Nun Automatically Excommunicated For Approving Abortion

[catharina]

Thanks for attempting to address the actual points in my post.

Regarding CHAUSA, how is their decision:

• premature? (As compared to what? Methotrexate has been available and in use for years and I am willing to bet that not one of the numerous church-going Catholic women in my circle of family/friends have any idea that it’s use is even a subject of debate. How long must women wait to learn about matters that relate to THEIR OWN bodies, lives and deaths?)
• flawed? (According to who which authority exactly? Has the Church made an official stand on this drug? How then can it’s use be considered either morally good or morally flawed when used to treat ectopics?)
• highly questionable? (Who is doing the questioning? If this is a matter of conscience then who’s to question?)
• not surprising? (I agree. At some point, the people who face these situations everyday have to take a stand on the matter, as the medical community that determines guidelines of care has already done.)

CHAUSA tossed its wavering credibility to the curb when it opposed the bishops.
Instead, the “nuns” chose to support obamacare.

In no way does CHAUSA represent Catholic teaching.
It is a lobbying group of hospital-women, not an authoritative group for Church doctrine.

If the women in your family and community are waiting for an anouncement from the Church, they’ll have a long wait. The Church’s position is always: give no approval before a measure of absolute certainty is reached. If the women in your life can read, they can learn that much.

 

[catharina]

Thanks. It sometimes feels like standing in a chamber of echoes: only my questions keep bouncing back to my ears - few real answers. How can one not feel for people involved in those real situations?

One might hope that one feels compassion for all dying people. No?

 

[seekerz]

CHAUSA tossed its wavering credibility to the curb when it opposed the bishops.
Instead, the “nuns” chose to support obamacare.

We are not discussing Obamacare and I do believe CHAUSA made their stand on Methotrexate before health care reform. Besides, what does it matter? Just because they ‘opposed the bishops’ once, they have lost credibility?! There have been disagreements and wrongdoing by bishops in the past, does that make lose them their credibility?

In no way does CHAUSA represent Catholic teaching.
It is a lobbying group of hospital-women, not an authoritative group for Church doctrine.

So what is the authoritative group? As you and I both know, this matter has not been officially decided so what makes them wrong and some other ‘authority’ right?

If the women in your family and community are waiting for an anouncement from the Church, they’ll have a long wait. The Church’s position is always: give no approval before a measure of absolute certainty is reached. If the women in your life can read, they can learn that much.

Maybe your points would convince more people if you tried to sound a mite less supercilious…the women around me - all literate - would find it hard to understand how you can be so absolutely certain that CHAUSA is wrong when the Church has yet to come to an absolutely certain conclusion on the matter.

 

[seekerz]

One might hope that one feels compassion for all dying people. No?

Indeed. These women and their babies deserve our compassion as do the people being called upon to treat them…

 

[catharina]

We are not discussing Obamacare and I do believe CHAUSA made their stand on Methotrexate before health care reform. Besides, what does it matter? Just because they ‘opposed the bishops’ once, they have lost credibility?! There have been disagreements and wrongdoing by bishops in the past, does that make lose them their credibility?

Chausa has lost all credibility with me and with many (maybe all) in pro-life work.
That’s the way it is. All of their recent “work” is now highly questionable.

So what is the authoritative group? As you and I both know, this matter has not been officially decided so what makes them wrong and some other ‘authority’ right?

It is not now, nor will it likely ever be the women of Chausa.

Maybe your points would convince more people if you tried to sound a mite less supercilious…the women around me - all literate - would find it hard to understand how you can be so absolutely certain that CHAUSA is wrong when the Church has yet to come to an absolutely certain conclusion on the matter.

**I say “conviction.” You say “supercilious” sounding.
In fact, the truth can feel like an assault from on high
when one hopes for a more comfortable lie.

