For Immediate Release |
Diocese of Phoenix Maligns Catholic Nun, Errs on Canon Law |
| The recent news about a woman in Phoenix who received an abortion in a Catholic hospital has raised again the issue of Catholics, abortion and excommunication. The bishop of Phoenix has declared that a nun who is a hospital administrator and a member of the ethics committee is excommunicated because of her alleged action, or inaction, in regard to the pregnant woman's care. To defend the bishop's announcement that Sister McBride was "automatically excommunicated" for her actions, the diocese has published a document called "Questions & Answers Re: The Situation at St. Joseph's." While the questions are timely, the answers unfortunately misrepresent the church's law. For example, one of questions reads: "Does that mean that all women who have had an abortion are excommunicated?" The incorrect answer the diocese provides reads: "Yes, anyone who has had an abortion is automatically excommunicated. But so are those who encouraged the abortion, helped to pay for the abortion, or performed the abortion, including those who directly assisted in its performance." This claim is simply not supported by Catholic canon law. The real answer to that question is: No. Not every woman who has an abortion is excommunicated. The Catholic church's law on crimes and punishments is very strict, and, as in secular criminal law, provides a range of characteristics that would make a person incapable of committing a crime (for example, being under the age of seventeen, or acting in self-defense). There are also mitigating factors that would make a person who committed a crime ineligible for punishment or eligible only for a lesser penalty. These include people who act in fear or in case of necessity. Another wrong answer is provided in response to this question: "From the news reports we were told that Sr. McBride also consulted with others who agreed that the abortion should be performed. Are they also excommunicated?" The diocese says: "Yes. Those Catholics who gave their consent and encouraged this abortion were also excommunicated by that very action. So too is anyone else at St. Joseph's who participated in the action; including doctors and nurses." The real answer is, again: No. The Catholic church's law does, in limited circumstances, provide penalties for accomplices, but the scope of people who might be eligible is even smaller than in the first case. In the situation at St. Joseph's, even if all the requirements were met, the penalty of excommunication would only be available for someone whose participation was so necessary that the abortion would not have been provided without his or her action. It's not clear that this is the case for Sr. McBride. Canon lawyers have long agreed that the actions of hospital administrators rarely if ever rise to the level that would make them "accomplices" according to canon law. Jon O'Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, said in a statement, "It is unfortunate that once again, given an opportunity to show compassion and understanding, the Catholic hierarchy has instead taken the low road and persecuted a Catholic who, in good conscience and based on her experience, provided her opinion in a difficult medical and ethical situation. The bishop's response was to publicly damage the good reputation of a woman who has, by all accounts, dedicated much of her life to caring for those in need. In the Catholic church, Sister McBride has a right to her good reputation and a right, as well as a duty, to follow her conscience. It's notable that the diocese isn't talking much about those provisions of canon law." Click here to read this press release online. |
| ## Catholics for Choice shapes and advances sexual and reproductive ethics that are based on justice, reflect a commitment to women's well-being and respect and affirm the capacity of women and men to make moral decisions about their lives. |
Living Gospel Inclusivity and Empowerment Now
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Diocese of Phenix Maligns Catholic Nun, Errs on Canon Law
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
Before you dare attempt to cite Canon Law, remind me again what it says about ordaining women?
That's right, it's forbidden.
You hypocrites. You run to seek the protection of a law that you do not follow. You brood of vipers.
Mike,
OUCH!
Can I hear AMEN brothers and sisters!
So, molesting children is not forbidden. Neither is murder by a gangster mob. Therefore, those guilty of those indiscretions are allowed a Catholic burial. Logic???
I am thoroughly familiar with Canon 1024 -- one of the shortest canons in the code, if you must know.
Now tell me again why the Church will not define its terms. The canon states that only a baptized male (VIR) may be ordained. But no one will define male. I have asked you "gentlemen" several times to do so. You refuse. So does the Church.
Perhaps you can tell me why the Church does ont need to define its terms?
You know gentlemen,
I just do not get why you even visit this site.
You clearly disagree with the purpose of the owner blogger. Why even stop by ?
Apologist, you dig material off of this blog to post on yours. You have even written that you do !
Mike, you are in with the group of fearing Diocese of Rochester men and women who do not like their Archbishop, do not approve of lay participation in the Mass, and actively and openly organize against parishes that are not "fitting" enough of your judgement approval.
