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.
5) At some point this came to the attention of the Diocese of Phoenix, and Sr. McBride confirmed to Bishop Olmsted that she had approved the abortion.
6) At some point, presumably after this, Sr. McBride was reassigned within St. Joe’s. Neither the diocese nor the hospital has said whether Bishop Olmsted had a role in the reassignment.
7) Also at some point, presumably at about the same time, Sr. McBride was informed that she had incurred a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication per canon 1398 of the Code of Canon Law, which states: “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”
8) At some point the reassignment of Sr. McBride came to the attention of the Arizona Republic, whose staff contacted both Bishop Olmsted and St. Joseph’s for statements.
9) On or about May 14, St. Joseph’s confirmed to the Arizona Republic that an abortion had taken place there in December. On or about this same date it provided a statement to the newspaper.
10) On May 14, Bishop Olmsted provided a statement as well.
11) On May 15, the Arizona Republic published the statements online (kudos to the Arizona Republic for doing so instead of hiding them and merely quoting and summarizing them without showing us the context).
12) The same day, it published this story by Michael Clancy on the matter (for some reason the story now carries a date of May 19, though it originally came out four days earlier; perhaps this is an unacknowledged revision of the original story). It was at this point the story became known to the public in general.
And those are the basic facts as we know them (or seem to know them).
Let’s see if we can answer a few questions:
1) Is the bishop really being mean?
From the way this is being reported, you’d think that Bishop Olmsted was issuing thundering public denunciations of Sr. McBride, that he took the initiative to sent out some kind of press release announcing the excommunication, perhaps to warn members of his flock that Sr. McBride is to be publicly shunned or something.
From what I can tell, this is the exact opposite of what happened. It appears that Bishop Olmsted issued his statement only in response to the hospital confirming the story for the press. Had the hospital kept its mouth shut, Bishop Olmsted would not have made it public.
To minimize public humiliation of Sr. McBride, Bishop Olmsted did not say in his statement that she had been excommunicated. In fact, she was not mentioned in his statement at all. The only mention of excommunication the statement makes is a general one, with no specific individuals in focus. It is just the general caution, “If a Catholic formally cooperates in the procurement of an abortion, they are automatically excommunicated by that action.”
Reporter Michael Clancy also seems to acknowledge that the Bishop did not speak explicitly of Sr. McBride, stating in his story only that he “indicated” (as opposed, e.g., to “said”) that McBride was excommunicated.
My guess is that what happened here is that the Bishop wanted to deal with these matters privately, but someone at the hospital tipped the press, which then asked both the Bishop and the hospital about the matter. When the hospital confirmed, the Bishop felt obliged to respond as well, but of a desire to protect the reputations/privacy of those involved, he responded only in general terms, acknowledging that an abortion had taken place, that he was horrified by this, and explaining the Church’s position on such matters.
Scarcely the “Cruel Bishop vs. Victim Nun” narrative. No thundering public denunciations of Sr. McBride; no attempts to publicly shame her—quite the opposite!
But the press ran with it, making explicit the fact that she had been excommunicated. The bishop hadn’t said so, but presumably she and/or someone else who knew about it told the Arizona Republic, and the Arizona Republic took the reference to the Church’s law in the bishop’s statement as confirmation.
The story then went all over the place, and the diocese felt obliged to provide a Q & A to clear things up.
This Q & A was released on May 18th by Rob DeFrancesco, the diocesan director of communications. It is online here (.pdf), and it seems to have been written by the communications office, because it contains a number of imprecisions regarding canon law that Bishop Olmsted, who is himself a canonist, would not be expected to use in his writing.
The document is notable, though, in that it confirms that Sr. McBride—and ostensibly others (none of who are named)—automatically excommunicated themselves due to their involvement in the abortion.
Again, this does not support the narrative of a bishop being cruel by publicly humiliating someone. Instead, it suggests a bishop trying to preserve the reputations and privacy of all involved but feeling compelled by the press to reluctantly confirm certain facts in order to prevent public misunderstanding.
2) Did Sr. McBride automatically excommunicated herself?
This is an important question, because if she did then one can scarcely fault Bishop Olmsted for informing her of this fact. It would be his duty as a pastor to inform her of the canonical consequences of her action and encourage her repentance and reconciliation with the Church. In other words, he would be doing his job, seeking to encourage reconciliation in the wake of a tragic error.
So . . . did she?
