It seems I got a couple facts from my previous post wrong. Today I read another story about the woman who had to have an abortion to save her own life here. I am still not clear if that woman was excommunicated, but the nun involved in the decision was. The story I linked to goes into more detail. It makes clear that the woman involved had a risk of mortality close to 100 percent, and the fetus would have died as well. The article also brings up the fact that no pedophile priest has been excommunicated.
Yup, makes absolutely no bloody sense whatsoever.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Moral Authority?
This past weekend I read about a nun who was instrumental in the saving of a woman's life. For her trouble she was rebuked and reassigned by the local bishop.
Sister Margaret McBride was an administrator of a Catholic hospital in Phoenix, Arizona. She sat on the hospital's ethics committee and was involved in the decision to terminate the pregnancy of a patient of the hospital. The decision was made by the woman involved, her family, her physicians and the ethics committee. Why? Because she had a medical condition known as pulmonary hypertension which limits the ability of the heart and lungs to function. This condition worsens with pregnancy. It was highly probable that the pregnancy would have resulted in her death. Thus, the decision was made to abort the fetus at eleven weeks. As a result of this decision, the woman was automatically excommunicated.
The head of the Phoenix diocese, Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, had this to say: "While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do so can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means."
The ends do not justify the means. Which end has the most importance? Yes, one can argue about the sanctity of life, but who's life has more value? In this particular case, priority was given by the bishop to a fetus incapable of surviving outside of it's mother's womb, who's life had not yet begun. Priority was given over the life of an already established human being. A woman who's death would presumably cause great suffering to her family and friends. A woman who's life already had meaning and value. Unless of course, a woman's primary value is as a breeder of children.
And really, how can the Catholic church continue to present itself as a moral authority when it has been a source of a great evil, the sexual abuse and torture of helpless children. How can they continue to dictate people's morality when it has been engaged in the perpetration of what is arguably one of the most immoral of acts? An evil it has desperately tried to cover up for years.
And in today's news I hear about another example of the the Catholic view on abortion. In my home province of Quebec, Cardinal Marc Ouellet has stated that abortion is never justified, even if the pregnancy is the result of rape.
Really? So, it's all about the right to life of an unborn fetus. Never mind the rights of the woman involved. Never mind if she is the victim of sexual assault. Never mind if the pregnancy could result in her death. This means that women do not have control over their own bodies or their own lives. This reduces a woman's body to a mere incubator.
Add in the fact that the Catholic church does not condone the use of contraception. I suppose the Phoenix woman's only choice should have been celibacy. And we all know how well celibacy has worked out for the Catholic church. If I was being extremely cynical, I might start to think the reason they are so adamant about preserving the lives of unborn babies is to ensure a continued supply of kids to rape. But of course, I'm not quite that cynical...
Sister Margaret McBride was an administrator of a Catholic hospital in Phoenix, Arizona. She sat on the hospital's ethics committee and was involved in the decision to terminate the pregnancy of a patient of the hospital. The decision was made by the woman involved, her family, her physicians and the ethics committee. Why? Because she had a medical condition known as pulmonary hypertension which limits the ability of the heart and lungs to function. This condition worsens with pregnancy. It was highly probable that the pregnancy would have resulted in her death. Thus, the decision was made to abort the fetus at eleven weeks. As a result of this decision, the woman was automatically excommunicated.
The head of the Phoenix diocese, Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, had this to say: "While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do so can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means."
The ends do not justify the means. Which end has the most importance? Yes, one can argue about the sanctity of life, but who's life has more value? In this particular case, priority was given by the bishop to a fetus incapable of surviving outside of it's mother's womb, who's life had not yet begun. Priority was given over the life of an already established human being. A woman who's death would presumably cause great suffering to her family and friends. A woman who's life already had meaning and value. Unless of course, a woman's primary value is as a breeder of children.
And really, how can the Catholic church continue to present itself as a moral authority when it has been a source of a great evil, the sexual abuse and torture of helpless children. How can they continue to dictate people's morality when it has been engaged in the perpetration of what is arguably one of the most immoral of acts? An evil it has desperately tried to cover up for years.
And in today's news I hear about another example of the the Catholic view on abortion. In my home province of Quebec, Cardinal Marc Ouellet has stated that abortion is never justified, even if the pregnancy is the result of rape.
