C
catharina
Guest
- The nun excommunicated herself.
- The Church gives no special permission to kill one to save another.
To those who are faithful, society/govenment are repugnant in permitting this.)
- Status
To those who are faithful, society/govenment are repugnant in permitting this.)
R
Rence
Guest
I don’t see that happening. Do you? and if so, why do you think that?
But if it did happen, I would imagine they would have to make abundantly clear to their doctors and their patients by full disclosure that they will not perform this procedure. In this way, their patients have a choice about where to go for the care they require. Or not be a Catholic institution anymore
However, your example situation is not an emergency. The procedure you’re talking about is a preventative to an emergency. So this could be scheduled at another facility.
Not really because the organ in question must be diseased or otherwise injured. An organ that is not diseased or injured cannot be removed as form of abortion, according to the Catholic Church.
I don’t know about that. But I do know that some women have gotten abortions when their lives were in danger, in consultation with their priest. One in particular is on this forum.
I say no too. I don’t know what the Church teaches about triaging patients.
C
catharina
Guest
Mary_Gail_36
New member
No…it would be immoral to shoot the person who had no chance of survival, to free up my attention for the ones who could survive.
Do you see the difference?
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Thank you, Br. JR, for your post.
T
THX
Guest
Lord, please ASAP bless the Church with a million bishops with the moral corage of Bishop Olmmstead here! Why aren’t other individual bishops publicly supporting him? Why doesn’t the USCCB officially support him? Haven’t American Bishops learned that if they don’t govern like faithful bishops, the faux magisterium inside & outside the Church WILL do it for them, egs. “Sr.” Carol Keehan, Women’s Leadership Conference, the mostly leftist/Alinsky USCCB Staff?
C
catharina
Guest
Ditto.
M
momor
Guest
Yes, I can see your point too.
Can you explain to me how treating a pregnant woman in danger of death by removing a diseased organ containing a baby is NOT taking the life of the baby to save the mother’s? Doesn’t that smack of moral hypocrisy to you especially if the “disease” is due to the growth of the baby?
It seems even more hypocritical to me in cases of cervical or uterine cancer (morally acceptable to remove the diseased organ and pregnancy there too) where the baby likely has a reasonable chance at life if left to develop even though the delay might diminish the survival odds for the mother.
I hope it is apparent that I am upset at the hypocrisy that I see the Church supporting and not that I favor abortion. I just don’t know how one can call the loss of the baby’s life in the above scenarios morally acceptable and then call it immoral in the case of a woman with pulmonary hypertension.
Isn’t it moral hairsplitting to call one type of death a secondary cause and the other a primary cause when the baby is 100% certain to die regardless of the type of medical intervention taken (or not)?
E
Ecoclimber
Guest
OK this is where it gets confusing. I talked to former head of the theology department at a Jesuit University. He stated that if a person does not believe an act or intention is wrong, then he is not guilty of sin. He has to knowing believe that his intention was evil and only that person would know that in his heart.
In the catechism it states:
1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience.** Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53**
1790 A human being **must always obey **the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
So if the person acts against his conscience he is condemn but then **he is also condemned **if the person commits an evil act that is against the teaching of the Church, a sort of a no win situation.
If a person is excommunicated for allowing the abortion to go ahead in order to save the mother, I thought the church taught that it was okay if it was to save the life of the mother so apparently I am wrong. Then why are not Catholic professors at Catholic Universities who believe that** abortion is okay not excommunicated**. Why are not priests’ who have taken an oath to uphold the teaching and dogma of the church and who are consecrated to holiness and who commit repeated acts of sexual immorality or pedophilia which is also a grave mortal** not excommunicated?** Abortion and committing sexual immorality on innocent children are grave sins but why is the nun excommunicated and not the priests? It seems like a** double standard** is applied and lends itself to confusion within the Church?
Perhaps some one can explain this.
In the catechism it states:
1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience.** Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53**
1790 A human being **must always obey **the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
So if the person acts against his conscience he is condemn but then **he is also condemned **if the person commits an evil act that is against the teaching of the Church, a sort of a no win situation.