As outsiders, it’s hard for us to say for ourselves because the specific facts of the case aren’t known. Bishop Olmsted has sought to preserve Sr. McBride’s privacy, and according to Catholic News Service, “Sister Margaret . . . has declined to comment on the controversy.”
But let’s look for a moment at the law as it seems to apply to this case.
According to canon 1398, quoted above, a person who “procures a completed abortion” incurs automatic excommunication. Among other things, this must be understood in light of subsequent Magisterial teaching (e.g., Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae) as referring to a “direct abortion, i.e., every act tending directly to destroy human life in the womb ‘whether such destruction is intended as an end or only as a means to an end’” (EV 62).
This excludes procedures that do not directly kill the child but that foresee the child’s death as a non-intended, non-desired side effect (e.g., radiation or chemotherapy treatments for a pregnant mother with cancer). It is also why I dealt above with the fact that the child was almost certainly killed by suction-aspiration or dilation and curettage, both of which tear the child into tiny bits and are thus unambiguously the direct killing of an innocent individual, with no dispute possible, even hypothetically.
So far as we can tell, there is no dispute that a direct abortion occurred in this case, meaning that this part of the question is off the table.
So did Sr. McBride “procure” such an abortion?
Before we answer this question, we must mention another canon that has relevance to this case. Canon 1329 provides that:
§2. Accomplices who are not named in a law or precept incur a latae sententiae [automatic] penalty attached to a delict [offence] if without their assistance the delict would not have been committed, and the penalty is of such a nature that it can affect them . . .
One might hold that only the woman who has an abortion and/or the one who pays for or arranges for it “procures” it, but canon 1329 makes it clear that the penalty of automatic excommunication also applies to accomplices “if without their assistance the delict would not have been committed.”
So one can either argue that by voting to approve the abortion Sr. McBride fell under the provision of “procuring” the abortion or that she functioned as a necessary accomplice under the provision of canon 1329 §2.
In either case, she would have incurred automatic excommunication.
Thus Bishop Olmsted would have been simply doing his pastoral duty of informing her of the fact that she had excommunicated herself and needed to take steps to reconcile with the Church.
3) Is there another option?
Suppose that Sr. McBride did not “procure” an abortion and that she was not a necessary accomplice in procuration one. Is there a theory that would allow her to be seen as automatically excommunicating herself?
Maybe.
Such a theory seems to be suggested by the Q & A that the Communications Office of the Diocese of Phoenix released.
This Q & A states:
Why was Sr. McBride excommunicated?
Sr. McBride held a position of authority at the hospital and was frequently consulted on ethical matters. She gave her consent that the abortion was a morally good and allowable act according to Church teaching. Furthermore, she admitted this directly to Bishop Olmsted. Since she gave her consent and encouraged an abortion she automatically excommunicated herself from the Church. “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church #2272) This canonical penalty is imposed by virtue of Canon 1398: “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.
The significant part of this is the quotation from CCC 2272, which states that formal cooperation in an abortion is a grave offense to which the Church attaches the penalty of excommunication.
Formal cooperation is a much lesser test than that provided for in Canon 1329. To formally cooperate with an act one need only cooperate with it (as Sr. McBride clearly did by voting to approve the abortion) and approve of it (as she did if she consented to it as “a morally good and allowable act,” per the Q & A). This involves much less than being an accomplice without whom the offense “would not have been committed.”
Still, an unquoted part of the Catechism text notes that this application is “subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law” (presumably including Canon 1329). It then references Canons 1323 and 1324, neither of which seem apropos to this case.
Nevertheless, it seems that the Communications Office of the Diocese of Phoenix may be holding to a theory that, based on CCC 2272, any formal cooperation with a direct abortion will trigger automatic excommunication, and if it is true that Sr. McBride “gave her consent that the [direct] abortion was a morally good and allowable act according to Church” then it seems she formally cooperated in such an abortion and triggered the penalty on this theory.
There would be several defenses against this view (among them: The Catechism is a teaching document that does not establish legal requirements; also, Canon 18 requires that a strict interpretation be given to laws involving the penalty of excommunication).
And the theory just articulated is not the common understanding among canonists, which is one reason why the Q & A seems to contain imprecisions that one would not expect of Bishop Olmsted as a canonist, but it deserves to be mentioned since it’s in the Q & A.
MORE FROM CANONIST EDWARD PETERS.
What are your thoughts?
Comments
Post a Comment
One thing I am struggling to find or read about is wether the abortion was her only hope for survival? Was her life truly in such danger? This is not to dismiss the gravity of her illness, at all, but rather do other options exist and were they considered or was an abortion the easiest to procure?
