Nun Automatically Excommunicated For Approving Abortion

[Tantum_ergo]

“Gray area”? You mean where the clear and persistent moral (and infallible) teaching of the Church can be ignored based on ‘situation’? I don’t think so.

Gray area meaning where the clear, persistent moral and infallible teaching is understood to be still clear, persistent moral and infallible teaching, but the situation is extremely rare or ‘complicated’. . .such that the Church, while still and always upholding the teaching which cannot change, examines the particular rare situation with great care to see what if anything morally CAN be done that may not have been thoroughly considered. . .THAT we can accept. Medical advances of the last century have given us situations that would not have existed 100 years ago. . .but you’ll note the Church has consistently maintained its teachings.

While ‘extraordinary’ interventions are not required, for example, to ‘maintain life’ in the face of a terminal illness, ordinary interventions still are. One may NOT withhold food and water which are ordinary interventions. The only exception would be for a patient who could no longer take food/water orally and would require something extraordinary such as a PEG tube, J tube, etc. where the maintenance of giving food and water by such artificial extraordinary means COULD be morally seen as no longer ‘ordinary’ but ‘extraordinary’ and as such, not required. There is NO CHANGE in the Church’s teachings even though ‘newness’ of medical advances which have led to the situation lead to complex cases.

 

[seekerz]

“Gray area”? You mean where the clear and persistent moral (and infallible) teaching of the Church can be ignored based on ‘situation’? I don’t think so.

Gray area meaning where the clear, persistent moral and infallible teaching is understood to be still clear, persistent moral and infallible teaching, but the situation is extremely rare or ‘complicated’. . .such that the Church, while still and always upholding the teaching which cannot change, examines the particular rare situation with great care to see what if anything morally CAN be done that may not have been thoroughly considered. . .THAT we can accept. Medical advances of the last century have given us situations that would not have existed 100 years ago. . .but you’ll note the Church has consistently maintained its teachings.

While ‘extraordinary’ interventions are not required, for example, to ‘maintain life’ in the face of a terminal illness, ordinary interventions still are. One may NOT withhold food and water which are ordinary interventions. The only exception would be for a patient who could no longer take food/water orally and would require something extraordinary such as a PEG tube, J tube, etc. where the maintenance of giving food and water by such artificial extraordinary means COULD be morally seen as no longer ‘ordinary’ but ‘extraordinary’ and as such, not required. There is NO CHANGE in the Church’s teachings even though ‘newness’ of medical advances which have led to the situation lead to complex cases.

The Church’s teaching have undoubtedly remained unchanged - their practical application has not. Which is why I keep going back to treatment of ectopic pregnancies where surgical treatment before rupture was once considered illicit.

Direct abortion is always illicit, but practically applied, what does that mean? I have read of cases in South America where doctors fear to induce delivery in women with grossly infected pre-viable pregnancies (even if that is the only known treatment, along with antibiotics) because they are afraid of being arrested for abortion, yet I’ve never heard of Catholics here being excommunicated for accepting such treatment!

 

[catharina]

The Church’s teaching have undoubtedly remained unchanged - their practical application has not. Which is why I keep going back to treatment of ectopic pregnancies where surgical treatment before rupture was once considered illicit.

Direct abortion is always illicit, but practically applied, what does that mean? I have read of cases in South America where doctors fear to induce delivery in women with grossly infected pre-viable pregnancies (even if that is the only known treatment, along with antibiotics) because they are afraid of being arrested for abortion, yet I’ve never heard of Catholics here being excommunicated for accepting such treatment!

Yet they are and it’s an automatic action.
No grey area there.

You seem to believe that if you don’t know of it, it doesn’t exist.
Interesting maybe, but completely irrelevant.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The Church’s teaching have undoubtedly remained unchanged - their practical application has not. Which is why I keep going back to treatment of ectopic pregnancies where surgical treatment before rupture was once considered illicit.

Direct abortion is always illicit, but practically applied, what does that mean? I have read of cases in South America where doctors fear to induce delivery in women with grossly infected pre-viable pregnancies (even if that is the only known treatment, along with antibiotics) because they are afraid of being arrested for abortion, yet I’ve never heard of Catholics here being excommunicated for accepting such treatment!

