Catholic Church On the Wrong Side Of An Issue?

[Solar]

I don't doubt in hindsight, a settlement would have been the best decision.

A Catholic hospital in Cañon City, Colo., has argued that fetuses aren’t people in defending a wrongful-death lawsuit, according to an article in the Colorado Independent.

The lawsuit stems from the death of Lori Stodghill, a 31-year-old woman who died from a blood clot. She was pregnant with twins, who could not be saved.

Her husband, Jeremy Stodghill, sued St. Thomas More hospital because the on-call obstetrician didn’t answer a page. Jeremy Stodghill’s lawyers argued that his wife and unborn children might have been saved had the doctor responded, according to the Independent.

The hospital’s legal argument that the Stodghill’s unborn children were not people contradicts Catholic beliefs.

It’s also counter to church directives for Catholic health care facilities issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

“Catholic health care ministry witnesses to the sanctity of life ‘from the moment of conception until death,’” the directive reads, quoting Pope John Paul II’s 1983 address to the World Medical Association.  “The Church’s defense of life encompasses the unborn.”

St. Thomas More is part of the Colorado-based Catholic Health Initiatives, which runs 78 other hospitals in 17 states.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/25/in-defending-wrongful-death-claim-catholic-hospital-says-fetuses-arent-people/#ixzz2J1OfGgGj

[Murph]

As more like this occurs I distance myself further from the Catholic institution. I fully believe the vast majority of Catholic doctrine, but it seems alot of the people in power don't- sort of like the GOP. I believe in its ideals, but not its people.

[Solar]

As more like this occurs I distance myself further from the Catholic institution. I fully believe the vast majority of Catholic doctrine, but it seems alot of the people in power don't- sort of like the GOP. I believe in its ideals, but not its people.

I know what you mean, and this case exposes much of the hypocrisy that starts at the top.
I wonder what the Pope had to say about this in private, I bet heads will roll over this move.

[kramarat]

I have to side with the Catholic Church on this one...............or rather, their lawyers.

The case is being heard in a Colorado court, therefore, must follow Colorado law. Colorado law dictates that a person is a person when born alive; not before that.

To argue against Colorado state law, (in this case), would require that the state of Colorado adhere to the dictates of the Catholic church.............which they don't.

They cannot change state law and the state definition of personhood, simply to prosecute the Catholic church. It doesn't work that way.

Regardless of their own beliefs, the Catholic church has every right to point out what the state has already determined as law.

[Solar]

I have to side with the Catholic Church on this one...............or rather, their lawyers.

The case is being heard in a Colorado court, therefore, must follow Colorado law. Colorado law dictates that a person is a person when born alive; not before that.

To argue against Colorado state law, (in this case), would require that the state of Colorado adhere to the dictates of the Catholic church.............which they don't.

They cannot change state law and the state definition of personhood, simply to prosecute the Catholic church. It doesn't work that way.

Regardless of their own beliefs, the Catholic church has every right to point out what the state has already determined as law.

I totally get why they are using the argument, but on the public relations end of the spectrum, purely stupid, it gives their enemies fodder for the cannon.
How can they claim they are for life at the moment of conception, when their argument is it's not human till it's born?

They should have just settled out of court and been done with it, this is a PR nightmare.

[kramarat]

Long story short:

The lawyer that is going after the church is playing on the inherent guilt that comes with Catholicism, along with them not wanting negative publicity, in hopes of a big settlement without a trial.

He will win. Regardless of state law.

[Solar]

Long story short:

The lawyer that is going after the church is playing on the inherent guilt that comes with Catholicism, along with them not wanting negative publicity, in hopes of a big settlement without a trial.

He will win. Regardless of state law.

You're probably right, the Church may have tried to settle, but he knew he could milk them for more in court.
I just think it was a stupid move on their attorneys part to use an argument antithesis to Church' doctrine.

[kramarat]

You're probably right, the Church may have tried to settle, but he knew he could milk them for more in court.
I just think it was a stupid move on their attorneys part to use an argument antithesis to Church' doctrine.

He had to. As a registered attorney in the state of Colorado, he is bound by state law.

Had he not made that argument, he would have stood a good chance of losing his license to practice. An attorney takes an oath to represent the accused to best of their ability. The state of Colorado does not recognize church doctrine, nor is it applicable in a court case.

[Solar]

He had to. As a registered attorney in the state of Colorado, he is bound by state law.

Had he not made that argument, he would have stood a good chance of losing his license to practice. An attorney takes an oath to represent the accused to best of their ability. The state of Colorado does not recognize church doctrine, nor is it applicable in a court case.