If a person is excommunicated for allowing the abortion to go ahead in order to save the mother, I thought the church taught that it was okay if it was to save the life of the mother so apparently I am wrong. Then why are not Catholic professors at Catholic Universities who believe that** abortion is okay not excommunicated**. Why are not priests’ who have taken an oath to uphold the teaching and dogma of the church and who are consecrated to holiness and who commit repeated acts of sexual immorality or pedophilia which is also a grave mortal** not excommunicated?** Abortion and committing sexual immorality on innocent children are grave sins but why is the nun excommunicated and not the priests? It seems like a** double standard** is applied and lends itself to confusion within the Church?
Perhaps some one can explain this.
J
jay29
Guest
You can never murder an innocent person to save the life of another.
Cafeteria Catholic professors are all over like horse blank. Doesn’t rise to the level of automatic excommunication.
Abortion is worse than molesting because you destroy a life with no chance of recovery.
Abortion is murder, molesting is not. Abortion is the graver of the two IMHO.Abortion and committing sexual immorality on innocent children are grave sins but why is the nun excommunicated and not the priests? It seems like a** double standard** is applied and lends itself to confusion within the Church?
M
momor
Guest
I agree and would add that God knows our hearts as well and what we do or not in good conscience. I think I’m a pretty logical, reasonable, and moral person and when I get confused and have a hard time finding the logic behind a Church teaching I tend to question it. It’s no coincidence that the few teachings I have a hard time with all stem from advances in medicine and how the Church views the new knowledge/technology.
I know many will advise that obedience to teaching is always the answer but I’m not sure I can accept that in every case, especially those involving life and death. The Church tends to be very deliberative on these issues for good reason and the full understanding and formation of Church teaching can be slow to come about. When uncertain, I am more inclined to follow the counsel of a priest/confessor whom I know to be faithful and who knows me well. My goal is to ponder, pray, and discuss these difficult issues and form my conscience before, God forbid, I am faced with having to make a decision in a crisis.
M
mdgspencer
Guest
A person is automatically excommunicated in the case of an abortion only when he is directly involved in killing the child. They are excommunicated because it is a terrible act to kill an innocent baby. Someone who simply says abortion is okay is not excommunicated, as in the case of the professors mentioned in th preceding post here. They may be guilt of sin–but obviously it is excessive to excommunicate someone simply because they have sinned.
Someone following their conscience may believe in abortion. However, because their convictions are not Catholic ones, it may be a mistake to call the person a Catholic at all then.
But how far can you go in approving someone who follows their conscience? Thieves,embezzlers, and even murders sometimes feel they are free of guilt because of the justifications that exist in their minds. Is it enough simply to say someone is following their conscience?
Someone following their conscience may believe in abortion. However, because their convictions are not Catholic ones, it may be a mistake to call the person a Catholic at all then.
But how far can you go in approving someone who follows their conscience? Thieves,embezzlers, and even murders sometimes feel they are free of guilt because of the justifications that exist in their minds. Is it enough simply to say someone is following their conscience?
J
jay29
Guest
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78
Formally coopering in an abortion (docs, nurses, counselors) gets automatic excommunication. So does a person who procures one. Now, how about those that authorize money for them or expands abortion “rights”? I think without these an abortion might not have occurred. What do you think?
J
JReducation
Guest
You have some very good and honest questions. Let me try to help here.OK this is where it gets confusing. I talked to former head of the theology department at a Jesuit University. He stated that if a person does not believe an act or intention is wrong, then he is not guilty of sin. He has to knowing believe that his intention was evil and only that person would know that in his heart.
In the catechism it states:
1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience.** Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53**
1790 A human being **must always obey **the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
So if the person acts against his conscience he is condemn but then **he is also condemned **if the person commits an evil act that is against the teaching of the Church, a sort of a no win situation.
If a person is excommunicated for allowing the abortion to go ahead in order to save the mother, I thought the church taught that it was okay if it was to save the life of the mother so apparently I am wrong. Then why are not Catholic professors at Catholic Universities who believe that** abortion is okay not excommunicated**. Why are not priests’ who have taken an oath to uphold the teaching and dogma of the church and who are consecrated to holiness and who commit repeated acts of sexual immorality or pedophilia which is also a grave mortal** not excommunicated?** Abortion and committing sexual immorality on innocent children are grave sins but why is the nun excommunicated and not the priests? It seems like a** double standard** is applied and lends itself to confusion within the Church?