But the practical application does not mean a change in the Church teaching by any means. Prior to anesthesia and antibiotics, many surgical treatments would have without fail resulted in death and thus would have been morally illicit. With the anesthesia/antibiotics, since death would no longer be the invariable result, the treatments would be licit. There is no change in the teaching.

And ‘reading of cases’ is problematic. You’re going on unsubstantiated ‘readings’ and attempting to correlate them with U.S. treatment. You need to have some real direct facts, (where are you reading this? In medical journals? In the original language? Is it possible that in certain places in Brazil where medical treatment and supplies are way below that of the U.S. that treatments which would be ‘normal’ in the U.S. would not be possible, or would be dangerous, in Brazil? Could THAT be the reason for doctors being ‘hesitant’ to perform a procedure?

 

[JReducation]

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?

It is the role of science to stay on top of medical issues and solutions. It is the role of the Church to tell the medical community which solutions are in compliance with Divjne Revelationa and point to those that are not. The Chuch’s actual role is to be knowledgeable of Divine Revelation, not medicine. Because she must speak to the medical community about revelation.

Whether or not the medical community is Catholic or other, this does not change what has been Divinely revealed. The fulness of truth subsists within the Catholic Church and in no other place. So the fact that Jew or Lutheran does not agree with Church teaching on this matter does not save his soul. Disagreement is not an excuse. It may mitigate the culpability, but it does not take it away or lesson the gravity of the act. Once God has revealed truth, it is applicable to all, even those who do not want to accept it. The Church does have the authority to share it with all. Once she does, they can accept it or reject it as their own risk of eternal damnation or salvation.

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?

Once life has been conceived, this issue becomes secondary. The primary issue now is not the life and health of the mother. The primary issue now is compliance with Divine Revelation. We cannot deviate from what has been revealed. All life is sacred and we may not choose between two lives.

This issue can be a good subject case for the medical community to work on before anothe pregnancy happens.

[qutoe] 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.

In such cases there are two options. First, if the organ is a threat to a woman’s health, it can be removed. In that case the act is to cure an illness, not to take a life. You cannot take out the organ to prevent pregnancy. For that there is Natural Family Planning. You can only take out the organ because it’s a threat to the mother. But if the organ can stay in the body without killing the mother as long as she does not become pregnant, then the higher good is to use NFP.

We must always go for the higher good, not the lesser of two evils. When we choose the lesser of two evils,then we’re still choosing evil. Who decides what is the higher good? That’s teh competency of the Church and her bishops. It is only when they have not spoken on such an issue, that we must apply to our conscience.

But on the issue of abortion Divine Revelation is very clear and has been repeated over and over again. The last authoritative explanation of this revealed truth was John Paul’s Gospel of Life. (Evangelium Vitae).

If we read it again, he states again, that there is NEVER an exception for abortion. Catholics cannot contemplate exceptions when the Church as infallibly stated that there is none.

Some have compared this to the just war theory. There is a difference here. Even the just war theory has rules. You may not shoot to kill innocents or unarmed people. You can only shoot to kill someone who is a direct threat to you. You can only repel an aggressor, not a non aggressor. That’s why the invasion of Iraq did not pass the just war test and the Holy Father condemned it. You must wait to be attacked.

The fetus is not attacking the mother. The mother and the fetus are being attacked by a condition that is not normally part of a pregnancy. If you cannot do anything to save both lives, the Church has a duty to tell you what your moral obligation is in this case. Your moral obilgation it to God first, not man. God does not want you to attack the life of mother or infant. He demands that you let him act according to his plan. You have a duty to make both mother and child as comfortable as possible, if that’s all that you can do.

Maybe you can say that God is being cold and unfair. So be it. I think this is the real problem. We find it easier to attack the messenger (the Church) than to attack the law-giver (God). We don’t want to say that God is being cold. So we try to forget that he made up the rules, not the Church. Then we go after the Church. That’s not fair either. The Church was not there from all eternity. She found out about these rules through revelation, after they were already rules in the mind of God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[seekerz]

But the practical application does not mean a change in the Church teaching by any means. Prior to anesthesia and antibiotics, many surgical treatments would have without fail resulted in death and thus would have been morally illicit. With the anesthesia/antibiotics, since death would no longer be the invariable result, the treatments would be licit. There is no change in the teaching.