It reminds me of the frequency with which doctors prescribe the Pill for cycle irregularities and the ease with which patients accept it as ‘the only option’.
The main problem here, as Jimmy has pointed out, is that the original facts of the case remain unclear. I have written accordingly at First Things: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/05/excommunicating-intentions.
Interesting question Rachel. I’ve heard from at least one neonatologist who opined the that typically the mother could have been stabilized until the unborn child reached viability at between 21 and 25 weeks.
I’ve heard some critics (including one of the Church’s own priests - Fr. Thomas Doyle, OP) who chasten the Church for excommunicating women who procure abortion but not clerics who abuse minors. I know it is Catholic Bashing 101 that any debate or discussion whatsoever should immediately be redirected to the issue of Clerical Abuse, and I recognize that some are disingenuous in raising this point. However, I do find this point puzzling on the face. Why are some crimes accompanied by the penalty of excommunication while others not?
Jimmy,thank you for writing about this situation. But I do want to point out that our bishop’s name is spelled Olmsted, Olmstead.
Dear Bishop Olmsted,
Thank you for encouraging me for the first time ever in my adult Catholic life to fully, prayerfully consider the concept of abortion. Having always been pro-life, including anti-Death Penalty, I have at times been woeful in my due diligence. In fact, I last paid the issue mind (aside from ongoing fervent prayer for women in ... See Moreneed) when I voted against President Obama, as his extreme pro-abortion record gave grave concern.
For the past several days, I’ve been consumed with prayers and consideration for Sr. Margaret McBride, staff and the family who suffered intense loss and trauma. Many people are Monday morning quarterbacking but the conjecture on specifics does not foster healing. Only Sr. Margaret, staff and family know the medical details. However, there was one person who had the benefit and blessing of making a choice in due time, with facts and adequate reflection. And that of course was you, your Excellency.
Tragically, you made the wrong choice. In fact, I’m going to relay exactly how much damage you are doing to our Pro-Life cause. I, who served in capacities such as Eucharistic Minister, DRE, Youth Minister, RCIA Director, have never been so incensed over a Bishop’s extraordinary lack of compassion, counsel and wisdom in a specific circumstance crying out for Jesus’ love and mercy.
How are the Gifts of the Holy Spirit evident in your decision? What kind of example is this? In this climate of distrust and disrespect for hierarchy what compelled you to continue to publicly chastise (albeit latae sententiae) a faithful, distinguished servant who used her informed conscience in an actual crisis not ideally described in our catechetical manuals?
Moreover, the spiritual and emotional damage to the young mother of four is too much to fathom. You have added unspeakable insult and burden to her injury. Perhaps this human side effect wasn’t calculated in your staunch equation.
Apparently bishops are Cafeteria Catholics, a term mistakenly used derogatorily for those who use their informed conscience. You too pick and choose which interpretation and application of Canon Law serves your purposes, at the expense of living innocents and hierarchical gain even.
I’m sending this to many in the Phoenix Diocese because I sadly assume faithfuls’ sentiments won’t matter to you. Perhaps it will affirm employees and Sisters who will struggle with the cataclysmic faith fallout. The Sensus Fidei, the reasonable minded majority, true treasures in the pew, refuses to condone uninspired, ill-advised leadership.
Sensus Fidei,
It is not at all clear what your objection is - would you please state it? If you disagree with the Bishop’s judgment that a direct abortion is intrinsically evil and can never be condoned (like the physician’s oath: “Do no harm”) then it is not the Bishop you have an issue with but the Church’s long and consistent tradition (like starting with the 5th Commandment).
If you continue to write after admitting, “. . . the facts of the case are not entirely clear. . .” you will soon be offered a job by the New York Times.
Sr. McBride was WRONG. Abortion is never justified. We must pray for her to repent and reconcile herself with the Church and with God for her approval of the murder of an innocent child.
The only “Sensus Fidei” are the ones who recognize this act for the evil that it is. Get off Bishop Olmsted’s back!
@Sensus Fidei: How did Bp. Olmsted pick and choose? He confirmed (as JA said in his post) that the role that Sister played in the Ethics Committee was seen to be within the realm of direct procurement of the abortion, and merely commented that excommunication had occurred latiae sententiae. His leadership has only played in here based on the fact that his statement tried to explain the situation (as best as it can be, considering the privacy and decency issues).
