from the Church those who no
Express April 23, 2010
Ignazio Marino
And if you start to talk? If the church hierarchy agreed to listen to all scientists, without separating them into believers and unbelievers, on many sensitive issues, to try to interpret all the dilemmas of our time? Hypothesis seems remote at a time when Church leaders appear rigid, inflexible and dogmatic attitude dealing with topics that dogma, in fact, does not exist.
Surely the sanctity of life is one of the cornerstones of the Catholic religion, like other religions or philosophies. It is logical that there is a particular focus pearl protection and respect for life, in all circumstances. A principle that I see as an element of separation from the secular thought. And do not forget that even on abortion, the Church in the past has recognized the complexity of some situations. If for example a woman's life is endangered due to a clinical problem related to pregnancy or if a girl was the victim of sexual violence, or even if the pregnancy involves a young girl as a teenager, too young to face the physical and psychological weight of a child to grow, is called the "conscientia perplexa", namely the condition that makes uncertain moral judgments and decision difficult, however, and allows you to find the most reasonable and appropriate. These choices are extreme conducted in the sacred place of consciousness.
on interruption of pregnancy, except in the cases just cited, the rule is clear, but it is unclear why a violent opposition to the possibility of using, in Italy, the pill RU486. Abortion is always a drama, but is governed by state law. The technical means to implement it is not one of religious or ethical issues, this is only a clinical evaluation and, as such, should be discussed personally by the doctor with his patient. Each physician has a duty to explain the existing clinical options and advise the path that it deems most appropriate, considering each situation. A woman who made the decision to terminate the pregnancy could have a major contraindication to anesthesia: the doctor should tell you whether or not that in addition to the surgical approach, there is a pharmacological option?
Another theme that has seen a gradual tightening by the Vatican regards the end of life. The cornerstone of endorsed wholeheartedly is a no net euthanasia: in any case a person may intentionally cause the death of another, even for compassionate purposes. But the questions, the "gray areas" in the talks wisely Cardinal Martini, arise in relation to the interruption of treatment useless. Questions that have engaged the Church, just think of the message of Paul VI Catholic physicians in 1970: "The doctor that prevents the killing and at the same time forces him to devote all the resources of his art to fight against death . This does not mean, however, forcing him to use all the survival techniques that science has a tireless creator. In many cases it would not be may impose unnecessary torture vegetative resuscitation in the terminal phase of an incurable disease? In that case, the duty of the physician is quite an undertaking to alleviate suffering, instead of wanting to prolong as long as possible, by whatever means and under any conditions
, a life that is not fully human and which is of course to the its conclusion. "
Today, however, especially in our country, church hierarchies have some doubts and nuances favorite store in the name of certainty is not debatable and non-negotiable principles. By ignoring the questions that cross the minds of the faithful. Think of another example, that of artificial insemination. The official position of Church is very strict but just listen to ordinary people to understand that, in fact, many Catholics believe that it is not important if conception occurs in the uterus of a woman or in a test tube, what matters is that this is the result of 'amoredi a couple and the desire to build a family.
In the absence of dialogue between religion and science, it becomes very difficult to find common solutions that would be rather important because sooner or later (sooner rather than later) the decisions will be taken. This is the case of stem cells. All admit that in the past has been an error in artificially create thousands of frozen human embryos that are still in infertility clinics and that will never be used for reproductive purposes. Their end is certain and their cells, valuable for the research, will die and will throw an Italian law that prohibits their use.
Other countries have chosen different paths and the search today, as we well know, does not take account of geographical boundaries. On this issue, the Vatican, however, is clear: the embryos are not touching. But try to imagine what will happen if in the coming months, following a trial under way in the U.S., a man or a woman forced for years in a wheelchair for a serious injury to the spine and walking once. What can the Church say? That some humans have no right to recovery because you do not can use embryonic cells destined to die in the freezer? I doubt that this position could be understood even by the most devout of believers. How
Carlo Maria Martini wrote: "The Church should not be seen only in its institutional aspect, identifying the bargain with the hierarchy, ie priests, bishops and the pope ... It is composed of all those who believe in Jesus Christ ...». And so the Church should accept the debate on these issues which, if not discussed, overwhelm all, believers and nonbelievers.