And ‘reading of cases’ is problematic. You’re going on unsubstantiated ‘readings’ and attempting to correlate them with U.S. treatment. You need to have some real direct facts, (where are you reading this? In medical journals? In the original language? Is it possible that in certain places in Brazil where medical treatment and supplies are way below that of the U.S. that treatments which would be ‘normal’ in the U.S. would not be possible, or would be dangerous, in Brazil? Could THAT be the reason for doctors being ‘hesitant’ to perform a procedure?

I have agreed with you that the teachings remain unchanged. In the example I gave, with or without antibiotics a previable baby WILL die simply because it is not mature enough to live outside the womb. It cannot live inside the infected uterus either, so it’s removal could possibly be regarded as ‘treatment’ even though it is certain to result in death. The mother, on the other hand can be saved with delivery and antibiotics. This condition is not uncommon, here or elsewhere. The question is, would such treatment be regarded as licit by the Church or as a direct abortion?

 

[JReducation]

The Church’s teaching have undoubtedly remained unchanged - their practical application has not. Which is why I keep going back to treatment of ectopic pregnancies where surgical treatment before rupture was once considered illicit.

Direct abortion is always illicit, but practically applied, what does that mean? I have read of cases in South America where doctors fear to induce delivery in women with grossly infected pre-viable pregnancies (even if that is the only known treatment, along with antibiotics) because they are afraid of being arrested for abortion, yet I’ve never heard of Catholics here being excommunicated for accepting such treatment!

Go to this site and there are many links to different Church documents on this question.

www.respectlifemiami.org .

Also check out Evangelium Vitae. There is not exception. It defines abortion is a direct attack on the child. The moment you lay hands on that child, you are committing murder.

In an ectopic pregnancy, you are removing the tube with the child inside. You are not removing the child from the tube, its natural enviornment (for him). You are allowing natural law to take its course.

Once you go after the child, you are murdering him. Even though this child will die, you are accelerating his death. It’s like euthanasia. We’re all going to die. You just can’t accelerate someone’s death. You are allowed to let someone die a natural death. That’s not immoral as long as you have done everything possible to save the life and run out of resources.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[seekerz]

It is the role of science to stay on top of medical issues and solutions. It is the role of the Church to tell the medical community which solutions are in compliance with Divjne Revelationa and point to those that are not. The Chuch’s actual role is to be knowledgeable of Divine Revelation, not medicine. Because she must speak to the medical community about revelation.

Whether or not the medical community is Catholic or other, this does not change what has been Divinely revealed. The fulness of truth subsists within the Catholic Church and in no other place. So the fact that Jew or Lutheran does not agree with Church teaching on this matter does not save his soul. Disagreement is not an excuse. It may mitigate the culpability, but it does not take it away or lesson the gravity of the act. Once God has revealed truth, it is applicable to all, even those who do not want to accept it. The Church does have the authority to share it with all. Once she does, they can accept it or reject it as their own risk of eternal damnation or salvation.

Once life has been conceived, this issue becomes secondary. The primary issue now is not the life and health of the mother. The primary issue now is compliance with Divine Revelation. We cannot deviate from what has been revealed. All life is sacred and we may not choose between two lives.

This issue can be a good subject case for the medical community to work on before anothe pregnancy happens.

[qutoe] 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.

In such cases there are two options. First, if the organ is a threat to a woman’s health, it can be removed. In that case the act is to cure an illness, not to take a life. You cannot take out the organ to prevent pregnancy. For that there is Natural Family Planning. You can only take out the organ because it’s a threat to the mother. But if the organ can stay in the body without killing the mother as long as she does not become pregnant, then the higher good is to use NFP.

We must always go for the higher good, not the lesser of two evils. When we choose the lesser of two evils,then we’re still choosing evil. Who decides what is the higher good? That’s teh competency of the Church and her bishops. It is only when they have not spoken on such an issue, that we must apply to our conscience.