As for the women around you, I’m sorry for them if they choose
to trust Chausa for sound moral teachings. Chausa failed its test.**

 

[catharina]

Indeed. These women and their babies deserve our compassion as do the people being called upon to treat them…

I feel for all who “treated” the pair.
I pray for all who “treated” the pair and for the “nun” who approved it.

I do not and cannot ever support their action of “treatment.”
Killing a living human being to “save” another is ALWAYS unjustifiable.

 

[JReducation]

I’m going to try to address this as a religious that I am, from an insider’s knowledge and experience. The law is very clear. Abortion is never justifiable, even to save the life of the mother. If the life of mother and child are threatened, the healthcare team has the moral duty to try to save both lives. If they cannot do so, they must make every attempt to make mother and child as comfortable as possible and let nature take its course. This is not negotiable or up for debate within the Catholic Church.

A religious who cooperates in an abortion has violated many layers of morality, Canon Law and the laws of the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. All of these violations are objectively morally grave.
First: the involvement in the abortion is morally grave and cannot be disputed.

Second: the vow of obedience has been violated on a very grave matter. The religious has a moral obligation to seek permission from his or her superior before making such a grave moral decision. There is no room in religious life for individual conscience on such an issue. This is a fact, stated in every ruling that comes from the Sacred Congregation for Religious.

Third: the vow of chastity has been violated on a very grave matter. The vow of chastity does not only involve celibacy, but it goes one step further than a vow of celibacy. The religious professes faith in the absolute sanctity of marriage and the marriage act. He or she professes faith that the gift to become a spouse and a parent is the highest gift that God has bestowed on humanity. He or she publically professes to respect, uphold and return to God this sacred gift. When a religious engages in abortion, he/she is being untrue. You cannot profess faith in the sanctity of marriage, human sexuality and the natural resulting life that comes from that and at the same time destroy a life that has been conceived within the context of this sacred gift called motherhood and fatherhood.

Fourth: the religious has tarnished the image of the Church in a sin that is far graver than any other. It attacks the Church at her very identity. The Church is Mother. To violate motherhood says that one does not consider motherhood to be sacred.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[catharina]

I’m going to try to address this as a religious that I am, from an insider’s knowledge and experience. The law is very clear. Abortion is never justifiable, even to save the life of the mother. If the life of mother and child are threatened, the healthcare team has the moral duty to try to save both lives. If they cannot do so, they must make every attempt to make mother and child as comfortable as possible and let nature take its course. This is not negotiable or up for debate within the Catholic Church.

A religious who cooperates in an abortion has violated many layers of morality, Canon Law and the laws of the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. All of these violations are objectively morally grave.
First: the involvement in the abortion is morally grave and cannot be disputed.

Second: the vow of obedience has been violated on a very grave matter. The religious has a moral obligation to seek permission from his or her superior before making such a grave moral decision. There is no room in religious life for individual conscience on such an issue. This is a fact, stated in every ruling that comes from the Sacred Congregation for Religious.

Third: the vow of chastity has been violated on a very grave matter. The vow of chastity does not only involve celibacy, but it goes one step further than a vow of celibacy. The religious professes faith in the absolute sanctity of marriage and the marriage act. He or she professes faith that the gift to become a spouse and a parent is the highest gift that God has bestowed on humanity. He or she publically professes to respect, uphold and return to God this sacred gift. When a religious engages in abortion, he/she is being untrue. You cannot profess faith in the sanctity of marriage, human sexuality and the natural resulting life that comes from that and at the same time destroy a life that has been conceived within the context of this sacred gift called motherhood and fatherhood.

Fourth: the religious has tarnished the image of the Church in a sin that is far graver than any other. It attacks the Church at her very identity. The Church is Mother. To violate motherhood says that one does not consider motherhood to be sacred.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Dear Brother!
Many thanks for your words of wisdom.
A Happy, Holy Feast of Pentecost to you and yours!

 

[seekerz]

**I say “conviction.” You say “supercilious” sounding.
In fact, the truth can feel like an assault from on high
when one hopes for a more comfortable lie.

