Is a doctor in mortal sin:

[On_my_way]

If he/she has conducted or been a part of an Abortion. It was brought up in our RCIA class and we had mixed answers.

If the doc. is a Faithfull Catholic and performs an abortion, is that DR. in mortal sin. I understand that, you have to sometimes do what is morally right, but what if it was life and death. Lets say the abortion had to be done to save the mothers life or vice versa.

 

[Genesis315]

On my way:

If he/she has conducted or been a part of an Abortion. It was brought up in our RCIA class and we had mixed answers.

If the doc. is a Faithfull Catholic and performs an abortion, is that DR. in mortal sin. I understand that, you have to sometimes do what is morally right, but what if it was life and death. Lets say the abortion had to be done to save the mothers life or vice versa.

An abortion is always a matter of life and death. A faithful Catholic who killed a baby would most definitely be in mortal sin. As for non-Catholics, there are very few people who can honestly claim ignorance that taking a life is wrong, especially a doctor who has the anatomical knowledge necessary to know that the baby is not part of thw woman’s body.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Mortal sin,yes.No Catholic even a doctor can do something directly that aborts.If someone has a tubal pregnacy the tube can be removed that treatment results in the death of the baby.

 

[otm]

One needs to understand the law of unintended consequences in moral theology and to use accurate language to be able to answer this question clearly.

If, for example, a woman has an ectopic pregnance, and the tube is about to burst because of the growth of the baby, if the doctor does not intend an abortion - he is not operating with the intent to kill the child - but rather operates to save the mother’s life, and the child dies, that is not an abortion. An abortion is the intended causing of the child’s death.
Some people can not distinguish between the two, arguing that it is simply semantics. Moral theology, however, is not simply semantics. It is about intent.

So to answer the question, if the doctor intends to cause the death of the child, that is an abortion by definition, and is objectively gravely wrong. It is not out of the realm of possibility that the doctor does not believe that it is morally wrong; and so would not be subjectively guilty of a mortal sin. A mortal sin requires that both the objective act be gravely wrong, and that the actor intend to commit a gravely wrongful act. If they thought they were doing a heroic (that is, not gravely wrongful) act, they would not be guilty of serious sin.

 

[On_my_way]

Now someone in our class said that they know of a DR. that would not perform the abortion but would recommend them to someone who will do the procedure. Now since the DR. is in full knowledge of the abortion, would that be mortal sin?

 

[Genesis315]

On my way:

Now someone in our class said that they know of a DR. that would not perform the abortion but would recommend them to someone who will do the procedure. Now since the DR. is in full knowledge of the abortion, would that be mortal sin?

Absolutely. Say someone comes to me and says “will you murder my wife?” and then I say “no, that would be a sin, but I can refer you to an effective hit-man.” Do you think that would be a mortal sin?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I think the doctor would incur automatic excommunication.

 

[Katie1723]

otm:

One needs to understand the law of unintended consequences in moral theology and to use accurate language to be able to answer this question clearly.

If, for example, a woman has an ectopic pregnance, and the tube is about to burst because of the growth of the baby, if the doctor does not intend an abortion - he is not operating with the intent to kill the child - but rather operates to save the mother’s life, and the child dies, that is not an abortion. An abortion is the intended causing of the child’s death.
Some people can not distinguish between the two, arguing that it is simply semantics. Moral theology, however, is not simply semantics. It is about intent.

So to answer the question, if the doctor intends to cause the death of the child, that is an abortion by definition, and is objectively gravely wrong. It is not out of the realm of possibility that the doctor does not believe that it is morally wrong; and so would not be subjectively guilty of a mortal sin. A mortal sin requires that both the objective act be gravely wrong, and that the actor intend to commit a gravely wrongful act. If they thought they were doing a heroic (that is, not gravely wrongful) act, they would not be guilty of serious sin.

Very well put!
~ Kathy ~

 

[Liberian]

On my way:

If he/she has conducted or been a part of an Abortion. It was brought up in our RCIA class and we had mixed answers.

If the doc. is a Faithfull Catholic and performs an abortion, is that DR. in mortal sin. I understand that, you have to sometimes do what is morally right, but what if it was life and death. Lets say the abortion had to be done to save the mothers life or vice versa.