Express April 23, 2010
Ignazio Marino
And if you start to talk? If the church hierarchy agreed to listen to all scientists, without separating them into believers and unbelievers, on many sensitive issues, to try to interpret all the dilemmas of our time? Hypothesis seems remote at a time when Church leaders appear rigid, inflexible and dogmatic attitude dealing with topics that dogma, in fact, does not exist.
Surely the sanctity of life is one of the cornerstones of the Catholic religion, like other religions or philosophies. It is logical that there is a particular focus pearl protection and respect for life, in all circumstances. A principle that I see as an element of separation from the secular thought. And do not forget that even on abortion, the Church in the past has recognized the complexity of some situations. If for example a woman's life is endangered due to a clinical problem related to pregnancy or if a girl was the victim of sexual violence, or even if the pregnancy involves a young girl as a teenager, too young to face the physical and psychological weight of a child to grow, is called the "conscientia perplexa", namely the condition that makes uncertain moral judgments and decision difficult, however, and allows you to find the most reasonable and appropriate. These choices are extreme conducted in the sacred place of consciousness.
on interruption of pregnancy, except in the cases just cited, the rule is clear, but it is unclear why a violent opposition to the possibility of using, in Italy, the pill RU486. Abortion is always a drama, but is governed by state law. The technical means to implement it is not one of religious or ethical issues, this is only a clinical evaluation and, as such, should be discussed personally by the doctor with his patient. Each physician has a duty to explain the existing clinical options and advise the path that it deems most appropriate, considering each situation. A woman who made the decision to terminate the pregnancy could have a major contraindication to anesthesia: the doctor should tell you whether or not that in addition to the surgical approach, there is a pharmacological option?
Another theme that has seen a gradual tightening by the Vatican regards the end of life. The cornerstone of endorsed wholeheartedly is a no net euthanasia: in any case a person may intentionally cause the death of another, even for compassionate purposes. But the questions, the "gray areas" in the talks wisely Cardinal Martini, arise in relation to the interruption of treatment useless. Questions that have engaged the Church, just think of the message of Paul VI Catholic physicians in 1970: "The doctor that prevents the killing and at the same time forces him to devote all the resources of his art to fight against death . This does not mean, however, forcing him to use all the survival techniques that science has a tireless creator. In many cases it would not be may impose unnecessary torture vegetative resuscitation in the terminal phase of an incurable disease? In that case, the duty of the physician is quite an undertaking to alleviate suffering, instead of wanting to prolong as long as possible, by whatever means and under any conditions
, a life that is not fully human and which is of course to the its conclusion. "
Today, however, especially in our country, church hierarchies have some doubts and nuances favorite store in the name of certainty is not debatable and non-negotiable principles. By ignoring the questions that cross the minds of the faithful. Think of another example, that of artificial insemination. The official position of Church is very strict but just listen to ordinary people to understand that, in fact, many Catholics believe that it is not important if conception occurs in the uterus of a woman or in a test tube, what matters is that this is the result of 'amoredi a couple and the desire to build a family.
In the absence of dialogue between religion and science, it becomes very difficult to find common solutions that would be rather important because sooner or later (sooner rather than later) the decisions will be taken. This is the case of stem cells. All admit that in the past has been an error in artificially create thousands of frozen human embryos that are still in infertility clinics and that will never be used for reproductive purposes. Their end is certain and their cells, valuable for the research, will die and will throw an Italian law that prohibits their use.
Other countries have chosen different paths and the search today, as we well know, does not take account of geographical boundaries. On this issue, the Vatican, however, is clear: the embryos are not touching. But try to imagine what will happen if in the coming months, following a trial under way in the U.S., a man or a woman forced for years in a wheelchair for a serious injury to the spine and walking once. What can the Church say? That some humans have no right to recovery because you do not can use embryonic cells destined to die in the freezer? I doubt that this position could be understood even by the most devout of believers. How
Carlo Maria Martini wrote: "The Church should not be seen only in its institutional aspect, identifying the bargain with the hierarchy, ie priests, bishops and the pope ... It is composed of all those who believe in Jesus Christ ...». And so the Church should accept the debate on these issues which, if not discussed, overwhelm all, believers and nonbelievers.
0 comments:
Post a Comment