Zed wrote:Burdens of unconfessed mortal sin might be able to send you to Hell, but they can do so for a Catholic who isn't excommunicated just as much as they can for an excommunicated one.
A non-excommunicated Catholic can receive Last Rites, though. And confession. If you've been excommunicated, you can't.
As excommunication can be absolved by a bishop or the Pope, or in cases of threat to one's life, by a common priest, this doesn't seem to be a significant problem. (Or, at least, no more so than for Catholics in general.)
This is meaningless, because that requires you to come back and beg the Church to forgive you, which is very unlikely in a case like this.
Simon_Jester wrote:A non-excommunicated Catholic can receive Last Rites, though. And confession. If you've been excommunicated, you can't.
The church would respond that even that is no guarantee of salvation after death. Plus, in order for a confession to be valid, there has to be valid repentance and a change of heart. Plus the lives of the saints are full of warnings not to emulate supposedly holy people who got too vain and thought that they would automatically go to heaven (at least that's what I remember from being Orthodox, which is very similar).
Which isn't to deny that Catholicism is full of shit, but according to them no one knows 100% the final destination of anyone.
Simon_Jester wrote:A non-excommunicated Catholic can receive Last Rites, though. And confession. If you've been excommunicated, you can't.
The church would respond that even that is no guarantee of salvation after death. Plus, in order for a confession to be valid, there has to be valid repentance and a change of heart. Plus the lives of the saints are full of warnings not to emulate supposedly holy people who got too vain and thought that they would automatically go to heaven (at least that's what I remember from being Orthodox, which is very similar).
Which isn't to deny that Catholicism is full of shit, but according to them no one knows 100% the final destination of anyone.
Yeah, but when they go from, say, "80/20 you go to Heaven" to "80/20 you go to Hell..." that is a big decision. If they claim that kind of power, they should act with corresponding responsibility. They don't.
Has anyone actually discussed what kind of horror, guilt and emotions the nun and the woman is undergoing?
Or how Catholics who have to choose to go through the risks of their baby dying and the moral guilt, twists and shit?
The doctrine of death resulting from treatment is worse than a relative simple abortion because thanks to Catholic morality, it is reinforced that it is morally wrong to choose to save one life than certain death for both. WORSE, the guilt and moral hazard of undergoing radiation, chemotherapy or surgery that hurt the baby is arguably more longer lasting than the idea of abortion so as to undergo life saving tretament. The second at least offers the certainty of death for the foetus, the first does....... but over a longer period of time. So, guess what? The mother is actually undergoing the emotional experience of actually hurting her baby, over days, weeks or months BEFORE the foetus aborts for chemotherapy and radiation. FOR WHAT? The Catholic moral doctrine that its wrong to abort a baby, but right to have a foetus die from life saving treatment?
This of course ignores the ethical and moral duty of everyone to reduce suffering. Let's take the argument that the foetus at less than 3 months is capable of recognising pain and suffering since this is their stance too. How would you feel if your body is being twisted and blasted, having abnormal growth before your mom body decides to cut you off and destroy you? Yeah. That's what the foetus is undergoing right now for cancer treatment. Which would be better for their soul?
Now, the issue of surgery and uterine tumours is an entirely different topic altogether, because there, surgery and harm can take place at six months or more when the baby is formed and has a nervous system. Pulmonary hypertension is a medical emergency........ shit for giggles then. A moral doctrine that places longer lasting guilt is still more shitty than the normal system.
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
PainRack wrote:Has anyone actually discussed what kind of horror, guilt and emotions the nun and the woman is undergoing?
Or how Catholics who have to choose to go through the risks of their baby dying and the moral guilt, twists and shit? .
I perfectly understand the situation and choices, and if it was under the mother's consent for an abortion then the nun should be supported, this is only a very recent case and unless the media is going to pick up on this in the future then we don't know what will happen. There are more religious people then me who would have supported the nun's decision, if her role was of genuine support and advice rather than abusing any form of trust then she would be supported, and may still be though as this case has not disclosed details on what actually occurred then on my part I can't make my own judgment on it.
It is tragic case on both sides, the mother's body will never forget the trauma, and her mind certainly won't. The nun has bore the brunt of the difficult decision, so one thing I can agree on is the Bisop's comments were insensitive at best. The catholic church is meant to be a main centre point of worship, and it of all things should understand the bible has commented on tolerance and forgiveness of sin and not just condemn it.