One is always bound to follow one’s conscience. However, Catholics are bound to form their consciences according to the teaching of the Church.
Religious are bound to obey the collective conscience of the Church, by virtue of our vow of obedience. Obedience requires that we put aside our own ideas when these are in conflict with Church teaching. We do not have to believe the teaching or understand it. We are bound to obey or risk eternal damnation. Depending on which community you belong to the rules can be even stricter. For example, St. Benedict and St. Francis wrote into their rules that their sons and daughters were never to disobey them, even after they were dead and gone and that if they ever disobeyed them, they were to be damned forever. Then they added, under obedience every brother or sister of these orders is bound to obey the pope and bishops in all matters without question and without passing judgment on what the pope or the bishop requires. Those of us who are in vows do not have the right to form any opinion contrary to that of the founder of our order, our superior, of a bishop, pope or the faith of the Church. We gave up that right when we took the vow of poverty. We do not own truth.
The rule of conscience that you cited above applies to those who are not Catholic, because they don’t have the benefit of the Catholic Church to help them form their conscience. Secondly, it applies only to those Catholics who do not understand or who HONESTLY believe that they will be commiting a sin if they acted differently. The question here is whether or not the sister in question honestly believed that she would be commiting a sin, if she allowed nature to take its course. If she honestly believes that this would have been a sin, then she is bound to follow her conscience. If she believed that this was the right thing to do, then she is culpable of sin, because she’s not trying to avoid sin, she’s simply trying to follow what she has defined as right. That’s not the job of conscience. Conscience defines sin and then chooses to act contrary to sin. Conscience does not define Truth. Only the Church can define Truth.
Professors and others who are pro-abortion cannot be excommunicated. The law is very explicit. One has to be materially culpable. You have to be the person who pushes the button, not the person who believes that it’s ok to push the button. On this particular issue you cannot be excommunicated because you don’t believe that this is murder. You can only be excommunicated if you are part of the murder. There are only two murders for which you are automatically excommunicated, the murder of the unborn and the murder of a priest or religious. No other murder is an excommunicable offense. It remains a grave sin. The Church has the authority to impose or relax the rule on excommunication. She does not have the authority to relax the teaching on murder. This teaching comes from God himself.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
catharina
Guest
Thank you, Brother.You have some very good and honest questions. Let me try to help here.
One is always bound to follow one’s conscience. However, Catholics are bound to form their consciences according to the teaching of the Church.
Religious are bound to obey the collective conscience of the Church, by virtue of our vow of obedience. Obedience requires that we put aside our own ideas when these are in conflict with Church teaching. We do not have to believe the teaching or understand it. We are bound to obey or risk eternal damnation. Depending on which community you belong to the rules can be even stricter. For example, St. Benedict and St. Francis wrote into their rules that their sons and daughters were never to disobey them, even after they were dead and gone and that if they ever disobeyed them, they were to be damned forever. Then they added, under obedience every brother or sister of these orders is bound to obey the pope and bishops in all matters without question and without passing judgment on what the pope or the bishop requires. Those of us who are in vows do not have the right to form any opinion contrary to that of the founder of our order, our superior, of a bishop, pope or the faith of the Church. We gave up that right when we took the vow of poverty. We do not own truth.
The rule of conscience that you cited above applies to those who are not Catholic, because they don’t have the benefit of the Catholic Church to help them form their conscience. Secondly, it applies only to those Catholics who do not understand or who HONESTLY believe that they will be commiting a sin if they acted differently. The question here is whether or not the sister in question honestly believed that she would be commiting a sin, if she allowed nature to take its course. If she honestly believes that this would have been a sin, then she is bound to follow her conscience. If she believed that this was the right thing to do, then she is culpable of sin, because she’s not trying to avoid sin, she’s simply trying to follow what she has defined as right. That’s not the job of conscience. Conscience defines sin and then chooses to act contrary to sin. Conscience does not define Truth. Only the Church can define Truth.
Professors and others who are pro-abortion cannot be excommunicated. The law is very explicit. One has to be materially culpable. You have to be the person who pushes the button, not the person who believes that it’s ok to push the button. On this particular issue you cannot be excommunicated because you don’t believe that this is murder. You can only be excommunicated if you are part of the murder. There are only two murders for which you are automatically excommunicated, the murder of the unborn and the murder of a priest or religious. No other murder is an excommunicable offense. It remains a grave sin. The Church has the authority to impose or relax the rule on excommunication. She does not have the authority to relax the teaching on murder. This teaching comes from God himself.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
Bold is mine.