And LEAST WE NOT FORGET, when someone DISAGREES on that BLOG with YOUR beliefs- their internet IP address is blocked, no warning sent, and then the IP is redirected to a PORNOGRAPHIC web site ! Wow that was really CATHOLIC of you all ! Not only would you not allow a different opinion, you tried to burn someones eyes out with PORN ! Our Lord is NOT gonna like that about your practices or of those that YOU FOLLOW on another blog !
This is the best you can do for debate ? Oh, I forgot ...you are right and I am ...well, just wrong ! Duh ?
DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK THAT ANYONE IS GOING TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY ?
Mike you have now made yourself the "Priest Police" "The blog police" and now do we have to really put up with you being the "Canon police" too ?
Go home and protect your own diocese. Keep on being "faithfully loyal" by railroading your Archbishop Clark and hating on some retiring Nun. Such a productive life.
I can already predict your next moves. Mike will disect each sentence we post with a copy and answer (an attempt to be Mr. Baltimore Catechism). Apologist will run home and post to his blog, his now "news worthy" story.
Absolutely boring. zzzzzzzzzz
I am so happy that Our Lord is filled with a new Spirit. You all should try the same in your personal journey with Jesus, the one who loves us all !
Crusader,
I can assure you that I have nothing to do with any kind of re-directing of your address to some pornographic site. I am not computer savy. Even if I wanted to do such a thing, I would not know how to do it.
Consequently if it is happening it is happening without my awareness or control. I am also not aware of blocking IP addresses. As far as I know anyone can come to my blog. If any of this is happening in reference to my blog, please tell me and I will email the website that hosts my blog.
Crusader,
Yes, I cite this blog, and quote this blog, sometimes.
Is that not allowed? How can I interact with what she is saying if I am not allowed to cite her own positngs? I have never once attacked Bridget Mary as a person. I have gone after her views, not not her person.
Hello Apologist,
Your statement is true, I have not read any bad statements on this blog that are of an attacking mode by your name.
The deal with the IP happened on another BLOG with another reader of this blog.
I should think that Bishop Bridget Mary enjoys the ramblings and rumblings of opposing interpretations on this blog !
It shows that she has done her work well !
"So, molesting children is not forbidden. Neither is murder by a gangster mob. Therefore, those guilty of those indiscretions are allowed a Catholic burial. Logic???"
Ummm... I disagreed with you WHERE?
"I am thoroughly familiar with Canon 1024 -- one of the shortest canons in the code, if you must know."
"Thou shalt not kill" is also the shortest commandment. Guess that invalidates it?
"But no one will define male."
A human being born with a penis and only a penis. Now was that so hard?
"you are in with the group of fearing Diocese of Rochester men and women who do not like their Archbishop"
Huh? I really think you're confusing me with someone else.
"you tried to burn someones eyes out with PORN !"
Bet you sex-crazed liberals enjoy your porn.
"Keep on being "faithfully loyal" by railroading your Archbishop Clark and hating on some retiring Nun."
I will reiterate-- I am not who you are accusing me to be. There is more than one person out there named Mike. Should I call you Bridget Mary? Maybe Raven is Bridget Mary too.
You people are brides of Satan, not servants of Christ.
Um, maybe it's just me, but whenever I come to this site, It's like I've been redirected to a porn site. HOWEVER, I will not jump to conclusions. Each time I visit, I'm confronted with lesbians doing . . . things . . . to eachother. Sometimes they involve what appear to be religious objects. I don't know. I just try to navigate to the safety of the comment boxes.
Crusader, Bishop Clark isn't an archbishop. He's just "bishop."
And perhaps you can explain why all the women answering the "call" to the "priesthood" are . . . to put it gently . . . beyond child-bearing years? The young men in seminary are all 23-27. This movement is dying out, and you guys are the last of the species. I will give you all 25 years until you're stuffed and put on display in the Smithsonian.
Honorious,
Glad to see you here. Do not recall any past postings from you so this must be a recent little concern of yours that you are speaking of.
I would much rather Bridget Mary answer your question on age men vs women and the "call" - but I am going to give you the dime box speech.
Women marry and raise children (some who become priests). Women also have to go and receive ALL of their own religious degrees and training with their own time and monies. Young men in the seminary can rely on the diocese and church funds for education, where as women can not.
