Ethical Currents Catholic Health Association. Retrieved Oct 21, 2020, from Catholic Health Association: https://www.chausa.org/docs/default...764f3cc4624a8ea2a31037e9b111-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=0

https://www.chausa.org/docs/default...764f3cc4624a8ea2a31037e9b111-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=0

What do the ERDs say about ectopic pregnancies? Directive 48 speaks to this issue: “In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.” What are the possible interventions? There are actually four approaches to addressing these situations. The first consists in expectant management, i.e., simply monitoring the situation to see if the tubal pregnancy resolves on its own. The second consists in the partial or complete removal of the fallopian tube, which also contains an embryo (salpingectomy). The third involves slitting the fallopian tube and “stopping the destructive activity of the trophoblast by removing the invasive trophoblastic cells along with the damaged tubal tissue.”1 The embryo is also necessarily removed in the process (salpingostomy). And the fourth consists in administration of the drug methotrexate which prevents the trophoblastic cells from continuing to divide and doing damage to the tube that could result in severe hemorrhaging. The embryo also eventually dies. Its demise is foreseen, but not intended.2 The physician’s action is directed at the pathological and harmful tissue, and not at the embryo. Medically, the use of methotrexate tends to be the preferred treatment because it does not involve surgery and leaves the woman’s fertility intact. In light of Directive 48, the question is whether any of these procedures constitutes a direct abortion.

While the first approach results in the death of the embryo, nothing is done to bring about that death. There is no direct abortion here; the embryo is simply permitted to die. Virtually all theologians agree that the second approach constitutes an indirect abortion (the procedure is aimed at removing a pathological organ and is necessary to save the life of the mother) and so is morally licit. The demise of the embryo is foreseen, but not intended. Among Catholic theologians and ethicists, there is disagreement regarding the third and fourth procedures. Some see them as a direct attack on the embryo and, so, a direct abortion,3 while others see them as aimed at removing pathological tissue—the trophoblast— and, unavoidably and concomitantly the removal of the embryo. They judge this to be an indirect abortion.4 The magisterium has not resolved this controversy. Hence neither Church teaching nor the ERDs forbid the third or fourth approaches (so long as these approaches can legitimately be argued as not constituting direct abortions). Currently, both opinions are in play.

Hence, if some Catholic hospitals have policies that prohibit salpingostomy and the use of methotrexate, this is not because these procedures are forbidden by Church teaching or by the ERDs. Rather, it is because an individual or individuals decided either to take the safer course or personally believed that salpingostomy and the use of methotrexate constitute direct abortions and are, therefore, in conflict with Directives 48 and 45. However, given the on-going debate, it is permissible for Catholic hospitals to employ both the third and fourth approaches. As the editors of the National Catholic Bioethics Center’s Catholic Health Care Ethics note: “Resolution of this debate will depend on further specification of the exact nature of these medical procedures and further refinement of the arguments about the moral object of each act. Generally, if there are two competing but contrary bodies of theological opinion about a moral issue, each held by experts whose work is in accordance with the magisterium of the Church, and if there is no specific magisterial teaching on the issue that would resolve the matter, then the decision makers may licitly act on either opinion until such time that the magisterium has resolved the question."

Per the National Catholic Bioethics Center:

Summary: Ectopic Pregnancy — The National Catholic Bioethics Center

The Catholic Health Association of the United States. (2011, January 19). Catholic Health Association. Retrieved Oct 21, 2020, from Catholic Health Association: https://www.chausa.org/docs/default...764f3cc4624a8ea2a31037e9b111-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Moral Debate regarding Salpingostomy and the Use of Methotrexate

Some Catholic ethicists argue that salpingostomy and the use of methotrexate are morally permissible under the principle of double effect. They argue that both procedures directly intend the removal of the exact cause of the condition, i.e., the trophoblast rapidly dividing in the wrong place, and not the embryonic child itself. This argument assumes that the trophoblast is not an organ of the embryo and therefore can be an object of moral focus apart from the developing embryo.

Question 4. What does the Magisterium say about the moral liceity of these three procedures?

Reply: The Magisterium is silent on these three specific procedures. There appears to be universal acceptance of salpingectomy among ethicists. Removal of the tube indirectly causes the death of the embryo. There is less agreement on the use of methotrexate, and there are strong concerns about the moral liceity of salpingostomy, which appears to be a direct attack on the embryo. Nonetheless, in the absence of magisterial direction, the use of any of these procedures becomes a matter of conscience. In the face of the certain death of the embryo regardless of the procedure used (or not used), one may weigh what is proportionately beneficial to preserve a woman’s fertility.

 

[Landon Caeli]

The CC hospitals will just remove it even if there is no medical need. They do it because of the moral teachings of the church. They believe it is immoral just to remove the embryo alone. It is in my opinion, medical malpractice and doctors agreeing to do it are violating their Hippocratic oath.

Because the doctors are all Catholics at Catholic hospitals, right?

 

[stevil]

So you do then, consider Protestant organizations to be "hate groups", just like you do the CC.

...What's fair is fair, afterall. Don't get cold feet now!

HUH? sounds like entrapment to me?

Shouldn't you be encouraging cordial participation rather than trying to trap members?