Nun Automatically Excommunicated For Approving Abortion

[Rence]

I really didn’t think I"d ever jump into another one of these, but people are being way to quick to condem! Doesn’t the Bible mention something about looking to ourselves before making a judgement on someone else??? Having been in a situation (which was NOT an ectopic pregnancy) - I KNOW that there are situations where continuing the pregnancy can kill the mother and there by kill the inutero fetus. It may seem like a wonderful idea to say “if you’d just waited, God might have performed a miracle and (said mother) might not have died and both would be happily at home”. I see no good coming from two deaths. At least this woman has a fighting chance now - and I may just be in nursing school, but I’ve seen enough pulmonary hypertension to know that this can span the gammit of annoying (you have to stay still and probably on one side or the other in bed for weeks or months) to ready to take your life if any more SLIGHT stress is put on the bod (with this and pre eclampsia it is VERY simple with ANY extra stress like say getting up from bed or a c-section for the uterus to seperate and cause MASSIVE bleeding. )From what I’ve read about this situation, and yes this is just my opinion based on my limited medical knowledge but a c-section would have almost deffinately killed the mother due to the extra stress put on her. Waiting too much longer more than likely would have killed her. WIth this situation, you have to remember that this isn’t just someone kind of sick - this is someone who’s diaphram had moved (due to the enlarging size of the fetus) up to 4 cm - (making it harder to breath- the hormones (which after the pregnancy ended would have stopped causing problems) can cause (and it sounds like they did) hyperemia and mucosal edemia as well as tissue edema and capillary congestion. This isn’t just slight swelling or a little cough - this can be a fight for your life (in this case). There are many other things that occur that was giving this mother major problems that ending the pregnancy would have helped and in some cases fixed. It seems simple to say “just do an emergency c-section…” - that c-section, ESPECIALLY in cases with sever pulmonary hypertension and pre eclampsia will often likely be fatal to the mother. It’s very easy to sit there and throwout opinions and say “just do an emergency c-section and save the baby…” but this will likely kill a mother who has been doing all that she can to extend a pregnancy in order to have a viable pregnancy. It’s as though you have no compassion for the mother in these situations-as if the fetus/baby is the only important thing. Once you’ve been in the situation I and many other women have been in, or had a daughter or other relative deal with this, I don’t believe you have the understanding what a situation like this is truely like nor do you have the right to condem - that is left to God to do or not do. Personally, I hope if God forbid, I’m ever in a situation similar to this mother, I PRAY to GOD that I have someone like this Nun to stand up for me. It’s wonderful IF both the baby and mother can be saved, but it’s not always the case. No one seems to care about the “right to life” of the mother. It isn’t always just black and white - there are grey areas. Truely, I don’t agree with abortion in almost every case - but in a case where the fetus is too young to be viable or where attempting delivery (in whatever form) is likely to kill both, I don’t and likely will never see the positive side of continuing such a pregnancy. I am prolife in this situation - pro life for the mother.
God Bless
Rye

Thank you very much for explaining the ramifications of pregnancy on top of pulmonary hypertension. I am nowhere near as articulate as you in explaining these things yet, even in writing.

 

[chosen_people]

For Catholics, there is no “choice.”
There is only the teaching “thou shalt not kill.”
That should be true for other Christians too and for Jews and for … ?
Yet only the Catholic Church insists (publicly) on this teaching with no exceptions.

Judaism is an intellectual religion and as such is able to weigh and apply varying circumstances. This often leads to contrary Jewish legal and moral positions in opposition to those absolute positions held by dogmatic Catholicism.

An example which appeared on this forum was whether it would be permissible to lie to a Nazi if you were hiding Jews during the Shoah. The Catholic answer was that telling a lie is a venal sin and is never permissible. The Jewish answer, replete with examples from the Tanach, is that it is permissible to lie for the purpose of protecting and saving someones life (pikuach nefesh) or for keeping the peace and well being of a household (shalom bayit - or why it’s okay to fudge your answer if your wife asks if she looks fat in her dress).

The case here is another example of a contrary Jewish legal and moral position. While Judaism holds against abortion, given the choice of having to choose between the life of a living breathing cognizant person, a wife (and mother?), and between a non viable eleven week old fetus, Jewish law is quite clear that the mother’s life is to be preferred in this case.

