4 ms·

> The hospital (a Catholic hospital, even) provided a morphine drip and they were gone within an hour. FWIW, Catholic ethics are actually fairly well thought o

> The hospital (a Catholic hospital, even) provided a morphine drip and they were gone within an hour. FWIW, Catholic ethics are actually fairly well thought out on this issue. You're not allowed to withhold basic nourishment (food, hydration, non-invasive breathing support), but you are allowed to opt out of invasive procedures such as intubation and provide pain management if the patient or the patient's guardian decides that it would significantly affect quality of life and the patient doesn't have long to live. Obviously there is discernment involved in the last bit, but Catholicism is all about discernment. Here's the National Catholic Bioethics Center on the topic: https://www.ncbcenter.org/resources-and-statements-cms/summary-end-of-life-care https://www.ncbcenter.org/resources-and-statements-cms/summa...

JohnBooty 2y ago
Thanks for that information. I have some major disagreements with the Catholic church but more knowledge and understanding is always a good thing. Appreciated.
- toasterlovin 2y ago
  Of course! I'm biased (as a Catholic), but I personally find the Church's moral stances to be fairly well thought out and systematic. But well thought out people starting from different axioms will often disagree with each other's conclusions!
  - pcl 2y ago
    It’s hard to ask this in a non-confrontational way, so I’ll just come out with it: How do you square that with the modern Catholic church’s systemic support of sexual abuse of minors? I mean this in the most inquisitive way possible. An organization’s what it does; the modern Catholic Church (leaders) have supported some horrible things. How do you separate out the good bits from the bad bits?
    - person101x 2y ago
      For me it boils down to this: the Catholic Church exists as a body of members who are all sinners- laymen and women, priests, bishops, cardinals, and the pope included. The clergy are simply functionaries within the church who serve very important roles, but are not sinless, perfect humans by any stretch of the imagination. The way of life the Church offers along with its teachings, are what you might be able to consider the "good bits". The "bad bits" are the members, who are sometimes clergy, who sin against God and against their neighbor.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - toasterlovin 2y ago
      I appreciate it, but there's no need to be delicate: sexually abusing minors is evil. It's especially evil when a priest does it, since they hold positions of special influence and, of all people, should be best acquainted with how evil sunders the soul from God (priests are specifically trained to hear confessions, absolve people of sin, and advise them on how to avoid sin). So that's the categorical statement. More concretely, every adult in our archdiocese receives training on the risks of sexual abuse and I regularly hear the sex abuse scandals addressed during homilies. So it seems like the church, as an organization, is taking steps to address the issue. But to step back and take a wider view, I think Catholicism acknowledges the brokenness of human beings, but reserves eternal judgement for God. So most serious Catholics are not going to walk away from the church because there is evil inside of priests. There is evil inside all of us. But we are called to do battle with evil. For most of us, that battle is within our own hearts, but certainly we must also root out systemic evil within the Church. And finally, I see this line of thinking a lot from atheists wrt religion, but I think it is more widely applicable. Which is this: "people have done evil in the name of (or under the banner of) this religion and I will choose to only consider that one particular thing when measuring the moral worth of this religion." So in this case, it would be "the Catholic Church facilitated the mass sexual abuse of minors, therefore it is evil and should be done away with." But I think we have to consider the good that people and groups do when measuring their moral worth. In this case, I would point to all the charitable works done by the church and its faithful as worthy of your consideration. To see how essential this expanded consideration is, I think it helps to slot in institutions which have less emotional valence than the Catholic Church (or Christianity or whatever). For instance, there have been many cases of school teachers sexually abusing students. Yet I don't think anybody would argue that the entire institution of school should be done away with or that adherents to schooling should walk away from it. After all, school is a crucial institution where many children thrive and where most teachers are grinding out good acts on a daily basis.
rawgabbit 2y ago
Thanks for the link. It affirmed my understanding of church teaching. Medically assisted nutrition and hydration become morally optional when they cannot reasonably be expected to prolong life or when they would be excessively burdensome for the patient or would cause significant physical discomfort.
- toasterlovin 2y ago
  Yes, "when they cannot reasonably be expected to prolong life" is key, since there's some discussion in other parts of the thread about withholding nutrition as a form of euthanasia, which Catholic teaching is very much not okay with.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I think there is a ton of wiggle room in the words prolong, burdensome, or discomfort
    - Spivak 2y ago
      Not as much as you'd think. Catholicism is very much has what is essentially statutory law and common law, and common law removes many of the ambiguities. It's the Protestants who are like "we all have the same book let's talk about how we interpret it" while Catholics have a canon interpretation over which much blood has been spilled to arrive at. Here's the link to the OG https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19800505_euthanasia_en.html https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docu... It's some legalese.
      - rawgabbit 2y ago
        From the url: When inevitable death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted. In such circumstances the doctor has no reason to reproach himself with failing to help the person in danger.