On my way,

I think the answer to the first question is yes. It is never permissible to take an innocent life, even in order to save another life. It’s an example of “doing evil that good may come.”

• Liberian

 

[catsrus]

If the doc. is a Faithfull Catholic and performs an abortion

A contradiction in terms.

 

[Viki59]

On my way:

Lets say the abortion had to be done to save the mothers life

There are very few cases in which an abortion has to be done to save a woman’s life. An ectopic pregnancy is one, but the child cannot survive no matter what is done.
Mostly this is just an excuse for an abortion.

 

[Brad]

otm:

So to answer the question, if the doctor intends to cause the death of the child, that is an abortion by definition, and is objectively gravely wrong. It is not out of the realm of possibility that the doctor does not believe that it is morally wrong; and so would not be subjectively guilty of a mortal sin. A mortal sin requires that both the objective act be gravely wrong, and that the actor intend to commit a gravely wrongful act. If they thought they were doing a heroic (that is, not gravely wrongful) act, they would not be guilty of serious sin.

I disagree with this. Many crimes to humanity have been done under the guise of heroism. You have to qualify this further with more specific examples to make the moral argument. I can’t imagine a doctor that does not know that killing is morally wrong. A dulled conscience does not eliminate culpability.

 

[fix]

Brad:

I disagree with this. Many crimes to humanity have been done under the guise of heroism. You have to qualify this further with more specific examples to make the moral argument. I can’t imagine a doctor that does not know that killing is morally wrong. A dulled conscience does not eliminate culpability.

Right. One would be hard pressed in this current culture to claim involuntary ignorance. Not to mention that the prohibition against murder is known from the natural law.

 

[otm]

catsrus:

A contradiction in terms.

Or else a failure to define terms. A lot of people are guilty of muddeled thinking and sloppy diction. It has a tendency to make discussion difficult when one party uses language inappropriately.

For example, if abortion is taken to mean any surgey whereby the child dies, that would be an overly broad definition, leading to a “maybe yes, maybe no” answer, one that would be adding to the confusion exhibited by the one using the broad definition.

The same applies to the word “sin”, as some people mean any act which is morally wrong, failing to distinguish between objective and subjective aspects of the act.

 

[otm]

Viki59:

There are very few cases in which an abortion has to be done to save a woman’s life. An ectopic pregnancy is one, but the child cannot survive no matter what is done.
Mostly this is just an excuse for an abortion.

since the last time I heard that an ectopic pregnancy just about guarantees the woman’s death, I fail to see that a surgery to prevent that death is an “excuse”. If you wish to forgo the rule of unintended consequences, that can certainly be a personal choice, but it is, as I last heard, correct moral theology and has been for a very long time - i.e., long before Vatican 2.

And I would challenge you that it would be called an abortion. An abortion is the removal of the child from the womb for the purpose of causing the death of the child. Calling anything else an abortion is, I would posit, a misuse of the term.

Let’s get past the ectopic pregnancy, and use the example of the Italian woman physician who ws recently canonized. She had cancer, and knew that the treatment most likely would kill her child. She chose to not have the treatment, knowing that most likely she would die. It would have been, however, morally legitimate to have the treatment, even though one of the unintended consequences would be the death of her child. A Hobson’s choice, to be sure, but both choices were moral.

 

[otm]

Brad:

I disagree with this. Many crimes to humanity have been done under the guise of heroism. You have to qualify this further with more specific examples to make the moral argument. I can’t imagine a doctor that does not know that killing is morally wrong. A dulled conscience does not eliminate culpability.

While I would agree with youthat some can be acting based on a morally dulled conscience, I have met too many people (some of them M.D.s), who do not appear to be morally dulled; they have a different anthropological base and do not believe they are doing moral evil in doing or recommending an abortion. They are not amoral; their moral base started from childhood that was different from yours and mine. They are not abortionists running a mill. They believe that it is a very serious and sad choice, but a permissible one.

When I used the term heroic, I did not intend it in its general useage of the “guy who saves the day agains all odds and enemies”, but one who is doing what he believes a necessary and morally permitted act.

I have met all sorts of people in my life. I have met some who are completely (from all I could ever see) amoral. I also have met many who know better, but choose to act in an evil manner. I have also met some who have what you and I would consider a skewed moral base, but sincerely believe they are doing right.