As for the women around you, I’m sorry for them if they choose
to trust Chausa for sound moral teachings. Chausa failed its test.**

It’s neither more convincing nor more correct to type your views in red. At least try a little objectivity. If you don’t like CHAUSA fine, but you don’t set standards of credibility (or morals for that matter) for the rest of us.

 

[seekerz]

I’m going to try to address this as a religious that I am, from an insider’s knowledge and experience. The law is very clear. Abortion is never justifiable, even to save the life of the mother. If the life of mother and child are threatened, the healthcare team has the moral duty to try to save both lives. If they cannot do so, they must make every attempt to make mother and child as comfortable as possible and let nature take its course. This is not negotiable or up for debate within the Catholic Church.

A religious who cooperates in an abortion has violated many layers of morality, Canon Law and the laws of the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. All of these violations are objectively morally grave.
First: the involvement in the abortion is morally grave and cannot be disputed.

Second: the vow of obedience has been violated on a very grave matter. The religious has a moral obligation to seek permission from his or her superior before making such a grave moral decision. There is no room in religious life for individual conscience on such an issue. This is a fact, stated in every ruling that comes from the Sacred Congregation for Religious.

Third: the vow of chastity has been violated on a very grave matter. The vow of chastity does not only involve celibacy, but it goes one step further than a vow of celibacy. The religious professes faith in the absolute sanctity of marriage and the marriage act. He or she professes faith that the gift to become a spouse and a parent is the highest gift that God has bestowed on humanity. He or she publically professes to respect, uphold and return to God this sacred gift. When a religious engages in abortion, he/she is being untrue. You cannot profess faith in the sanctity of marriage, human sexuality and the natural resulting life that comes from that and at the same time destroy a life that has been conceived within the context of this sacred gift called motherhood and fatherhood.

Fourth: the religious has tarnished the image of the Church in a sin that is far graver than any other. It attacks the Church at her very identity. The Church is Mother. To violate motherhood says that one does not consider motherhood to be sacred.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

As a religious, can you then tell me - a woman - what procedures qualify as direct abortion and must be refused if offered by a doctor? We are told the woman had a direct abortion, we do not know what treatment she received so how are we to avoid the fate of excommunication if placed in such a situation? Would a hysterectomy for example have been an acceptable, moral option?

 

[catharina]

It’s neither more convincing nor more correct to type your views in red. At least try a little objectivity. If you don’t like CHAUSA fine, but you don’t set standards of credibility (or moral for that matter) for the rest of us.

Obviously I am expressing my opinion.
Isn’t that what you’re doing?

As for red font, if I begin a response within a post, I tend to use color font.
My eyes are getting older. Tough not be able to read one’s own post. Inaccuracies, etc…

However, I might work on attempting to remember that “color” seems to bother you.
Then again, why would I - because you have been so gracious and understanding to me?

Hope you will read the response from Brother JR at once.

I would never attempt to set any standard for you, even regarding the font you use.
Yet I will always, through the grace of God, support the teachings of the Church.

A very blessed Pentecost to you too.

 

[seekerz]

Obviously I am expressing my opinion.
Isn’t that what you’re doing?

As for red font, if I begin a response within a post, I tend to use color font.
My eyes are getting older. Tough not be able to read one’s own post. Inaccuracies, etc…

However, I might work on attempting to remember that “color” seems to bother you.
Then again, why would I - because you have been so gracious and understanding to me?

Hope you will read the response from Brother JR at once.

I would never attempt to set any standard for you, even regarding the font you use.
Yet I will always, through the grace of God, support the teachings of the Church.

A very blessed Pentecost to you too.

Thank you and to you as well.

 

[JReducation]

As a religious, can you then tell me - a woman - what procedures qualify as direct abortion and must be refused if offered by a doctor? We are told the woman had a direct abortion, we do not know what treatment she received so how are we to avoid the fate of excommunication if placed in such a situation? Would a hysterectomy for example have been an acceptable, moral option?