But on the issue of abortion Divine Revelation is very clear and has been repeated over and over again. The last authoritative explanation of this revealed truth was John Paul’s Gospel of Life. (Evangelium Vitae).

If we read it again, he states again, that there is NEVER an exception for abortion. Catholics cannot contemplate exceptions when the Church as infallibly stated that there is none.

Some have compared this to the just war theory. There is a difference here. Even the just war theory has rules. You may not shoot to kill innocents or unarmed people. You can only shoot to kill someone who is a direct threat to you. You can only repel an aggressor, not a non aggressor. That’s why the invasion of Iraq did not pass the just war test and the Holy Father condemned it. You must wait to be attacked.

The fetus is not attacking the mother. The mother and the fetus are being attacked by a condition that is not normally part of a pregnancy. If you cannot do anything to save both lives, the Church has a duty to tell you what your moral obligation is in this case. Your moral obilgation it to God first, not man. God does not want you to attack the life of mother or infant. He demands that you let him act according to his plan. You have a duty to make both mother and child as comfortable as possible, if that’s all that you can do.

Maybe you can say that God is being cold and unfair. So be it. I think this is the real problem. We find it easier to attack the messenger (the Church) than to attack the law-giver (God). We don’t want to say that God is being cold. So we try to forget that he made up the rules, not the Church. Then we go after the Church. That’s not fair either. The Church was not there from all eternity. She found out about these rules through revelation, after they were already rules in the mind of God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks for your in-depth response and I totally accept what you’re saying but you lost me with the organ removal comment. Is the organ you are referring to here the placenta?

 

[Santi2]

I have agreed with you that the teachings remain unchanged. In the example I gave, with or without antibiotics a previable baby WILL die simply because it is not mature enough to live outside the womb. It cannot live inside the infected uterus either, so it’s removal could possibly be regarded as ‘treatment’ even though it is certain to result in death. The mother, on the other hand can be saved with delivery and antibiotics. This condition is not uncommon, here or elsewhere. The question is, would such treatment be regarded as licit by the Church or as a direct abortion?

I already posted a link in reply to your query in a related topic. Seems to be the case that you have not read it. Once again, here it is albeit snipped:

…let the questioner remember that no acceleration of birth is licit unless it be done at a time, and in ways in which, according to the usual course of things, the life of the mother and the child be provided for". Ethics, then, and the Church agree in teaching that no action is lawful which directly destroys fetal life. It is also clear that extracting the living fetus before it is viable, is destroying its life as directly as it would be killing a grown man directly to plunge him into a medium in which he cannot live, and hold him there till he expires.

newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

 

[JReducation]

Thanks for your in-depth response and I totally accept what you’re saying but you lost me with the organ removal comment. Is the organ you are referring to here the placenta?

That is a very legitimate question. The placenta is an organ. Assuming that the placenta is the root of the problem the moral question must go something like this…

“If we take out the placenta, are we directly killing the child?”

The answer would be “yes.” Because the child is in the right place, unlike an etopic pregnancy. This would be a similar situation as when you take away a feeding tube. The person has a right to eat, get liguids and oxygen. The child has a right to feed, get liguids and oxygen. The placenta provides these things.

The ectopic tube does not provide these things that are a natural right.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[seekerz]

Go to this site and there are many links to different Church documents on this question.

www.respectlifemiami.org .

Also check out Evangelium Vitae. There is not exception. It defines abortion is a direct attack on the child. The moment you lay hands on that child, you are committing murder.

In an ectopic pregnancy, you are removing the tube with the child inside. You are not removing the child from the tube, its natural enviornment (for him). You are allowing natural law to take its course.

Once you go after the child, you are murdering him. Even though this child will die, you are accelerating his death. It’s like euthanasia. We’re all going to die. You just can’t accelerate someone’s death. You are allowed to let someone die a natural death. That’s not immoral as long as you have done everything possible to save the life and run out of resources.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Missed this response before.

Would the principle of double-effect then apply and a hysterectomy be licit?