The Nun in question may have acted as a bad Catholic, but from the Jewish perspective she did the proper legal and moral thing.

 

[joe_clark]

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 …

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

Sister Margaret McBride did not have the sole authority or the 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. You are just pickingf her out because she is a nun.

Not to be a noodge but, but does the mothers life have any value whatsoever??? Is the unborn more important than one who is breathing air? Where is it written and mandatory to always die trying? I am not in favor of abortion , but when the mothers life is in jeporardy and it is probable or imminent that she will die making the attempt, makes no sense whatsoever. The mothers life is also one to fiercely protect. If I am incorrect here due to writings of the church then something is very wrong here.

 

[Rence]

The Chosen People seem to be a lot more reasonable and lot more charitable IMOHO…

 

[Santi2]

Judaism is an intellectual religion and as such is able to weigh and apply varying circumstances. This often leads to contrary Jewish legal and moral positions in opposition to those absolute positions held by dogmatic Catholicism.

An example which appeared on this forum was whether it would be permissible to lie to a Nazi if you were hiding Jews during the Shoah. The Catholic answer was that telling a lie is a venal sin and is never permissible. The Jewish answer, replete with examples from the Tanach, is that it is permissible to lie for the purpose of protecting and saving someones life (pikuach nefesh) or for keeping the peace and well being of a household (shalom bayit - or why it’s okay to fudge your answer if your wife asks if she looks fat in her dress).

The case here is another example of a contrary Jewish legal and moral position. While Judaism holds against abortion, given the choice of having to choose between the life of a living breathing cognizant person, a wife (and mother?), and between a non viable eleven week old fetus, Jewish law is quite clear that the mother’s life is to be preferred in this case.

The Nun in question may have acted as a bad Catholic, but from the Jewish perspective she did the proper legal and moral thing.

We have a counterpart in Catholic Catechism where withholding the truth is permissible under certain circumstances:

The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it (CCC 2488).

Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. **The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it **(CCC 2489).

On abortion, Catholic Church teaching is as already discussed here by Catharina and similar posts to hers. It is absolute because the teaching rests on God’s commandment: “Thou shall not kill”. The fetus is a human being.

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.

independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-makes-saint-of-woman-who-died–after-refusing-abortion-563689.html

Though the decision by the nun incurred a severe penalty by our Catholic faith, God’s infinite mercy allows redemption for a truly contrite heart through the Sacrament of Penance.

 

[Swan]

Sister Margaret McBride did not have the sole authority or the 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. You are just pickingf her out because she is a nun.

Not to be a noodge but, but does the mothers life have any value whatsoever??? Is the unborn more important than one who is breathing air? Where is it written and mandatory to always die trying? I am not in favor of abortion , but when the mothers life is in jeporardy and it is probable or imminent that she will die making the attempt, makes no sense whatsoever. The mothers life is also one to fiercely protect. If I am incorrect here due to writings of the church then something is very wrong here.

This is just one example of the many reasons I could no longer be Catholic. Saying the woman should just leave it to God and die if it is God’s will - well then why to anything at all? Why be proactive in any case? This sounds like Christian Science doctrine to me. And if it’s applicable here why not across the board? IMO this is an excellent example of giving preference to the unborn instead of the born (this woman, her family, her loved ones…).

 

[Brendan]

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.

No, the article did NOT explain that. An innocent child was killed.

The correct option would have been to attempt to save BOTH of them. A C-Section to remove the child ( which was in peril where it was at) and to then place the child in the care of a neonatologist.

Granted, it was substantially before the standard recognized age of viability, but the age of a child should not procudle taking available steps to preserve it’s life.

