Thursday, March 28, AD 2024 1:03pm

Nun Automatically Excommunicated For Approving Abortion

Sister Margaret McBride

[New Updates with Father Zuhlsdorf chiming in]

[Breaking Update at the bottom of this post, more “mercy” killings by Sisters of Mercy]

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.

The decision was made in an ethics committee meeting due to the urgency of the situation.

The hospital vice president, Suzanne Pfister, said the hospital follows the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.

“In this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother’s life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy,” Pfister said.

Pfister issued the four-paragraph statement on behalf of the hospital, its parent company Catholic Healthcare West, and the Sisters of Mercy, McBride’s religious order.

I looked up the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, fourth edition, and it specifically states under Part Four: Issues in Caring for the Beginning of Life, Section 45 that:

Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo. Catholic health care institutions are not to provide abortion services, even based upon the principle of material cooperation. In this context, Catholic health care institutions need to be concerned about the danger of scandal in any association with abortion providers.

Suzanne Pfister may have been referring to and misinterpreting Section 47 which states:

Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.

I believe this means that any attempts at saving the mother that may (secondarily) abort the innocent unborn child before viability is allowed, but Suzanne Pfister is wrong in this application because the hospital purposely procured an abortion because the innocent unborn child was a threat to the mother, ie, the innocent unborn child was treated as a disease.

After learning of the decision and the action of killing the innocent unborn child, the Diocese of Phoenix issued a statement.

“I am gravely concerned by the fact that an abortion was performed several months ago in a Catholic hospital in this diocese,” Olmsted said. “I am further concerned by the hospital’s statement that the termination of a human life was necessary to treat the mother’s underlying medical condition.

“An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother’s life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means.”

Olmsted added that if a Catholic “formally cooperates” in an abortion, he or she is automatically excommunicated.

(…)

“The Catholic Church will continue to defend life and proclaim the evil of abortion without compromise, and must act to correct even her own members if they fail in this duty,” the bishop said.

Sister McBride has been transferred to other duties within the hospital after learning that she excommunicated herself by her actions.

Sister Judy Carle

Board Chairwoman Sister Judith Carle, apparently unaware of above Catholic teaching, along with President and CEO Lloyd Dean, appealed to Bishop Olmstead.

“If there had been a way to save the pregnancy and still prevent the death of the mother, we would have done it,” the letter says. “We are convinced there was not.”

Basically Sister Judith Carle could have cared less for the innocent unborn child violating Catholic Church teaching, ie, the Fifth Commandment as well as the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.

_._

(Biretta Tip: Michael Clancy of The Arizona Republic via Lucianne)

[1] As soon as the offense is committed and by reason of the offense itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge.

_._

Update I: Early this morning it has been reported that a self-appointed angel of death, Sister Elaine Stahl, has dispatched more than a half-dozen aging nuns to their deaths in mercy killings at the Sisters of Mercy convent’s mother house and retreat center the in Auburn, California during 2009 A.D.

Last year, six elderly nuns – ranging in age from 68 to 100 – died at the convent.

A Sisters of Mercy spokeswoman have denied these claims of Auburn nun killings or what I call euthanasia.

Update II: Father Zuhlsdorf had these comments regarding Sister Margaret Mary McBride’s automatic excommunication:

[The idea here is that she automatically incurred the excommunication, latae sententiae, by her direct participation in the successful procuring of an abortion.  Some may have questions about how proximate her participation was to the actual abortion.  However, it seems that the bottom line here is that it could not have taken place without her approval.]

0 0 votes
Article Rating
257 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Saturday, May 15, AD 2010 10:26am

Little surprise. The Sisters of Mercy went the left-wing loon route long ago. A perusal of their web-site demonstrates that. All the trendy left-wing causes are present while the fight against abortion is absent.

http://www.sistersofmercy.org/index.php

No doubt Mother McAuley is shaking her head in Heaven over her wayward daughters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_McAuley

Alan Dean Foster
Saturday, May 15, AD 2010 10:58am

Wonder if the woman in question already had, say, a couple of young children? So you don’t do the procedure, the fetus survives, the mother dies, and you end up with three orphans plus a widower.

