Abortion-approving nun excommunicated...?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nordskoven
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nordskoven

Guest
Old story, but I hadn’t heard about it. Isn’t this more on the order of the hard-line dilemma presented in the old movie “The Cardinal” than canon law directives allowing abortion to save the life of the mother in some instances? And is there any response as to why there isn’t a gaggle of pedophile priests who are excommunicated?

May 19, 2010
Last November, a 27-year-old woman was admitted to St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix. She was 11 weeks pregnant with her fifth child, and she was gravely ill. According to a hospital document, she had “right heart failure,” and her doctors told her that if she continued with the pregnancy, her risk of mortality was "close to 100 percent."
The patient, who was too ill to be moved to the operating room much less another hospital, agreed to an abortion. But there was a complication: She was at a Catholic hospital.
"They were in quite a dilemma," says Lisa Sowle Cahill, who teaches Catholic theology at Boston College. "There was no good way out of it. The official church position would mandate that the correct solution would be to let both the mother and the child die. I think in the practical situation that would be a very hard choice to make."
But the hospital felt it could proceed because of an exception — called Directive 47 in the U.S. Catholic Church’s ethical guidelines for health care providers — that allows, in some circumstance, procedures that could kill the fetus to save the mother. Sister Margaret McBride, who was an administrator at the hospital as well as its liaison to the diocese, gave her approval.
Documents


Church Q&A On Abortion, Sister Margaret McBride And Excommunication

The woman survived. When Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted heard about the abortion, he declared that McBride was automatically excommunicated — the most serious penalty the church can levy.
"She consented in the murder of an unborn child," says the Rev. John Ehrich, the medical ethics director for the Diocese of Phoenix. "There are some situations where the mother may in fact die along with her child. But — and this is the Catholic perspective — you can’t do evil to bring about good. The end does not justify the means."
Ehrich adds that under canon or church law, the nun should be expelled from her order, the Sisters of Mercy, unless the order can find an alternative penalty. Ehrich concedes that the circumstances of this case were "hard."
"But there are certain things that we don’t really have a choice" about, he says. "You know, if it’s been done and there’s public scandal, the bishop has to take care of that, because he has to say, ‘Look, this can’t happen.’ "
A Double Standard?
But according to the Rev. Thomas Doyle, a canon lawyer, the bishop “clearly had other alternatives than to declare her excommunicated.” Doyle says Olmsted could have looked at the situation, realized that the nun faced an agonizing choice and shown her some mercy. He adds that this case highlights a “gross inequity” in how the church chooses to handle scandal.
http://media.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/19/olmsted-8551652fe10df4ada0f6fc2d8385cc4943aba253-s2.jpg?
[Enlarge](javascript:void(0);)** Roy Dabner/AP****Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, shown here in 2003, declared that McBride was automatically excommunicated because she allowed a patient at a Catholic hospital to get an abortion. But some say her quick punishment stands in stark contrast to the protection many pedophile priests have received from their bishops.**

Roy Dabner/AP****Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, shown here in 2003, declared that McBride was automatically excommunicated because she allowed a patient at a Catholic hospital to get an abortion. But some say her quick punishment stands in stark contrast to the protection many pedophile priests have received from their bishops.

"In the case of priests who are credibly accused and known to be guilty of sexually abusing children, they are in a sense let off the hook," Doyle says.
Doyle says no pedophile priests have been excommunicated. When priests have been caught, he says, their bishops have protected them, and it has taken years or decades to defrock them, if ever.
"Yet in this instance we have a sister who was trying to save the life of a woman, and what happens to her? The bishop swoops down [and] declares her excommunicated before he even looks at all the facts of the case," Doyle says.
Ehrich agrees that sexual abuse can’t be tolerated. But he says neither can McBride’s actions.
"She said, ‘Yes, you can kill that unborn child.’ That’s a heinous act. And I’m not going to make a distinction between what’s worse. They’re both abhorrent," Ehrich says.
Ehrich says the nun can be admitted back into the Catholic community by going to confession and repenting. McBride still works at the hospital in another position. Whether she is allowed to remain in her religious order, Erich says that is up to the Sisters of Mercy.
 
A few things to note:

a) A Catholic who procures or assists another in procuring an abortion is automatically excommunicated (latae sententiae excommunication). The Bishop did not excommunicate the nun, but she was automatically excommunicated according to canon law.

b) The main purpose of excommunication is to invite the sinner to repentence. It is not solely to punish them, but to make them aware of the seriousness of their sin and of their respondibility to seek forgiveness for it.

c) Related to b), and discussed in your quotes, the excommunication is quite easily lifted via confession (assuming the sinner is sorry for what they have done).

d) Yes, many within the Church have failed in how they have handled sexual abuse issues. But this does not negate the evil of abortion, even in the most difficult of cases, as described.
 