 

[doughnut]

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.

correction, if the mother AND child had died. please tell me how the child can actually survive if the mother is dead. everyone focus on the death of mother as if its her only way out. she must die, protecting her innocent baby, to which, its only for a mere few more minutes since the baby’s survival, after the mother’s passing, is pretty slim.

its more like, “oh i cannot bear my kid dying before me!” but at the back of the head, its likely the kid will die soon after her.

mothers in this situation dont always wanna be dead, and probably had no choice either…its a difficult struggle, and alot rest of the decisions of the medical team.

maybe the statement is better for her to DIE than to live in sin? If the one making the decision is not her, it becomes, better for a living woman to suffer and die and the baby who will die anyway by virtue of the death of his mother, than to at least save the one that has a higher chance of survival rate.

the ‘thou shalt not’ mentality superceded ‘thou shalt’ responsibilities.

 

[Santi2]

correction, if the mother AND child had died.

I stand corrected on that omission.

maybe the statement is better for her to DIE than to live in sin?

Those are not the options. Trusting God is.

the ‘thou shalt not’ mentality superceded ‘thou shalt’ responsibilities

On God’s authority and no other.

 

[catharina]

Wow. Left my home for six hours and came home to find many at odds with the Church.
If you are Catholic, then you must know and accept that the Church teaches NO abortion.

If you claim otherwise for this or that reason, you are rejecting the teaching of the Church.
Give a thought also to the fact that the Church’s teaching is not only a stand
that says “not even to spare the life of the mother” rather it is a stand
that says most especially “not even to spare the life of the mother.”

Permissive law favoring abortion on demand (the law of the land today)
grew from the position that some Catholics (now) illicitly support:
“let’s save those mothers.”

No. We cannot kill innocent children even to save their mothers -
not to save their mothers, siblings, fathers, cousins or
an allegedly important state of growing financial security.

We are forbidden to make use of abortion to save anyone.

As to WHY M. McBride bore the public censure?
SOOOOOOOOO simple.
She is a member of the reigious community that owns and operates St. Joes.
In addition she took an active AUTHORITATIVE part in approving the abortion.
She did that as a Sister-Owner and as a member of the Ethics Committee.

(I’m really surprised that any Catholic feels so free to reject this important teaching.
Wait … forget surprised. I’m really stunned.)

 

[joe_clark]

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?

 

[doughnut]

(I’m really surprised that any Catholic feels so free to reject this important teaching.
Wait … forget surprised. I’m really stunned.)

Actually you shouldn’t be. God has made us all different, and a whole branch of us have very different thinking and wiring compared to your understanding.

The bunch of us here had difficulty reconcile the overwhelming need to have rather two deaths instead of one, the suffering of the mother (and chances, everybody she knew) could not be taken into account when they choose the actions.

the same bunch of us also stunned to know a significant number of people were more concerned about condemning people than showing compassion for those people who needed the most.

I guess, as a fellow Catholic, shouldn’t you sincerely pray for us, that we might come to accept the teachings of Christ fully, then getting all annoyed, showing more of your uncompassionate side?

Anger is a sin, Pride is also a sin. (May God forgive me for causing others to sin.)

Perhaps I’m wrong, perhaps I’m not ‘fit to be Catholic’, but, I am unable to reconcile such unforgiving attitude towards those people who had chosen to act because they could not harden their hearts.

We are human beings, we have emotions, and it is understandable that we will naturally feel more attachments towards the mother, than the unborn fetes. This is life. Pray for us, because I am sincerely unable to love all beings equally - perhaps, only God can do that.

 

[Rence]

Doughnut, that was a very compassionate and sensitive post. :hug1:

 

[Santi2]

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 have never come across such an offensive remark in my life.

 

[ryecroft]

Some of this brings me to think of loop holes - then I thought about what people were saying they wanted to happen as far as the c-section - then I thought/realized - what if some one gets pregnant but doesn’t want to be pregnant. Then say at 12 weeks goes to the doctor, and says “I can’t have an abortion because I’m catholic, but you can deliver my fetus/baby c-section - and although it won’t live outside of my womb, I won’t have had an abortion…” Technically, it’s not an abortion, it’s an early delivery - so by the Church’s teaching, and looking at all that is coming about with this post (because so many have said to "just do a c-section - which would more than likely have caused (n this case-and I just got back from the OBGYN and mentioned this to her)- her utereus to seperate and likely have killed her or her fertility at the VERY least. Those of you that can “just leave it up to God” - I can’t believe that any of you have had to deal as the pregnant woman or husband with this situation. I’ll say it again - until you have dealt with this 1st hand, I’m not going to accept the comments about “just leave it up to God”. I thank GOD that I had a husband, surgeon and doctor SMART enough (and yes Catholic too) to keep me alive after I had pushed to try to carry my fetus too long and lost pint upon pint of blood because of it. Once your wife has died and left you motherless, then come back and tell me you agree with this teaching. I think it’s great to try to save both IF it’s a possibility - it isn’t always- and I’m living proof of that. I am Catholic and I am pro life - pro life of the mother.
God Bless
Rye
Rye

