Keep hitting the same hurdles on the Catholic Church

[AiyanaS]

Given you believe it is moral to murder a child in the womb who has a serious medical condition, it is entirely rational for you to favour other actions such as contraceptive practices, sterilisation and the like.

And given that your a conservative Catholic, who sees the Churches teachings as absolute and not questionable, it’s obvious as well that you’d have no problem with parents knowingly giving birth to a child that they knew would live a life of pain equal to a 3rd degree burn victim and would be in pain 24/7, even in there sleep. After all, the growth a parent could experience in there faith and the impact that child would have on others (even if it is just listening to that child scream bloody murder during a 3 hour bandage change where it feels like there skins being ripped off) would sure make all that child pain worth it, right? Or, the “best” excuse I read on these forums in relation to rare genetic diseases, why would you deprive the siblings the joy and diversity a special needs sibling would bring?

Yes, bring a child into the world to suffer a cruel existence simply out of benefit for everyone else around them, as if a child living with level 5 - 10 pain everyday really cares about there impact on others. Too say that’s balanced out by the parents learning so much and growing as people from there child’s pain is just plain ignorant and disrespectful to the child at the center of the equation. And parents who think like that are a whole new level of selfish.

I’ve read stories of siblings of people with EB, and even though they loved there sister/brother, they said that they’d rather never have had a sibling versus growing up seeing watching and hearing what that sibling went through. I read of one guy whose brother died of EB around 23 - 25 years and he said that his brothers death and life was so horribly painful he would rather his brother never had been born rather than live life like that!

It also depends on the type and severity of a disease, as someone I read on here once got upset that someone was talking about contraception and abortion in relation to rare diseases, so they gave the whole speech of how if they’d listened to “the world” they wouldn’t have there blessing child, who had Down’s syndrome. Ok, you can’t compare Downs to a disease where a child’s body is covered in sores because there skin is so fragile is falls off! You also can’t compare it to a disease where a child’s body slowly breaks down and they turn into a vegetable (Crabbys disease), or they loose all muscle function and eventually die from an inability to breathe (muscular dystrophy), Or tumors (that can be malignant) grow all over there body (Neurofibromatosis). You can’t!

Also, to say “just give them pain medication”, would be ignorant because the body builds tolerance to medications and the chemicals gradually destroy a persons kidneys and liver! Plus, who wants to live a life where there pain level is dictated by the clock, every 2, 3, 4 hours they need that pain pill? To just push that fact aside and give birth to a child knowing they’d be subjected to that is plain and simple: abuse! and a huge disservice to that baby who didn’t ask for a life like that. People like that are self serving, how the parents feel and there desire for a baby shouldn’t matter because it is the baby who will live that life, not there parents.

So, like I’ve said before watch the videos I posted before commenting but if you did and are still are promoting that it is best for a child to knowingly be born and live like that, that’s just sad. Those videos show just how inhumane EB is and exhibits a different kind of pain, one I hope no one on here ever knows.

Well, that’s just weird. Since teachings opposing contraception have not been widely accepted, you’d have to say those seeking “power and authority” over the people have failed.

Yes, because the people are opening there eyes and thinking for themselves instead of letting an organization tell them how to run there lives. I mean, they did that years ago but then the church made a law against witches which resulted in a lot of people being accused of witchcraft, particularly women and midwifes because they had the knowledge of birth regulation methods, and murdered as the secular courts and even religious ones went crazy burning “witches” at the stake. A law that contradicted the Catholic Churches own original ruling many years prior that believing in witches was a sin or something to that effect. The new law was created post- Black Plague after many people strayed from the church and lost there faith, and what better way to ensure population growth then scaring people into following teaching by threatening them with being burned at the stake and then an eternity in eternal torment.

Plus, science is more advanced and people don’t have to rely on superstition anymore.

 

[Rau]

I’m not a “conservative Catholic”. Conservative would imply the taking of a particular position from a range of acceptable options.

No - I think the commandment that forbids murdering the innocent doesn’t offer an option to murder some of the innocent.

This is God’s teaching that the Church affirms. So, I’m not taking a conservative position - I’m accepting the only possible position.

Intrinsically Evil acts exist because God exists and decreed them. It is not “conservative” to accept that. It is intrinsic to Christianity.