Now given that example ...just who do you think will venture out earlier in their career to their religious vocation ?
BUT SOMEDAY ...maybe not so far away, funding will be given for women in such training ! Are you sure where all your money is going in the church ...better watch !
If you feel this site is abusive in any way, feel free not to post - because the log shows that this post was your 1st. Also feel free to report the violation.
As far as I know there was only one contributor here that had their rights abused on another blog that actually did redirect the IP address to a porn website. The blog is from the New York Diocese of Rochester, mainly a group of traditional folks that demonstrate their lack of respect for office and gender through sarcastic reports about there shrinking parish base.
I have tried to get one blog site to consider demographics of the area an issue, but I have had no reply.
Back to you, if you are troubled by something here, report it as needed.
The grassroots have taken and the followers are many. No body is dying out.
Yes we may be on display in the Smithsonian in the future, but it will be for the roots of courage and compassion for the people...the church..as we are the church. the display will be remembering our 25th anniversary, where by my estimates, we will be 12,000 ordained living RCWP, perhaps more globally, meeting and answering the call !
Good forecasting Honorious, no one has ever really suggested we would take such an honor within just 25 years ! Isn't that AMAZING GRACE ? Haleluia ! Grace like rain falls down on me !
This is too much fun !
I would like to point out that I am a young man who is bound for the clergy. I want more people like Bishop Bridget Mary around. I think that the Roman Catholic Church is doomed to die if women aren't given an equal voice at the Table.
"I would like to point out that I am a young man who is bound for the clergy."
That right there is a major difference between Protestantism and Catholicism. In Protestantism, individuals decide whether or not they are qualified, in Catholicism, the Church decides whether or not your call from Christ is authentic. Your perceived call appears to be selfish. You also have a touch of arrogance, referring to yourself as "future pastor" as you smugly assume that you are worthy and qualified for such a task. This is as sick as if some Joe Blow were to walk around calling himself the "future pope."
"I think that the Roman Catholic Church is doomed to die if women aren't given an equal voice at the Table."
The Church has only begun to witness decline when Protestants tried to get their hands on it. We're at our best when we recognize our Catholic identity and live up to it. By the way, how wonderful are the Episcopalians doing with their female and gay priests? They are on the point of schism. Boy, wouldn't we like to be in their shoes...
Mike --
>>
I said: "I am thoroughly familiar with Canon 1024 -- one of the shortest canons in the code, if you must know."
You replied: "Thou shalt not kill" is also the shortest commandment. Guess that invalidates it?
My rebuttal: "Thou shalt not kill is not a canon in the code of canon law; it is one of the 10 commandments. Quit showing your total ignorance."
*****
I said: "But no one will define male."
You replied: A human being born with a penis and only a penis. Now was that so hard?
My rebuttal: You are not only ignorant but you are also uneducated. The presence or absence of a penis does not define male. Not all people with a penis are male and not all people without a penis are not male.
What value is a penis is dispensing the sacraments and being pastoral? I can't think of any use for one.
While we are at it, no one can define male. You will never hear a biologist defining male. If the church is going to define male theologically, then first the church must define male biologically. After all, it is a biological term. And there is no all inclusive definition.
Why don't you use some of your pent up hate energy and go learn a few things?
Mike said: Maybe Raven is Bridget Mary too.
I reply: Nope! Sorry to burst your bubble but we are definitely two different people. I am taller than she is and my hair is definitely not blond.
Honorious IV (who insults the papacy by using that screen name) states: "Each time I visit, I'm confronted with lesbians doing . . . things . . . to eachother. Sometimes they involve what appear to be religious objects. I don't know. I just try to navigate to the safety of the comment boxes."
I reply: What do lesbians have to do with this blogspot post? What do they do to each other? You have a pornographic and gutteral imagination. What religious objects (or possible religious objects) are you talking about?
Of course, according to the arrogant ethic of your ilk, you might be guilty of some horrendous sin by allowing yourself to be led into temptation by coming to this blogspot. You had better hurry to confession.
"My rebuttal: "Thou shalt not kill is not a canon in the code of canon law; it is one of the 10 commandments. Quit showing your total ignorance.""
