Nun Automatically Excommunicated For Approving Abortion

[Alan55]

The attached article tells the story a bit more objectively:

irishcentral.com/news/Irish-nun-excommunicated-after-abortion-to-save-mother-decision-93880384.html

The doctors caring for the pregnant woman and her hospital’s ethics committee, finding the situation “urgent,” agreed that the abortion was necessary to save the life of the woman.

 

[mark_a]

Lets not be too quick to jump to conclusions here. It appears that this was a rather high stress medical situation and perhaps something of a misjudgement rather than a rejection of catholic teaching.

Best to leave it in the hands of the Diocese and her fiath community for now.

Peace
James

You have a good point. I’ve even heard apologists stumble over these questions and correct them later.

 

[catharina]

The attached article tells the story a bit more objectively:

irishcentral.com/news/Irish-nun-excommunicated-after-abortion-to-save-mother-decision-93880384.html

The doctors caring for the pregnant woman and her hospital’s ethics committee, finding the situation “urgent,” agreed that the abortion was necessary to save the life of the woman.

Nevertheless, the Catholic hospital had no right to provide an abortion. Ever.

Final comment in your article:

"“If there had been a way to save the pregnancy and still prevent the death of the mother, we would have done it,” the letter says. “We are convinced there was not.”

James J. Walter, professor of bioethics at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, told the Arizona Republic that a pregnancy couldn’t be terminated as a means to an end of saving the life of a mother who is suffering from a different condition.

Asked by the newspaper if the church position prefers the mother and child to die, rather than sparing the life of one of them, Walters said the hope is that both would survive."

An extremely ridiculous thing about the article (I read it yesterday) is that this article and most of the articles from European papers refer to M. McBride as an "Irish nun."  Yet she is neither Irish nor an nun.  She is an American Sister of Mercy - not a nun, never been a nun.  So much for your so-called "objectivity."

 

[Corki]

Nevertheless, the Catholic hospital had no right to provide an abortion. Ever.

The most troubling thing about this whole scenario is that no one - not the doctor, the nurses, the anesthesiologist, etc. - spoke up and said “NO!” This causes me to wonder what the pervasive culture of the hospital acutally is.

 

[choy]

perhaps because everyone believed the abortion to be a necessity, they wouldn’t question it

i think the Church should investigate further into the circumstance and see if it was indeed an only option to save the mother’s life

 

[catharina]

The most troubling thing about this whole scenario is that no one - not the doctor, the nurses, the anesthesiologist, etc. - spoke up and said “NO!” This causes me to wonder what the pervasive culture of the hospital acutally is.

As troubling is that it seems this entire thing was held “secret” until now.

 

[catharina]

perhaps because everyone believed the abortion to be a necessity, they wouldn’t question it

i think the Church should investigate further into the circumstance and see if it was indeed an only option to save the mother’s life

Yet “necessary” or not, this could not morally be allowed at a Catholic hospital.

Even if investigation holds to “necessity” the necessity would require patient-transfer.

If there was time for the Ethics Committee to take a meeting about this,
then there was time to transfer-out the patient who was asking for abortion.

 

[Corki]

As troubling is that it seems this entire thing was held “secret” until now.

Which points to them knowing it was wrong and that there would be repercussions if if was made known. So sad for everyone involved. So sad for the Church.

 

[catharina]

Which points to them knowing it was wrong and that there would be repercussions if if was made known. So sad for everyone involved. So sad for the Church.

Very true.
So sad too for the expectant mother and her family.

 

[catharina]

A few quotes from St. Gianna who saved the life of her baby in utero, as cancer killed her.
St. Gianna died when her infant daughter was 7 days old.

“Whatever God wants”.

“If one were to consider how much Jesus has suffered, one would not commit the smallest sin”.

“When one does one’s own duty, one must not be concerned, because God’s help will not be lacking”.

“Our body is a cenacle, a monstrance: through its crystal the world should see God”.

“The secret of happiness is to live moment by moment and to thank God for all that He, in His goodness, sends to us day after day”.

“God’s Providence is in all things, it’s always present”.

“Lord, keep Your grace in my heart. Live in me so that Your grace be mine. Make it that I may bear every day some flowers and new fruit”.

“One earns Paradise with one’s daily task”.

“Why do you not succeed in doing good? It’s because you do not pray enough”.

“Also in suffering, let us say: Thanks be to God”.

 

[catharina]

St Gianna Beretta Molla was
a physician,
a working mom,
professional woman,
and a loving wife.