I disagree, an attorney can take any avenue they feel is in the best interest of the client, but he was in no way obligated to go against doctrine to make a case, in fact, I see a potential lawsuit against this lawyer if he loses the case.

This attorney did not act in the best interest of his client, it's akin to claiming he meant no harm to he those molested, he didn't kill any of them after all, therefore proof of his love for the children.

[kramarat]

I disagree, an attorney can take any avenue they feel is in the best interest of the client, but he was in no way obligated to go against doctrine to make a case, in fact, I see a potential lawsuit against this lawyer if he loses the case.

This attorney did not act in the best interest of his client, it's akin to claiming he meant no harm to he those molested, he didn't kill any of them after all, therefore proof of his love for the children.

The problem is, the Catholic hospital is being accused of wrongful death in the case of unborn infants. According to Colorado state law, a person isn't a "person" until the moment of live birth; therefore, by law, the church cannot possibly be guilty of wrongful death in the case of the infants.

The court is bound to use state law in it's findings, not Catholic doctrine.

Had this ballot initiative passed, the Catholics would be guilty as charged.........but it didn't. By law, the unborn infants were not people. The Catholic church is simply saying, "Hey, you guys made the laws not us. You can't charge us with wrongful death, when your own law says they weren't people."

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Colorado_Definition_of_Person_Initiative,_Amendment_48_(2008)

[Solar]

The problem is, the Catholic hospital is being accused of wrongful death in the case of unborn infants. According to Colorado state law, a person isn't a "person" until the moment of live birth; therefore, by law, the church cannot possibly be guilty of wrongful death in the case of the infants.

The court is bound to use state law in it's findings, not Catholic doctrine.

Had this ballot initiative passed, the Catholics would be guilty as charged.........but it didn't. By law, the unborn infants were not people. The Catholic church is simply saying, "Hey, you guys made the laws not us. You can't charge us with wrongful death, when your own law says they weren't people."

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Colorado_Definition_of_Person_Initiative,_Amendment_48_(2008)

K, I understand and agree, I'm just saying the Church didn't need this kind of publicity.
Losing the case using a different argument would have been better in the long run is all I'm saying, they should have taken their blows and let it go, no amount of money is worth your reputation, especially when in the end, win or lose, your hypocrisy has been exposed for all the world to see and will be used against you like a gun to the head.

[kramarat]

In other words:

The state cannot define a person as a "person" until live birth, while upholding abortion, and then turn around and change the definition when prosecuting the Catholic hospital, because that's what the Catholics believe. It would be a complete double standard. They aren't allowed to do that.

[kramarat]

K, I understand and agree, I'm just saying the Church didn't need this kind of publicity.
Losing the case using a different argument would have been better in the long run is all I'm saying, they should have taken their blows and let it go, no amount of money is worth your reputation, especially when in the end, win or lose, your hypocrisy has been exposed for all the world to see and will be used against you like a gun to the head.

As far as I'm concerned, the Catholic church lost credibility with their handling of the priests with boys sex scandal. As with most everything, this case gets down to money. By using the state's definition of personhood in their defense, the church will save themselves millions. I can't say whether it's right or wrong. That's on them.

[Solar]

As far as I'm concerned, the Catholic church lost credibility with their handling of the priests with boys sex scandal. As with most everything, this case gets down to money. By using the state's definition of personhood in their defense, the church will save themselves millions. I can't say whether it's right or wrong. That's on them.

Yeah, that's kind of the point, they should have taken their lumps and let it go. Besides, it's up to a jury, and if the attorneys did their job, they would see to it they select the right group of peers.
But to argue against your own doctrine is ridiculous.

I've never been one to support the Catholic Church, especially once the truth came out about the children, something my father told me about in the early 60s.
It's always been a dirty little secret.

[kramarat]

Yeah, that's kind of the point, they should have taken their lumps and let it go. Besides, it's up to a jury, and if the attorneys did their job, they would see to it they select the right group of peers.
But to argue against your own doctrine is ridiculous.

I've never been one to support the Catholic Church, especially once the truth came out about the children, something my father told me about in the early 60s.
It's always been a dirty little secret.

I don't even want to talk about that. Having been raised Catholic, what those priests did is unfathomable. Not that I ever heard of or experienced anything like that. If I had of, I suspect that the perpetrator would be dead.

As far as the court case goes, I suppose that there is some moral hypocricy going on, but on the other hand, I can't really blame them. I think the Catholic church, as well as other Christian organizations, are getting tired of being crapped on by government.