You go on to say that, “Moreover, the spiritual and emotional damage to the young mother of four is too much to fathom.” It may be too much for us to fathom, but we are guaranteed that nothing will be asked of us from God that, with his grace, we will not be able to handle. Human misery, agony, loss and destruction is abundant in our world. The moment we overturn the wisdom of God and elevate our own wisdom, we forsake that grace, and oh what misery will come. I have no idea, given my failings in life, as to whether or not I would chose the Church’s reasoning if personally faced with this predicament (please, God forbid), but I would hope that I would accept that dying a death pleasing to God is infinitely preferable to wrongly extending one’s life by grasping and embracing illicit means. Please, please, continue to consider this matter in your mind.
I agree to a certain extent that the bishop’s statement lack a bit in their empathy. I feel that for Bp. Olmsted to tread deeply into the emotional landscape in his response would endanger the clarity of his statement on the Church’s teaching (which Catholics will understand to be based on good theology and vast charity). Therefore, I think the measured approach isn’t to scorn the lack of feelings in this statement.
the problem that you’re readily ignoring is the double standard of the catholic church… you’ll excommunicate a nun for approving what was deemed by DOCTORS to be a medically needed procedure vs. the fact that the catholic church has never automatically excommunicated a priest found to be guilty of child molestation and in fact your church still pays a pension to notorious child molestor oliver o’grady. it wasn’t a story about “Cruel Bishop vs. Victim Nun” (as you put it) so much as it was a story on the double standards of the catholic church. to not even acknowledge as much is simply not very honest about why this has become something of a large story.
Formal cooperation is a much lesser test than that provided for in Canon 1329. To formally cooperate with an act one need only cooperate with it ..
I am not sure this is the case. Formal cooperation is more than material cooperation, there must be the intention to cooperate. What canon law and the CCC state here are complementary. One, your cooperation has to be so important that the act is not possible without your cooperation (this is like ‘grave matter’ in the analysis of sin). Formal cooperation adds the aspect of the cooperation being deliberate. (If I pass my wife the cake knife on my birthday that she then kills me with, then I have cooperated materially but not formally in my death.)
The mystery that remains for me is why did the nun say it was according to Church teaching. And why then would she not go public with why in her mind it was according to Church teaching? Is she going back to the time period in the Church when the “formed” and “unformed” distinction was made based perhaps on a mistranslation of an Exodus passage by the Septuagint? Or was she claiming indirect abortion and the exact surgery at hand has not been made known?
I don’t think you have shed much light on this disturbing story at all. In fact, your cavalier and sarcastic comments show a want of human decency, and an inveterate nastiness that is very off putting. We are after all talking here about life and death. ——I think the Bishop’s statement was merciless and unwise. He gave the world…and me….the impression that he wishes this mother of four had died in the emergency room of a Catholic Hospital along with her unborn child. ——And yes, this is most certainly about a double standard. The Catholic Church takes a cold, absolute approach to this dying mother; but never examines any Catholic soldier as to whether his voluntary service overseas has involved him in killing women or children or innocent civilians in Afghanistan or Iraq. And the clergy abuse scandal demonstrates that pedophile priests and bishops have been sheltered from justice worldwide. ——I wonder how many loyal Catholics like me were shaken to the core by Bishop Olmsted’s shocking comments. —- I wonder how many have left the faith because of this. ——And of one thing I am sure. No pregnant woman should ever entrust herself to a Catholic hospital. My heart goes out to this mother; and my heart goes out to Sr. Margaret McBride.
Anne,
Do you have any moral objection to waterboarding terrorists in order to extract potentially life-saving information? One former Bush speechwriter, Marc Theissen, for example argued that “enhanced interrogation” thwarted specific deadly attacks against the U.S.
Do you think the Church’s proscription that torture is an evil means and never justified is a “cold, absolute approach”, “merciless and unwise”?
Would you sanction the torture of an infant if it might potentially save the mother’s life?
I know you are a novelist and in that venue make life and death choices all the time, but do you think it is wise to “play God” in real life?
The living word of Jesus dies a little more each day that the Catholic Church Hierarchy survives in its current state… So very sad. Live word means read interpret understand… condemning others for any reason is not part of it…
Re: Anne’s comment (5/24 8:00 pm)
Anne wrote: “In fact, your cavalier and sarcastic comments show a want of human decency, and an inveterate nastiness that is very off putting.”
Anne, could you please explain that sentence? I don’t think that Jimmy’s description and explanation contained any cavalier and sarcastic comments at all. In fact, I seldom find Jimmy cavalier or sarcastic. Thorough and balanced would be more like it.