Now she is a canonized Saint.

website of St. Gianna Beretta Molla

saintgianna.org/main.htm

 

[Musician]

I am a bit puzzled here. The woman had pulmonary hypertension. Any additional stress on her system would kill her. The physicians had little choice but to try to save the life of one of these victims. An abortion is allowed in the case of ectopic pregnancy; why not in this case?

 

[catharina]

I am a bit puzzled here. The woman had pulmonary hypertension. Any additional stress on her system would kill her. The physicians had little choice but to try to save the life of one of these victims. An abortion is allowed in the case of ectopic pregnancy; why not in this case?

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.

Furthermore, since this happened in a Catholic hospital, every member of the Ethics Committee must have been well aware of the fact that they were acting against Catholic values. Even the ‘sister’ who is Board Chair gave the same excuse, “we were saving the mother.” Saving the mother by killing the baby is forbidden. Our lives come from God and it is for God to determine the course and ending of our lives.

From the initial article in this thread:

"Board Chairwoman Sister Judith Carle, apparently unaware of above Catholic teaching, along with President and CEO Lloyd Dean, appealed to Bishop Olmstead.

“If there had been a way to save the pregnancy and still prevent the death of the mother, we would have done it,” the letter says. “We are convinced there was not.”

Basically Sister Judith Carle could have cared less for the innocent unborn child violating Catholic Church teaching, ie, the Fifth Commandment as well as the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services."

A decision was made/defended that stands against all Catholic teaching on abortion.

 

[CDelphine]

I am a bit puzzled here. The woman had pulmonary hypertension. Any additional stress on her system would kill her. The physicians had little choice but to try to save the life of one of these victims. An abortion is allowed in the case of ectopic pregnancy; why not in this case?

Hi Musician – just attempting to clarify things here:
An abortion is not allowed in the case of ectopic pregnancy. Abortion is the direct killing of a fetus (whether in utero or in a fallopian tube). The action in the case of abortion is directly on the fetus.
What the Church allows is the treatment of the ectopic pregnancy by surgical removal of the fallopian tube. The direct action in this case is the removal of a diseased tube. The secondary effect of this action is that the baby (fetus) dies.
These comments are directed more generally:
I know that this can seem like splitting hairs, like a ‘gray area’, like a very ‘nuanced situation’ (or any number of metaphors to describe the ethical situation). It’s particularly difficult when our compassion is pulled in so many directions (in this case, to Mom, baby, family, future fertility…)
But that’s precisely why it’s imperative to have Catholic hospital administrators who know their stuff. I know that the OP has characterized this situation as ‘simple’. But it’s not. It’s complex medically, ethically and philosophically. (I mean the basis of the Church’s teaching here is Thomistic philosophy – not easy stuff).
But again, our Catholic hospital officials should be so well-versed in this that they make the right decision, even when it hurts, even when it confuses our sense of compassion, even when it confuses our sense of what is medically expedient… This should not have happened at a Catholic hospital. We really need to keep these administrators in our prayers, and be supportive of them in a way that strengthens their resolve to do the right thing every time.

 

[CDelphine]

Basically Sister Judith Carle could have cared less for the innocent unborn child violating Catholic Church teaching, ie, the Fifth Commandment as well as the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services."

Again, Catharina, you’re overstepping your bounds in attempting to characterize her thoughts, conscience, and mind here. What we know is this: Sister Judith Carle made a gravely WRONG decision. The effects of that decision are tragic and horrible. Beyond that, we’re just making judgments on her conscience and soul.

 

[Alan55]

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.

Furthermore, since this happened in a Catholic hospital, every member of the Ethics Committee must have been well aware of the fact that they were acting against Catholic values. Even the ‘sister’ who is Board Chair gave the same excuse, “we were saving the mother.” Saving the mother by killing the baby is forbidden. Our lives come from God and it is for God to determine the course and ending of our lives.

From the initial article in this thread:

"Board Chairwoman Sister Judith Carle, apparently unaware of above Catholic teaching, along with President and CEO Lloyd Dean, appealed to Bishop Olmstead.

“If there had been a way to save the pregnancy and still prevent the death of the mother, we would have done it,” the letter says. “We are convinced there was not.”

Basically Sister Judith Carle could have cared less for the innocent unborn child violating Catholic Church teaching, ie, the Fifth Commandment as well as the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services."

A decision was made/defended that stands against all Catholic teaching on abortion.

It is not the case that abortion is always impermissible.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement in 2001 entitled Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition. In this they state: “Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child (no. 47).”

What is not permitted is so-called “direct abortion,” which has as its intended purpose terminating a pregnancy, as contrasted with “indirect abortion” in which the death of the fetus is not directly sought but is an indirect result of, for example, an attempt to save the life of the mother, as in terminating an ectopic pregnancy.

