This seems somewhat hypocritical, does it not?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Selene

New Member
Apr 12, 2010
2,073
94
0
In my house
Foreigner said:
The article states specifically that it is the "Catholic Health" lawyers that are stating the fetuses are not human. Does the hospital say they are wrong? No.

And Aspen you would know all about hypocrisy......

You say you are Catholic but you support gay marriage even though the Catholic church opposes it and you Pope says it will lead to the destruction of society and mankind.
So, you know that Catholic teaching doesn't change regardless of how some of her members sometimes go against those teachings. What does it make you saying that it was the Catholic Hospital who made the statement, when in fact it was their lawyer? Isn't it also hypocracy to make the claim that the Catholic hospital made a statement when in fact it was the lawyer who made the statement?


Foreigner said:
Great idea. Let the lawyers put forth the idea that the Catholic Hospital doesn't really support Catholic beliefs. Brilliant.
That will pretty much negate their claim to exemption to Obamacare's mandate on birth control and abortion access.
Nice....
That's the thing.....the lawyer never said that the Catholic hospital believed in this and believed in that.. The lawyer was citing Colorado's law. The lawyer is not there to preach Catholic doctrine or even to defend Catholic doctrine.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
And thus the hypocrisy. The hospital is going to let lawyers defend them by saying that what the Catholic hospital and church believe is not correct.
 

Rex

New Member
Oct 17, 2012
2,060
122
0
Kingman AZ
aspen2 said:
So how is the fundamentalist protestant compulsion for disavowing church any less of a dodge for taking responsibility for the sins found within the body of believers? seems to me to be an exercise in hand washing, denial, and adam blaming eve all rolled into one; all top off with pointing out the speck in your catholic borther and sisters eye.......

offly convient to dodge all responsibility for institutional sin by pretending that 'real Christians' would never engage in that behavior and than invoking Christ's warnings aboiut man's traditions. the cost of course is to trade sanctification and growth in love for the seat of mockers.........therefore, I will leave you all to your Fruit - keep munching away in your self righteous satisfaction - and don't worry, your bases are covered - blame eve and disavow yourself - a geniune practice of the fundamentals......
When you see me claiming to be the mediator between men and Christ, laying burdens on men that I don't lift a finger to do myself, maybe your rant will hold some water. Until then a fig will always be a fig and pretending it to be an apple is not my game.


Matthew 23

4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. 6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ 8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ,[b] and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.
13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 Woe
to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’
houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive
greater condemnation.[c]
15 “Woe
to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea
to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a
son of hell as yourselves.
 

Selene

New Member
Apr 12, 2010
2,073
94
0
In my house
Foreigner said:
Great idea. Let the lawyers put forth the idea that the Catholic Hospital doesn't really support Catholic beliefs. Brilliant.
That will pretty much negate their claim to exemption to Obamacare's mandate on birth control and abortion access.
Nice....



Foreigner said:
And thus the hypocrisy. The hospital is going to let lawyers defend them by saying that what the Catholic hospital and church believe is not correct.
A vast majority of people already knows that the Catholic Church is against abortion. They have been so outspoken about it. They already know that the Catholic Church stand has always been that life begins at conception.

Of course, the hospital is going to let lawyers defend them......isn't that how it's done when anyone is brought to a lawsuit??? The lawyer is not going to say that the Catholic hospital and the Catholic Church beliefs is NOT correct. He is going to cite State law to win the case. Isn't that what lawyers do to win cases? They all cite the law to make their point.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
53
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
we are all called to be little Christs on earth. As soon as you acknowledge this fact you will be able to understand your sanctification more fully, Rex. Also, as soon as you acknowledge your own fig nature, you will spend your time contemplating God's infinate mercy on your soul rather than trying to codemn one group for behavior that we are all guilty of.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
A lawyer represents the beliefs and positions of his client. In this case the lawyer is saying that his clients are fine with using a Colorado law they think is wrong to excuse them for something that, if they stood up for what they claim to believe, would make them culpable.
Translation - they are fine not being held accountable for something they claim is one of their core beliefs, a cornerstone of their faith.

What they are saying is "The unborn are people....unless two of those 'people' happen to die in our hospital due to possible negligence on our part."

Hypocrisy.
 

Selene

New Member
Apr 12, 2010
2,073
94
0
In my house
Foreigner said:
A lawyer represents the beliefs and positions of his client. In this case the lawyer is saying that his clients are fine with using a Colorado law they think is wrong to excuse them for something that, if they stood up for what they claim to believe, would make them culpable.
Translation - they are fine not being held accountable for something they claim is one of their core beliefs, a cornerstone of their faith.

What they are saying is "The unborn are people....unless two of those 'people' happen to die in our hospital due to possible negligence on our part."

