Abortion: the Woman or Child

[JReducation]

I think medical advances have helped this situation a great deal. If the mother’s life is in danger, they could always do a caesarean section, which will allow them to have a chance to save the child and get the child out of the mother’s womb.

Although it may seem a bit harsh to pick one or the other, the Catholic Church highly recommends that there be a great deal of effort to save both.

The disfunctioning organ is the placenta, which is causing a hemorrhage that is a threat to both the woman and the fetus. It is removed during the C-section. The fetus is not directly attacked. It is moved to an environment where it can be doctored. A fetus cannot survive if the placenta is causing a hemorrhage.

Saying that it is a 'highly questionable practice" and that “the Holy Father does not sanction it”, does that mean he forbids it or doesn’t like it? Because the only alternative in this lose-lose situation is to lose both woman and fetus when both can benefit from modern medicine.

Apparently JR Education said that the Holy Father doesn’t sanction this. I don’t know if that means that it’s forbidden or if he frowns at it. Waiting for clarification from him. Because when I asked my priest he said the treatments for these conditions were licit. And frankly, I don’t know how they can’t be licit since, as you said, a great deal of effort is made with modern advances to save both.

To make this action licit, there has to be an attempt to save both lives. The condemnation by Pope John Paul II speaks to those who would do a C-sec and discard the child. It’s not just that he did not like it. He declared it a grave evil and bound Catholics to it. When you take a child out of the womb and discard it, it’s just another form of infanticide or abortion.

I hope that’s a bit clearer. The way that I read the post to which I responded was that one did a c-sec and saved the mom. The way that Rence puts it, there is treatment being provided for mother and child. The latter is the higher good. The former is choosing one life over another.

Even when you provide the best medical care for both, you may lose one or both. However, the intention was not to kill the child to save the mother or let the mother die to save the child. Both lives are being treated with eqaul dignity and the right to live.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[DoctorAngelicus]

Abortion is wrong in ALL cases. The child always has the right to live. The mother is avowed to uphold this, for she entered into Marriage, and the direct consequence of Holy Matrimony is the begetting of children. If the child is conceived outside of holy wedlock, he still has an inalienable right above that of his mother. She made a choice, and she cannot impose her own selfish will upon an innocent life. By abortion, the child is eternally deprived of the beatific vision, which only Baptism can give. They shall not suffer for sin which they have not committed, but man in his fallen state must be punished collectively. It is an abominable and unholy thing. Murder, always, never justified.

 

[JReducation]

Abortion is wrong in ALL cases. The child always has the right to live. The mother is avowed to uphold this, for she entered into Marriage, and the direct consequence of Holy Matrimony is the begetting of children. If the child is conceived outside of holy wedlock, he still has an inalienable right above that of his mother.

The bold is mine.

This is not Church teaching. The Church does not teach that one person’s life is worth more than that of another. All life is holy in God’s eyes and all human beings have the right to life.

She made a choice, and she cannot impose her own selfish will upon an innocent life. By abortion, the child is eternally deprived of the beatific vision, which only Baptism can give.

That is not exactly the Church’s teaching either. The Church commends the souls of these children to the mercy of God. She does not say that they are denied the Beatific Vision. Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict XVI clarified this.

It is an abominable and unholy thing. Murder, always, never justified.

This is true.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[little_one1]

Abortion is always wrong…

 

[Monica4316]

I am Catholic, and have been told that there are rare cases in which an abortion for a woman may be permitted.

In the case that the child would die inevitably regardless of an abortion or birth, but the mother could live if she aborts the child, the sacrifice of the child through an abortion is condoned.
However, in the case that the mother will inevitably die but the child could still live, abortion is not condoned and all priority in measures should be taken to save the child.

The case that I have a question about is when it is inevitable that either the woman or the child would die, and it has to be one or the other. The Catholic perspective is that all life is sacred and equal, including the life of the unborn. My question is, how do we determine who gets to live in a one or the other situation like the above? Does the mother always live, or does the child? Should the decision be up to the mother, the father, or both parents?

I’ll restate that I would like the Catholic perspective on this topic. I do not want to ignite a heated debate on whether abortion should be allowed or not.

