Dublin, Ireland, May 30, 2017 / 04:07 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Ireland’s Sisters of Charity will end their management of three Dublin hospitals, the sisters have announced, saying they will hand over control to a group that will not follow Catholic medical ethics.
“Although the Sisters of Charity no longer have any direct involvement in the provision of healthcare services we remain dedicated to preserving the legacy of Mary Aikenhead, whose mission in life was to heal and care for the sick and poor,” Sister Mary Christian, Congregational Leader of the Religious Sisters of Charity, said Monday.
“We believe that the future continued success of St. Vincent’s Healthcare Group can best be ensured by our transferring ownership of the group to a newly formed company with charitable status to be called ‘St. Vincent’s.’ The Religious Sisters of Charity will have no involvement in this new company.”
The decision to transfer control of the three Dublin hospitals had been under consideration for more than two years, James Menton, chairman of the healthcare group, told the Irish state broadcaster RTÉ.
Menton said the developments “reflect the wonderful legacy to Irish healthcare of the Sisters of Charity.”
“The sisters have always held the highest ambitions for the provision of world class healthcare services in Ireland and have successfully achieved and sustained this,” he said.
“They also see the need for the proposed development of the new National Maternity Hospital integrated within the Elm Park campus and want to do everything possible to ensure this vital facility for mothers and babies is developed as quickly as possible.”
The health care group’s origins date back to 1834, when Mary Aikenhead, the founder of the Religious Sisters of Charity, established St. Vincent’s Hospital.
Until this year, the St. Vincent’s Healthcare Group included three hospitals. Two sisters who were on the board of the healthcare group’s board will resign and the congregation will give up the right to appoint board directors.
The long-considered move to give up the three hospitals follows recent controversy over a reported proposal that the sisters be given ownership of a $335 million taxpayer-funded National Maternity Hospital because the congregation owned the land on which it would be built, the campus of St. Vincent’s University Hospital.
The controversy prompted the Irish Minister for Health Simon Harris to say in April that there must be “no question of religious interference” in the new hospital.
The National Maternity Hospital’s board had said the new facility would be run independently and would provide procedures like sterilization, in-vitro fertilization, and some abortions.
The sisters have now said they will not own or help manage the new hospital.
The controversy over the new hospital often included claims from critics that Catholic ethics were not good medical practice.
The sisters’ statement appeared to echo these claims, saying the governing documents of the new health care group so that the Religious Sisters of Charity Health Service Philosophy and Ethical Code would no longer be authoritative.
Rather, it will be “amended and replaced to reflect compliance with national and international best practice guidelines on medical ethics and the laws of the Republic of Ireland,” the statement said.
Some observers predicted further ethical problems if Ireland were to instate permissive abortion laws, a possible outcome of current heavy lobbying from pro-abortion advocates.
Fiona Crowley, Amnesty International’s research and legal manager, responded to the hospital decision. She said her organization had been concerned “at the proposed involvement in women’s health services of a religious congregation whose ethos is inherently antithetical to women’s sexual and reproductive rights.” Crowley said the group hopes that the government will ensure the new group and the new facility “will be free of any religious ideology prejudicial to women’s health.”
Crowley linked the move to the push to overturn the Republic of Ireland’s strongly pro-life Eighth Amendment.
Amnesty’s Irish affiliate is a part of that effort, in part with funding by international groups like the Open Society Foundations. The foundations see Ireland as a possible model to advance permissive abortion laws in Catholic countries.
The Sisters of Charity have committed to paying millions in financial redress to compensate abuse victims who lived the residential institutions they and 18 other religious congregations managed on behalf of the government in previous decades.
[…]
Where are the voices of moderate Muslim leaders condemning the violence of Islamists?
“Moderate Muslim Leaders”?
How to Tell the Difference Between Radical Islamic Doctrine and Moderate Islamic Doctrine
The terms “radical Islam” and “moderate Islam” have been bandied about in the Western world for many years, and the presumption in the use of these terms is that “radical Islam” teaches violence and terrorism and anti-Western values while “moderate Islam” teaches peace and harmony and pro-Western values. Below is a handy comparison chart so you can actually see some of the differences for yourself.
Radical Islam Teaches the Following
1. Muhammad is the ideal human being. One way we know this is because he married Aisha when she was 6 years old, but he considerately waited until she was 9 before consummating his marriage to her.