You're suggesting that because the Canon is short, it's not significant. I'm making a valid counterpoint that length does nothing to reduce the significance of the Canon by providing an example from the Ten Commandments. Clearly, the Code of Canon Law and the Ten Commandments are two different items. You B.M. freaks are an ignorant brood of vipers who drink the venom of the devil. Your arguments are pathetic. When you hear a good counterargument, you come up with pathetic responses like that. You know you're wrong and that I'm right. Go to Confession, kiss your bishop's ring, and rejoin the true faith instead of sitting in sin in the den of heathen liberals.
"My rebuttal: You are not only ignorant but you are also uneducated. The presence or absence of a penis does not define male. Not all people with a penis are male and not all people without a penis are not male."
Let's see what the Webster's dictionary has to say about 'male':
"of, relating to, or being the sex that begets young by performing the fertilizing function in generation and produces relatively small usually motile gametes by which eggs of a female are made fertile."
And no one has defined male? Stop inhaling the smoke of Satan as it's killing your brain cells.
You say: "Let's see what the Webster's dictionary has to say about 'male':
"of, relating to, or being the sex that begets young by performing the fertilizing function in generation and produces relatively small usually motile gametes by which eggs of a female are made fertile."
And no one has defined male? Stop inhaling the smoke of Satan as it's killing your brain cells.
I reply: Therefore, according to your definition, a person with a penis who is impotent or infertile is not a male. Very interesting.
If you look carefully at Webster, you will see that what you quoted is one of many definitions given -- some of which are either overlapping or at least partially mutually exclusive.
You do not seem capable of carrying on a logical discussion on this point -- nor do you seem capable of accepting that you do not have an inclusive answer.
"I reply: Therefore, according to your definition, a person with a penis who is impotent or infertile is not a male. Very interesting."
Did you not read the definition? If the person is "of... the sex" which fertilizes the egg of a women, the person is male. Their current status (impotent, lost a nut like Lance Armstrong, or had surgery done to make themselves look female) does not change how they were born; which is male or female.
I believe that one can also test for the presence of the "Y" chromosome, though I am not a scientist.
I am sorry, but it is difficult to carry on a civil conversation when the other party [you] continually speaks with condescension and verbal attacks.
If you are going to bring sex into this, you are going to have to explain sex scientifically because sex is a scientific concept.
You say you are not a scientist. Well, I am a scientist. One of my specialties is the study of sex and gender.
Yes, one can test for the presence of the "Y" chromosome. However, that does not prove maleness or femaleness -- at least not by itself. Notice I said "prove" and I did not say "define" male or female.
It is difficult to carry on a civil conversation when the other party [you] continually refuse to look at scientific evidence. I have tried to let you realize this yourself by asking for a definition. You should have realized you couldn't give me a definition because of conflicting evidence in the dictionary. That should have taken you a little deeper than the dictionary. Then you would have seen that there is no inclusive definition.
Okay,
While everyone else it seemingly interested in defining "Male", I find it interesting that on Honorious IV details page it list his interests as "YOUR MOM"
He also identifies as a 19 year old male student.
Interests- "YOUR MOM" ?
I do not think we should receive those posts with sincere heart.
To Mike,
The predictability of your posts are quite entertaining. As much as in when I said you would answer with disections and answers.
You are not a scholar. A scholar does not cite the webster dictionary.
You are however demonstrating the human characteristics in your writing, as an easily lead and fearful male.
If you are truly demonstrating the characteristics of a practicing Catholic in word and deed, then you would not be spewing the Jerry Falwell style of Christian Fundamentalism.
Have mercy on all of us most loving Lord Jesus. Be ever present in our lives and guide us to you through our work and example to each other.
Amen.
Yes, I am waiting on those FEARING people to start throwing the stones and tell me I am going to ...Hell !
May God have a merciful loving gesture towards all - we are The Lord's people, Jesus Our Lord.
Yes .."Jesus OUR Lord"
Blessings !
"If you are truly demonstrating the characteristics of a practicing Catholic in word and deed, then you would not be spewing the Jerry Falwell style of Christian Fundamentalism."
You are not one to deliver lectures on what it means to be Catholic, being a sinful heretic and schismatic excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. You deciding what is and isn't Catholic is the same as myself deciding what is and isn't Jewish. You have no authority to speak about something you do not practice or believe in.