A hystorectomy would be an immoral choice, because there was nothing wrong with the uterus. Hystorectomy is only permissible to resolve a medical problem to that particular organ. If the organ is not damaged, then there is no reason to extract it.

In this case, based on the information that we have, the Church cannot offer any moral choice but accepting the natural order of things. Once the medical community has said that they have no means to solve the problem, other than to extract the child, then the Church cannot help with medical options. Medical knowledge is not the competency of the Church. The competency of the Church is morals.

Morality says that if the child is attacked, it is murder in every circumsance. There are never exceptions.

If a mother goes in for an apendectomy and the child dies, that is not murder. The intent was to extract the apendix not kill the child. If the intent is to kill the child to save the mother, that is murder. We cannot give parents or healthcare professionals this option as morally acceptable. Even if it appears that the child will die anyway and that by extracting the child you save at least one life, you are making a moral choice that you do not have the right to make. You are choosing between two lives that are equally sacred and you are granting one life the opportunity to live at the expense of the other.

It is the moral duty of the medical community to try to find another solution. When they have done the best that they can do, then you must rely on the Mercy and Providence of God to save life or take both to heaven. The good news is that giving one’s life for the unborn child is the highest act of faith and holiness that a parent can do. There is no doubt in our faith that such a Christ-like act will be rewarded with eternal salvation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Elizabeth502]

The problem is, that if, given medical case histories and medical training, it is clear that with inaction both will definitely die, and soon, but that with action to save the only likely survivor, that one (mother or child) will live, it appears that the moral mandate would be the rescue option, whether that’s mother or child. That’s very different from saying, “Just to be safe and ensure the mother’s survival, we’ll do this.”

I know exactly what the moral theology guidelines are and appreciate where JR is coming from (can’t play God), but the playing-God part in such a case (above) is a technicality, because the only difference is that of time: whether both will die within a few minutes because of inaction, or within a few hours, vs. whether one will surely live.

There’s a cross-breeding between pure pacifism and passivity, and when those two result in a grave sin of omission, my conscience is not comfortable with that, because I don’t think I can face my Lord at the end of my life and tell Him, “I was in a position to do something, but I rigidly followed the guidelines of my ‘pro-life’ church, which told me to do nothing and let a solely-survivable life expire, because after all I was waiting for you to intervene, or figured that since no miracle was observable, you wanted that life to expire.”

It’s easy to hide behind pacifism as an excuse, but pacifism is not always loving or moral. And our actions, and inactions, affect more than just the immediate situation, but all those connected with that situation.

 

[catharina]

The problem is, that if, given medical case histories and medical training, it is clear that with inaction both will definitely die, and soon, but that with action to save the only likely survivor, that one (mother or child) will live, it appears that the moral mandate would be the rescue option, whether that’s mother or child. That’s very different from saying, “Just to be safe and ensure the mother’s survival, we’ll do this.”

I know exactly what the moral theology guidelines are and appreciate where JR is coming from (can’t play God), but the playing-God part in such a case (above) is a technicality, because the only difference is that of time: whether both will die within a few minutes because of inaction, or within a few hours, vs. whether one will surely live.

There’s a cross-breeding between pure pacifism and passivity, and when those two result in a grave sin of omission, my conscience is not comfortable with that, because I don’t think I can face my Lord at the end of my life and tell Him, “I was in a position to do something, but I rigidly followed the guidelines of my ‘pro-life’ church, which told me to do nothing and let a solely-survivable life expire, because after all I was waiting for you to intervene, or figured that since no miracle was observable, you wanted that life to expire.”

It’s easy to hide behind pacifism as an excuse, but pacifism is not always loving or moral. And our actions, and inactions, affect more than just the immediate situation, but all those connected with that situation.

I am at peace, following the teaching that has not changed,
that of the Old Testament and the New Testament: Thou shalt not kill.