Trying squaring that one with her living children…and with God.

Tito Edwards
Saturday, May 15, AD 2010 11:02am

God’s plans are mysterious, who are we to judge?

So you would purposely murder an innocent child instead of allowing this child to live and a chance for the mother to be alive as well.

All life is sacred period.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Saturday, May 15, AD 2010 11:17am

“Trying squaring that one with her living children”

All of her children were living until one was put to death.

gb
gb
Saturday, May 15, AD 2010 11:31am

Mr Foster,
Actually, that’s just exactly what happened with Dr. Gianna Molla, only she had 3 older children when she was advised by her physicians to abort her fourth to save her life. She declined, of course, because she knew she could only save her life by losing it. This proved to be true when her 4 “orphaned” children & her spouse lived to attend her canonization. So I guess we could say that her decision did, in fact, “square with God.”
With respect, you’re “looking at the world with the eyes of man & not the eyes of God (Mk 8).”

sibyl
Saturday, May 15, AD 2010 11:49am

As a mother myself, I know how scary it is to contemplate the possibility of dying of pregnancy or labor. What will you not justify when your life is on the line?

Also, I’m sure that Sister McBride’s decision came out of great compassion and with sadness. So I have sympathy for her too.

But ultimately, the end can never justify the means. The only reason that it seems easy to justify an abortion here is that the little one who is to be killed is invisible to the outside world. But it becomes quite different when you consider the prospect of a baby and a woman, lying next to each other in bed, and saying, “The baby’s existence gravely harms his mother. The only thing to do is kill him.”

What an excruciatingly difficult world we live in. But Jesus always promised us the cross. As Christians, to take the world’s answer is to put down that cross. God give me the strength never to put it down, even were it to come to a decision like this.

bearing
Saturday, May 15, AD 2010 12:20pm

What exactly was this condition that required an abortion at 11 weeks? I have not yet found a case where abortion was truly the *only* life-saving option. It might be true that it reduces physical risk for the mother more than non-abortion options, so they might be able to say truly that it is “safest” for the mother… but they never claim that. They only claim that they had to perform an abortion to save the mother’s life. If you dig deeper, I predict you’ll find it’s simply not true; there usually are other options. (And it seems that no journalist ever asks the question, “Were there other options? Why were the other options rejected?”)

There is only one condition I can think of where you would be hard-pressed to avoid the conclusion that deliberately killing an unborn child was necessary to save a mother’s life, and that is the theoretically possible case of ectopic pregnancy where the embryo had attached to a vital organ (not, as in most ectopic pregnancies, to the fallopian tube, which, when it becomes a “diseased body part” as a result of the pregnancy, can be removed licitly — even if this will, as an unintended consequence, kill the child –without killing the mother.) But I don’t even know if that actually ever happens.

scott123
scott123
Saturday, May 15, AD 2010 12:30pm

Bearing makes a good point.
The assumption here is simply wrong, the lives of the mother and the child cannot be made to be in competition, and there doesn’t seem to be any imminent life threat from an early 11 week pregnancy. What one probably will learn is that it is a doctor’s prediction that taking the baby to full term may cause a risk.
This is of course quite a different matter and these SISTERS need to be held accountable.
They have given their soul over to the liberal modern world and turned their backs on Christ. Hard words but unfortunately the truth.

Elaine Krewer
Admin
Saturday, May 15, AD 2010 2:41pm

“The treatment necessary to save the mother’s life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy.”

This is just total speculation on my part, but could it be that the mother had an aggressive cancer that required all-out radiation or chemotherapy to stop, and that such treatment would likely have killed the child? Was the cancer spreading so fast that if the mother had refused treatment, she would have died anyway before the child was viable?

If that was the case — and someone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong — could the Catholic hospital have allowed the mother to receive radiation/chemo anyway with the child still in her womb, even if there was a strong likelihood that it would kill the baby? She would then be treating her own disease but not intervening directly to kill the child.