I note that Sister McBride is fully reconciled with the Church and continues in her work.
 
Of course, abortion wasn’t necessary to save anyone’s life. Abortion includes the deliberate killing of the baby. With neo-natal care being what it is today, many babies who are younger than aborted ones are able to survive and grow in special units. In fact, the former American Surgeon General C. Everett Koop once said that there exists today no medical condition for which an abortion provides either treatment or cure.
 
There is no “gaggle of pedophile priests” anywhere. Because pedophilia is very rare, in the general population and in the Catholic Church. The vast majority of sexual abuse cases in the recent scandal involved homosexuality and ephebophilia.
 
There is no “gaggle of pedophile priests” anywhere. Because pedophilia is very rare, in the general population and in the Catholic Church. The vast majority of sexual abuse cases in the recent scandal involved homosexuality and ephebophilia.
No doubt there are too many priests who have been guilty of molesting youngsters. Some of this is relatively harmless, like caressing or “touching.” Except that it is repeated with other children, and that is the problem. He is like the guy who can’t keep his hands off of women, of control. But sexual misbehavior among priests is no more frequent than that among ministers/rabbis. Probably alcoholism is more of a problem, and like it comes from that most tragic thing: loneliness. But you can be married and “alone.” Like the married couple in the new Meryl Streep and Tommy Lee Jones movie.
 
Look at the
International Symposium on Maternal Healthcare
It was held on the 8th in Dublin
They reached a Declaration
“The Dublin Declaration on Maternal Healthcare”

This statement is that according to the best medical science it is now “Never medically necessary to perform a direct abortion to save the life of the mother”

That is not to say that the childs life ca allways be saved. some treatemnts to save the mothers life will kill the baby… but that is a Side effect and is not an abortion.

In the above case the story reads that the medical team carried out a direct abortion to reduce the risks to the mother. That is prohibited by the church. There are other ways. it is possible that the medical team did not have the right training.

one clear example is the case of an ectopic pregnancy: you may not directly kill the baby… but you may remove the diseased fallopian tube in which an ectopic pregnancy has embedded. yes this kills the Foetus, but that is a side effect not the direct effect.

similarly. if a woman has cancer, receiving Radiotherapy or Chemotherapy is likely to kill her unborn baby… that is an acceptable if unfortunate side effect of life saving medical treatment.
To carry out a medical or surgical abortion first (and then carry out the other medical treatments) is murder.
 
why there isn’t a excommunication of priests when they abuse children, well first of all abortion is more serious and worse then abuse. Also priest aren’t left off the hook if they are found guilty. If a priest abuses a child and is found guilty he will loose his faculties as a priest.
 
It should be noted that excommunication is not a penalty that can be imposed by a bishop for anything he chooses. It is a specific punishment mandated by canon law for a few, very specific actions.

Some excommunications are automatic* (latae sententiae)*, such as that of anyone (the doctor, the woman, the assistants, etc.) who procures a completed abortion, that of a confessor who directly violates the seal of confession and that of any Catholic who physically attacks the Pope. The last 2 can only be lifted by the Pope.

Because of the *latae sententiae excommunication, *Catholic nurses used to be allowed to refuse to prepare a patient for an abortion and to participate in the actual procedure but not allowed to refuse to care for the patient after the abortion. Not sure if they’re allowed to refuse now in many hospitals.

In other cases, the person must be tried, found guilty and excommunication can be the penalty. An excommunication can be lifted if the person confesses and has true remorse. It seems to me that laicizing a priest is more of a punishment than a temporary excommunication.
 
In the above case the story reads that the medical team carried out a direct abortion to reduce the risks to the mother. That is prohibited by the church. There are other ways. it is possible that the medical team did not have the right training.
You are misrepresenting the case.

The combination of a preexisting cardiovascular condition and hormones produced by placenta has put the patient into a deep shock. There was no other way of saving her than cutting the flux of placenta hormones into her body, i.e. removing the placenta. Problem is, it is technically impossible to remove the placenta (or inhibit its function) without killing the fetus. Since the fetus would die either way (aside from the fact that it was already in an unrecoverable condition due to lack of oxygen) the board of ethics decided to surgically remove both the fetus and placenta to save the woman.

The case was actually pretty controversial among moral theologians, because some argued that the abortion was actually indirect, since the aim of the procedure was to remove the placenta, and the death of the fetus was just an unavoidable consequence. In this view, the abortion was indirect because of why it was performed.

The bishop, on the other hand, took the view that the abortion was direct (and hence forbidden), because the fetus was directly removed together with placenta. In this view, the abortion was direct because of how it was performed. This faction also asserts that placenta is actually part of the fetus (sic!) because of having fetal DNA, and hence any action directed against the placenta is an action against the fetus.