 

[seekerz]

That is a very legitimate question. The placenta is an organ. Assuming that the placenta is the root of the problem the moral question must go something like this…

“If we take out the placenta, are we directly killing the child?”

The answer would be “yes.” Because the child is in the right place, unlike an etopic pregnancy. This would be a similar situation as when you take away a feeding tube. The person has a right to eat, get liguids and oxygen. The child has a right to feed, get liguids and oxygen. The placenta provides these things.

The ectopic tube does not provide these things that are a natural right.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Oh but the tube does provide these things (which is why the child is able to live in until it gets too big for the confined space). The blood supply of the tube takes oxygen and nutrients to the fetus, which is why I have never understood this as an example of indirect abortion. Once you cut out the tube and by necessity its blood supply, you are instantly cutting off oxygen and sustenance to the fetus. No different than pulling out a feeding tube it would seem.

 

[Rence]

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.

Oh that’s interesting. The billing clerk too? How was the billing clerk responsible for the abortion, or responsible for taking part in the abortion?

 

[seekerz]

Oh that’s interesting. The billing clerk too? How was the billing clerk responsible for the abortion, or responsible for taking part in the abortion?

Now that is taking it too far! How is a billing clerk to know if a D&C, drug administration or an induction of labor were carried out for legitimate reasons?

I was initially under the impression we were engaged in rational debate? But now I am firmly convinced that some posters here have absolutely no clue what they are talking about.

It’s as I said before: the truth is some Catholics do not accept any real distinction between direct and indirect abortion otherwise they would know that a billing clerk doesn’t necessarily have access to the information that would enable her to distinguish the two.

Shows the Church’s wisdom in leaving application of its principles to individual consciences - that’s probably the way it should always remain…

 

[Aramis]

Hello catharina;

Except in war, we don’t seem so bothered, when our troops kill in other countries.

Take care

Eric

The actual goal, normally, is to wound. It takes 6-8 soldiers to care for a wounded man; dead man takes care of himself. (Really, it’s 1-2 for a dead man.)

 

[Zatzat]

The actual goal, normally, is to wound. It takes 6-8 soldiers to care for a wounded man; dead man takes care of himself. (Really, it’s 1-2 for a dead man.)

Have you seen or read about a modern battle field, where war is being waged by a Western Nation?

I assure you, there is no intention or goal of wounding the enemy when an Apache, Artillery or an A-10 is raining down a relentless Steele storm from many miles away.

 

[Boxie]

Santi2;6658151:

God did not give us the authority to choose which life is more precious. It is not a matter of mother or child. Both are precious in God’s eyes. And, in extreme medical circumstances such as the woman’s in this case, when all that could be done for both has been done, the medical staff ought to have left the rest to God. If the mother had died because of the complications of a difficult pregnancy, then the mother’s extreme sacrifice and her conviction of faith that her life and that of her child’s are God’s, and His alone to decide upon, would only merit heavenly reward.
QUOTE]

The decision is the mothers, not you, not me, not the church. If you would like to kiss it up to God, then so be it, but others cannot compel a mother to Die trying?

I agree with you, it sounds like sadism to me. No one should have that right, that NUN was in the right , the church stinks if that is the way they think.Sadistical and Roman! Go tell the mod so he can get rid of a person who tells it like itshould be! No man should be able to say weather you live or die.God will avenge!

 

[JulieAA]

I need a little clarification here. What is the difference between what this nun did and what Nancy Pelosi and other pro-choice politicians do and say under their authority?

 

[catharina]

I need a little clarification here. What is the difference between what this nun did and what Nancy Pelosi and other pro-choice politicians do and say under their authority?

The sister gave her personal approval (authorization) to an abortion to be carried out in a Catholic hospital. To the best of our knowledge, politicians have not done that.

 

[JulieAA]

The sister gave her personal approval (authorization) to an abortion to be carried out in a Catholic hospital. To the best of our knowledge, politicians have not done that.

Thank you for the clarification; however, I guess I am a little dense here.

Nancy Pelosi has given her permission as the House Speaker to “fund” abortions, so I guess I still do not see the difference. If she grants the money, isn’t it the same?