Hypocrisy.
No, a lawyer does not represent the religious beliefs of his/her client. If I hired a lawyer because I'm being sued, my lawyer does not represent my religious beliefs and should not even speak of my religious beliefs. He should only speak of the case in which I am being sued on. The Catholic hospital is not being sued because of their religious beliefs. They are being sued for malpractice.
 

Rex

New Member
Oct 17, 2012
2,060
122
0
Kingman AZ
aspen2 said:
we are all called to be little Christs on earth. As soon as you acknowledge this fact you will be able to understand your sanctification more fully, Rex. Also, as soon as you acknowledge your own fig nature, you will spend your time contemplating God's infinate mercy on your soul rather than trying to codemn one group for behavior that we are all guilty of.
I see the big self proclamation Christians being the problem here. I like the way you grab for straws at my own imperfections, you have no evidence to place a finger on except we all fall short. The difference is I don't dishonor the LORD before the whole world. Besides, stepping up to the plate and saying I'm a sinner and I made a mistake is a big boys game, one that's apparently out of the RCC league.


Foreigner said:
A lawyer represents the beliefs and positions of his client. In this case the lawyer is saying that his clients are fine with using a Colorado law they think is wrong to excuse them for something that, if they stood up for what they claim to believe, would make them culpable.
Translation - they are fine not being held accountable for something they claim is one of their core beliefs, a cornerstone of their faith.

What they are saying is "The unborn are people....unless two of those 'people' happen to die in our hospital due to possible negligence on our part."

Hypocrisy.
A true christian would have meet with the plaintive and sought to resolve the matter outside the court room.
That is had they truly felt a wrongful death to the unborn had taken place. Apparently they believe they are under no obligation.
 

[email protected]

Choir Loft
Apr 2, 2009
1,635
127
63
West Central Florida
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Foreigner said:
This doesn't seem quite right when you consider that the Catholic Church believes life begins at birth and that Catholic Hospitals and Colleges believe they should be exempt from the Obama Healthcare mandate due to their Catholic beliefs.

One also needs to take into account that in CA, if a man murders a pregnant woman, he is charged with two counts of homicide, not one.
http://www.lifenews.com/2009/06/05/state-4210/



Curious....


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/25/bizarre-catholic-hospital-argues-that-7-month-old-fetuses-arent-persons-in-wrongful-death-legal-battle/

Catholic Hospital Argues That 7-Month-Old Fetuses Aren’t ‘Persons’ in Wrongful-Death Legal Battle

A Catholic hospital in Cañon City, Colo., is facing intense scrutiny for arguing that fetuses aren’t people in the midst of defending itself against a malpractice claim, according to The Colorado Independent. Naturally, this opinion is pointedly bizarre considering the Catholic Church’s intense pro-life stance — one that argues that life begins at the moment of conception. The legal battle between the family of Lori Stodghill, a woman who died at the hospital back in 2006, and Catholic Health Initiatives (CHI), an organization that owns St. Thomas More hospital, led to what can only be described as a curious and troubling defense.
The 31-year-old woman was pregnant with twins on New Year’s Day in 2006 when she sought urgent medical assistance. When she arrived at the hospital, Stodghill was vomiting and short of breath, sustaining a clogged artery and a massive heart attack. While medical practitioners attempted to resuscitate her, they were unsuccessful and the doctor on call purportedly never answered a page seeking medical assistance. The twins died after Stodghill passed away — just one hour after arriving at St. Thomas More.
AP.jpg
Photo Credit: AP

The woman’s husband, Jeremy, filed a wrongful-death lawsuit in the wake of the incident, claiming that the doctor on call should have responded. Had there been additional medical coordination, he believes his unborn children might have been saved. While an expert testified that the mother’s life likely couldn’t have been spared, had the doctor been on hand and ordered a cesarean section, the individual agreed that the twins might still be alive today.

The Colorado Independent explains more details about the CHI and the curious defense that the organization has given against Jeremy’s claims (emphasis added):
According to the Independent, Jason Langley, a lawyer representing the defense, argued in a brief that the court that the case should consider that “the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive” (emphasis added). The brief goes on to say that Colorado law recognizes a “person” as someone who has been “born alive” and that the family’s claim cannot possibly stand, because the wrongful death lawsuit is “based on two unborn fetuses.”