 

[Cyril_Of_Canada]

Celibacy is not required in all cases, first of all. Eastern Catholics do have a married priesthood, but even they don’t allow it in all cases because celibacy is preferred. In the Roman Rite it is the norm. No man is forced into ordination. It’s voluntary. It’s like special forces training–most military personnel don’t take such training, but for those that do more is required of them. It’s a personal choice to be considered for ordination. And not all who enter formation end as priests. It’s a long process with much discernment. Are you saying that men shouldn’t be allowed to offer themselves completely to God in ordination? Isn’t that their choice to make?

It also doesn’t allow a baby to be conceived who ought to have been–the attitude being that God is a big meanie who wants to force unwanted children upon us. That’s the modern conceit–that we don’t need him interfering in “our” love lives–as if any part of our lives were not his to begin with. As adults we ought to be able to control all of our appetites and desires. Our culture has told us for the last few generations that we should have no constraints on them, but that’s not responsible. Contraceptives are not controlling birth–their denying birth, which is not the same thing. So, what is in control? Us or our glands?

To deliberately miss obligatory Masses violates the third of the Ten Commandments to “keep holy the Sabbath day.” None of those commandments has been abrogated by God. So yes, God considers deliberate disobedience against this commandment just as bad as any other–or it wouldn’t be one of them.

When we come to love God we come to accept that he knows us far better than we do ourselves. Living according to God’s commands takes being imbued with his grace. We cannot do it on our own, which is why God gave us the sacraments to give us the graces needed. Living as God wants us to is possible–it takes surrendering our wills to his and relying on his graces to do it. You should read the Catechism on these issues, if you haven’t.

Not so fast, as I read in the Catechism, from my working memory, I recall that we are not obligated to follow the ten commandments because of the Sinai Covenant but because we still observe the moral law, which was not abolished when we serve Jesus and walk with him under the New Covenant. We do not observe The Sabbath, but the ten commandments is a reminder of the moral law and we are obligated to meet up on Sunday, The Lord’s Day.
And to not worship Jesus on the Lord’s Day is a moral sin( I said moral, not mortal) against Him. The Church has the keys to lose and bind and is the authority acting in Jesus’ steed, so to not listen to them is not listen to Jesus, which means you are not listening to God, who sent Jesus to this Earth. Hope this helps clarify. Catechism on the Ten Commandments should clear this up.

 

[AiyanaS]

I’m not a “conservative Catholic”. Conservative would imply the taking of a particular position from a range of acceptable options.then.

Ok, very religious Catholic then.

This is God’s teaching that the Church affirms. So, I’m not taking a conservative position - I’m accepting the only possible position.

So you condone this child suffering? So, if you knew you’d have a child with EB, while still pregnant, you’d knowingly go through with the pregnancy even if you knew that child would only know pain there entire life, would suffer 3 hour bandage changes everyday for life, need a G-tube because they’d develop sores all along there esophagus, would probably die a very, very painful death and would have a body that looked like that poor child in the video?

 

[Rau]

So you condone this child suffering?

Imagine your 2 young children are held hostage by an evil terrorist. He requires you to take a gun, go next door to the kindergarten and shoot a child dead, and if you comply promises to release your children. If you do not - he will shoot your children. You refuse this heinous act. By so doing - do you “condone” the ensuing murder of your children? Of course not.

The answer to the question you put to me is - no, I don’t “condone” suffering. My choices are limited and murdering the child is not one of them. I accept you see yourself as having more (or different) moral options than Catholic moral theology allows, and you believe you choose the better option.

I should point out that in the first scenario above - the person whose ethics framework is consequentialism / proportionalism will reason that it is proper to accept the terrorists terms.

 

[AiyanaS]

Imagine your 2 young children are held hostage by an evil terrorist. He requires you to take a gun, go next door to the kindergarten and shoot a child dead, and if you comply promises to release your children. If you do not - he will shoot your children. You refuse this heinous act. By so doing - do you “condone” the ensuing murder of your children? Of course not.

Different and irrelevant scenario. An instant and quick death, by a gun shot to the head, no matter how terrible is not comparable to a person suffering a living death for years. Its like saying a person who dies instantly suffered to same pain as that guy who the Japanese kept alive for months in order to test the effects of radiation on humans, on him. He died of 5th degree burns, was literally a living piece of charcoal. I should have never asked the question if you condone the child’s suffering. I should’ve known you’d focus on that but not on the main question of my post, the long one about if you’d knowingly give birth to a EB child.

The answer to the question you put to me is - no, I don’t “condone” suffering. My choices are limited and murdering the child is not one of them. I accept you see yourself as having more (or different) moral options than Catholic moral theology allows, and you believe you choose the better option.