JohnBooty 2y ago

Thanks for that information. I have some major disagreements with the Catholic church but more knowledge and understanding is always a good thing. Appreciated.

toasterlovin 2y ago
Of course! I'm biased (as a Catholic), but I personally find the Church's moral stances to be fairly well thought out and systematic. But well thought out people starting from different axioms will often disagree with each other's conclusions!
- pcl 2y ago
  It’s hard to ask this in a non-confrontational way, so I’ll just come out with it: How do you square that with the modern Catholic church’s systemic support of sexual abuse of minors? I mean this in the most inquisitive way possible. An organization’s what it does; the modern Catholic Church (leaders) have supported some horrible things. How do you separate out the good bits from the bad bits?
  - person101x 2y ago
    For me it boils down to this: the Catholic Church exists as a body of members who are all sinners- laymen and women, priests, bishops, cardinals, and the pope included. The clergy are simply functionaries within the church who serve very important roles, but are not sinless, perfect humans by any stretch of the imagination. The way of life the Church offers along with its teachings, are what you might be able to consider the "good bits". The "bad bits" are the members, who are sometimes clergy, who sin against God and against their neighbor.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - toasterlovin 2y ago
    I appreciate it, but there's no need to be delicate: sexually abusing minors is evil. It's especially evil when a priest does it, since they hold positions of special influence and, of all people, should be best acquainted with how evil sunders the soul from God (priests are specifically trained to hear confessions, absolve people of sin, and advise them on how to avoid sin). So that's the categorical statement. More concretely, every adult in our archdiocese receives training on the risks of sexual abuse and I regularly hear the sex abuse scandals addressed during homilies. So it seems like the church, as an organization, is taking steps to address the issue. But to step back and take a wider view, I think Catholicism acknowledges the brokenness of human beings, but reserves eternal judgement for God. So most serious Catholics are not going to walk away from the church because there is evil inside of priests. There is evil inside all of us. But we are called to do battle with evil. For most of us, that battle is within our own hearts, but certainly we must also root out systemic evil within the Church. And finally, I see this line of thinking a lot from atheists wrt religion, but I think it is more widely applicable. Which is this: "people have done evil in the name of (or under the banner of) this religion and I will choose to only consider that one particular thing when measuring the moral worth of this religion." So in this case, it would be "the Catholic Church facilitated the mass sexual abuse of minors, therefore it is evil and should be done away with." But I think we have to consider the good that people and groups do when measuring their moral worth. In this case, I would point to all the charitable works done by the church and its faithful as worthy of your consideration. To see how essential this expanded consideration is, I think it helps to slot in institutions which have less emotional valence than the Catholic Church (or Christianity or whatever). For instance, there have been many cases of school teachers sexually abusing students. Yet I don't think anybody would argue that the entire institution of school should be done away with or that adherents to schooling should walk away from it. After all, school is a crucial institution where many children thrive and where most teachers are grinding out good acts on a daily basis.

rawgabbit 2y ago

Thanks for the link. It affirmed my understanding of church teaching. Medically assisted nutrition and hydration become morally optional when they cannot reasonably be expected to prolong life or when they would be excessively burdensome for the patient or would cause significant physical discomfort.

toasterlovin 2y ago
Yes, "when they cannot reasonably be expected to prolong life" is key, since there's some discussion in other parts of the thread about withholding nutrition as a form of euthanasia, which Catholic teaching is very much not okay with.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think there is a ton of wiggle room in the words prolong, burdensome, or discomfort
  - Spivak 2y ago
    Not as much as you'd think. Catholicism is very much has what is essentially statutory law and common law, and common law removes many of the ambiguities. It's the Protestants who are like "we all have the same book let's talk about how we interpret it" while Catholics have a canon interpretation over which much blood has been spilled to arrive at. Here's the link to the OG https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19800505_euthanasia_en.html https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docu... It's some legalese.
    - rawgabbit 2y ago
      From the url: When inevitable death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted. In such circumstances the doctor has no reason to reproach himself with failing to help the person in danger.