What are the *True Facts* Regarding the Abortion-Approving Nun?

[Soutane]

What are the True Facts Regarding the Abortion-Approving Nun?
Share by Jimmy Akin Monday, May 24, 2010 1:40 PM Comments (243)
I’ve had several requests to comment on the announcement in the Diocese of Phoenix that Sr. Margaret McBride of the Sisters of Mercy (pictured) has incurred automatic excommunication for approving an abortion at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix.

So here goes.

As you would expect, Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix is being pilloried in connection with this, with the mainstream media and others trying to fit it to the “Cruel Bishop vs. Victim Nun” stock narrative (as opposed, e.g., to the “Conscientious Bishop Trying To Do His Job after Nun Approves Horror” narrative).

So let’s try to take an objective look at the situation, starting with the facts of the case.

Unfortunately, the facts of the case are not entirely clear. The identity of the mother who had the abortion, for example, has not been disclosed due to medical privacy laws, but here is what we know:

1. Last December a 27-year old woman with pulmonary hypertension was 11 weeks pregnant and sought some form of care at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix.
2. According to a statement of St. Joseph’s, a consultation was held “with the patient, her family, her physicians, and in consultation with the Ethics Committee, of which Sr. Margaret McBride is a member.”
3. It was decided that “the treatment necessary to save the mother’s life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy.”
4. The abortion was performed, though the means by which it was done is not clear. Presumably it was suction aspiration, or possibly dilation and curettage since RU 486 does not seem to be recommended for 11 pregnancies. The Arizona Republic states that it was a “surgery,” which would also point to either suction-aspiration or D & C, but it mentions this only in passing, and so it could be something the reporter assumed, not what actually happened. If it was (as I strongly suspect), suction-aspiration or D & C then the child was directly torn in pieces as part of the procedure.

ncregister.com/blog/what_are_the_true_facts_regarding_the_abortion_approving_nun/

 

[jay29]

Did the nun agree with it personally at the meeting? If she said yes, she approves of the abortion, the nun is guilty of participating in a planned murder and rightfully has been excommunicated for a nun has no excuse for not knowing the teaching of abortion within Catholic Teachings

 

[ccwebapps]

The account I heard was that both mother and baby would have died without the abortion. If this were a more advanced pregnancy and the baby could survive on its own with or without medical support, I think the life of the baby should have been chosen over the mother’s. But in this case, according to the facts I heard, if the abortion were not done both mother and child would have died, and how is that outcome pro-life? Please explain.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The account I heard was that both mother and baby would have died without the abortion. If this were a more advanced pregnancy and the baby could survive on its own with or without medical support, I think the life of the baby should have been chosen over the mother’s. But in this case, according to the facts I heard, if the abortion were not done both mother and child would have died, and how is that outcome pro-life? Please explain.

First of all you’re assuming Sister McBride is being entirely truthful. There are some fishy things about this whole thing that make me think that possibly Sister McBride simply disagreed with the Church teaching on abortion and decided to force the issue.

But, we’ll assume they’re telling the truth. The truth is that you cannot murder the innocent. Two people might have died of natural causes, yes, IF we believe them when they say there was absolutely nothing they could do. But the ends do not justify the means; it’s sad, but we simply can’t commit murder to save a life.

 

[OriginalJS]

Quite the ethical dilemma isn’t it? I hope never to have to make such a decision. Two people are in danger of death through nothing I have done. I have the choice of (1) saving one by killing the other or (2) letting both die. If I kill one the other lives and I have saved a life, but, I am excommunicated. If I Iet both die I remain in full communion with the church. This is like one of those hypothetical ethics problems college professors like to pose, except here there is nothing hypothetical about it. Very tough decision.

 

[nhylan]

I have truly struggled to understand the Catholic Church’s official position on this. I understand the sanctity of life, I understand the church’s wishes that things process naturally but by my thinking which would you rather happen? The baby is regretfully and horribly aborted or the baby and the mother both die leaving her 4 other children without a mother? I think that Church did a grave injustice to itself when it excommunicated that nun. Why should the baby’s life be valued above the mother’s? both have value. On a personal level to me this feels a lot like the Hierarchy seeking to maintain power when in reality there is no good solution as far as the church is concerned.