What is so disturbing in the posts in this thread is the desire to paint the hospital, the doctors, and the nun who is the focus of the bishops statement as not caring about the unborn child or being unaware of, or worse rejecting, Church teaching. There are far too many people, including not a few bishops, who sin against charity and show no regard for the truth (through unwarranted assumptions and a failure to fully understand through investigating the facts) in their defense of Church teaching. The fact is that in health care there are lots of situations that don’t fit into our neat categories. I’d be willing to bet that the ethics committee, the doctors, and the nun involved in this story agonized over this decision and attempted to follow Church teaching.

 

[catharina]

Again, Catharina, you’re overstepping your bounds in attempting to characterize her thoughts, conscience, and mind here. What we know is this: Sister Judith Carle made a gravely WRONG decision. The effects of that decision are tragic and horrible. Beyond that, we’re just making judgments on her conscience and soul.

Excuse me?
Pay attention.
That is a direct quote from an article.
Read it again, oh do.

"From the initial article in this thread:

"Board Chairwoman Sister Judith Carle, apparently unaware of above Catholic teaching, along with President and CEO Lloyd Dean, appealed to Bishop Olmstead.

“If there had been a way to save the pregnancy and still prevent the death of the mother, we would have done it,” the letter says. “We are convinced there was not.”

Basically Sister Judith Carle could have cared less for the innocent unborn child violating Catholic Church teaching, ie, the Fifth Commandment as well as the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.""

 

[catharina]

It is not the case that abortion is always impermissible.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement in 2001 entitled Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition. In this they state: “Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child (no. 47).”

What is not permitted is so-called “direct abortion,” which has as its intended purpose terminating a pregnancy, as contrasted with “indirect abortion” in which the death of the fetus is not directly sought but is an indirect result of, for example, an attempt to save the life of the mother, as in terminating an ectopic pregnancy.

What is so disturbing in the posts in this thread is the desire to paint the hospital, the doctors, and the nun who is the focus of the bishops statement as not caring about the unborn child or being unaware of, or worse rejecting, Church teaching. There are far too many people, including not a few bishops, who sin against charity and show no regard for the truth (through unwarranted assumptions and a failure to fully understand through investigating the facts) in their defense of Church teaching. The fact is that in health care there are lots of situations that don’t fit into our neat categories. I’d be willing to bet that the ethics committee, the doctors, and the nun involved in this story agonized over this decision and attempted to follow Church teaching.

AGAIN, abortion is NEVER allowed. That is the Catholic Teaching. It is unmovable.
Abortion is the direct killing of a child in the womb.

If a child dies as a secondary result of medical treatment (e.g, for uterine cancer), ok.
Abortion with the direct goal of killing the unborn is verboten. ALWAYS.

 

[CDelphine]

What is not permitted is so-called “direct abortion,” which has as its intended purpose terminating a pregnancy, as contrasted with “indirect abortion” in which the death of the fetus is not directly sought but is an indirect result of, for example, an attempt to save the life of the mother, as in terminating an ectopic pregnancy.

Alan55- thanks for this. In my own post above, I should have differentiated between direct abortion and indirect abortion. If i may, I do want to tweak your last point above, only in order to emphasize this distinction:
“but is an indirect result of, for example, an attempt to save the life of the mother, as in terminating an ectopic pregnancy.” For ethical purposes, the direct action taken (in an attempt to save the mom’s life) is not termination the ectopic pregnancy. The direct medical action taken is the removal of the diseased tube.

Thanks again for the references and the distinction between direct and indirect abortion.

 

[CDelphine]

Excuse me?
Pay attention.
That is a direct quote from an article.
Read it again, oh do.

"From the initial article in this thread:

"Board Chairwoman Sister Judith Carle, apparently unaware of above Catholic teaching, along with President and CEO Lloyd Dean, appealed to Bishop Olmstead.

“If there had been a way to save the pregnancy and still prevent the death of the mother, we would have done it,” the letter says. “We are convinced there was not.”

Basically Sister Judith Carle could have cared less for the innocent unborn child violating Catholic Church teaching, ie, the Fifth Commandment as well as the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.""

Catharina, my attention is intact and fixed not only on the facts, but on the charity we are called to as Catholic Christians.
A direct quote is when words are taken, verbatim, from an article or other source and reproduced exactly as they initially appeared. This is a direct quote:
“Board Chairwoman Sister Judith Carle, apparently unaware of above Catholic teaching…” And may I add that it is a charitable statement as well – the writer is presuming that she was ‘unaware’ of Catholic teaching, as opposed to* a presumption that she knew *“and could have cared less for the innocent unborn child.” The latter is NOT a direct quote.