2. Muhammad is Allah’s prophet.
3. Muhammad is superior to Jesus Christ who was only a prophet and not God.
4. Jesus Christ was not crucified.
5. Sharia Law should be the law of every land.
6. Death is the punishment for apostasy from Islam.
7. The Qur’an is the perfect word of Allah that was dictated word for word to Muhammad.
8. All true Muslims follow the commands of the Qur’an.
9. Muslim husbands are commanded to beat disobedient wives.
10. Muslims are commanded to wage jihad against non-believers in Islam. This includes killing them, torturing them, and humiliating them…unless they convert to Islam.
But on the other hand….
Moderate Islam Teaches the Following
1. Muhammad is the ideal human being. One way we know this is because he married Aisha when she was 6 years old, but he considerately waited until she was 9 before consummating his marriage to her.
2. Muhammad is Allah’s prophet.
3. Muhammad is superior to Jesus Christ who was only a prophet and not God.
4. Jesus Christ was not crucified.
5. Sharia Law should be the law of every land.
6. Death is the punishment for apostasy from Islam.
7. The Qur’an is the perfect word of Allah that was dictated word for word to Muhammad.
8. All true Muslims follow the commands of the Qur’an.
9. Muslim husbands are commanded to beat disobedient wives.
10. Muslims are commanded to wage jihad against non-believers in Islam. This includes killing them, torturing them, and humiliating them…unless they convert to Islam.
__________________
Now that you know some of the “differences,” it should be easy to understand what people mean when they refer to the teachings of “radical Muslims” and the teachings of “moderate Muslims.” It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? No wonder many people declare that Islam is a “religion of peace.” They are basing this claim on the significant “differences” between the teachings of “radical Islam” and “moderate Islam.”
It should also be easy to now understand why we are not at war with Islam itself or “moderate Islam,” nor should we even criticize or question any of its doctrines. It’s only “radical Muslims” with their “different teachings” that we in the West can oppose. Otherwise, we are simply bigots engaging in Islamophobia. Clear?!
While considering the listed differences between “radical Islam” and “moderate Islam,” recall a similar distinction between “radical Nazism” and “moderate Nazism” that was prevalent during the Nazi regime in Germany from 1933 to 1945. Thank God we only went to war with “radical Nazism” and not Nazism or “moderate Nazism” – the “ideology of peace.”
But let us not use these isolated and very uncommon acts of inexplicable violence, perhaps motivated (as per Francis) by a generic religious fundamentalism (you know, the attacker could have just as easily have been a Latin Mass attendee) as an excuse to even think about curbing migration from the Muslim world. These young men of military age are simply looking for a better life for themselves and their families (wherever they may be). Besides, there are a couple million residents of Gaza whom, we are being told by supporters of the only democracy in the Middle East, will be looking for a new home in Europe or North America. Now is absolutely not the time to shut the door, not that ever would be a good time.
Dr. Veritatis above – I realize the problem of trying to differentiate between moderate and radical Islam.
However, I am of the understanding that there are two parts of the Koran, the first when Mohammed was in Mecca and the second when he was in Medina. It is the second part in which he stopped trying to play nice.
I agree that Pope Francis’ references to Islam as “a religion of peace” are naive/dishonest/dangerous – take your pick or combinations.
Gilberta:
In and of itself, there is only Islam; not a radical nor a moderate Islam. As such, there is no legitimate distinction between a so-called radical and a so-called moderate Islam, and no real problem in trying to make such a bogus distinction that should not be tried (just like there is only Catholicism; not a radical nor a moderate Catholicism). People who push the false distinction do so in order to pretend that the fundamental doctrines of violence in Islam are only a fringe part of Islam practiced only by “radical Muslims” who have “hijacked the religion of peace.” This narrative is pure rubbish, but way too many gullible people continue to drink this Kool-Aid.
With respect to the so-called Meccan/earlier part of the Qur’an and the Medinan/later part of the Qur’an, note the Islamic principle of abrogation wherein later passages and teachings (in time; not how they are often arranged in popular selling Qur’ans) take precedence and abrogate or make null and void earlier passages and teachings on the same topics. As such, the more violent or Medinan passages take precedence over and abrogate the more peaceful passages on the same topics.
A great irony: the most fervent and faithful Muslims are those who practice and/or support Jihadi terrorism and seek to impose Islam on the world via a worldwide Caliphate. Many ignorantly refer to these Muslims as radical and not representative of true Islam when in point of fact they are among the best representatives of Islam in many respects. At the same time, the less fervent and less faithful Muslims are hailed as the best representatives of true Islam when in point of fact they do not fully practice their religion as they are commanded to do by Islam.
Book Recommendation:
1. “What Catholics Need to Know About Islam” by Dr. William Kilpatrick.