 

[catsrus]

No matter what the “true” facts are, I know in my own heart that Bishop Olmstead made his decision after much prayer and adherence to the teachings of The Church. He is a good man in every way and follows Church teaching to the letter. He was a breath of fresh air in that diocese that desperately needed it and has done a beautiful job of "cleaning out a lot of dissenters.
Pray for Bishop Olmstead.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Bishop Olmstead did not excommunicate that nun. She excommunicated herself.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I have truly struggled to understand the Catholic Church’s official position on this. I understand the sanctity of life, I understand the church’s wishes that things process naturally but by my thinking which would you rather happen? The baby is regretfully and horribly aborted or the baby and the mother both die leaving her 4 other children without a mother? I think that Church did a grave injustice to itself when it excommunicated that nun. Why should the baby’s life be valued above the mother’s? both have value. On a personal level to me this feels a lot like the Hierarchy seeking to maintain power when in reality there is no good solution as far as the church is concerned.

Yes both have value. That’s why we can’t kill baby to save the mother.

 

[mdgspencer]

The bishop did not excommunicate the sister. She was automatically excommunicated because she was responsible for an abortion. She may be reconciled with the Church by now and no longer be excommunicared.
You can't kill someone to save someone else. Do I have the right to kill you to save my life, or the life of a family member of mine? I don't have have the right to kill you or someone else for this reason.

 

[nhylan]

Yes both have value. That’s why we can’t kill baby to save the mother.

They both have value. So you can kill the mother and the child (by not doing anything) and that’s right? That seems really nihilistic. If they both have value isn’t better to at least preserve something??

 

[mdgspencer]

I wonder if someone will provide some information. How certain is it that both mother and child would have died if the baby had not been killed? Some people here are assuming that it is certain that both would have died. Probably this information is somewhere in all that has been provided in the threads in these forums on this topic.

 

[momor]

The Church position that I find MOST difficult to accept is that if this had been a case of a tubal pregnancy which left untreated would have led to the death of both mother and baby, it would have been acceptable to remove the damaged tube to prevent maternal hemorrhage even though that would lead to the unintended death of the fetus.

To say that what amounts to an abortion as a secondary cause is acceptable if the primary surgical procedure is something other than an abortion seems hypocritical when, as in a case like this, there is no “organ or body part” to be removed and therefore the abortion is not allowed and both persons die.

 

[Millie_04]

They both have value. So you can kill the mother and the child (by not doing anything) and that’s right? That seems really nihilistic. If they both have value isn’t better to at least preserve something??

At no time is it right for humans to take life whether abortion or not. Lets think about this if you put it in Gods hands she may survive with the child. Or she may die but atleats she would have died knowing that she had made the right choice and not killed an innocent child because she valued herself above that child. so the only plusable answer would be that you put it in Gods hands and if you and the child do die that you hope God will welcome you with open arms. (not doing anything) Do you want that blood on your hands? because i don’t…

God bless May we all find faith understanding and facts that may lead us back into the arms of are father.

 

[Rence]

I wonder if someone will provide some information. How certain is it that both mother and child would have died if the baby had not been killed? Some people here are assuming that it is certain that both would have died. Probably this information is somewhere in all that has been provided in the threads in these forums on this topic.

We don’t know the answer to that question mdgspencer. The doctors are the ones who examined her, gave the diganosis and prescribed the treatment. They are the ones with the chart and they are the ones with the medical liability. We can all speculate as to whether or not she was in real danger, but that’s all it is: speculation.

Pulmonary hypertension has various degrees of illness and disability for each person. One person may be treated suffiicently with antihypertensives, diuretics and steroids. Another person may need that, plus tote an oxygen tank wherever they go. Still another may need a heart transplant. Pregnancy puts a lot of physiological strain on a woman’s heart and lungs. To add that to pulmonary hypertension is dangerous. It’s very likely that she was in danger of losing her life. But it’s just as likely she could have taken the pregnancy to 20 weeks (which is the age of viability). We will never know. And the only ones with medical liability are the physicians who examined her. Any doctor who would diagnose this woman without seeing her or reviewing her chart in detail is a fake. We simply don’t know what the truth was. Only those involved know the truth. And if the Bishop knows what the complete circumstances are, he really doesn’t have any responsibility or obligation to do so. Why?

