Write Lightning is a blog from writer Deb Thompson.
Everyone is welcome here.
(Some links or topics may not be completely kid-appropriate.)
Everyone is welcome here.
(Some links or topics may not be completely kid-appropriate.)
Thu, Nov 13 2008
No pro-life stance allowed for Catholic hospitals? Then maybe no Catholic hospitals.
The article on Roman Catholic bishops planning to lean on the next federal administration was a bit disturbing to me, on several levels. When they speak of "no compromise" they are saying it's going to be their way, period. And anytime I hear that sort of statement it sounds like a veiled threat. I have no idea what the threat might be, but the very wording bothers me. And if they feel they would be forced to close their many Catholic hospitals over the subject of abortion, what would they do with the many patients who might need them for other health care? Would those people just be left to fend for themselves? How would closing down Catholic hospitals protect unborn children who needed their care in the event of illness of either the baby or the mother?
Furthermore, why bring all this up now as a new president prepares to take office, a President-elect who has not so much as hinted that he will try to force a change in the current laws for how hospitals treat such matters? The past several administrations have done essentially nothing to change the status of abortion in America up to this point, so what is this sudden warning that the Catholic hospitals will have to rush to get out of the hospital business?
If it's about the government funding the Catholic hospitals in the event of being forced to perform abortions for those who sought them, I suppose they have a right to close, but threatening to do so before anything has even come up on the subject strikes me as a kind of religious extortion. It's fine for a church to give its views on topics, but trying to tell the government what the government can and cannot allow according to the Constitution makes the church into a lot more than just a church. Let's watch this one for awhile.
posted at: 11:26 | category: /Religious and Spiritual | link to this entry
The article on Roman Catholic bishops planning to lean on the next federal administration was a bit disturbing to me, on several levels. When they speak of "no compromise" they are saying it's going to be their way, period. And anytime I hear that sort of statement it sounds like a veiled threat. I have no idea what the threat might be, but the very wording bothers me. And if they feel they would be forced to close their many Catholic hospitals over the subject of abortion, what would they do with the many patients who might need them for other health care? Would those people just be left to fend for themselves? How would closing down Catholic hospitals protect unborn children who needed their care in the event of illness of either the baby or the mother?
Furthermore, why bring all this up now as a new president prepares to take office, a President-elect who has not so much as hinted that he will try to force a change in the current laws for how hospitals treat such matters? The past several administrations have done essentially nothing to change the status of abortion in America up to this point, so what is this sudden warning that the Catholic hospitals will have to rush to get out of the hospital business?
If it's about the government funding the Catholic hospitals in the event of being forced to perform abortions for those who sought them, I suppose they have a right to close, but threatening to do so before anything has even come up on the subject strikes me as a kind of religious extortion. It's fine for a church to give its views on topics, but trying to tell the government what the government can and cannot allow according to the Constitution makes the church into a lot more than just a church. Let's watch this one for awhile.
posted at: 11:26 | category: /Religious and Spiritual | link to this entry