Could you please provide some examples? Otherwise, I’m not inclined to take your comment seriously.
CiCi said:
“condemning others for any reason is not part of it… “
huh? Participating in or authorizing the murder of a child is not just “any reason”. I think you should take your own advice.
Anne said:
“And of one thing I am sure. No pregnant woman should ever entrust herself to a Catholic hospital. “
Really? Doesn’t that seem a trifle extreme?
“He gave the world…and me….the impression that he wishes this mother of four had died in the emergency room of a Catholic Hospital along with her unborn child.”
He gave the world… and me… the impression that all life is sacred and of infinite value. The mother of four’s situation was tragic, but directly willing the death of an innocent is also wrong. In spite of the fact that you feel the bishop’s approach lacked compassion, are you incapable of giving the man the benefit of the doubt - that he was indeed acting in good faith in his capacity as shepherd of his flock? Is a directly willed abortion a moral good in your view?
Thank you, Jimmy, for supplying the clearest and most balanced account of this whole ordeal. A well-reasoned mind is absolutely necessary to provide clarity. I have no idea how some of your readers here could believe anything else, or what other information they must possess that would give them sufficient justification to render the condemnations they have rendered toward you. Keep up the good work.
There is some justice to the complaint that predator priests aren’t excommunicated latae sententia. However, the whole question of medical necessity is dubious; many pro-life practitioners argue that doctors decree “medical necessity” for conditions requiring only some extra care and observation. I would argue that, to balance the situation, the Church need not remove the “automatic” incurrence of excommunication for abortion but to make it operative for priests guilty of delicts under Canon 1395.2.
Why does “sensus fidei” always mean “publicly contradicting the a bishop in a matter of faith and morals”?
The Bishop didn’t cause the situation. And, he did what he was supposed to do.
Are we so confident that we really understand what it means when a child’s life is lost forever? Trust in God’s Wisdom, and His Forgiveness. That we may better understand the gravity of what has been lost, if only for a split second in time. Perhaps a small reflection or example from God’s perspective to follow, who (I’ve heard) thinks nothing like us. If you’ve never heard of the Divine Mercy Chaplet, research and pray it, even if only once. It will increase your Faith in Jesus, who died for all sin. And, lead you straight to the foot of the cross, depending on how tenacious you choose to be. God Bless.
There once was a man who proclaimed he did not believe in God. “God could never love anyone and if he existed, I would insist that he prove it to me”, he often proclaimed to friends. “God takes lives all the time and the poor and down-trodden are first on the menu”, he would say further. Even though the man was often kind to people all throughout his life, he believed that one should live life to the fullest in every way. He also believed strongly that a woman had every right to an abortion, and if she chose to do so, it was her business only.
One day the man found himself in front of an abortion clinic watching women walk in as protestors were praying and begging the pregnant women not to go in the clinic. A woman who was protesting began talking loudly to a young pregnant woman who was walking into the clinic. This immediately enraged the man and he began yelling at and cursing the woman who was protesting and others began to join in.
The young woman walking into the clinic became scared and upset at both the woman protesting and the man, and immediately turned and ran away from the clinic. This enraged the man and others even more and they escalated their yelling and insults toward the woman protestor. The woman protestor cried and left the scene.
Many, many years later the man was in a serious car accident and was thrown from the car. As he lay dying, many people consoled him as an ambulance rushed to the scene. A young priest who had also been called to the scene began to perform last rites. The man, although in terrible pain and very terrified, gruffly said to the priest, “Don’t waste your breath with that prayer, Father, I’m not a Catholic and even if I was, God has never gone out of his way to help me – take a good look”.
The priest gently smiled at the man and stopped saying the last rites. After a few seconds, the priest began to softly recite the Divine Chaplet of Mercy. “For the sake of His Sorrowful Passion, have Mercy on us and the whole world”, he recited over and over. The man peacefully passed into darkness.
Suddenly, a great light engulfed the man along with great love. The man was more afraid than ever as he knew he was in the presence of God. He asked what was happening and who it was that he was speaking to. He asked this because he could only see one form but felt there were others in the area as well.
“I am Jesus, Son of the Living God, and you have been born to a new life. We are here to judge your life on earth”. Immediately, as in a video, the man began to see his entire life in review. The good and the bad.
Many times when he helped the poor, other times when he freely partook in sins of the flesh. Times when he helped the elderly, and times when he intentionally hurt other people. The life review seemed to stop as quickly as it had started and the man felt ashamed.