I should point out that in the first scenario above - the person whose ethics framework is consequentialism / proportionalism will reason that it is proper to accept the terrorists terms.

Can you please answer the main question, the one about the EB child.

 

[Rau]

Can you please answer the main question, the one about the EB child.

What question have I not answered?

 

[AiyanaS]

What question have I not answered?

The question:

If you knew you’d have a child with EB, while still pregnant, would you knowingly go through with the pregnancy even if you knew that child would only know pain there entire life, would suffer 3 hour bandage changes everyday for life, need a G-tube because they’d develop sores all along there esophagus, would probably die a very, very painful death and would have a body that looked like that poor child in the video?

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

And given that your a conservative Catholic, who sees the Churches teachings as absolute and not questionable, it’s obvious as well that you’d have no problem with parents knowingly giving birth to a child that they knew would live a life of pain equal to a 3rd degree burn victim and would be in pain 24/7, even in there sleep. After all, the growth a parent could experience in there faith and the impact that child would have on others (even if it is just listening to that child scream bloody murder during a 3 hour bandage change where it feels like there skins being ripped off) would sure make all that child pain worth it, right? Or, the “best” excuse I read on these forums in relation to rare genetic diseases, why would you deprive the siblings the joy and diversity a special needs sibling would bring?

Yes, bring a child into the world to suffer a cruel existence simply out of benefit for everyone else around them, as if a child living with level 5 - 10 pain everyday really cares about there impact on others. Too say that’s balanced out by the parents learning so much and growing as people from there child’s pain is just plain ignorant and disrespectful to the child at the center of the equation. And parents who think like that are a whole new level of selfish.

I’ve read stories of siblings of people with EB, and even though they loved there sister/brother, they said that they’d rather never have had a sibling versus growing up seeing watching and hearing what that sibling went through. I read of one guy whose brother died of EB around 23 - 25 years and he said that his brothers death and life was so horribly painful he would rather his brother never had been born rather than live life like that!

It also depends on the type and severity of a disease, as someone I read on here once got upset that someone was talking about contraception and abortion in relation to rare diseases, so they gave the whole speech of how if they’d listened to “the world” they wouldn’t have there blessing child, who had Down’s syndrome. Ok, you can’t compare Downs to a disease where a child’s body is covered in sores because there skin is so fragile is falls off! You also can’t compare it to a disease where a child’s body slowly breaks down and they turn into a vegetable (Crabbys disease), or they loose all muscle function and eventually die from an inability to breathe (muscular dystrophy), Or tumors (that can be malignant) grow all over there body (Neurofibromatosis). You can’t!

Also, to say “just give them pain medication”, would be ignorant because the body builds tolerance to medications and the chemicals gradually destroy a persons kidneys and liver! Plus, who wants to live a life where there pain level is dictated by the clock, every 2, 3, 4 hours they need that pain pill? To just push that fact aside and give birth to a child knowing they’d be subjected to that is plain and simple: abuse! and a huge disservice to that baby who didn’t ask for a life like that. People like that are self serving, how the parents feel and there desire for a baby shouldn’t matter because it is the baby who will live that life, not there parents.

So, like I’ve said before watch the videos I posted before commenting but if you did and are still are promoting that it is best for a child to knowingly be born and live like that, that’s just sad. Those videos show just how inhumane EB is and exhibits a different kind of pain, one I hope no one on here ever knows.

Yes, because the people are opening there eyes and thinking for themselves instead of letting an organization tell them how to run there lives. I mean, they did that years ago but then the church made a law against witches which resulted in a lot of people being accused of witchcraft, particularly women and midwifes because they had the knowledge of birth regulation methods, and murdered as the secular courts and even religious ones went crazy burning “witches” at the stake. A law that contradicted the Catholic Churches own original ruling many years prior that believing in witches was a sin or something to that effect. The new law was created post- Black Plague after many people strayed from the church and lost there faith, and what better way to ensure population growth then scaring people into following teaching by threatening them with being burned at the stake and then an eternity in eternal torment.

Plus, science is more advanced and people don’t have to rely on superstition anymore.

It is a good thing Mary didn’t subscribe to the argument of “guaranteed pain” as a reason to abort a child. She would have aborted the Savior of the World, and should have, according to what you believe.