Because all that doesn’t matter because Sister is Catholic and the Catholic Church forbids direct abortion in any circumstance. It doesn’t matter if she was on death’s door, those are the teachings of the Church. According to the teachings of the Church, anyone who has an abortion or participates in an abortion is automatically excommunicated, which means they have done something that has put a wedge between themselves and the Catholic Church. The Bishop (regardless of whether or not he wished this to be confidential or public) merely made the announcement and expressed concern over the whole situation. All who were involved are free to reconcile with the Church. This is not a dead end thing for them, unless that’s what they wish it to be. It’s also not a punishment handed down in response to something that someone does (such as stealing, and having a sentence of 1 year in prison handed down by a judge as a result). It’s a state that their soul is in, according to the Catholic Church, for the action that separated them from the Church.

The Bishop didn’t do anything but make an announcement. Regardless of whether he made an announcement or not, those involved would still be excommunicated. His announcement just served to drive home just how serious the Catholic Church regards this sin, and serves to help people not make the same sin. It was about what those involved did, not about what the Bishop did. He may not have even “made an announcement” but rather may have been questioned by reporters. Again, it doesn’t matter. The end result is the same.

I wish people would stop harassing the Bishop about this. It’s not like anyone is forced to be Catholic. This isn’t 1215AD. Those who wish to be Catholic are Catholic because they want to be, not because they will be burned at the stake if they are not.

I have great trouble with this teaching as well, but it is still a teaching of the Catholic Church…

If it bothers you, don’t go to a Catholic hospital for treatment.

 

[Rence]

The Church position that I find MOST difficult to accept is that if this had been a case of a tubal pregnancy which left untreated would have led to the death of both mother and baby, it would have been acceptable to remove the damaged tube to prevent maternal hemorrhage even though that would lead to the unintended death of the fetus.

To say that what amounts to an abortion as a secondary cause is acceptable if the primary surgical procedure is something other than an abortion seems hypocritical when, as in a case like this, there is no “organ or body part” to be removed and therefore the abortion is not allowed and both persons die.

This is most difficult for me as well. It isn’t very “pro-life” is it? But those are the rules of the Church regardless. And those who go against Church teaching find themselves excommunicated and have to go to confession and make amends in order to be in good standing again.

 

[Catholic29]

Cases such as these (among other reasons), are why I am no longer Catholic.

 

[JReducation]

As a Franciscan of Life it is my moral duty to clarify some things here and I hope that everyone will listen with patience.

First of all, we need to stop referring to this as the “Church’s rules.” These are not the rules of the Catholic Church. These are revealed truths. The Church is merely the conduit through which Christ speaks. The mystery of the Incarnation is the highest proof that we have concerning the sacredness of life. God the Father would not have vested the second person of the Blessed Trinity with human life were it not fitting for God to assume humanity and had humanity not been sacred in the eyes of the Father. It is the Father who has revealed to us that human life is sacred, not only in the Book of Genesis when he creates man in the image of his eternal son, but also at the moment of the Incarnation when his eternal son unites his divine nature to our human nature.

Second, the Church’s teaching on this point is absolutely and irrefutably infallible. The infallibility of this teaching comes directly from the Commandments that God handed to our father Moses, “Thou shall not kill.” There were no conditions on that commandment. When we look at salvation history we see that God tolerates, not condones, killing only when justice has been violated and an aggression against his people must be stopped with no other recourse. This is not the case here, because there was no aggressor. Mother and child were both victims of a natural medical complication.

Third, the religious in question is vowed to obey the Will of God as it is expressed through the Church, the founder of her community and the constitutions of her community. As religious, our vow of obedience does not allow for personal interpretation of Church teachings and revealed truths. The vow does not even allow for personal choices unless they are authorized by the proper ecclesial authority, which at the very least would be the constitutions of the congregation. I have yet to see a constitution of a religious congregation allow abortion under any circumstance or give any religious the freedom to make such a choice using his or her own conscience. This is not the way that obedience works. Obedience must always be guided by a conscience that is ABSOLUTELY faithful to the Church and in ABSOLUTE COMMUNION with the Church. The argument that “I was following my conscience” does not fly. Conscience that does not follow the Church is a mal-formed conscience, which can only be followed if there is no way of knowing what the Church teaches or if knowing what the Church teaches, one does not fully understand. This is highly doubtful when speaking about Catholics, especially a consecrated religious. Religious are not the only ones who are bound to obey what has been revealed through the Church. The laity is bound just as well. The difference between you and me is that if I disobey, I will excommunicate myself, just as you would, but I would also sever my ties with my religious community. This constitutes a second grave sin. Objectively there are two grave sins involved here.

