Nun Automatically Excommunicated For Approving Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter catharina
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Apology accepted, Marc. I kind of figured you didn’t really mean what you said, had you read it “from the outside,” so to speak. You sound like a sincere person. God bless.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Apology accepted, Marc. I kind of figured you didn’t really mean what you said, had you read it “from the outside,” so to speak. You sound like a sincere person. God bless.
Click to expand...
Thank you!

A good lesson that logic is only useful when all the facts are known and when applied properly.

EDIT: I think I’ll start a thread about this in moral theology.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Not really. The scientific community includes Catholics and non-Catholics. It’s your belief that the Church’s moral authority reigns, but not theirs, not as a whole community. And your belief, and the belief of the entire Catholic church, does not bind the scientific community to agree with you that the Church has been given moral authority over it. Jewish morality does not coincide with Catholic morality when it comes to Life decisions, and yet Jews as a whole, and as a whole tradition, are among the most moral when it comes to the practice of medicine. (Not to mention, Jews make up a sizeable portion of the scientific community.) They are not bound by Catholic morality, and if you tell them that they will understandably laugh at the idea. (Or be offended.)

In addition, I have to say that there are so many areas in which the Church has been AWOL in modern medicine, and/or been Johnny-come-lately. I should have been on a Catholic ethical board, perhaps, years ago, when I was begging, pleading, for the church to get involved in the unconscionable, routine selling of sperm through sperm banks that are now out of control. Yet they were silent, and it was happening right under their noses. I could name other issues where there was extreme tardiness on the Church’s part, until things did get, have gotten out of hand.

To be viewed universally as “the” authority, an institution has to be comprehensive and timely, and the Church has been neither. And to say that it’s really not necessary to know the medical facts: Yes it is. It is necessary not only because pracitcal credibility is necessary as an element of authority, but because the very moral premises are dependent on the precise options available.
Click to expand...
The esential point is that all Catholics (in medicine and out) recognize
the absolute moral authority of the Church. It seems that many (some?) choose
to opt out of that embrace of truth.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
The thing is, the Church has already spoken infallibly. So we are bound to agree with her.
Click to expand...
She has given infallible guidance. She has no medical infallibility. I will add that the guidance that she gives assumes certain more simple scenarios that do not always surface as simply as posited. The guidance applies in the vast majority of cases. It’s the minority that concerns some.

Also, understand, as seekerz has said, that much of this is related to the advances in medicine. Years ago, but in my lifetime, women died in childbirth in this country much more often than perhaps many people realize. Further, risky pregnancies spontaneously aborted because early interventions were not known/possible to prevent that. Those pregnancies never got so far as to ever be in any moral dilemma in any operating room. In other words, it wasn’t a question of even saving one of the two – mother/child. The two of you went together, if you had a healthy enough pregnancy to carry it even part of the way. Now, saving preemies is routine, in most cases: that is also extremely modern. As science advances, the ethical dilemmas will multiply. That has already surfaced recently with the creation of artificial cells.

And the point is (as I said in my previous post), the scientific community will regard the Catholic Church as increasingly irrelevant as long as the Church refuses to become medically informed. (Whether they should value the Church’s posiitons or not.)
 
catharina said:
The esential point is that all Catholics (in medicine and out) recognize
the absolute moral authority of the Church. It seems that many (some?) choose
to opt out of that embrace of truth.
Click to expand...
I do embrace that truth. I embrace that truth in the light of medicine, because God asks me to apply truth, and to use my brain, or he would have emptied my brain of its cells.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
She has given infallible guidance. She has no medical infallibility. I will add that the guidance that she gives assumes certain more simple scenarios that do not always surface as simply as posited. The guidance applies in the vast majority of cases. It’s the minority that concerns some.

Also, understand, as seekerz has said, that much of this is related to the advances in medicine. Years ago, but in my lifetime, women died in childbirth in this country much more often than perhaps many people realize. Further, risky pregnancies spontaneously aborted because early interventions were not known/possible to prevent that. Those pregnancies never got so far as to ever be in any moral dilemma in any operating room. In other words, it wasn’t a question of even saving one of the two – mother/child. The two of you went together, if you had a healthy enough pregnancy to carry it even part of the way. Now, saving preemies is routine, in most cases: that is also extremely modern. As science advances, the ethical dilemmas will multiply. That has already surfaced recently with the creation of artificial cells.

And the point is (as I said in my previous post), the scientific community will regard the Catholic Church as increasingly irrelevant as long as the Church refuses to become medically informed. (Whether they should value the Church’s posiitons or not.)
Click to expand...
Why do you seem to believe that the Church is not medically informed? The Church has probably provided more medical care than most institutions in this country. Informed or not, direct killing of one to save another is forbidden. That principle is binding and it cannot change.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
I do embrace that truth. I embrace that truth in the light of medicine, because God asks me to apply truth, and to use my brain, or he would have emptied my brain of its cells.
Click to expand...
So you see morality and intellect in opposition to one another?
 
Let’s make one thing clear here. The topic of the thread is clearly stated by the OP.

Second, the Church’s teachings are not on trial here and may never be on trial. Catholic Answers is absolutely faithful to the teachings of the Church and does not allow the moral and doctrinal teachings of the Church to be placed on trial. They are what they are.

Please refrain from such discussion and stick to the topic of the thread. Disregard for the teachings of the Catholic Church or criticism of the same, can result in infractions for contempt of Catholicism.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Thomas Casey
Moderator
 
Thomas_Casey said:
Let’s make one thing clear here. The topic of the thread is clearly stated by the OP.

