Arizona nun's OK of abortion stirs global debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Soutane
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Soutane

Guest
Arizona nun’s OK of abortion stirs global debate
Christopher Collette

Phoenix, Ariz. – Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix is being criticized by religious lawyers and medical ethicists for his declaration that a nun had excommunicated herself by advising that a seriously ill woman could have an abortion.

In an international debate raging in religious magazines and on the Internet, experts say the bishop failed to appreciate the circumstances that led to Sister Margaret McBride’s decision as an administrator at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix.

Olmsted declared McBride had excommunicated herself by “procuring,” or bringing about, an abortion, and anti-abortion groups have assailed the nun.

But one church lawyer declared McBride’s excommunication “null and void” because there was a lack of clarity over the circumstances surrounding the nun’s decision.

The theological debate centers on two key issues. One is the circumstances of the medical procedure and whether it should be considered a treatment for an illness or a procedure intended to end the life of a fetus. The church would consider the latter to be an abortion.

The second is whether McBride believed she was acting within the ethics of the Catholic Church, which puts emphasis on whether a person knowingly and willingly violates church law.

One thing most people seem to agree on is that McBride, in her role as a hospital administrator, did not approve a standard abortion. The circumstances at St. Joseph’s involved a woman who was so seriously ill that continuing her pregnancy could have killed her.

The 27-year-old woman, who had four other children, suffered from pulmonary hypertension and agreed to doctors’ recommendation that she terminate the pregnancy only after it became clear to her that her life was in danger. McBride, as head of the hospital’s ethics committee, took part in the decision with doctors, the patient and the mother’s family.

The procedure took place in November but became public only in May after The Arizona Republic wrote about it. None of the people directly involved have been willing to discuss it
wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=134727&catid=250
 
I agree with the followeing comment in it’s entirety:

IowaMike wrote:
Here we go again. Let’s parse the words in a way one can ‘work around’ Catholic teaching. For example, "Cathleen Kaveny, a law professor at Notre Dame University who focuses on the intersection of law and morality, pointed out in Commonweal Magazine that McBride’s intention meant the procedure "wasn’t an ‘abortion’ " in the sense the procedure is prohibited by Catholic moral teaching, despite the “foreseen, terrible and unwanted side effect of causing the baby’s death.” This statement is pure lawyer pap. This wasn’t the sister’s first ‘rodeo’ and she isn’t a novice and she can’t claim invincible ignorance of Catholic teaching. This abortion was done to save the mother with full knowledge that it would kill the baby. That is against Catholic teaching and the sister did incur Latae Sententiae.

Playing word games doesn’t change the facts

The baby was direcftly aborted which is contrary to Church teaching PERIOD.
 
Soutane said:
Arizona nun’s OK of abortion stirs global debate
Christopher Collette

Phoenix, Ariz. – Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix is being criticized by religious lawyers and medical ethicists for his declaration that a nun had excommunicated herself by advising that a seriously ill woman could have an abortion.

In an international debate raging in religious magazines and on the Internet, experts say the bishop failed to appreciate the circumstances that led to Sister Margaret McBride’s decision as an administrator at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix.

Olmsted declared McBride had excommunicated herself by “procuring,” or bringing about, an abortion, and anti-abortion groups have assailed the nun.

But one church lawyer declared McBride’s excommunication “null and void” because there was a lack of clarity over the circumstances surrounding the nun’s decision.

The theological debate centers on two key issues. One is the circumstances of the medical procedure and whether it should be considered a treatment for an illness or a procedure intended to end the life of a fetus. The church would consider the latter to be an abortion.

The second is whether McBride believed she was acting within the ethics of the Catholic Church, which puts emphasis on whether a person knowingly and willingly violates church law.

One thing most people seem to agree on is that McBride, in her role as a hospital administrator, did not approve a standard abortion. The circumstances at St. Joseph’s involved a woman who was so seriously ill that continuing her pregnancy could have killed her.

The 27-year-old woman, who had four other children, suffered from pulmonary hypertension and agreed to doctors’ recommendation that she terminate the pregnancy only after it became clear to her that her life was in danger. McBride, as head of the hospital’s ethics committee, took part in the decision with doctors, the patient and the mother’s family.

The procedure took place in November but became public only in May after The Arizona Republic wrote about it. None of the people directly involved have been willing to discuss it
wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=134727&catid=250
Click to expand...
A Catholic Lawyer! He is an idiot or a heretic.

Bishop Olmstead is 100% correct.

#**2272 **
Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
"A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79
The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

usccb.org/
See: “The Distinction between Direct Abortion and Legitimate Medical Procedures”

#2089
Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.
**Heresy **is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;
apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;
schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11
 
What do we expect from Jesuit Georgetown University and Notre Dame ?
They don’t know how to read a simple Catechism.
I would never send my kids to these law schools for certain. And based on this, I would never hire a lawyer graduated from these two Universities either.

Jesuit canon lawyer Ladislas Orsy of Georgetown University argued that there is such a lack of clarity that the excommunication is “null and void.”
*
Cathleen Kaveny*, a law professor at Notre Dame University who focuses on the intersection of law and morality, pointed out in Commonweal Magazine that McBride’s intention meant the procedure "wasn’t an ‘abortion’ " in the sense the procedure is prohibited by Catholic moral teaching, despite the “foreseen, terrible and unwanted side effect of causing the baby’s death.”

Again the Bishop is correct.
usccb.org/
“The Distinction between Direct Abortion and Legitimate Medical Procedures”
 
Pray for these sad people who will have to answer alone, without the lies & deceptions of the world, directly to Jesus Christ, our Lord & Savior, when He says to each one of us;

"And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ " (Mt 25:40)

as horrible of a sinner as i am, i never would murder a baby for my own personal convenience!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark
 
No one has provided evidence that this woman would have died if she didn’t have an abortion. Those who try to justify this abortion simply assume she would have died without themselves providing evidence of this. If someone has proof for this, put it on this thread.
Because of this I presume that the authors of such press reports are angry simply because the Church stands up against abortion.
 
mdgspencer said:
No one has provided evidence that this woman would have died if she didn’t have an abortion. Those who try to justify this abortion simply assume she would have died without themselves providing evidence of this. If someone has proof for this, put it on this thread.
Because of this I presume that the authors of such press reports are angry simply because the Church stands up against abortion.
Click to expand...
I’ve said this elsewhere, but I do beleive there is more going on behidn the scenes, and I don’t think anyone can make any solid comment unless the woman’s medical records were released:

However, with that said pulmonary hypertension doesn’t just happen overnight, its a gradul process where some sufferers don’t seek help for years. For this woman to be 27 and have had other children makes me really wonder exactly how much danger this woman was under. She was 11 weeks pregnant from information I’ve seen elsewhere.

Would it really be that hard on her to spend another 15 weeks in hospital or at home on bed rest until the child was viable?

Or, was there some other illness or variable of pul HT. involved here - which, if there was, why isn’t it being mentioned? Granted, pul HT can be complicated, and yes, even fatal with pregnancy, but the studies I’ve seen don’t mention higher risks of mortality until at least 25 weeks gestation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top