I think the Church teaching here is that in this case, everything should be done to save the lives of the mother **and **the child, and if the child happens to die, - that is not a sin on anyone’s part, - but the effort needs to be made to save the child as well… a deliberate abortion should NOT be done.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JReducation,

I think you brought up an excellent point about the intent of the caregivers.

The intent to save both is primary - and, as the case develops it is either a goal that can be accomplished or one where we have to change the goals to fit the situation. But, this is not ‘situational ethics’ where the initial decision to save both would have never been made.

God bless

To make this action licit, there has to be an attempt to save both lives. The condemnation by Pope John Paul II speaks to those who would do a C-sec and discard the child. It’s not just that he did not like it. He declared it a grave evil and bound Catholics to it. When you take a child out of the womb and discard it, it’s just another form of infanticide or abortion.

I hope that’s a bit clearer. The way that I read the post to which I responded was that one did a c-sec and saved the mom. The way that Rence puts it, there is treatment being provided for mother and child. The latter is the higher good. The former is choosing one life over another.

Even when you provide the best medical care for both, you may lose one or both. However, the intention was not to kill the child to save the mother or let the mother die to save the child. Both lives are being treated with eqaul dignity and the right to live.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[lpmulligan]

In reading this thread, I am still confused about the conflict in Phoenix, where the ethics committee and the medical personnel at St. Joseph Hospital determined that it was necessary take the baby before she/he was viable or both the mother and the baby were going to die. As I recall, one of the Ethical & Religious Directives promulgated by the USCCB, describing a “direct” abortion seemed to prohibit what the hospital did, while another, describing an “indirect” abortion, seemed to support it. In any case, the bishop in Phoenix took the prohibition approach, and told the hospital he no longer considered it a “Catholic” hospital, and announced that the sister who headed the ethics committee which approved the procedure (which did save the life of the mother but, unfortunately, not that of the child) had automatically excommunicated herself from the Church. I think my question is, if there is no intent on the part of any of those involved, mother and medical people, to do anything which would harm human life, in fact their intent is to save human life, but yet they realistically and faithfully conclude that there is only the one option which would save human life, but that option includes the death of the other human life, which they have also concluded will not live if they do not do what they can to save the live of the mother, is that pemissable, or licit, or whatever the correct term is?

 

[JReducation]

In reading this thread, I am still confused about the conflict in Phoenix, where the ethics committee and the medical personnel at St. Joseph Hospital determined that it was necessary take the baby before she/he was viable or both the mother and the baby were going to die. As I recall, one of the Ethical & Religious Directives promulgated by the USCCB, describing a “direct” abortion seemed to prohibit what the hospital did, while another, describing an “indirect” abortion, seemed to support it. In any case, the bishop in Phoenix took the prohibition approach, and told the hospital he no longer considered it a “Catholic” hospital, and announced that the sister who headed the ethics committee which approved the procedure (which did save the life of the mother but, unfortunately, not that of the child) had automatically excommunicated herself from the Church. I think my question is, if there is no intent on the part of any of those involved, mother and medical people, to do anything which would harm human life, in fact their intent is to save human life, but yet they realistically and faithfully conclude that there is only the one option which would save human life, but that option includes the death of the other human life, which they have also concluded will not live if they do not do what they can to save the live of the mother, is that permissible, or licit, or whatever the correct term is?

Absolutely none. The Holy Father’s decree in Evangelium Vitae is definitive and final. No one, not even an ethics committee may decide that the life of one person is worth more than the life of another. Nor may anyone directly kill an innocent person to save another person.

The case in Phoenix was that the ethics committee decided that it there was a justification for terminating the life of the unborn child. The keyword here is “justification”. There is no reason on God’s green earth that can justify killing an innocent person. Bl. John Paul II made this an infallible decree in Evangelium Vitae. The Sister and the members of the committee as well as the doctor were all excommunicated.

As far as the hospital is concerned, you said “the bishop no longer considered the hospital Catholic.” That’s not exactly correct. It’s not a matter of the bishop doesn’t consider the hospital Catholic, but everyone else does. It’s much more serious than that.