There is no rigidity involved. It is simple logic that says I have no right to kill
IF I truly believe in the law of God. Simply said, I do believe.

I admit astonishment that in a very few decades, some people have dismissed a law, an ultimate law that forbids killing, only because abortion has been legalized in the USA.

For me - that’s ASTONISHING … as if people have no grasp on history, sacred or secular.

Also, for the record, there is NO ‘peaceful hiding’ when one supports the sanctity of life.
One MUST speak up in public. Speaking for the life of the unborn is an obligation.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Hello catharina;

Killing a living human being to “save” another is ALWAYS unjustifiable.

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

Take care

Eric

 

[catharina]

Hello catharina;

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

Take care

Eric

Most people known to me are terribly bothered re war.

Church teaching:
just war vs unjust war.
killing as an act of self-defense.

Nothing to do with abortion though.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Hello catharina;

]Most people known to me are terribly bothered re war.

Church teaching:
just war vs unjust war.
killing as an act of self-defense.

Nothing to do with abortion though.

We seem so much more concerned with the injustice of abortion, than the injustice of war. We do not seem to excommunicate any Catholic troops, should they kill someone.

take care

Eric

 

[seekerz]

A hystorectomy would be an immoral choice, because there was nothing wrong with the uterus. Hystorectomy is only permissible to resolve a medical problem to that particular organ. If the organ is not damaged, then there is no reason to extract it.

In this case, based on the information that we have, the Church cannot offer any moral choice but accepting the natural order of things. Once the medical community has said that they have no means to solve the problem, other than to extract the child, then the Church cannot help with medical options. Medical knowledge is not the competency of the Church. The competency of the Church is morals.

Morality says that if the child is attacked, it is murder in every circumsance. There are never exceptions.

If a mother goes in for an apendectomy and the child dies, that is not murder. The intent was to extract the apendix not kill the child. If the intent is to kill the child to save the mother, that is murder. We cannot give parents or healthcare professionals this option as morally acceptable. Even if it appears that the child will die anyway and that by extracting the child you save at least one life, you are making a moral choice that you do not have the right to make. You are choosing between two lives that are equally sacred and you are granting one life the opportunity to live at the expense of the other.

It is the moral duty of the medical community to try to find another solution. When they have done the best that they can do, then you must rely on the Mercy and Providence of God to save life or take both to heaven. The good news is that giving one’s life for the unborn child is the highest act of faith and holiness that a parent can do. There is no doubt in our faith that such a Christ-like act will be rewarded with eternal salvation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

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.

 

[seekerz]

The problem is, that if, given medical case histories and medical training, it is clear that with inaction both will definitely die, and soon, but that with action to save the only likely survivor, that one (mother or child) will live, it appears that the moral mandate would be the rescue option, whether that’s mother or child. That’s very different from saying, “Just to be safe and ensure the mother’s survival, we’ll do this.”

I know exactly what the moral theology guidelines are and appreciate where JR is coming from (can’t play God), but the playing-God part in such a case (above) is a technicality, because the only difference is that of time: whether both will die within a few minutes because of inaction, or within a few hours, vs. whether one will surely live.

There’s a cross-breeding between pure pacifism and passivity, and when those two result in a grave sin of omission, my conscience is not comfortable with that, because I don’t think I can face my Lord at the end of my life and tell Him, “I was in a position to do something, but I rigidly followed the guidelines of my ‘pro-life’ church, which told me to do nothing and let a solely-survivable life expire, because after all I was waiting for you to intervene, or figured that since no miracle was observable, you wanted that life to expire.”

It’s easy to hide behind pacifism as an excuse, but pacifism is not always loving or moral. And our actions, and inactions, affect more than just the immediate situation, but all those connected with that situation.

Kind of the same concerns I have about such matters: certain treatments/procedures may be considered immoral but isn’t inaction that results in death equally immoral?