Nun Automatically Excommunicated For Approving Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter catharina
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CDelphine said:
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.
Click to expand...
The quote is a direct quote and your attention is deficient.
AGAIN, the link:

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2514505/posts

You will read this IN THE LINKED ARTICLE.
BTW, with all your call to charity, your charity seems to be amiss in reference to me.

Click this freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2514505/posts
Really!

"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."

Are you going to continue to insist that I made this up?
Perhaps a friend will be willing to read it to you.
 
catharina said:
The quote is a direct quote and your attention is deficient.
AGAIN, the link:

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2514505/posts

You will read this IN THE LINKED ARTICLE.
BTW, with all your call to charity, your charity seems to be amiss in reference to me.

Click this freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2514505/posts
Really!

"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."

Are you going to continue to insist that I made this up?
Perhaps a friend will be willing to read it to you.
Click to expand...
I apologize Catharina. I attributed the last statement to you, and I shouldn’t have. It was, in fact, the original article that was uncharitable. I apologize for my own lack of charity, and hope that in the future you and I can engage in discourse that is civil, charitable, truthful, and not sarcastic. God Bless you!
 
CDelphine said:
I apologize Catharina. I attributed the last statement to you, and I shouldn’t have. It was, in fact, the original article that was uncharitable. I apologize for my own lack of charity, and hope that in the future you and I can engage in discourse that is civil, charitable, truthful, and not sarcastic. God Bless you!
Click to expand...
You accused me not once, but - how many times?
So the original article was uncharitable?
Contact the author and spare me your unjustified, judgmental wrath.

Am I truly offended?
YES.
Do I truly forgive you?
YES.

Please be much more careful in the future with me and with all other posters.
 
catharina said:
You accused me not once, but - how many times?
So the original article was uncharitable?
Contact the author and spare me your unjustified, judgmental wrath.

Am I truly offended?
YES.
Do I truly forgive you?
YES.

Please be much more careful in the future with me and with all other posters.
Click to expand...
I will contact the author, Catharina, and you will never hear from me again.
 
catharina said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think we agree. Abortion is allowed under certain circumstances, where the death of the unborn child is a secondary result of medical treatment. However “direct abortion” is not allowed.
 
catharina said:
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.""
Click to expand...
You didn’t read the article carefully. The initial article says that Sr. Judith was “apparently unaware.” The source of the article did not determine whether she was actually unaware, which would have required actually asking Sr. Judith directly, as any true journalist would have done. They simply assumed that she was anaware, as if a religious woman who makes such decisions would be so uninformed or stupid as not to know what basic Catholic teaching is in this matter. That assumption is most likely untrue and most certainly uncharitable in the absence of evidence that Sr. Judith lacked knowledge of relevant Church teaching.
 
Alan55 said:
You didn’t read the article carefully. The initial article says that Sr. Judith was “apparently unaware.” The source of the article did not determine whether she was actually unaware, which would have required actually asking Sr. Judith directly, as any true journalist would have done. They simply assumed that she was anaware, as if a religious woman who makes such decisions would be so uninformed or stupid as not to know what basic Catholic teaching is in this matter. That assumption is most likely untrue and most certainly uncharitable in the absence of evidence that Sr. Judith lacked knowledge of relevant Church teaching.
Click to expand...
Claiming as the writer did that Sr. Judith was “apparently unaware” is charitable IMO.
Not too likely but charitable, nonetheless.

To claim otherwise might suggest that Sr. Judith disregards Teachings against abortion.
 
Alan55 said:
I think we agree. Abortion is allowed under certain circumstances, where the death of the unborn child is a secondary result of medical treatment. However “direct abortion” is not allowed.
Click to expand...
No. We don’t agree on this.
An apple is NOT an orange.

The Church never allows abortion, that is, abortion performed with intent to abort.
Your insistence is a point that can lead to misunderstanding among many people.
 
The patient should have been transferred to another hospital where the abortion could be performed, either by her OB-GYN, if s/he performs abortions, or by another physician who performs abortions. It didn’t have to be performed at the Catholic hospital.

Every other religion I’ve ever heard of besides the RCC will allow an abortion to save the life of the mother, especially when there is no way that mother can carry the fetus to viability and survive. The mother in this case permitted the procedure, but it didn’t have to be performed in a Catholic hospital.
 