"You are not a scholar. A scholar does not cite the webster dictionary."
Better a scholar to cite the dictionary than a pseudo-scholar like yourself to speak out of his ass.
"You are however demonstrating the human characteristics in your writing, as an easily lead and fearful male. "
Oh, so there is a difference between male and female. Your friend here would have us believe otherwise.
Raven- I suggest you explain the following words of Christ from Mark 10
"At the beginning of creation, God made them male and female."
Obviously our Lord Jesus Christ recognizes that there is a difference between men and women. Yet, you do not?
Wow Mike,
Your reply and casting within only ten minutes !
Glad you are not in charge of any nuclear weapons !
Our Lord CREATED us ALL. That is all that matters.
Face it Mike, you are filled with fear.
Reveal your actual endorsed education as ravensbarque did, then maybe someone will take you serious.
And yes, I have actually identified the highly qualifies degrees of other bloggers.
But you will stand as just another angry all male opinion in the minds and books of many.
I am so happy that Our Lord will take the time to consider the hollow hardness that you keep, The Lord, will help you Mike, to be fulfilled and know that we are all created by the Lord.
Peace. And Mike, stay away from nuclear weapons !
Blessings.
"Reveal your actual endorsed education as ravensbarque did, then maybe someone will take you serious."
What education did this son of Satan reveal? That he's a "scientist"? Hell, Bridget Mary calls herself a "priest", but that doesn't make her a priest.
I could care less if you take me seriously. I'm doing the Lord's work to save your souls. If you wish eternal damnation and the burning of fires, then you can continue with your fornication and heresy. I wish to lead you back to Christ, and his one holy spotless apostolic Church.
Oh Mike,
You still do not get it !
We are ALL CHILDREN of OUR LORD JESUS !
Now WHO in this blog or blog posts said anything about fornication ?
You bring subject matter in your posts here on this blog, that have not been at issue or discussion and SHOULD not be used in an accusatory form.
That in itself shows your lack of education in church teachings, and your lack of training.
You are beginning to sound so random that you are bordering on hate filled posts. I remind you that the blogging rules and ethics are dealt with firmly on the main site. Do not loose your freedom to post. Tone it down.
And Mike, Our Church is NOT spotless for it is ruled and lead by HUMAN beings - we are not spotless as a human kind. We try to lead each other as gracefully as we can, but "spotless" well that's a bit far.
Goodnight Mike. Talk to Apologist. You are beginning to jump around in your posts with a tremendous similarity as his.
May the Love of Our Most Precious Lord Jesus, be with us all !
Mike said: "What education did this son of Satan reveal? That he's a "scientist"? Hell, Bridget Mary calls herself a "priest", but that doesn't make her a priest."
I reply: First of all, I am not a son of Satan.
Now, what would it take to convince you that I am scientist? Or is it simply that you do not like to believe someone knows something outside your own precious paradigm?
I have been through 2 doctoral programs in biology (plus 1 in pastoralministry/theology). I have written 17 science books and I have done countless web and behind-the-scenes projects. (Books and projects were all for major publishers.) I write a quarterly column for an international science journal. I also serve on the editorial board of that journal (as I have for almost a decade).
I have been a college biology professor since January 1981. In addition, I have been teaching science since September 1966. (I am certified to teach K-12 -- though I do prefer college level teaching.)
Does all of that qualify me to call myself a scientist? If not, then what the hell do you want? I am a scientist whether you like it or not.
Seriously, Crusader and Raven have got to be the same person. I say something to one, and the other responds for him. This is a joke. Are you really so pathetic that you need to login using two blogger accounts to make it look like "more than one" person agrees with you?
This is pathetic. So is the way of heretics.
I assure you, Crusader and I are not the same person. We do not even live in the same state.
Now, why don't you test your math. We have 50 states. Crusader and I do not live in the same state. How many possibilities are there?
If you get that right, let's throw in Bridget Mary. She doesn't live in the same state as either Crusader or me. So, given the same 50 states, how many possibilies are there?
Oh one more thing, Mike I may be wrong, but I believe the way you find out the answers to the questions of State possibilities is to use N! or N factoral. It has been a while since my last college statistics class.
I this case I know how to describe how to do the problems, but it may have left my mind on what it is called. So I guessed the name.
Post a Comment