The bishop strips the hospital of its right to call itself Catholic. The Blessed Sacrament is removed from the chapel. Masses may never be celebrated at that hospital. Priests may not be assigned to the hospital. They may only go to the hospital when they are called for an emergency. Religious orders are not allowed to serve at the hospital. The hospital is no longer entitled to claim to be a 501(c)3 religious organization for tax purposes. They must refile with the IRS as a private institution and prove that they are a non-profit that is not religious or they will pay taxes. They may not receive funding from any Catholic source. If their property is diocesan property, they must surrender it to the bishop. It it belongs to the religious community that founded the hospital, they must surrender it to the religious community. If the property belongs to the hospital, they may keep it, but they must pay the appropriate taxes until they receive a tax exemption from the State and the IRS. It’s not just a matter of the bishop’s opinion. It’s a whopper of a punishment.

That’s how serious the Church takes this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JReducation,

Thank you for that explanation. I had questions like Ipmulligan.

God bless

Absolutely none. The Holy Father’s decree in Evangelium Vitae is definitive and final. No one, not even an ethics committee may decide that the life of one person is worth more than the life of another. Nor may anyone directly kill an innocent person to save another person.

The case in Phoenix was that the ethics committee decided that it there was a justification for terminating the life of the unborn child. The keyword here is “justification”. There is no reason on God’s green earth that can justify killing an innocent person. Bl. John Paul II made this an infallible decree in Evangelium Vitae. The Sister and the members of the committee as well as the doctor were all excommunicated.

As far as the hospital is concerned, you said “the bishop no longer considered the hospital Catholic.” That’s not exactly correct. It’s not a matter of the bishop doesn’t consider the hospital Catholic, but everyone else does. It’s much more serious than that.

The bishop strips the hospital of its right to call itself Catholic. The Blessed Sacrament is removed from the chapel. Masses may never be celebrated at that hospital. Priests may not be assigned to the hospital. They may only go to the hospital when they are called for an emergency. Religious orders are not allowed to serve at the hospital. The hospital is no longer entitled to claim to be a 501(c)3 religious organization for tax purposes. They must refile with the IRS as a private institution and prove that they are a non-profit that is not religious or they will pay taxes. They may not receive funding from any Catholic source. If their property is diocesan property, they must surrender it to the bishop. It it belongs to the religious community that founded the hospital, they must surrender it to the religious community. If the property belongs to the hospital, they may keep it, but they must pay the appropriate taxes until they receive a tax exemption from the State and the IRS. It’s not just a matter of the bishop’s opinion. It’s a whopper of a punishment.

That’s how serious the Church takes this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[lpmulligan]

Bro. JR:

Thank you for your prompt response! I am away from home just now but will get out my trusty copy of Evangelium Vitae when I return. Can you point me to the particular portion or portions you reference?

I confess to having difficulty w/ Bishop Olmstead’s approach. As the father of four whose wife had a life threatening medical condition and faced the prospect of raising my children without her (not involving a pregnancy), my empathy is with the father in this situation, who, as I recall, had four other children. I cannot imagine the angst involved in the decision he and his wife faced.

I will post again after I read EV.

lpmulligan

 

[JReducation]

Bro. JR:

Thank you for your prompt response! I am away from home just now but will get out my trusty copy of Evangelium Vitae when I return. Can you point me to the particular portion or portions you reference?

I confess to having difficulty w/ Bishop Olmstead’s approach. As the father of four whose wife had a life threatening medical condition and faced the prospect of raising my children without her (not involving a pregnancy), my empathy is with the father in this situation, who, as I recall, had four other children. I cannot imagine the angst involved in the decision he and his wife faced.

I will post again after I read EV.

lpmulligan

I understand your sentiment, I too lost my wife many years ago and was left a young widower with a nine-year old daughter and a four-year old son. Today, they are well educated, independent, professional adults and I’m a consecrated religious. Looking back I now know that out of his eternal time, God has a plan for all of us.

I will never forget when my son was 10-years old I asked him if he was angry that his mother had died prematurely. His answer amazed me. He said, “My mother came to do something and she did it. Once that was over, it was time for her to go home.”

Many years after my wife’s death I would receive a letter from my daughter. It was Father’s Day. I was already a religious. She was in medical school. She wrote to wish me a Happy Father’s Day. She apologized for not having enough money for a gift. Medical school books were very expensive. She said something that again affirmed my faith.

“After mom died, I thought the world would never be the same and I was right. No one can ever take her place. However, what I did not know at that time, which I now know, is the power of a father’s love to make the world feel safe and holy. For this my brother and I thank you and will always hold you in a special place in our hearts.”