If the child happened to die as a result of the treatment, that would be a case of double effect — but it would also leave open the possibility that the child might miraculously survive. (Paging St. Gianna Molla!) However, it would NOT be permissible to, in effect, euthanize the child ahead of time on the grounds that he/she will “die anyway” or be diseased or deformed.

Also, it’s my understanding that church penal laws (including, of course, those that impose excommunications) are supposed to be strictly construed — that is, if there is any reasonable interpretation of the law under which a person would NOT incur excommunication, that interpretation should be followed. Surely Bp. Olmsted and his canon lawyers know this. If they could not find ANY justifying reason for this action — an honest mistake being made, or a snap decision being made in extreme duress in a life or death situation — then one likely did not exist.

So I suspect the case in question was not quite as dire as one is led to believe, and it was simply a case of one or more doctors predicting that the mother would die if she carried her child to term, and the “Sisters” accepting their diagnosis without question.

Elaine Krewer
Admin
Saturday, May 15, AD 2010 2:45pm

Actually, I should have said “If they could not find ANY mitigating factor in this action…”

“Justifying reason” was a poor choice of words because while a sinful action can never be justified, the level of guilt involved (mortal or venial sin) could be affected by factors such as mental or physical duress, ignorance of an alternative, etc.

Tito Edwards
Saturday, May 15, AD 2010 2:56pm

…could the Catholic hospital have allowed the mother to receive radiation/chemo anyway with the child still in her womb, even if there was a strong likelihood that it would kill the baby? She would then be treating her own disease but not intervening directly to kill the child.

I am better than 50% sure that that would be allowed.

Because you are not purposely killing the baby, only treating the mother (if there were no other avenue that doesn’t kill the baby purposely).

Elaine Krewer
Admin
Saturday, May 15, AD 2010 3:08pm

“The Sisters of Mercy went the left-wing loon route long ago.”

It depends on which Sisters of Mercy you are talking about. For example, check out this story from National Review Online concerning a member of the Religious Sisters of Mercy of Alma, Michigan:

http://article.nationalreview.com/432597/nun-sense-women-in-the-catholic-church/kathryn-jean-lopez

The Alma RSMs should definitely NOT be confused with the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas — the “left wing loon” group which Don cited.

I would sure love to know how Sister Prudence (the nun interviewed by NRO) would have handled the Phoenix situation.

saraj
saraj
Saturday, May 15, AD 2010 3:14pm

McBride should have excused herself. The patient should have been transferred to another hospital. Catholic hospitals do not perform abortions.

Elaine Krewer
Admin
Saturday, May 15, AD 2010 3:18pm

Don, try checking out this link… the difference from the loony RSMs of the Americas site is like night and day:

http://www.rsmofalma.org/

Tito Edwards
Saturday, May 15, AD 2010 3:19pm

SaraJ,

McBride should have excused herself. The patient should have been transferred to another hospital. Catholic hospitals do not perform abortions.

Well said.

With the caveat to persuading to keep the baby at the hospital and if the woman balked then transfer her to another hospital.

Tito Edwards
Saturday, May 15, AD 2010 3:21pm

Unfortunately these Sisters of Mercy from Phoenix fit the stereotype of dissident nuns.

They don’t wear habits and wear short hair.

Alan Dean Foster
Saturday, May 15, AD 2010 3:30pm

Two questions (one of which, due to privacy laws, probably cannot be answered)
1) Was the patient Catholic?
2) If the sisters and doctors involved had denied the termination and the woman had subsequently died, would St. Joseph’s potentially have been legally liable?

gb
gb
Saturday, May 15, AD 2010 3:41pm

Mr Foster,
As a NP for the last 20 yrs, let me assure you that neither one of those questions should have in any way influenced the hospital Ethics Comm. Both are irrelevant to the question at hand.
Bearing,
To my knowledge, its highly unlikely that anyone could carry an ectopic to 11 wks gestation if implanted in the fallopian tube d/t rupture of the FT long before the baby reached that age.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Saturday, May 15, AD 2010 3:49pm

“Don, try checking out this link… the difference from the loony RSMs of the Americas site is like night and day:”

Those seem like solid sisters Elaine!

