Skip to main content

View Diary: Freedom of speech: Freedom of protest (96 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Catholic hospitals (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, terrypinder, JamesGG

    do run into issues with the legally assured right to abortion.

    •  That's on a different level, though. (0+ / 0-)

      A woman's legally-assured right to have an abortion does not mean that she has the legal right to demand of any medical professional that he or she perform that abortion.

      I don't have a problem holding both the belief that a woman has a right to get an abortion from a doctor or hospital that is willing to provide her with one, and that doctors or hospitals for which abortion violates their conscience should have the right not to perform abortions.

      There's already a precedent set here, though, in that Roman Catholic hospitals deem any legal marriage valid for purposes of spouses' medical rights, rather than insisting that their church's rejection of certain marriages entitles them to deny those spouses their medical rights. They would do well, I think, to take a similar position on same-sex marriages as they do on marriages between divorcées.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 11:01:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The mere fact that Catholics (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JamesGG

        pick and choose what religious issues they want to dig in their heels over leaves open the possibility that they could apply their religious beliefs to areas that they had let slide. The point that you are making about divorces, does not establish any clear principle.

        •  It's not just "picking and choosing," though. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SamBRoberts, nextstep
          The mere fact that Catholics pick and choose what religious issues they want to dig in their heels over leaves open the possibility that they could apply their religious beliefs to areas that they had let slide.
          This is more than simply "picking and choosing," I think; for Roman Catholics, there's a big difference between acknowledging a legal marriage for purposes of a spouse's medical rights, and performing an abortion.

          The former is acknowledging an existing legal structure that differs from their church's framework, but in the end doesn't force the Roman Catholic doctor or institution themselves to violate their own conscience; to the extent that they believe that remarriage after divorce is a sin, the guilt for that sin is entirely on those who choose to remarry after divorcing. I don't see why they couldn't take the same view toward same-sex marriage—that to the extent that they view same-sex romantic or sexual expression as a sin, the responsibility would be on the heads of those who do it, not on those who acknowledge the relationship's legal validity.

          In the case of abortion, however, they believe that it is the murder of another human being—and that if they are expected to perform abortions, then they are complicit in the sin and guilty of it. I disagree strongly with their belief that abortion is murder and believe it should be legal, but I also can respect a Roman Catholic doctor or institution's conscience on that issue in not wanting to be directly complicit in what they believe to be a grave sin. I don't think the law should force them to do what they believe to be committing murder.

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 11:24:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I suspect that any Catholic (0+ / 0-)

            who really has an issue about divorced people getting married in the Church would nevertheless have no trouble recognizing legal marriages outside the Church because they're thinking of it as a slightly different thing. That is, "married in the eyes of the law" and "married within the Church" are just two different categories. I've never heard of any Catholic hospital requiring any married couple to prove that they were married within the Catholic Church before they would be treated as a married couple (otherwise, Jewish, Protestant and atheist couples would be considered to be unmarried), so one can hope that the distinction will continue to carry over into equal treatment of same-sex couples that are also married in the eyes of the law.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site