 

[e_c]

Different and irrelevant scenario. An instant and quick death, by a gun shot to the head, no matter how terrible is not comparable to a person suffering a living death for years. Its like saying a person who dies instantly suffered to same pain as that guy who the Japanese kept alive for months in order to test the effects of radiation on humans, on him. He died of 5th degree burns, was literally a living piece of charcoal. I should have never asked the question if you condone the child’s suffering. I should’ve known you’d focus on that but not on the main question of my post, the long one about if you’d knowingly give birth to a EB child.

Rau has presented a scenario that is identical in its structure in the following way:

If x person is killed, y bad thing will not happen.

If x person is not killed, y bad thing will happen.

Make the y-term in Rau’s scenario whatever you like… The point is clear to anyone extending good will: it is often counter to our intuitions that we are “morally allowed” to kill in order to prevent suffering when the people are outside the womb. So why the change when the person isn’t born yet, but still really exists as a human being?

You are limiting the scope of moral evaluation here to “what will probably happen.” Unless you are going to say that this is how it is in ALL moral decision-making, which is its own conversation full of inescapable problems for anyone wishing to uphold a view of the world that is anything close to what would be called common sense, then you need to show why this particular case warrants the consequence-based treatment given to it as opposed to saying that it is always wrong for a private citizen to intend to kill someone because it is contrary to his nature as one lacking authority from God to kill.

 

[Rau]

The question:

If you knew you’d have a child with EB, while still pregnant, would you knowingly go through with the pregnancy even if you knew that child would only know pain there entire life, would suffer 3 hour bandage changes everyday for life, need a G-tube because they’d develop sores all along there esophagus, would probably die a very, very painful death and would have a body that looked like that poor child in the video?

All I know about this scenario is that the morally permissible options don’t include murdering the child - not after death nor before.

 

[ArielRussu]

Post Deleted

 

[Vico]

Ok, very religious Catholic then.

So you condone this child suffering? So, if you knew you’d have a child with EB, while still pregnant, you’d knowingly go through with the pregnancy even if you knew that child would only know pain there entire life, would suffer 3 hour bandage changes everyday for life, need a G-tube because they’d develop sores all along there esophagus, would probably die a very, very painful death and would have a body that looked like that poor child in the video?

Baltimore Catechsim

Q. 150. {6} Why did God make you? A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.

 

[Rau]

All I know about this scenario is that the morally permissible options don’t include murdering the child - not after -]death /-] [birth] nor before.

 

[AiyanaS]

All I know about this scenario is that the morally permissible options don’t include murdering the child - not after birth nor before.

It is never necessary to direct kill the baby to save the mothers life.

No. Abortion would be at best false compassion. And it is always wrong

It doesn’t matter what the reason is. Abortion is wrong. It is murder. Murder is not compassionate. Ever. No excuse at all can make abortion moral…

… Abortion isn’t ever the loving choice. It is evil

The point is clear to anyone extending good will: it is often counter and to our intuitions that we are “morally allowed” to kill in order to prevent suffering when the people are outside the womb. So why the change when the person isn’t born yet, but still really exists as a human being?

You are limiting the scope of moral evaluation here to “what will probably happen.” Unless you are going to say that this is how it is in ALL moral decision-making, which is its own conversation full of inescapable problems for anyone wishing to uphold a view of the world that is anything close to what would be called common sense, then you need to show why this particular case warrants the consequence-based treatment given to it as opposed to saying that it is always wrong for a private citizen to intend to kill someone because it is contrary to his nature as one lacking authority from God to kill.

Read:

"Under the watchful, evil eye of Dr. Josef Mengele, Perl realized that in order to save the lives of the women in her care, she could not safely deliver babies like Stanislawa. Instead, Perl performed abortions.
…
Upon arriving at Auschwitz, the Nazis separated Perl from the rest of her family. Her son would die in a gas chamber, and her husband would be beaten to death shortly before the camp was liberated. Perl was spared, only to become an Auschwitz physician under the notorious Josef Mengele.
…
**When Dr. Mengele realized that Perl had been trained in gynecology, however, he saw an opportunity to obtain information about which inmates had arrived pregnant.

In addition to his experiments on twins, Mengele also performed horrific experiments on pregnant women, including vivisection (experimentation and, in some cases, autopsy-like surgeries performed on living, waking humans).**

Mengele commanded Perl that she was to report all pregnancies to him directly. Pregnant women, he said, would be sent to a different camp – one with better care for mother and child. Having already seen the horrors that prisoners faced at the hands of the Nazis, Perl knew better than to believe him. She also knew that she couldn’t tell him about a single pregnancy.