This Mayo clinic site lists many treatments for Pulmonary Hypertension from medications to surgery depending on the type and severity, just to give people an idea. mayoclinic.org/pulmonary-hypertension/treatment.html

The thing I would want to know (but probably never will) is; were other treatments even considered and discussed?
God Bless this Bishop for stating the truth and defending the faith. :highprayer:
 
my mom was in a similar situation when she was having my brother and eventually it became ‘choosing over my mother’ or ‘my brother’. what the medical team did was perform a caesarian on her (even though they were not fully confident that my brother would surface, to be taken out from the womb so soon - about 6months) but in any case, praise the lord,
my mother survived, and so did my brother (after being incubated for weeks). just for the record, it was a catholic hospital.😃

but as much as the child is ‘innocent’ so is the mother, i guess if abortion is the only way to actually preserve the mother’s life, shouldn’t it be an exception to the rule?

the woman can have another baby, and hence a perfect family unit. the child after losing the mother, would not have a ‘perfect family unit’.
 
doughnut said:
my mom was in a similar situation when she was having my brother and eventually it became ‘choosing over my mother’ or ‘my brother’. what the medical team did was perform a caesarian on her (even though they were not fully confident that my brother would surface, to be taken out from the womb so soon - about 6months) but in any case, praise the lord,
my mother survived, and so did my brother (after being incubated for weeks). just for the record, it was a catholic hospital.😃

but as much as the child is ‘innocent’ so is the mother, i guess if abortion is the only way to actually preserve the mother’s life, shouldn’t it be an exception to the rule?

the woman can have another baby, and hence a perfect family unit. the child after losing the mother, would not have a ‘perfect family unit’.
Click to expand...
No. The Catholic Church will NEVER allow that.
It’s not given to us that one person is “worth more” than any other.
It is not given to us to choose death.

I’m fully behind the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Even in the Old Testament, we are told by God:

“I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day,
that I have set before you life and death,
blessing and curse;
therefore CHOOSE LIFE
that you and your descendants may live!”
  • Deuteronomy 30:19
 
catharina said:
No. The Catholic Church will NEVER allow that.
It’s not given to us that one person is “worth more” than any other.
It is not given to us to choose death.

I’m fully behind the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Even in the Old Testament, we are told by God:

“I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day,
that I have set before you life and death,
blessing and curse;
therefore CHOOSE LIFE
that you and your descendants may live!”
  • Deuteronomy 30:19
Click to expand...
what if, the baby had no chance of survival (because its still too young to be delivered, and by virtue that, if the mother dies, the baby would most probably die too), and the mother will surely die if the baby wasnt taken out?

to be honest, it would be easy to go by the book, and simply let both parties die via in-action (although im just citing general examples, and it should at least be certified that the mother probably had higher chance of survival than the baby, whereby chances of saving both is impossible)

but for the love of the suffering mother, I don’t think I can bring myself to watch her die without at least trying to save her.
 
doughnut said:
what if, the baby had no chance of survival (because its still too young to be delivered, and by virtue that, if the mother dies, the baby would most probably die too), and the mother will surely die if the baby wasnt taken out?
Click to expand...
There are no exceptions to the rule.
The Church condemns abortion in all circumstances.

An exception to kill “only this time” is a suggestion to kill “at will.”
In fact abortion in this country, by law, is already “at will.”
No grave circumstances needed.

Slippery slope in action!
 
ah well, i guess nobody had much ‘love’ for the mother, just enough ‘empathy’ for the children.

sometimes by in-action, one is already making the choice of abandoning the mother and save the child decision. (which i wonder if this in itself, is not already making a choice?)

by choosing not to take-out the child, we are already making the decision to 'try preserve the child’s life, rather than the mother.

im no theologian, i dont hold any fancy titles nor have a strong ground of the main church teachings, but in times like this, i can only look towards my conscience.

hypothetically, if God is angry for me for trying to at least save one out of two lifes, then I am willing to serve the penance it required. If God is love, and merciful, and forgives everything, I asked for his forgiveness now, that I have challenged that rule.
 
catharina said:
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2514505/posts

Bishop Thomas Olmstead of the Diocese of Phoenix has confirmed that Sister Margaret McBride of Phoenix’ Saint Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center had incurred an automatic excommunication or latae sententiae excommunication. What this means is as soon as the offense is committed Sister McBride was automatically excommunicated by her own actions[1].