Fourth, the bishop did not excommunicate the sister. By the way, the Sisters of Mercy are not nuns. They are religious sisters. This is fortunate for the sister in question, because the vows of a nun, friar or monk carry more severe consequences, if they are violated, than the vows of a sister. The sister’s vows are not solemn. Therefore, she commits a grave sin against obedience; but she is not excommunicated for disobeying. She is excommunicated for being directly responsible for an abortion. Had she been a nun, friar or monk, who actually makes solemn vows, she would have been excommunicated for disobedience and excommunicated for her participation in abortion. The excommunication for violating a solemn vow of obedience is even more severe and much more difficult to have it lifted. A bishop can lift the excommunication for an abortion or he can authorize any priest in his diocese to do so in the confessional. No one except the pope can lift an excommunication for violating a solemn vow. Sister was lucky. Those who are being so hard on the Church should stop and think about this. This could have been a spiritual catastrophe. In either case, the bishop did not excommunicate. The excommunication is built into the law of the Church. The bishop simply ratifies it, meaning that he states that it has happened. It is up to the sister to recant her position in the confessional.

Fifth and final point, while everyone is busy defending the sister and pointing fingers at the hierarchy, let us not forget that neither religious congregations nor religious orders are run by the hierarchy. No bishop has authority over any religious in his diocese. We are exempt from the authority of all bishops. We answer only to our major superior and the Holy See. The religious is excommunicated by a canon that was approved by the Vicar of Christ, not by the local bishop. In addition, the religious has lost the right to remain within her religious community. This is not a rule made up by the hierarchy. This is a doctrine of the Catholic Church, promoted by the founders of the great religious orders and approved by Pope Honorius III at the Lateran Council. It was Francis of Assisi and Dominic who wrote this law and presented it to the Council to be enforced on all religious orders and future congregations. Neither Francis nor Dominic were members of the hierarchy. Francis was not even a priest. He was a layman. But this rule is based on revealed truth. Christ called the Apostles to remain in communion with him as he is in communion with the Father. When a religious breaks communion with his or her religious community, he or she is no longer in communion with Christ and forfeits the right to religious life, because religious life is only for those who are in communion with Christ.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[momor]

This is most difficult for me as well. It isn’t very “pro-life” is it? But those are the rules of the Church regardless. And those who go against Church teaching find themselves excommunicated and have to go to confession and make amends in order to be in good standing again.

What is the Church going to do when it becomes routinely possible to remove the fetus and preserve the tube (probably thru early detection)?
Under current moral reasoning the woman will have to insist that the surgeon perform a more radical and disabling procedure than necessary (remove the tube) which will go against his/her professional ethics OR wait until the damage is so severe and the risk of death of the mother from hemorrhage so great that tube removal is the only surgical option (also an ethical nightmare).

The Church has already started down the slippery slope they thought they would avoid when they opined that removing a fetus was not an abortion as long as it was still wrapped in some other organ that was the primary surgical focus.Whether the death of the fetus is the first or second cause it is still death that was caused to save the mother.

I think ultimately the Church will have to admit that when 2 lives are doomed without medical intervention it does not amount to choosing the life of the mother over the life of the baby IF the baby has zero chance of survival in any scenario. It is choosing to save the only life that has ANY chance for survival. I don’t see how that is immoral and tube removal is not.

Using current Church moral reasoning I could argue that medical triage after a plane crash is also inherently immoral. If I determined one person had no chance of survival and I give all my attention to someone else that I determine has a chance, knowing the other person WILL die for certain as a result, is that immoral? I say no.

 

[catharina]

The account I heard was that both mother and baby would have died without the abortion. If this were a more advanced pregnancy and the baby could survive on its own with or without medical support, I think the life of the baby should have been chosen over the mother’s. But in this case, according to the facts I heard, if the abortion were not done both mother and child would have died, and how is that outcome pro-life? Please explain.

You ARE confused.
Pro-life means NO KILLING.
It does not mean Kill one to Save another.

Dismiss your confusion, please.