I offer my personal testimony to any father who is facing the prospect of raising his children alone, God has a plan for you and your children and it will unfold as the years pass. I never expected to be a religious, nor did I expect my children to have such strong convictions, love and faith. Both are adamantly against abortion, euthanasia, unjust use of capital punishment, infanticide and any other form of injustice against innocent life. Both are very “Pro – Fatherhood”.

The Church is not cold-hearted toward situations like my own and that of other fathers who must face fatherhood alone. This may happen for many reasons. A complicated pregnancy is the rarerest of reasons. The Church understands the paradoxes of life. She also understands the mystery of God’s eternal plan, even though the end result unfolds little by little, as happened to my children and me.

However, regardless of the sentiments that we may have about fathering alone, the Church must proclaim the moral truth and we must adjust to it. That is why, with all the authority of the Apostle Peter, Bl. John Paul II, brings to a close the question, “Is it ever lawful to kill an unborn child for any reason?” We read in Evangelium Vitae

*Parr. 57
In effect, the absolute inviolability of innocent human life is a moral truth clearly taught by Sacred Scripture, constantly upheld in the Church’s Tradition and consistently proposed by her Magisterium. This consistent teaching is the evident result of that “supernatural sense of the faith” which, inspired and sustained by the Holy Spirit, safeguards the People of God from error when “it shows universal agreement in matters of faith and morals”.

**Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. **

This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end.*

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Rence]

To make this action licit, there has to be an attempt to save both lives. The condemnation by Pope John Paul II speaks to those who would do a C-sec and discard the child. It’s not just that he did not like it. He declared it a grave evil and bound Catholics to it. When you take a child out of the womb and discard it, it’s just another form of infanticide or abortion.

I hope that’s a bit clearer. The way that I read the post to which I responded was that one did a c-sec and saved the mom. The way that Rence puts it, there is treatment being provided for mother and child. The latter is the higher good. The former is choosing one life over another.

Even when you provide the best medical care for both, you may lose one or both. However, the intention was not to kill the child to save the mother or let the mother die to save the child. Both lives are being treated with eqaul dignity and the right to live.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you very much for your clarification, because the way you answered my last post confused me and left me very disturbed. I thought you were saying that the Pope frowned on early c-section in which the mother is treated and the preemie is aslo treated in a NICU. So I appreciate the clarification. Thank you!

 

[Ignatius]

I am Catholic, and have been told that there are rare cases in which an abortion for a woman may be permitted.

That is incorrect, abortion is an evil act in and of itself.

 

[lpmulligan]

Bro. ER, OSF -

This is the 3d time, I think, I have attempted to write re your #72, I think it is, above. I do not know what I am doing incorrectly but I will try again.

I know something of the wisdom of which you write - my mother passed away when I was 5, leaving my dad to raise 6 kids on a poor farm he lost anyway, paying her bills at Mayo Clinic. So, at age 6, I went to Boys Town, where my 3 older brothers had gone a year earlier. My younger sister & brother were adopted by an aunt & uncle. I think all of us have suffered in one way or another, but probably no more than most families, even intact ones.

I think my concern comes down to the distinction between a “direct” and an “indirect” abortion, especially if intention is not the critical criteria in distinguishing the two. I know those two are also covered in the ERDs the USCCB promulgated some years ago for the guidance of Catholic hospitals & Catholic medical people. I think that is the heart of the dispute between St. Joseph Hospital & Bishop Olmstead. When I get home later this week, I will post again (or, at least, try to).

pax
larry mulligan

 

[JReducation]

Bro. ER, OSF -

This is the 3d time, I think, I have attempted to write re your #72, I think it is, above. I do not know what I am doing incorrectly but I will try again.

I know something of the wisdom of which you write - my mother passed away when I was 5, leaving my dad to raise 6 kids on a poor farm he lost anyway, paying her bills at Mayo Clinic. So, at age 6, I went to Boys Town, where my 3 older brothers had gone a year earlier. My younger sister & brother were adopted by an aunt & uncle. I think all of us have suffered in one way or another, but probably no more than most families, even intact ones.