This disctinction becomes particularly amusing if we start talking about ectopic pregnancy. The Catholics here take a rather interesting view that the fallopian tube with the fetus growing inside is diseased. In reality that’s not the case: the tube is fine, it’s just the fetus which is in a wrong place. However, since the Church asserts that’s the tube that is at fault, the implication is that it is OK to remove the tube together with the fetus. However, it is allegedly not OK to remove just the fetus from the tube, or administer methotrexate (which will cause the fetus to die), because that would be attacking the fetus directly. In other words, it boils down to how a procedure is performed: you are never allowed to touch the fetus, but you are allowed to cut out woman’s reproductive organs with the living fetus inside.

This intersects with another interesting point in Catholic morality, namely, the difference between action and inaction. In this case, the Church teaches that you may not undertake a morally illicit action (abortion) even if your inaction results in a measurably worse outcome. See also trolley problem and ticking bomb scenario.
 
This disctinction becomes particularly amusing if we start talking about ectopic pregnancy. The Catholics here take a rather interesting view that the fallopian tube with the fetus growing inside is diseased. In reality that’s not the case: the tube is fine, it’s just the fetus which is in a wrong place. However, since the Church asserts that’s the tube that is at fault, the implication is that it is OK to remove the tube together with the fetus. However, it is allegedly not OK to remove just the fetus from the tube, or administer methotrexate (which will cause the fetus to die), because that would be attacking the fetus directly. In other words, it boils down to how a procedure is performed: you are never allowed to touch the fetus, but you are allowed to cut out woman’s reproductive organs with the living fetus inside.
The reason the tube can be removed is that it will become a problem…it may be fine at the start, but as the fetus grows, the tube will eventually rupture. The treatment is thus in anticipation of an inevitable problem with the tube itself.

Less clear-cut are ectopic pregnancies outside of the fallopian tube…eg on the ovaries or inside the abdominal cavity…here, the ethics are not well established as yet.
 
Why is it any of our business whether certain people are excommunicated or not?
 
You are misrepresenting the case.

The combination of a preexisting cardiovascular condition and hormones produced by placenta has put the patient into a deep shock. There was no other way of saving her than cutting the flux of placenta hormones into her body, i.e. removing the placenta. Problem is, it is technically impossible to remove the placenta (or inhibit its function) without killing the fetus. Since the fetus would die either way (aside from the fact that it was already in an unrecoverable condition due to lack of oxygen) the board of ethics decided to surgically remove both the fetus and placenta to save the woman.

The case was actually pretty controversial among moral theologians, because some argued that the abortion was actually indirect, since the aim of the procedure was to remove the placenta, and the death of the fetus was just an unavoidable consequence. In this view, the abortion was indirect because of why it was performed.

The bishop, on the other hand, took the view that the abortion was direct (and hence forbidden), because the fetus was directly removed together with placenta. In this view, the abortion was direct because of how it was performed. This faction also asserts that placenta is actually part of the fetus (sic!) because of having fetal DNA, and hence any action directed against the placenta is an action against the fetus.
This is a great point and I’ve seen argued here many times. The best solution would probably have been to do a hysterectomy. That way you would remove the uterus and fix the medical problem and the unfortunate side effect is the baby dying. Could you not argue the uterus is diseased because of the way the chorionic villi interdigitate with the decidua? The down side is that it would be incredibly more dangerous to the mother, especially with right heart failure given the blood loss expected and the massive fluid needed to support her peripheral perfusion without putting her into terminal heart failure and pulmonary edema. A quick D and C has none of those risks. If its my wife and the mother of our 4 children, I know what I would prefer.
 
Look at the
International Symposium on Maternal Healthcare
It was held on the 8th in Dublin
They reached a Declaration
“The Dublin Declaration on Maternal Healthcare”

This statement is that according to the best medical science it is now “Never medically necessary to perform a direct abortion to save the life of the mother”
…]
Precisely. There is no reason nowadays for direct abortion when the mother’s life is in danger.
 
The reason the tube can be removed is that it will become a problem…it may be fine at the start, but as the fetus grows, the tube will eventually rupture. The treatment is thus in anticipation of an inevitable problem with the tube itself.
But that tube will rupture only because the fetus is inside. It’s clearly the fetus which is the problem here, not the tube.