Second, the Church’s teachings are not on trial here and may never be on trial. Catholic Answers is absolutely faithful to the teachings of the Church and does not allow the moral and doctrinal teachings of the Church to be placed on trial. They are what they are.

Please refrain from such discussion and stick to the topic of the thread. Disregard for the teachings of the Catholic Church or criticism of the same, can result in infractions for contempt of Catholicism.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Thomas Casey
Moderator
Click to expand...
Why, thank you.
I’ve stated twice already that the topic does not spin out to inclusion of the criticisms.
Maybe you will be heard, since you are stating this as a moderator.

This thread has been a piece of work; truly exhausting, IMO.
 
catharina said:
So you see morality and intellect in opposition to one another?
Click to expand...
Not at all, and thank you for asking. I was referring to certain comments made by another poster – to wit, that it’s not really necessary to have medical facts in order to make morally binding statements about medical situations. That’s all. (It was in reference to the statement that the scientific community as a whole, not just Catholics, must be bound by Catholic moral theology.)

In any case, I don’t want to be accused of being off-topic. 🙂
 
But aren’t you saying that you believe that, in cases where it is absolutely necessary to save the Mother, abortion is allowed?

This is contrary to Church teaching, which states that abortion is ALWAYS wrong.
 
With respect, Marc, I think your question is reducing the situation to something simpler than it was, but further, I don’t want it to appear that I oppose Catholic teaching, because I don’t. I oppose certain understandings of Catholic teaching because I’ve been trained in Catholic teaching. Occasionally that teaching, and the scope of it beyond the Catholic world, is misunderstood, or misapplied, but again, I don’t want to burden anyone by extending the thread or being labeled “off-topic,” so I’ll continue this offline. 🙂
Bless you, E.
 
Fair enough. Perhaps you can continue this more on topic in the thread I set up in moral theology. I’m interested.
 
Hello catharina;
direct killing of one to save another is forbidden. That principle is binding and it cannot change.
Click to expand...
We seem to apply that principle to self defence, and just war, when we THINK others may try and kill us…

Tragically we do not seem to apply the same rules for the poor mother, whose own baby may have ended up killing her.

I agree that abortion is wrong, but it seems there are still gray areas, and medical staff are being put on the spot. I am sure the nun in question would have preferred to save both the mother and baby, I do not believe her intentions were evil.

Would Jesus forgive her?

Blessings

Eric
 
catharina said:
Abortion is never allowed. NEVER.
Treatment given in an ectopic preganancy is life-saving for the mother.
It is not an intentional killing of a baby.
The treatment given in this case was intentional killing of a baby.
Such action, killing a baby to save a mother, is never allowed by the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
The sister should have read the CIC… It specifies any participation in an abortion is grave sin and bears latae sentencae excommunication.

In giving that consent, no matter why, she, herself, excommunicated herself.

As did any catholics in the OR. Or in preop. And posibly billing, if they actually charge for it.
 
Eric_Hyom said:
Hello catharina;

We seem to apply that principle to self defence, and just war, when we THINK others may try and kill us…

Tragically we do not seem to apply the same rules for the poor mother, whose own baby may have ended up killing her.

I agree that abortion is wrong, but it seems there are still gray areas, and medical staff are being put on the spot. I am sure the nun in question would have preferred to save both the mother and baby, I do not believe her intentions were evil.

Would Jesus forgive her?

Blessings

Eric
Click to expand...
Sin is forgiven according to the just and merciful laws of God so:

If she repents and resolves never to repeat her actions,
if she enters the Sacrament of Reconciliation with such an attititude,
if she agrees and intends to do the penance assigned to her,
OR
if she miraculousy achieves a state of perfect contrtion at the moment of death
foregoing all of the above,

she’ll receive forgiveness.

I’m addressing your question in terms of Church Law,
not in the whimsical and possibly irreverent sense of “what would Jesus do?”
 
seekerz said:
Your answer illustrates to me exactly why the Church needs to make attempts to keep up with the advances in medicine in ruling on such matters. How can you state definitively that there was nothing wrong with the uterus? The lining of the uterus contributes to formation of the placenta; the placenta releases tons of hormones and other substances (some of which cause changes in the mother’s circulation for example) which can cause or worsen certain diseases in the mother…I’m not saying that was happening in this case, but how can you or a bishop or any non-medical person not at least consider the possibility that the placenta may be part of the pathology in any such case?

P.S. That is the very reason women with certain health conditions are told that further pregnancies may be fatal: the effect of the changes that pregnancy causes in the body may worsen their pre-existing conditions or cause recurrence of serious complications that they experienced in previous pregnancies. Some pregnancy complications are related to or caused by function or malfunction of the placenta.
Click to expand...
Hi JREducation,

Wonder if you’ve had the time to address this response to your post of yesterday…
 
Eric_Hyom said:
Hello catharina;

We seem to apply that principle to self defence, and just war, when we THINK others may try and kill us…

Tragically we do not seem to apply the same rules for the poor mother, whose own baby may have ended up killing her.

I agree that abortion is wrong, but it seems there are still gray areas, and medical staff are being put on the spot. I am sure the nun in question would have preferred to save both the mother and baby, I do not believe her intentions were evil.

Would Jesus forgive her?

Blessings

Eric
Click to expand...
How we apply the principles of the Church practically is at least equally important as whether we know them or can quote them. That’s where the gray areas (which some posters will not agree, exist) arise: in the application of accepted doctrine.
 
seekerz said:
How we apply the principles of the Church practically is at least equally important as whether we know them or can quote them. That’s where the gray areas (which some posters will not agree, exist) arise: in the application of accepted doctrine.
Click to expand...
There is no application of accepted doctrine that allows for direct abortion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top