The lead defendant in the case is Catholic Health Initiatives, the Englewood-based nonprofit that runs St. Thomas More Hospital as well as roughly 170 other health facilities in 17 states. Last year, the hospital chain reported national assets of $15 billion. The organization’s mission, according to its promotional literature, is to “nurture the healing ministry of the Church” and to be guided by “fidelity to the Gospel.” Toward those ends, Catholic Health facilities seek to follow the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church authored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Those rules have stirred controversy for decades, mainly for forbidding non-natural birth control and abortions. “Catholic health care ministry witnesses to the sanctity of life ‘from the moment of conception until death,’” the directives state. “The Church’s defense of life encompasses the unborn.” [...]
But when it came to mounting a defense in the Stodghill case, Catholic Health’s lawyers effectively turned the Church directives on their head. Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons,” and Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments. Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.
So far, Jeremy has not had much luck avenging his wife’s death, as judgements have gone in favor of CHI. Lawyers for the family have appealed to the state’s Supreme Court, where they hope to, again, have the case heard. The court is slated to decide whether to hear the legal battle in the next few weeks. Regardless of what happens, CHI’s lawyers utilizing the “fetus” argument appears extremely contradictory, specifically when considering the Catholic Church’s powerful and prevalent pro-life stance.
Anyone, including yours truly, who has worked with, OR FOR, a hospital knows that there is nothing so like god on earth as a hospital administrator.

The name of the game is financial stability and when that stability is threatened by litigation then all bets are off - including moral ones. If there is a choice between a court decision or a man's life, then the court will win every time. It matters not whether the health care institution associates with the name of Christ or the devil, it's the same.

It is a symptom of our present bankrupt culture that morality and integrity have no meaning, value or worth. Woulda, coulda, shoulda. What ought to be done is not done. It's every man for himself from here on out. I'm not joking either.

Every corrupt debauched empire in history has eventually fallen to pieces. Call it geopolitical separation, call it economic realignment, or simply call it secession - it's the same. The signs are clear. America is falling apart. The great schism is coming and the great collapse is imminent. Every expert on the subject says so. The only question is when, not if.

Hatred for our fellow man is the rule of the day. No excuses, no whitewash, not any more. It's a fact. Every Christian man I know has a gun - because no one will stand up to protect him - not even the police*.

Devotion and dependence upon Christ must - and will - become more of a priority as time goes on. We will live for Christ and possibly die for Him or we will run and hide from His calling. Either way the dead wood will be cleared away.

***
Atheists like to say that science trumps religion, but when murder for the sake of convenience is discussed they become strangely hypocritical. Personal philosophy takes over and science loses every time. It isn't about the truth, it's about what we want.

Does a chicken lay eggs that give birth to elephants? Can a horse give birth to a mosquito? Does a tomato seed sprout marijuana? (I'd like to see that one!) Science tells us that the beginning of a creature or plant is the same as its parentage. A human woman gestates a human child, unless her name is Rosemary Woodhouse.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

(*) Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)
This is an oft-quoted District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals. (???)

PS Police 'duty' is to draw a chalk line around your dead body and to interview witnesses who saw nothing.
 

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I've already done all the catholic bashing that I care to do today, but I would like to point out that civil litigation is about the assignment of guilt, not about truth. If you need to find fault and hypocrisy, usually a mirror will suffice. Maybe we can encourage one another to seek Christ as an alternative to finger pointing:

Then you shall call, and the Lord will answer; You shall cry, and He will say, ‘Here I am.’ “If you take away the yoke from your midst, The pointing of the finger, and speaking wickedness, If you extend your soul to the hungry And satisfy the afflicted soul, Then your light shall dawn in the darkness, And your darkness shall be as the noonday. Isaiah 58:9-10
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
The hospital seems to have seen the light....


http://www.christianpost.com/news/catholic-hospital-admits-it-was-morally-wrong-to-argue-that-fetuses-are-not-people-89451/

Catholic Hospital Admits It Was 'Morally Wrong' to Argue That Fetuses Are Not People
Catholic Health Initiatives, the network of hospitals under fire for positioning in a lawsuit that a fetus is not a human being, admitted that they were "morally wrong" to make the legal argument.

"In the discussion with the Church leaders, CHI representatives acknowledged that it was morally wrong for attorneys representing St. Thomas More Hospital to cite the state's Wrongful Death Action defense of this lawsuit. That law does not consider fetuses to be persons, which directly contradicts the moral teachings of the Church," CHI said in a statement released on Monday.
The case in question goes back to 2006, when Jeremy Stodghill lost his wife and his unborn twin sons at St. Thomas More Hospital in Canon City, Colo., on New Year's Day, after emergency respondent staff failed to detect any fetal heartbeats. The doctors on the scene declined to perform a perimortem Cesarean section on 31-year-old Lori Stodghill, who was 28 weeks pregnant and died at the scene following a massive heart attack.
The subsequent lawsuit filed by Jeremy Stodghill argued that such a procedure could have saved his unborn children. He lost the case in January 2013, however, after CHI's lawyers successfully argued that that a fetus is not the same as a person.
The decision sparked a river of controversy, with observers noting that such an argument directly contradicts the official Roman Catholic Church doctrine that positions that unborn life is sacred.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was also made aware of the case, and its Colorado diocese revealed that they will be launching a review of the Catholic Hospital's argument in the case.