 

[tuopaolo]

otm:

Some people can not distinguish between the two, arguing that it is simply semantics. Moral theology, however, is not simply semantics. It is about intent.

Causing the death of the baby as either an end or a means to an end is murder. So even if one causes the death of the baby as a means to saving the mother’s life, it is still a direct abortion and thus still murder. If the death of the baby is an unintended side effect, it wouldn’t be murder (though it could still be wrong for other reasons)

So to answer the question, if the doctor intends to cause the death of the child, that is an abortion by definition, and is objectively gravely wrong. It is not out of the realm of possibility that the doctor does not believe that it is morally wrong; and so would not be subjectively guilty of a mortal sin.

That’s like saying “It is not out of the realm of possibility that the murderer does not believe murder is morally wrong and so would not be subjectively guilty of a mortal sin” or “It is not out of the real of possibility that the rapist does not believe rape is morally wrong and so would not be subjectively guilty of a mortal sin” What you’re saying is absurd (with all due respect).

A mortal sin requires that both the objective act be gravely wrong, and that the actor intend to commit a gravely wrongful act. If they thought they were doing a heroic (that is, not gravely wrongful) act, they would not be guilty of serious sin.

Murderers do not think that murder is a heroic act nor do rapists think that rape is a heroic act. Your suggestion that some abortionists think of their acts of murder as acts of heroism is absurd (with all due respect)

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin. 1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

No one is ignorant that it is wrong to murder even if they claim that they are.

 

[fix]

No one is ignorant that it is wrong to murder even if they claim that they are.

Exactly.

 

[otm]

tuopaolo:

Causing the death of the baby as either an end or a means to an end is murder. So even if one causes the death of the baby as a means to saving the mother’s life, it is still a direct abortion and thus still murder. If the death of the baby is an unintended side effect, it wouldn’t be murder (though it could still be wrong for other reasons)

That’s like saying “It is not out of the realm of possibility that the murderer does not believe murder is morally wrong and so would not be subjectively guilty of a mortal sin” or “It is not out of the real of possibility that the rapist does not believe rape is morally wrong and so would not be subjectively guilty of a mortal sin” What you’re saying is absurd (with all due respect).

I don’t consider moral theology to be absurd. As I said, you are making the presumption that everyone has the same moral base; in general we do, but in specifics, we don’t. If we did, there would be no need for the 10 Commandments, as we would all have the same base and therefore no need.

tuopaolo:

Murderers do not think that murder is a heroic act nor do rapists think that rape is a heroic act. Your suggestion that some abortionists think of their acts of murder as acts of heroism is absurd (with all due respect)

1)See above as to my definition of the word heroic.
2) A murderer generally knows they are causing a wrongful death. Some people, contrary to your assumption, do not believe that abortion is murder, as they do not believe that in the early stages, that it is a child; they see it as a pre-child, for lack of a better term. And their opinions are sincerely held.

tuopaolo:

Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin. Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. **But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man
No one is ignorant that it is wrong to murder even if they claim that they are.**The difficulty with your definition is that you leave no room whatsoever for ignorance; the abortionist may indeed be aware of the “principles of the moral law, written…” and yet be ignorant of their application in specific circumstances. Denying that simply takes knowledge out of the equation and makes you guilty simply because you are human. and that is not the position of the Church.

Let’s get one thing clear; I have no question whatsoever that an intentional abortion is the wrongful death of an innocent child. I am saying that there are people who are abortionists who also know that. And there are others, within the filed of OB-GYN who do not know that, and others within the fields of medicine who do not. For example, an OB GYN might do an abortion where there is a child who has only a brain stem, and no full brain; they are called “pin-head” children. If born, they die sortly after birth. There are other children with terrible deformities, who will die shortly after birth. And there are any number of good physicians who would see no moral evil in aborting one of those. They would say they were not murdering a child, as it did not have what a child has - a full brain.

 

[Katie1723]

You know, the sad thing is no matter what the reason, a woman may feel guilty, blame herself etc. And here we are making her feel worse, by disecting her choice. In some instances there was no choice.
And if you haven’t had ectopic and feel the utter sense of helplessness that accompanies that, please don’t tell a woman her child was murdered. She feels bad enough already. We would all do well to follow Jesus’ example when He met the prostitute…befriend her, put your arm around her and say I am sorry.
~ Kathy ~