The way that the law is worded, this is not clear. This is the question that bishops are asking of the Vatican. But the response has been for the bishops to use their judgment until the canon lawyers can clarify what the writers of the original canon, in 1983, were trying to say. The only person who can bypass this entire research process and define what the canon means to say is the pope himself; but he has refused to do so and has left it up to the bishops and canon lawyers. Even Cardinal Levada who heads the office fo the Congregation of the Faith or Cardinal Burke who heads the Tribunal do not have the authority to interpret the law. They only have the authority to enforce the law. But since the law has triggered some questions, they cannot enforce it or it would be a serious violation of justice against the bishops or the politicians in question. That’s why bishops are telling politicians not to present themselves for Holy Communion, rather than saying that they are excommunicated. Because there is a question as to whether their vote is material cooperation.
I have my own opinion on this, but I am not allowed to express it since it is not the opinion of my superior. I have to go by his opinion or his understanding of the law until such time as a clarification comes from a higher authority. The same applies to all of us. If you are a lay person, you do not have a religious superior, but you have a bishop. In his diocese you must follow his lead. At the moment, there is no clarification on this question from a higher authority than the local bishops. When there is such a void, the bishop’s word is final for the laity who live in his diocese. It is not binding on religious, only on the laity. Religious are bound by the position of their superior. We are only bound to obey the bishop if our superior orders it or if it’s a matter that is related to one of his ministries in which we are involved.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
DOShea
Guest
I have two questions regarding this statement:
First, to argue that any Church teaching is “irrefutably” anything, particularly infallible, is taking the position that Church teaching can possibly be refuted by some other thing or entity. Can it? If not, than irrefutability can not apply to it. It appears to add some kind of credibility to Church teaching it does not have, as though it was challenged and successfully “refuted” those charges with proof or evidence. Church teaching doesn’t work like that; it relies on faith.
Second question regards the commandment given to Moses about not killing having “no conditions.” It certainly did have conditions, or how do explain the penalty of stoning those guilty of offenses such as adultery, disrespecting parents, or even killing entire populations - pregnant women and their babies included - during the occupation of the land of Israel post Exodus? Why was Samuel justified in executing a king who hadn’t been killed during the battle, and was bound and in custody of the Israelites if there were no conditions attached to killing? I contend there were and are a plethora of conditions regarding that particular commandment. Examples would be military people who engage in warfare at the behest of their nation. They can shoot someone in the head in war, yet the church teaches that the moral culpability for their actions, if wrong, rests solely on the elected members of their government privy to the information to make the decision, and tasked with it by the nation’s laws. This is totally different from the case at hand where everyone involved with the decision, however remote, seem to share full culpability for their own piece of the total wrong. If those don’t represent conditional states, I’m not sure what would.
As this situation is, I’m sure it’s going to bring cheers from those anxious to see Bishops sound off on moral issues. But actions have consequences, so when Catholic health care workers end up having to swear an oath that they will leave their “personal” faith at the door of the hospital or not work there, I’m not so sure it’s going to be a victory. People are already skeptical of Catholics in health care issues because they - holding different beliefs - don’t want to receive treatment filtered through the Catholic teachings. And it isn’t just a matter of treatment in Catholic hospitals, because Church teaching is not confined to particular buildings. Catholic health care professionals are bound by the same teachings if they work in the Catholic hospital or the Baptist Hospital or the City Hospital. People are not going to be comfortable getting care from an individual they suspect might alter their care to avoid the public scandal of “Bishop confirms excommunication” in the headlines.
S
Soutane
Guest
Nun remains defiant.See new thread.This lady knew EXACTLY what she was doing.In her letter SHE criticises her Bishop.forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=464303
R
Rence
Guest
This is not the same person. Sister Margaret McBride is the nun from St. Joseph’s who was part of the ethics committee and VP of mission integration there who approved the abortion in the case of the woman with pulmonary hypertension.
The article above that you quoted is Sister Keehan at Holy Family Hospital.
- Status