"From the moment of conception, human beings are endowed with dignity and with fundamental rights, the most foundational of which is life," the bishops said in a statement on the issue. "No Catholic institution may legitimately work to undermine fundamental human dignity."
Following the outcry, CHI admitted that their lawyers did not take the correct approach in the case.
"The representatives also unequivocally affirmed CHI's strict adherence to one of the Church's most basic moral commitments – that every person is created in the image and likeness of God and that life begins at the moment of conception. It is an unfortunate and regrettable point of fact that Colorado law, as it now stands, fails to adequately protect the rights of the unborn," CHI's statement continues, as it expresses its condolences and prayers for Jeremy Stodghill and his family.
The Colorado bishops said in another statement that they recognize "the exceptional care provided to Lori Stodghill at St. Thomas More Hospital," and added that both the Circuit Court in Fremont County and the Colorado Court of Appeals "have supported the position of CHI and St. Thomas More Hospital that nothing done by doctors, nurses and other staff members would have changed this case's tragic outcome."
The Colorado Supreme Court is considering reviewing the case, and if the justices make a decision to take it up, they will have to decide whether the medical personnel at St. Thomas More Hospital were negligent in caring for Lori Stodghill, and whether indeed there was any chance for the twin boys to be saved.
 

Rex

New Member
Oct 17, 2012
2,060
122
0
Kingman AZ
With my limited ability it would seem the case has already been made.

If the court decides to hear the case, as I understand it, the RCC will change tactics, but the presentation based on the validity of life for the unborn has already been made and presented to the higher court.

Very convenient to say the least, If the court decides to reject it then the RCC saves face, If the court hears the case they will be forced to take a different position.
But the fact remains that the primary defense and presentation ignored the RCC position on life. Makes you wonder what the upper courts decision may have been had the values been properly represented from the beginning. Needless to say according to the law they present a much stronger case if life is not recognized previous to birth.

I'm betting the court won't hear the case, and it all just goes away.


That makes it a win win for the Catholic church.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
53
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I guess.......but think it would be a lot more convenient to disavow every Christian or church you happen to disagree with. How nice it must be to pretend you have nothing in common with Christianity when you decide it has failed you. Christian and powerful leader one day - Haggard who? the next - must be that old-timey Protestant two step again!
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
CNN did a piece on this the other night.

They rightfully pointed out that it is blatently hypocritical for this Catholic organization to argue that it is wrong to be forced by the government to provide birth control, morning after services, and abortion services because it violates their religious beliefs, but then turn around and argue something that obviously contradicts one of their core religious beliefs.
 

Arnie Manitoba

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2011
2,650
137
63
72
Manitoba Canada
Foreigner said:
CNN did a piece on this the other night.

They rightfully pointed out that it is blatently hypocritical for this Catholic organization to argue that it is wrong to be forced by the government to provide birth control, morning after services, and abortion services because it violates their religious beliefs, but then turn around and argue something that obviously contradicts one of their core religious beliefs.
There is another way to look at it ...... it is the secular world .... and CNN .... and the legal system ...... that always say that unborn tissue in the womb "is not life"

Yet the same secular court system is being used against the Catholic Hospital by saying those deceased twins in the mothers womb "were indeed life"

It is those guys who are on both sides of the fence at the same time ..... not the catholic church .

........................................

Back in the 1990's Rush Limbaugh did the very same thing on the Phil Donahue Show. ...... a lot of people fail to understand the brilliant wit of Mr Limbaugh but here is a good example of how he proves the hippocracy of the "Liberals"

Phil Donahue ...... a confirmed "liberal" ...... with a packed audience of confirmed "Liberals" ...... fully intended to thrash Rush on stage .... and in full view of the whole world on live television

For the first part of the show Rush sat patiently like a gentleman as everybody loudly proclaimed how bad he was because he was not in favor of abortion and did not want special status for the homosexuals .... the audience threw everything they had at poor Rush.

Finally he stood up and meekly said that they had convinced him to change his "conservative" position ...... the audience went dead quiet and could hardly believe what they were hearing. ..... Rush politely asked the audience to raise their hands if they were in favor of abortion ..... all hands went up of course ..... Rush nodded and then asked how many were in favor of the homosexual agenda ..... again all the hands went up.

Then Rush asked if they though it would be OK to abort all the homosexuals while they were still in the womb ..... NO!! NO!! NO!! ... they all cried out .....

It took the audience a few seconds to realize they had just vehemently spoken out against abortion ...... and boy were they ever pi$$ed after that ...... I thought my TV set was going to sprout horns from the evil anger radiated by the audience.

The people who are bashing the Catholic Hospital in this lawsuit are just like the Phil Donahue audience.