I think my concern comes down to the distinction between a “direct” and an “indirect” abortion, especially if intention is not the critical criteria in distinguishing the two. I know those two are also covered in the ERDs the USCCB promulgated some years ago for the guidance of Catholic hospitals & Catholic medical people. I think that is the heart of the dispute between St. Joseph Hospital & Bishop Olmstead. When I get home later this week, I will post again (or, at least, try to).

pax
larry mulligan

I’m sorry, I didn’t notice. Thank you for sharing your experience with us. The death of a parent is a very difficult thing for a child and for the remaining spouse too.

As far as the bishop and the hospital are concerned, the hospital was very wrong. There is never a justification for an abortion. There is not such thing as an indirect abortion.

Abortion is defined as a direct assault on the unborn child. For example, removing the child from the uterus and casting him aside in order to save the mother is an abortion.

There are situations when we know that a certain medical procedure will cause the death of the child. That’s not an indirect abortion. The procedure does not touch the child. For example, removing a cancerous uterus with a child inside. As long as you do not take the child out, the purpose of the surgery is to remove the diseased organ, not to remove the child. It is an unfortunate circumstance that the child is inside the diseased organ. That being said, if the child is viable, then he should be removed from the diseased organ and placed in an incubator or whatever is necessary to give him a fighting chance.

The problem with these medical ethics committees is twofold. Fist, they use language such as indirect abortion, when there is no such thing. Second, they rarely have theologians on board. They usually have a few doctors and sisters who are trained in medicine and medical ethics. Medical ethics cannot exist without the guidance of moral theology. It is moral theology that will always protect medical ethics from making mistakes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[lpmulligan]

Bro. JR, OSF -

The Pope specified “direct abortion” as prohibited in the quotation you provided from EV. So, maybe he used a different definition than you use for abortion, otherwise his use of the adjective, “direct” would be redundant. Also, the bishops used both “direct” and “indirect” as adjectives modifing “abortion”, as I recall, in the Ethical and Religious Directives which were issued some years ago, and modified on occasion.

The surgery you describe as not prohibited does seem to involve an abortion in those circumstances in which the baby is not viable. What seems to make it acceptable is that it is a necessary medical procedure to save the only life which the circumstances permit to be saved, as both the mother and child will die if the cancerous uterus is not removed, there is no intent to abort, and everything possible will be done to preserve both lives, even though it is known that only a miracle will save the life of the child.

Hope to be home tomorrow. Thanks for continuing the conversation, it is very helpful to me.

shalom
lpmulligan

 

[JReducation]

Bro. JR, OSF -

The Pope specified “direct abortion” as prohibited in the quotation you provided from EV. So, maybe he used a different definition than you use for abortion, otherwise his use of the adjective, “direct” would be redundant. Also, the bishops used both “direct” and “indirect” as adjectives modifing “abortion”, as I recall, in the Ethical and Religious Directives which were issued some years ago, and modified on occasion.

The surgery you describe as not prohibited does seem to involve an abortion in those circumstances in which the baby is not viable. What seems to make it acceptable is that it is a necessary medical procedure to save the only life which the circumstances permit to be saved, as both the mother and child will die if the cancerous uterus is not removed, there is no intent to abort, and everything possible will be done to preserve both lives, even though it is known that only a miracle will save the life of the child.

Hope to be home tomorrow. Thanks for continuing the conversation, it is very helpful to me.

shalom
lpmulligan

I’m confused now.

Let me see if I go this right by trying to answer. Correct me if I misunderstood you.

The reason for the use of the word “direct” abortion is because in medical jargon, a miscarriage is called an abortion. The term miscarriage does not exist in most languages. Therefore, in medical writing and speech, it’s not used. It’s a layman’s term. The medical community uses abortion. Direct is being used to point to an abortion that is not spontaneous. There is also what is known as a missed abortion, where the fetus dies, but is not expelled and has to be removed.

There is never any situation that permits a direct assault on a child in his mother’s womb, not matter what the danger is to the mother.

The directives state that the removal of a disease organ is not an abortion, because it is a necessary medical procedure that cannot wait for the child to be viable. It is an unfortunate circumstance that the child is in the uterus or the tube being removed. The death of the child is foreseeable and cannot be helped.