Sister Margaret McBride made the decision to kill a critically ill mother’s innocent unborn child because there was a high risk of the mother not surviving the innocent child’s birth. In essence Sister McBride allowed for an abortion.

and more …
Code: 
Also from
[azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/05/15/20100515phoenix-catholic-nun-abortion.html](http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/05/15/20100515phoenix-catholic-nun-abortion.html)

Nun at St. Joseph's Hospital rebuked over abortion to save woman
Click to expand...
…Please read the whole story. I don’t appreciate and it is not nice when people cherry pick only the point they want to make and the whole truth is irrelevant. :

"The actions involving the administrator, mostly taken within the past couple of weeks, followed a last-minute, life-or-death drama in late 2009. The patient had a rare and often fatal condition in which a pregnancy can cause the death of the mother.

Sister Margaret McBride, who had been vice president of mission integration at the hospital, was on call as a member of the hospital’s ethics committee when the surgery took place, hospital officials said. She was part of a group of people, including the patient and doctors, who decided upon the course of action".

This means she did not have a controlling vote on the outcome, only part of a group. Sounds like more anger and displaced aggression.

Read more: azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/05/15/20100515phoenix-catholic-nun-abortion.html#ixzz0oOFuLC90
 
doughnut said:
ah well, i guess nobody had much ‘love’ for the mother, just enough ‘empathy’ for the children.

sometimes by in-action, one is already making the choice of abandoning the mother and save the child decision. (which i wonder if this in itself, is not already making a choice?)

by choosing not to take-out the child, we are already making the decision to 'try preserve the child’s life, rather than the mother.

im no theologian, i dont hold any fancy titles nor have a strong ground of the main church teachings, but in times like this, i can only look towards my conscience.

hypothetically, if God is angry for me for trying to at least save one out of two lifes, then I am willing to serve the penance it required. If God is love, and merciful, and forgives everything, I asked for his forgiveness now, that I have challenged that rule.
Click to expand...
The rule is this: Thou shalt not kill.
We do not have the right to kill mother or child.
Really simple rule.
 
doughnut said:
ah well, i guess nobody had much ‘love’ for the mother, just enough ‘empathy’ for the children.

sometimes by in-action, one is already making the choice of abandoning the mother and save the child decision. (which i wonder if this in itself, is not already making a choice?)
Click to expand...
Let me help you out as it was something that I wondered. Let me give you a hypothetical scenario to understand why the Church says what it does about this.

Let say you are driving along a bridge in your car and below the bridge is an large body of water. You begin to slow down but realize the brakes are shot. You have no brakes (disease/immunology), however you realize that when you cross the bridge there is drive off space so you know you can drive into it and not worry too much about your safety. As you drive along, you see a road blockade with a 6 year old child strapped to it. There is no way you can drive around it and if you go off the bridge you will die. If you hit the road blockade the child will surely die and since you are driving a large vehicle, you will survive (abortion), however the child is innocent too and you prefer not to do that. You then realize (similar to ectopic pregnancy) that if you throw a grenade at the one end of the road blockade, it will lift the blockade into the air and you can drive under it. There is a risk that the child could die but that isn’t your intent (direct abortion).

Hope that helps.
 
joe_clark said:
…Please read the whole story. I don’t appreciate and it is not nice when people cherry pick only the point they want to make and the whole truth is irrelevant. :

"The actions involving the administrator, mostly taken within the past couple of weeks, followed a last-minute, life-or-death drama in late 2009. The patient had a rare and often fatal condition in which a pregnancy can cause the death of the mother.

Sister Margaret McBride, who had been vice president of mission integration at the hospital, was on call as a member of the hospital’s ethics committee when the surgery took place, hospital officials said. She was part of a group of people, including the patient and doctors, who decided upon the course of action".

This means she did not have a controlling vote on the outcome, only part of a group. Sounds like more anger and displaced aggression.

Read more: azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/05/15/20100515phoenix-catholic-nun-abortion.html#ixzz0oOFuLC90
Click to expand...
You are mistaken.

Please read this whole thread.
The link is provided so people WILL read the whole “story.”
  1. As a Sister of Mercy, M. Mcbride was highest-ranking member of the EC.
  2. In addition, as a Sister of Mercy, M. Mcbride is a “corporate” owner of the MedCen.
Since the secret of the abortion was kept for months, it’s clear that M. Mcbride KNEW
there would be grievous consequesnces for her grievous action. No surprises.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top