Karl
Karl
Saturday, May 15, AD 2010 5:05pm

I am ever grateful that I have not had to face that choice, as clear as it is from the perspective of the Catholic Church.

We should pray for everyone involved.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Saturday, May 15, AD 2010 6:17pm

First, I take at face value the hospital’s statements that the abortion was necessary to save the mother’s life. Without in any way dismissing the earlier comments that cast doubt on the accuracy of these statements, I’m simply not competent to question these statements.

That said, I agree with most of the comments regarding the moral question, including Karl’s. Catholic teaching is clear; this teaching is a correct application of natural law; and Sister McBride and the hospital failed terribly. Nonetheless, the temptation to take a life that “appears” remote and unknown in order to save the life of a patient or loved one is probably considerable. This temptation is aggravated by the practical reality that the moral difference between (i) undertaking a procedure to save a mother’s life which has the indirect but certain consequence of killing the baby and (ii) undertaking a procedure to directly kill the baby in order to save the mother’s life is more nuanced than most people are likely to grasp. There are indeed theologians, including Catholic theologians, that struggle with this distinction and question its moral validity. While the principle of double effect is well established in Catholic moral theology, it is not at all intuitive for even many very intelligent and well-intended people.

But. Catholic teaching should not have been mysterious to this sister. She failed in her duties, and the ex communication is inevitable. Like Karl, I pray for her. I would like to think I would have done the right thing under these circumstances, but know with absolute certainty that would not want this high opinion of myself tested.

Tito Edwards
Saturday, May 15, AD 2010 6:21pm

Karl & Mike Petrik,

I agree. We should pray for all those involved, both hospital staff and family.

I know I wouldn’t want to be in that position.

Dr. Who
Dr. Who
Saturday, May 15, AD 2010 9:41pm

So, if the woman would actually not survive long enough to give birth–which was extremely likely–then 2 people would die. That’s pro life, right? This whole thing reminds me of what Christ said to the Pharisees in Matthew 23:4: They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they
themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.  

I don’t think you’d like nonmedical people telling your doctor how to treat you. Then why are you folks doing so, & why do you think that people should do so simply because they occupy positions high up in the church ?

Randy519
Randy519
Saturday, May 15, AD 2010 11:26pm

I know Sr. McBride very well. I worked with her for several years. She always teaches the importance of evaluating all sides of a situation and making the best decision. As noted, the baby would NOT have survived at 11 weeks if birthing had occurred. Also, keep in mind that Sr. McBrie was ONE of several people who made this decision.

Sr. McBride worked incredibly hard to get where she was going at St. Joe’s and I think it’s a tragedy to see this be the legacy that she carries with her. I think we have many more pressing issues in the diocese which require Olmsted’s attention. But this story gets attention and readers..all at the expense of a nun who must have anguished over this decision before signing off on it.

I echo everyone’s comments…Prayers to all.

topnotchentertainment
Sunday, May 16, AD 2010 12:25am

all you people are nuts. This is the 21st century and you still believe in fairy tales? A woman would have died and instead an abortion was done to save her life. An 11 week old abortion, an embryonic cell was aborted. You all need to read maybe…a science book? instead of believing that men lived in a whale for 3 days, women were created from a rib etc….

j. christian
j. christian
Sunday, May 16, AD 2010 1:02am

An 11 week old abortion, an embryonic cell was aborted

and

You all need to read maybe…a science book?

You might want to follow your own advice there.

Joseph
Joseph
Sunday, May 16, AD 2010 5:43am

I have had some experience with the sisters at Alma, Michigan. Don’t idealize them. By which I mean, Don’t go near them.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Sunday, May 16, AD 2010 6:40am

Randy519:
The fact that the baby is not viable at the time it is killed does not diminish the moral culpability. This is the same reasoning use by all manner of pro-aborts — i.e., the babay is not a human life worthy of respect and protection until vialbility. That is contemptable nonsense.