Tragically, some women who overheard this conversation went to Mengele to tell him they were pregnant of their own volition. They were experimented on and, ultimately, died.​

Perl then faced an enormous ethical crisis: if she delivered the babies so near to where the Nazi physicians were, they would no doubt hear the infants’ cries and kill everyone in the barracks as punishment. If she turned the pregnant women in, they would die anyway — and after suffering at the hands of Mengele and his doctors.​

So, though it went against her teaching and the social code of the day, she began performing rudimentary abortions in the barracks. She had no tools, nothing to disinfect her hands and no pain relief of any kind.

“Hundreds of times I had premature deliveries,” she told The New York Times.** “No one will ever know what it meant to me to destroy those babies, but if I had not done it, both mother and child would have been cruelly murdered."**

**She thought she was doing the best that she could in the face of unimaginably awful circumstances. **As Perl wrote, the women she treated, “did not know that they would have to pay with their lives, and the lives of their unborn children, for that last, tender night spent in the arms of their husbands."

She soon rationalized that in Auschwitz and other concentration camps, the role of the Jewish doctor was not to heal, but to hasten death.​

After recuperating, Perl went to New York City in 1947, where she was interrogated on suspicion of assisting Nazi doctors. The testimony of inmates saved her. Said one survivor, “Without Dr. Perl’s medical knowledge and willingness to risk her life by helping us, it would be impossible to know what would have happened to me and to many other female prisoners.” "

Source: all-that-is-interesting.com/gisella-perl

Vivisection: the practice of performing operations on living creatures for the purpose of experimentation or scientific research.

Now, do y’all think what Perl did, performed abortions in Auschwitz in order to save the mom from being experimented on and killed, was unnecessary, wrong and uncompassionate?

 

[Vico]

Read:

"Under the watchful, evil eye of Dr. Josef Mengele, Perl realized that in order to save the lives of the women in her care, she could not safely deliver babies like Stanislawa. Instead, Perl performed abortions.
…
Upon arriving at Auschwitz, the Nazis separated Perl from the rest of her family. Her son would die in a gas chamber, and her husband would be beaten to death shortly before the camp was liberated. Perl was spared, only to become an Auschwitz physician under the notorious Josef Mengele.
…
**When Dr. Mengele realized that Perl had been trained in gynecology, however, he saw an opportunity to obtain information about which inmates had arrived pregnant.

In addition to his experiments on twins, Mengele also performed horrific experiments on pregnant women, including vivisection (experimentation and, in some cases, autopsy-like surgeries performed on living, waking humans).**

Mengele commanded Perl that she was to report all pregnancies to him directly. Pregnant women, he said, would be sent to a different camp – one with better care for mother and child. Having already seen the horrors that prisoners faced at the hands of the Nazis, Perl knew better than to believe him. She also knew that she couldn’t tell him about a single pregnancy.

Tragically, some women who overheard this conversation went to Mengele to tell him they were pregnant of their own volition. They were experimented on and, ultimately, died.​

Perl then faced an enormous ethical crisis: if she delivered the babies so near to where the Nazi physicians were, they would no doubt hear the infants’ cries and kill everyone in the barracks as punishment. If she turned the pregnant women in, they would die anyway — and after suffering at the hands of Mengele and his doctors.​

So, though it went against her teaching and the social code of the day, she began performing rudimentary abortions in the barracks. She had no tools, nothing to disinfect her hands and no pain relief of any kind.

“Hundreds of times I had premature deliveries,” she told The New York Times.** “No one will ever know what it meant to me to destroy those babies, but if I had not done it, both mother and child would have been cruelly murdered."**

**She thought she was doing the best that she could in the face of unimaginably awful circumstances. **As Perl wrote, the women she treated, “did not know that they would have to pay with their lives, and the lives of their unborn children, for that last, tender night spent in the arms of their husbands."

She soon rationalized that in Auschwitz and other concentration camps, the role of the Jewish doctor was not to heal, but to hasten death.​

After recuperating, Perl went to New York City in 1947, where she was interrogated on suspicion of assisting Nazi doctors. The testimony of inmates saved her. Said one survivor, “Without Dr. Perl’s medical knowledge and willingness to risk her life by helping us, it would be impossible to know what would have happened to me and to many other female prisoners.” "

Source: all-that-is-interesting.com/gisella-perl

Vivisection: the practice of performing operations on living creatures for the purpose of experimentation or scientific research.

Now, do y’all think what Perl did, performed abortions in Auschwitz in order to save the mom from being experimented on and killed, was unnecessary, wrong and uncompassionate?