The whole thing is nothing more than a clever legal hack, invented back when tube removal was the only way of treating ectopic pregnancy. Unfortunately, that hack has taken the life of its own. Based on it, the Church has since developed a rather weird theology, which regards the fetus as unviolable, while mutilating the woman is a fair game.
The best solution would probably have been to do a hysterectomy. That way you would remove the uterus and fix the medical problem and the unfortunate side effect is the baby dying.
The best solution? That’s the worst solution you can imagine. There are no benefits over D&C, instead the patient is subjected to more risk (more blood loss) and gets mutilated for life. All that because a couple of men without medical qualifications whatsoever have decided to put anathema on certain procedures for ideological reasons.
Could you not argue the uterus is diseased because of the way the chorionic villi interdigitate with the decidua?
Why? The uterus was not diseased. The placenta was not diseased. The combination of an otherwise healthy pregnancy with an otherwise less serious condition was lethal.
 
But that tube will rupture only because the fetus is inside. It’s clearly the fetus which is the problem here, not the tube.

The whole thing is nothing more than a clever legal hack, invented back when tube removal was the only way of treating ectopic pregnancy. Unfortunately, that hack has taken the life of its own. Based on it, the Church has since developed a rather weird theology, which regards the fetus as unviolable, while mutilating the woman is a fair game.

The best solution? That’s the worst solution you can imagine. There are no benefits over D&C, instead the patient is subjected to more risk (more blood loss) and gets mutilated for life. All that because a couple of men [ah! the ultimate damnation!] without medical qualifications whatsoever have decided to put anathema on certain procedures for ideological reasons.

Why? The uterus was not diseased. The placenta was not diseased. The combination of an otherwise healthy pregnancy with an otherwise less serious condition was lethal.
Please spare us the ad hominems and the hyperbole.
 
But that tube will rupture only because the fetus is inside. It’s clearly the fetus which is the problem here, not the tube.

The whole thing is nothing more than a clever legal hack, invented back when tube removal was the only way of treating ectopic pregnancy. Unfortunately, that hack has taken the life of its own. Based on it, the Church has since developed a rather weird theology, which regards the fetus as unviolable, while mutilating the woman is a fair game.

The best solution? That’s the worst solution you can imagine. There are no benefits over D&C, instead the patient is subjected to more risk (more blood loss) and gets mutilated for life. All that because a couple of men without medical qualifications whatsoever have decided to put anathema on certain procedures for ideological reasons.

Why? The uterus was not diseased. The placenta was not diseased. The combination of an otherwise healthy pregnancy with an otherwise less serious condition was lethal.
Please. I was being completely facetious, you obviously didn’t read the entirety of my post. This is a horrible heart wrenching situation for everyone involved. They did the best they could and I happen to think made the best, safest decision for the mom.
 
Look at the
International Symposium on Maternal Healthcare
It was held on the 8th in Dublin
They reached a Declaration
“The Dublin Declaration on Maternal Healthcare”

This statement is that according to the best medical science it is now “Never medically necessary to perform a direct abortion to save the life of the mother”

That is not to say that the childs life ca allways be saved. some treatemnts to save the mothers life will kill the baby… but that is a Side effect and is not an abortion.

In the above case the story reads that the medical team carried out a direct abortion to reduce the risks to the mother. That is prohibited by the church. There are other ways. it is possible that the medical team did not have the right training.

one clear example is the case of an ectopic pregnancy: you may not directly kill the baby… but you may remove the diseased fallopian tube in which an ectopic pregnancy has embedded. yes this kills the Foetus, but that is a side effect not the direct effect.

similarly. if a woman has cancer, receiving Radiotherapy or Chemotherapy is likely to kill her unborn baby… that is an acceptable if unfortunate side effect of life saving medical treatment.
To carry out a medical or surgical abortion first (and then carry out the other medical treatments) is murder.
I went to that website and it is an advertisement for a CME accredited scientific conference. I did not see any specific policy statement could you please link a quote and show the data they used to arrive at that conclusion. If they had asked me to help form that policy I would not have agreed.
 
But that tube will rupture only because the fetus is inside. It’s clearly the fetus which is the problem here, not the tube.

The whole thing is nothing more than a clever legal hack, invented back when tube removal was the only way of treating ectopic pregnancy. Unfortunately, that hack has taken the life of its own. Based on it, the Church has since developed a rather weird theology, which regards the fetus as unviolable, while mutilating the woman is a fair game.
The tube will rupture…a ruptured tube is a problem…removing the tube is morally neutral and treats the problem.

Removing the fetus may resolve the problem, but itself is not morally neutral…it is a moral evil.

The Church has not developed anything…the principle that we can’t do evil that good may come of it is a very ancient theological principle (from St Paul, if not earlier). It is a foundation of Catholic moral philosophy, and comes from God, if you have faith in His inspiration of the Bible and the Church.

Consequentialism on the other hand is not a foundation of Catholic morality.

When God has given us a moral principle to follow, we follow it. That’s faith. To presume we know better than God and can decide to go against Him…well, that’s something other than faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top