Dr. Who:
I could not find anything in the story that suggested that the baby could not be brought to term. Do you know facts that we don’t know? Did I miss something in the story? I do think you raise a fair point in that if it is a medical fact that the baby would not survive without the mother and the mother could only survive without the baby, the moral issue at least seems much harder. If the only choices are (i) both mother and child die versus (ii) only child dies, then I do speculate whether a wrong is committed under (ii). I’ll let real moral theologians answer that one.
But that said, the article did not suggest that were indeed the only choices.

Susan Peterson
Susan Peterson
Sunday, May 16, AD 2010 8:11am

Let’s assume the in my opinion less likely situation that the woman really would have died without this abortion. I think there is a rare situation in which the woman has something like an allergic reaction to the pregnancy, where this might be the case.

The Church’s position is that it is always wrong to make a direct attack on an innocent human life. You can remove a diseased organ; a fallopian tube with an ectopic pregnancy, or a cancerous uterus which is also pregnant. In that case the life saving effect is achieved by removing the organ and the death of the embryo is incidental. But the life saving effect can never be brought about directly by the death of the unborn human being, no matter at how early a stage of development. This can be illustrated by the fact that the new tube sparing procedure for ectopic pregnancy in which the tube is flushed with methotrexate, is illicit, because it brings about the desired effect directly by killing the embryo.

So an abortion at 11 weeks is not permissible even if it means that both the mother and the unborn will die.

Catholic moral theology is NOT outcome based. It is intention based. Acts are intrinsically moral or immoral, and one can not perform an immoral one to save any number of lives. Newman said, to make this utterly clear, that it is better for thousands to die in agony than for one single venial sin to be committed. Catholic moral theology is not a moral theology for life in this world only. Its aim in not primarily happiness in this life, but eternal happiness. Often the two coincide, but when they don’t, then the world cries out against the Church.

This may be one of those situations. The bishop spoke precisely and correctly.
Susan F. Peterson

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Sunday, May 16, AD 2010 9:21am

When I commit a mortal sin, I have automaticaly excommunicated myself.

I can cure the problem. I may repent, get to Confession, do penance, amend my life, do good works, glorify God, and there is again Hope.

I hope Sister Margaret rectifies her situation.

Tito Edwards
Sunday, May 16, AD 2010 9:35am

Randy519,

Church teaching, ie, Jesus, agrees with Mr. Petrik.

As Susan says, it is intention based, not outcome based.

Sister McBride made a gross error in judgement. I’m afraid of the previous errors that were not caught in time and the many innocent life that was murdered because she *thought* otherwise.

Prayers indeed all around.

pat levi
pat levi
Sunday, May 16, AD 2010 12:13pm

Can a catholic nun still be a nun if she has been excommunicated from the Catholic Church?

magdalene
magdalene
Sunday, May 16, AD 2010 12:25pm

This decision was morally wrong even if due to a misplaced compassion. A life was taken. Not just some cell (what a ridiculous thing to say).

Yes there are difficult situations and St. Gianna Molla had the same one where she postponed treatment to save the life of her child. That was heroic but her life had been one of great faith and she had the grace to make such a decision, leaving the care of her children to her husband and the Providence of a good God. Martyrs such as Felicity and Perpetua also had to leave their babies and young children as they gave their lives in witness to the Catholic Church.

We are, as a society, so myoptic in our views. We see only this life and not eternity. We see only ‘situation ethics’ and not true moral ethics.

The modern religious sister should have excused herself as someone said, at the very least. Better would be to uphold true moral ethics.

I also have known Sisters of Mercy who are in favor of euthanasia and so forth when persons are judged to have ‘no quality of life’. A travesty when our religious have fallen so much into the relativist secular mindset. And then they lead others into it as well. A scandal.

trackback
Sunday, May 16, AD 2010 12:45pm

[…] The American Catholic […]

sara
sara
Sunday, May 16, AD 2010 2:54pm

Most often when abortionists claim they are killing the child for “the life of the mother”, they are rationalizing or outright lying. We don’t know the truth about this situation without evaluating the medical case – which will never be presented.