It sometimes temporarily saved the lives of the women while certainly killing their babies. What is intrinsically evil should not be done.

«Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish” (Didaché, 2:2). “God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes” (Vatican Council II, Gaudium et Spes, 51).

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20090711_aborto-procurato_en.html

 

[Rau]

It sometimes temporarily saved the lives of the women while certainly killing their babies. What is intrinsically evil should not be done.

«Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish” (Didaché, 2:2). “God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes” (Vatican Council II, Gaudium et Spes, 51).

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20090711_aborto-procurato_en.html

Of course the fact that the child is unborn does really not distinguish the moral situation. Any kind of “mercy killing” would seem to fall foul of the same moral prohibition, notwithstanding the good intention.

 

[Rau]

…Now, do y’all think what Perl did, performed abortions in Auschwitz in order to save the mom from being experimented on and killed, was unnecessary, **wrong **and uncompassionate?

You ask whether Perl’s acts were each of 3 things. I answer as follows:

1. Perl’s actions may well have been necessary to bring about the ends that she sought - saving the mother’s life and saving her from suffering.
2. Mercy killings remain objectively morally **wrong **in catholic moral theology. [Under a consequentialism or proportionalism system of ethics/morality - which prior posts suggest is the one to which you subscribe - they can be readily justified.]
3. Perl’s actions were almost certainly motivated by compassion and good intention.

Pope JP II addressed Euthanasia in Evangelium Vitae:

“Euthanasia in the strict sense is understood to be an action or omission which of itself and by intention causes death, with the purpose of eliminating all suffering. “Euthanasia’s terms of reference, therefore, are to be found in the intention of the will and in the methods used”…in harmony with the Magisterium of my Predecessors 81 and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.”
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

The Catechism captures the strength of conviction attached to the prohibition on the deliberate taking of innocent life when it says (1753):

“Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation.”

 

[AiyanaS]

You ask whether Perl’s acts were each of 3 things. I answer as follows:

1. Perl’s actions may well have been necessary to bring about the ends that she sought - saving the mother’s life and saving her from suffering.
2. Mercy killings remain objectively morally **wrong **in catholic moral theology. [Under a consequentialism or proportionalism system of ethics/morality - which prior posts suggest is the one to which you subscribe - they can be readily justified.]
3. Perl’s actions were almost certainly motivated by compassion and good intention.

Pope JP II addressed Euthanasia in Evangelium Vitae:

“Euthanasia in the strict sense is understood to be an action or omission which of itself and by intention causes death, with the purpose of eliminating all suffering. “Euthanasia’s terms of reference, therefore, are to be found in the intention of the will and in the methods used”…in harmony with the Magisterium of my Predecessors 81 and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.”
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

The Catechism captures the strength of conviction attached to the prohibition on the deliberate taking of innocent life when it says (1753):

“Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation.”

Then thankfully for those women, Perl was strong enough too make the touch call, put aside her feelings and beliefs to do what was right. For, the alternative of not doing anything and reporting the pregnancy meant the pregnant women would’ve been cut open and dissected ALIVE, like a science experiment so there fetus could be examined by the Nazi’s.

Then again, you (and anyone else disagreeing with Perls choices because they weren’t Catholic) are just reading an article, it’s not like y’all had to hear the sound of those “operations” or see the naked and mangled corpses of the no longer pregnant moms being wheeled out in a barrel to be cremated and/or buried. It’s not like y’all the ones who discovered those women were pregnant and knew the consequences to those women if Mengele ever found out. It’s not y’all are the ones who will carry for the rest of your lives, the look in those women’s eyes, the sound of there voice at the time y’all discovered there fate was “sealed”, and the knowledge that y’all could’ve done something.

For if y’all didn’t do anything and didn’t tell Mengele, y’all, those moms and babies would have died instead of just the baby, and there would be no one to stand up and help the other moms who found themselves in that situation. It’s not like Perl was happy about doing what she did, the reality of having to abort those unborn babies and smother others to save everyone else in the barracks around her, haunted Perl the rest of her life but the looks on the faces of the women she save reassured her, she made the right thing.

But maybe the death of all 3 would have been the most preferable option for most Catholics on this forum?

Just trying to prove a point, not trying to sound rude or mean. I realize writing can come across the way.

 

[Vico]

Of course the fact that the child is unborn does really not distinguish the moral situation. Any kind of “mercy killing” would seem to fall foul of the same moral prohibition, notwithstanding the good intention.

So they include infanticide there also.