If one were to extract the child to save the mother, that’s direct. The child is not an organ nor a disease. He’s a human being. In this case, he is a human being who is being sacrificed to save another person’s life. Sacrificing one’s life for another is an act of heroic virtue, if it’s you sacrificing your life. The mother who sacrifices her life for the child is heroic. The child who is sacrificed for the mother is a victim. He has not consented. A wonderful example is St. Giana Molla.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[lpmulligan]

Bro. JR -

Your explanation about Pope John Paul II’s use of “direct” to modifiy abortion so as to distinguish what he was speaking of from a miscarriage, or “spontaneous” abortion makes sense, albeit I wish he would have made that distinction in EV. Without that distinction being made there, it seems to me that his use of “direct” can also be properly interpreted as it apparently was by the bishops of the United States when they promulgated their Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, whose 4th edition was approved at their June, 2001 meeting.

The ERDs I was attempting to recall while I was on the road are #s 45 & 47. The former states, “Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo. Catholic health care institutions are not to provide abortion services, even based upon the principle of material cooperation. In this context, Catholic health care institutions need to be concerned about the danger of scandal in any association with abortion services”, while the latter provides, “Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.”

It seems to me that #47 describes what was done in the St. Joseph Hospital in Phoenix case. The operation and treatment of the young mother had as its “direct purpose” the saving of her life, even though it was known that they would result in the death of her unborn child. If that is “permitted”, how can #45 be used to prohibit it, when no one involved “directly intended termination of pregnancy”, even while they knew that, without a miracle, it would happen?

I look forward to your thoughts on this.

Pax,
lpmulligan

 

[JReducation]

Bro. JR -

Your explanation about Pope John Paul II’s use of “direct” to modifiy abortion so as to distinguish what he was speaking of from a miscarriage, or “spontaneous” abortion makes sense, albeit I wish he would have made that distinction in EV. Without that distinction being made there, it seems to me that his use of “direct” can also be properly interpreted as it apparently was by the bishops of the United States when they promulgated their Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, whose 4th edition was approved at their June, 2001 meeting.

The ERDs I was attempting to recall while I was on the road are #s 45 & 47. The former states, “Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo. Catholic health care institutions are not to provide abortion services, even based upon the principle of material cooperation. In this context, Catholic health care institutions need to be concerned about the danger of scandal in any association with abortion services”, while the latter provides, “Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.”

It seems to me that #47 describes what was done in the St. Joseph Hospital in Phoenix case. The operation and treatment of the young mother had as its “direct purpose” the saving of her life, even though it was known that they would result in the death of her unborn child. If that is “permitted”, how can #45 be used to prohibit it, when no one involved “directly intended termination of pregnancy”, even while they knew that, without a miracle, it would happen?

I look forward to your thoughts on this.

Pax,
lpmulligan

You cannot perform any procedure that involves direct contact with the child. Everyone knows that if you take a child from his habitat, he will die if he’s not viable.

** “Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.”**

Every Catholic moral theologian, priest, religious brother and religious sister is trained to understand that this means that you may provide any medical treatment that does not kill the child. There are medical treatments where you foresee the death of the child, but the treatment did not kill the child. The child’s death is a secondary effect. Just a crazy example . . . a pregnant woman goes in for strep and is treated with medication X. The child dies. The treatment was meant to kill the bacteria, not the child.

The Church’s moral theologians ruled that the death of the child was directly caused by the intervention, not a secondary effect. They also ruled that the sister who approved the procedure had the appropriate theological formation and information. She had the authority to stop the procedure as did the hospital’s administration. Neither she nor the hospital administration intervened. She approved. We’re not sure if the hospital administration was even informed before the procedure took place or after the fact.

In any case, the hospital administration is not excommunicated, because there is a question as to what did it know and when. However, the administration is held responsible for not imposing disciplinary measures on the sister, its ethics committee and the physician. That’s how the hospital falls and ceases to be a Catholic hospital.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Phemie]

The ERDs I was attempting to recall while I was on the road are #s 45 & 47. The former states, “Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo. Catholic health care institutions are not to provide abortion services, even based upon the principle of material cooperation. In this context, Catholic health care institutions need to be concerned about the danger of scandal in any association with abortion services”, while the latter provides, “Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.”

Those same two articles are what allows an ectopic pregnancy to be treated by salpingectomy, the removal of part or all of the affected tube, even though the embryo will certainly die, but doesn’t allow a salpingotomy, the removal of the embryo from the tube, or the use of various drugs, such as methotrexate, to stop the growth of the embryo – both of which are routinely done in non-Catholic hospitals.