The secular humanists in the church have done enough damage with the sliding scale moral principal and self restraint. The massive child sex abuse ring is all the evidence Catholics need to know in understanding what happens when these people are left to do their thing in the church without consequences.

Peter
Peter
Sunday, May 16, AD 2010 6:35pm

Wonder if the woman in question already had, say, a couple of young children? So you don’t do the procedure, the fetus survives, the mother dies, and you end up with three orphans plus a widower.

Trying squaring that one with her living children…and with God.

O.K. then, how about the mother of three who died fighting off a cougar which attacked one of her children (her others were not there). This mother has been called courageous and a hero among other accolades (I agree). By your reasoning, though, she should have let the child get mauled to death by the cougar because you decry the fact that she left behind three orphans and a widow.

Peter
Peter
Sunday, May 16, AD 2010 6:36pm

“widower”

sjdawson
sjdawson
Sunday, May 16, AD 2010 8:14pm

@ Peter
“O.K. then, how about the mother of three who died fighting off a cougar which attacked one of her children (her others were not there). This mother has been called courageous and a hero among other accolades (I agree). By your reasoning, though, she should have let the child get mauled to death by the cougar because you decry the fact that she left behind three orphans and a widow.”

Sort of apples and oranges. In this case, sacrificing her life would not have saved the child. You seem to forget that the unborn child was only 11 weeks old. Even if the pregnancy wasn’t terminated, the chance of survival was pretty close to nil for both mother and child. The mother had pulmonary hypertension. Look it up, you’ll find that the fatality rate among pregnant women is quite high.

Peter
Peter
Sunday, May 16, AD 2010 9:59pm

In this case, sacrificing her life would not have saved the child.

Mortality rate for the mother is high but it is not a certainty. From what I understand, the risk is by far the greatest after C-section. This mortality rate (one study gives 50% another 30%)is probably better than than the mother’s chance of surviving a cougar attack.

You seem to forget that the unborn child was only 11 weeks old.

What does the child’s age have to do with it?

I know of women who were given death sentences by their doctor if they continued their pregnancy. These women allowed the pregnancy to continue and had successful outcomes. All this being said, I understand the extremely difficult nature of this situation. I am not judging the decision. At this point I am only taking issue with the comment from one of the posters regarding leaving behind orphans and a widower. That poster was putting more value on the life of the post born children than that of preborn children.

Patrick BC
Patrick BC
Monday, May 17, AD 2010 12:06am

Sister McBride (along with the rest of the ethics committee) had to consider the scientific evidence they had, which was that both fetus and mother “faced a nearly certain risk” of dying of pulmonary hypertension. It is nice to discuss the philosophical theories of double effect and the comparative hair lengths of different orders of nuns, but the urgent, tragic question for Sister McBride was whether the mother would be forced to die along with her 11 week unborn child. I cannot understand how anybody could fault her for letting this woman live.

Susan Peterson
Susan Peterson
Monday, May 17, AD 2010 12:47am

Patrick,

The bishop faulted her because the Catholic principle is that it is always wrong to take an innocent human life, even to save another life. Neither life is more valuable than the other. Did you read my comment above?
Sin is the greatest evil, not death.

If the woman involved did not accept this she has the choice to have herself transferred to another hospital.

sjdawson
sjdawson
Monday, May 17, AD 2010 5:43am

@Peter:
“Mortality rate for the mother is high but it is not a certainty. From what I understand, the risk is by far the greatest after C-section. This mortality rate (one study gives 50% another 30%)is probably better than than the mother’s chance of surviving a cougar attack.”

We have sketchy details about the exact circumstances. The patient may have been going into or was in crisis. I am not a medical professional, however, I have been in critical condition in a hospital. Decisions are made on the best available information at the time. You and I can Monday Morning Quaterback to our heart’s content.