 

[Socio_Momma]

Some of this brings me to think of loop holes - then I thought about what people were saying they wanted to happen as far as the c-section - then I thought/realized - what if some one gets pregnant but doesn’t want to be pregnant. Then say at 12 weeks goes to the doctor, and says “I can’t have an abortion because I’m catholic, but you can deliver my fetus/baby c-section - and although it won’t live outside of my womb, I won’t have had an abortion…” Technically, it’s not an abortion, it’s an early delivery - so by the Church’s teaching, and looking at all that is coming about with this post (because so many have said to "just do a c-section - which would more than likely have caused (n this case-and I just got back from the OBGYN and mentioned this to her)- her utereus to seperate and likely have killed her or her fertility at the VERY least.

The scenario offered here is not morally permissible because there is no medical reason to have a c-section this early, the only purpose would be to kill the child. Intent matters. Whereas in the case of the mother in question there was a medical reason for an early c-section (or other medical procedure to deliver the baby alive at the 11 weeks) & the intent would be different, to deliver the child to save the mother & try to preserve the dignity of life of the child not to purposely kill the child (even if it was prior to viability for medical science & the child most likely would not survive). The long term fertility should not weigh more than the lives being discussed.

This is indeed a very sad situation & I’m praying for all involved.

 

[catharina]

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?

Confused here, joeclark.
Law of the land (so very recent, only 40 yrs) says ‘whatever the mother wants.’
The Catholic Church, as ALWAYS, says NEITHER can be killed. NO abortion ever.

Confusion: why do you call yourself Catholic?
Do you consider yourself exempt from Church Teaching for some unstated reason?

 

[catharina]

Actually you shouldn’t be. God has made us all different, and a whole branch of us have very different thinking and wiring compared to your understanding.

The bunch of us here had difficulty reconcile the overwhelming need to have rather two deaths instead of one, the suffering of the mother (and chances, everybody she knew) could not be taken into account when they choose the actions.

the same bunch of us also stunned to know a significant number of people were more concerned about condemning people than showing compassion for those people who needed the most.

I guess, as a fellow Catholic, shouldn’t you sincerely pray for us, that we might come to accept the teachings of Christ fully, then getting all annoyed, showing more of your uncompassionate side?

Anger is a sin, Pride is also a sin. (May God forgive me for causing others to sin.)

Perhaps I’m wrong, perhaps I’m not ‘fit to be Catholic’, but, I am unable to reconcile such unforgiving attitude towards those people who had chosen to act because they could not harden their hearts.

We are human beings, we have emotions, and it is understandable that we will naturally feel more attachments towards the mother, than the unborn fetes. This is life. Pray for us, because I am sincerely unable to love all beings equally - perhaps, only God can do that.

Well, I’ve been praying for the “very confused” for 40+ yrs.
Yet I can’t imagine that any Catholic would reject the Teachings of the Church,
especially when their choice is feeling-based.

God gives us intellect and will that we might follow Him.
“Feelings” aren’t part of the act of Faith. (Never were.)

 

[catharina]

We are human beings, we have emotions, and it is understandable that we will naturally feel more attachments towards the mother, than the unborn fetes. This is life. Pray for us, because I am sincerely unable to love all beings equally - perhaps, only God can do that.

Doughnut, that was a very compassionate and sensitive post.

it would be so nice if both of you could recognize that love is an act of the will.
It is not (and it is not to be) feeling-based.
However, basing your decisions in how you FEEL gives me a clearer view of your thinking.

 

[catharina]

joe clark;6660775:

I have never come across such an offensive remark in my life.

Agree. It’s totally beyond the pale.