Really? So, it's all about the right to life of an unborn fetus. Never mind the rights of the woman involved. Never mind if she is the victim of sexual assault. Never mind if the pregnancy could result in her death. This means that women do not have control over their own bodies or their own lives. This reduces a woman's body to a mere incubator.
Add in the fact that the Catholic church does not condone the use of contraception. I suppose the Phoenix woman's only choice should have been celibacy. And we all know how well celibacy has worked out for the Catholic church. If I was being extremely cynical, I might start to think the reason they are so adamant about preserving the lives of unborn babies is to ensure a continued supply of kids to rape. But of course, I'm not quite that cynical...
Thursday, May 13, 2010
The Internet: Where religions come to die
Found this today and thought it went well with yesterday's post.
I feel horrible about those children....
I feel horrible about those children....
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Freedom of Choice?
Earlier today I viewed a YouTube clip from The Atheist Experience TV show. A Muslim man named Bilal called in with some questions and concerns. He began by saying that he knew he was Muslim simply because he was raised in a Muslim family. He realized that had he been raised in a Christian family, he would be Christian. I won't go into all the details of the conversation, it can be heard on the above YouTube link. But he had very real concerns about leaving the Islam faith, including the fear of death threats from the Muslim community.
I was moved by this man's dilemma. His experience is beyond my ability to fully understand. Unlike him, I was not raised in a religious home. When it came to questions of religious and/or spiritual belief, my parents left me to figure it out for myself, to search for my own answers. To read, to explore, to investigate and to educate myself to the point where I could come to my own informed conclusion.
What a gift.
So many children in the world are not permitted this luxury. And why should it be a luxury; it should be a basic human right. Many people will argue that it is a human right, the freedom of religious choice. Technically, yes. But what is the reality? If children are raised from birth to be part of a particular religious faith, and they are told that this religion is the "truth" while their minds are vulnerable and impressionable, then how is that really a choice? Children believe what their parents tell them. This is why so many children (myself included) grow up believing in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy. But there comes a time when we put aside childish fantasies, when we stop believing in magical beings and imaginary friends and get on with the business of living in the real world.
It's something to think about. People have religious beliefs mainly because that is what they were raised to believe. Yes, some people convert to other belief systems or reject the idea of a god of any sort entirely. Conversely, I'm sure there are people that have been raised without any specific belief in a higher power that later in life become religious. But for the most part, belief is a product of environment. It's pure chance. In my case, I just happened to be born into a family that is not religious and has a fair number of atheists on the family tree. The dice rolled in my favour in that regard. Plus, I am also blessed to be born in a part of the world where I needn't fear punishment of any sort for my beliefs, or lack thereof. And for that, I am truly grateful.
I was moved by this man's dilemma. His experience is beyond my ability to fully understand. Unlike him, I was not raised in a religious home. When it came to questions of religious and/or spiritual belief, my parents left me to figure it out for myself, to search for my own answers. To read, to explore, to investigate and to educate myself to the point where I could come to my own informed conclusion.
What a gift.
So many children in the world are not permitted this luxury. And why should it be a luxury; it should be a basic human right. Many people will argue that it is a human right, the freedom of religious choice. Technically, yes. But what is the reality? If children are raised from birth to be part of a particular religious faith, and they are told that this religion is the "truth" while their minds are vulnerable and impressionable, then how is that really a choice? Children believe what their parents tell them. This is why so many children (myself included) grow up believing in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy. But there comes a time when we put aside childish fantasies, when we stop believing in magical beings and imaginary friends and get on with the business of living in the real world.
It's something to think about. People have religious beliefs mainly because that is what they were raised to believe. Yes, some people convert to other belief systems or reject the idea of a god of any sort entirely. Conversely, I'm sure there are people that have been raised without any specific belief in a higher power that later in life become religious. But for the most part, belief is a product of environment. It's pure chance. In my case, I just happened to be born into a family that is not religious and has a fair number of atheists on the family tree. The dice rolled in my favour in that regard. Plus, I am also blessed to be born in a part of the world where I needn't fear punishment of any sort for my beliefs, or lack thereof. And for that, I am truly grateful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