“All this being said, I understand the extremely difficult nature of this situation. I am not judging the decision. At this point I am only taking issue with the comment from one of the posters regarding leaving behind orphans and a widower. That poster was putting more value on the life of the post born children than that of preborn children.”

How each of us reacts at a time of emergency is different. I will still say that your comparison of the 2 women are apples and oranges. They both made decisions based on the situation that they were in. The woman in the hospital was a least 14 weeks away from any kind of viability for her child, It could be that the treatments that she was going to have to undergo would have harmed her child anyway.

c matt
c matt
Monday, May 17, AD 2010 8:45am

Dr. Who – you misunderstand the role of the medical staff. Medical doctors have ZERO competence with the moral question involved. They are there only to provide medical advice – the options for treatment and the risks involved in each. The medical staff are no better equipped to answer the moral questions than the patient, and often less equipped.

Phillip
Phillip
Monday, May 17, AD 2010 8:45am

I remember reading a moral philosopher who wrote that the foundational justice of society was that innocent life was not to be directly taken (thus distinctions about guilt and about direct taking in moral philosophy/theology.) Part of the problem is that once one accepts the direct taking of innocent life as a means to an end, then how do you determine what other innocent lives can be used to what particular ends? What sort of society will that leave us with?

c matt
c matt
Monday, May 17, AD 2010 8:50am

Levi – I would think not. After all, you are excommunicated, so you are outside the Church, thus no longer Catholic. Seems that following that logic, you could no longer be a Catholic nun. That would appear to be the logical outcome, but don’t know for sure.

sjdawson
sjdawson
Monday, May 17, AD 2010 11:20am

@c matt

“Medical doctors have ZERO competence with the moral question involved. They are there only to provide medical advice – the options for treatment and the risks involved in each. The medical staff are no better equipped to answer the moral questions than the patient, and often less equipped.”

There are a number of doctors who are qualified and competent to answer questions about medical ethics. The surgeon who operated on me had his post-doctoral work in Ethics. He was also Catholic. You might be very surprised at the level that medical professionals act when it comes to ethics committees. To say that they are not equipped simply isn’t true and is misleading. Often, there are several levels of personnel who sit on ethics boards to get as much insight as possible. Clergy are asked to offer expertise, not because medical professionals are ill-equipped to handle ethcial questions.

Sam
Sam
Monday, May 17, AD 2010 12:49pm

Basically, the same exact procedure can be called an abortion in one case and a life-saving procedure with the secondary affect of killing the infant in another, all because of that magical force called “intent”.

Take an ectopic pregnancy. Same procedure, but in one case it’s an abortion, in another you’re removing the fallopian tube and oops, the baby dies. But it’s okay in the second case, because you didn’t intend to kill the baby, see! It’s just happened to unfortunately occur. Intent is magic.

Maxou
Maxou
Monday, May 17, AD 2010 1:04pm

The catholic church is eager to excommunicate when it comes to women’s reproductive choices and abortion. But where were all these bishops when children (who they cheer so much) were violated and raped by other priests? And why weren’t these priests excommunicated?????
Talk about sexism and hypocrisy!!

Tito Edwards
Monday, May 17, AD 2010 1:25pm

Maxou,

God is a very forgiving God.

In the case of the priest homosexual pedophile scandals nearly all the priests (if not all) acknowledged their sins and asked for forgiveness and received it.

In the case of Sister Margaret McBride she has yet to acknowledge she committed a sin against God and therefore she hasn’t been forgiven yet.

The sin of pride, it sure is the toughest one to overcome and she isn’t any different.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Monday, May 17, AD 2010 1:44pm

Maxou,
Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. People who espouse the right things frequently do wrong things. It is the nature is sin, and the reason for the Sacrament of Penance. But people who do wrong things believing them to be the right things, while doubly wrong, are immune from the charge of hypocrisy even if they are not immune from the charge of heresy.
The bottom line is that the Church does not expect Her adherents to be without sin. But She does require us to accept Her teachings.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top