“Authentically Catholic?” [CalCath]

[inocente]

Hiyas

I have raised the question,in other threads, about the necessity of abortion, in this case to save solution ] the mothers life.

Frankly,we don’t know if it’s true or not.

Hiyas right back

There’s an article about this case in the National Catholic Reporter by a canon lawyer, Father Doyle. He questions Bishop Olmsted’s decision by appealing both to the canon text and to its intent.

The title is interesting in itself - Shades of grey in a world of apparent absolutes. Possibly that’s what the medics chose - do your best against a deadline, against a flat-line without the leisure of endless debate, and you may auto-excommunicate, adios.

Their sacrifice to save a life.

 

[kimmielittle]

Hiyas right back

There’s an article about this case in the National Catholic Reporter by a canon lawyer, Father Doyle. He questions Bishop Olmsted’s decision by appealing both to the canon text and to its intent.

The title is interesting in itself - Shades of grey in a world of apparent absolutes. Possibly that’s what the medics chose - do your best against a deadline, against a flat-line without the leisure of endless debate, and you may auto-excommunicate, adios.

Their sacrifice to save a life.

The problem with Fr. Doyle’s summary , IMHO. Is What Father Doyle doesn’t explain /concider…is the Good Sister…didn’t have to give her vote. I’m sure if she had abstained under the Conscious Clause …the ethics committee would have carried in without her. Instead, Good Sister promoted this Abortion as a “Morally Righteous Act”. She had a choice…a simple choice…“I abstain from vote under my Conscious Clause”. This would not have endangered anyone. She could also have voted no…and the ethics committie would over-rule her nay vote.

Everyone seems to have missed these two points of mine… above.

There is no need to even debate, using my solutions, if the Mothers life was in danger…or not.

She gained excommunication not for attempting to saving a life…but for bringing scandal.

 

[inocente]

the Good Sister…didn’t have to give her vote.

She gained excommunication not for attempting to saving a life…but for bringing scandal.

I took that as saying keep your head down, run away, but at all costs don’t upset the neighbors. Then I went off and read your posts on other threads, and feel I misunderstood you big time.

I’m a dunderhead, I don’t get your point.

 

[catharina]

I took that as saying keep your head down, run away, but at all costs don’t upset the neighbors. Then I went off and read your posts on other threads, and feel I misunderstood you big time.

I’m a dunderhead, I don’t get your point.

If I may step in -
The singular point is that nothing justifies killing babies.
Nothing justifies approving abortions.

In fact the actual excommunication was “earned” by the sister
because she approved of a suggested abortion - and it was carried out.

Really, upsetting the neighbors or giving scandal have nothing to do with it.
In the circumstance of abortion, the sister’s violation was giving her approval.

 

[kimmielittle]

I took that as saying keep your head down, run away, but at all costs don’t upset the neighbors. Then I went off and read your posts on other threads, and feel I misunderstood you big time.

I’m a dunderhead, I don’t get your point.

What I was trying to say…
1.Sister…absolutely knew that this would be a direct abortion… A direct attack ].

2.Treating the baby as if it was a disease. The baby was not the disease…Sister knew this ]

With these two facts alone…one doesn’t even have to look up Church Teachings.{ Canon law ]

Sister knew it would be wrong to give her consent or participate.

There were no hard choices to make.

She wasn’t forced to participate / consent… Her “conscious clause” prevents that ].she did so voluntarily and with full knowledge of the two above listed facts…gave her approval.

You see the Mother’s health…need not be debated.
Canon Law need not be debated.

People are debating IMHO…on the wrong issues.

 

[kimmielittle]

If I may step in -
The singular point is that nothing justifies killing babies.
Nothing justifies approving abortions.

In fact the actual excommunication was “earned” by the sister
because she approved of a suggested abortion - and it was carried out.

Really, upsetting the neighbors or giving scandal have nothing to do with it.
In the circumstance of abortion, the sister’s violation was giving her approval.

Thank you

 

[catharina]

Thank you

You’re welcome, kimmie.

 

[inocente]

Thanks, you’re a star.

You see the Mother’s health…need not be debated.
Canon Law need not be debated.

People are debating IMHO…on the wrong issues.

Agreed, the conscience clause would be a smart way to debate this, bypassing all the technicalities.

But if it only applies to the Sister, I have to bow out :sad_bye: - my conscience clause Mt 7:1.

 

[CradleCath]

The problem with Fr. Doyle’s summary , IMHO. Is What Father Doyle doesn’t explain /concider…is the Good Sister…didn’t have to give her vote. I’m sure if she had abstained under the Conscious Clause …the ethics committee would have carried in without her. Instead, Good Sister promoted this Abortion as a “Morally Righteous Act”. She had a choice…a simple choice…“I abstain from vote under my Conscious Clause”. This would not have endangered anyone. She could also have voted no…and the ethics committie would over-rule her nay vote.

Everyone seems to have missed these two points of mine… above.

There is no need to even debate, using my solutions, if the Mothers life was in danger…or not.

She gained excommunication not for attempting to saving a life…but for bringing scandal.

Very good thinking, Kimmie.
Just a little bit of advice to the readers of this thread. Take ANYTHING you read in the NCR (or National Catholic Distorter as it’s called here.)
with a grain of salt & most things that come out of Tom Doyles’ mouth…with a BOX of salt.