Quickly, however, the man recovered, and recalled what he had said to friends during his life. “What chance did I have when my creator never showed any effort to reach out to me with love?” “Why did you not even try a little to help save me from myself?”.
The Lord looked lovingly at the man and played back the life scene in front of the abortion clinic. The man was mortified as he watched himself become enraged. He was overcome with resign and asked the Lord what happened to the woman protestor who had left the scene those many years ago.
The Lord responded, “She was called to me a few days later, she had accomplished her mission”.
“And what of the woman that decided not to have an abortion that day?”, he asked.
“She bore a healthy son and passed to me after childbirth, she had accomplished her mission”.
The man looked down and felt very sad. He slowly looked up and softly said to the Lord, “I wish I would have met her son; that I could know what he looks like and see how he turned out in life”. But, I never did, and yet you show me these images anyway.” Lord, can you not show me one instance in my life where you went out of your way even a little bit to show the extent of your love for me”?.
“You met her son at the twilight of your life”, said the Lord, “He will be joining us soon – he has accomplished his mission”. “Come, let us go to heaven”.
The man felt happy, relieved, and curious all at once, and felt compelled to ask Jesus two final questions. “Who was this woman’s son and what was his mission?” , asked the man.
“He was a simple priest who believed in God’s Mercy, and you were his mission”, responded three voices.
This is a grave offense against God (The Fifth Commandment) and deserving of a latae sententiae excommumication. Never in the history of the Church has it been allowed that one could determine who was to live and who was left to die. As an ex-president of a chapter of The National Right to Life Organization I can assure you that this subject was most on my mind. After much investigation I realized that I could not support abortion for Rape, Incest, or for the life of the mother. You cannot be a Traditional Catholic and support death
of the unborn for any reason, or for that matter any abortificants (Birth Control such as the pill and more.)
All this presumes that Sr. McBride was a Latin Rite Catholic. Certainly that is a reasonable assumption. But it is worth noting that there are no automatic excommunications in the Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches, such as the Melkite Greek-Catholics or any of the approximelty 20 other eastern rite Cathiolic churches. For Catholics of those Churches excommunication may only be imposed as a sentence following a canonical process.
I read the above article but did not read all the comments. I wondered about the doctor (sic) who performed the procedure….was he then excommunicated as well? The list could go on and on as there were probably nurses in attendance.
If more bishops did their jobs in this regard our Holy Catholic Church would look differently and so would our culture. God bless Bishop Olmstead
She looks mean and nasty. No smile, no sign of human compassion. A certain six letter adjective comes to mind.
She even looks like a lay person, not a nun with a habit (at least a veil).
I believe every letter in every word that not only she knowingly approved the abortion, but would have performed the abortion herself if she could.
God help everyone in HER path…
What are nuns today really ? what are sisters today really? Such a mess of humanity—some good - some not so.
oh .. to see ourself as the baby in the womb .. to see the knife, the suction cup, the saline solution ready to be used on us. I KNOW, not think, a single abortion would NEVER be performed. It is easy to throw stones at others but to have stones back at us is a different story—How tragic is man’s humanity to man .
May I correct myself and say ” how tragic is man’s inhumanity to man rather”
I appreciate the informed and diverse opinions here, a refreshing blend of theological, practical ministry views. I wish more people in the pew would have interest, time, regard for discussing this issue in this detail. (Also wish this site wouldn’t have auto refreshed when I was in the middle of typing other replies, oh well.)
LROY, I’ll take a “mean and nasty; no smile non-habit wearing, lay looking” Sister who will save a life via her informed conscience and take the consequences, over a smiley Bishop who has immoral skeletons playing Monday morning quarterback sans a scintilla of a clue of what it’s like to be in such a crisis and make a common sense, life saving decision.
Wow, Peter, you must think our God is a vile creator. You do realize Pope Benedict buried limbo circa 2007, right? It never existed.
What is wrong within your psyche that you would even imagine a blessed fetus would ever suffering any emotional or physical pain? Most Catholics believe in a merciful, infinitely loving Lord, the kind who if you were dying in a plane… you wouldn’t know what hit you… be taken away by angels. Pain and suffering if any is a fleeting second and off to heaven for eternity those deemed worthy go. I don’t want to say the obvious conclusion here.
Seriously, this has illustrated how desperately extremists need our (the reasonable, mostly sane faithful) prayers.
Man’s inhumanity to woman here is the one that will go down in the books. The Bishop publicly punished Sr. for using her informed conscience and he added unimaginable suffering to a woman who tragically lost her 11 week old which was destined to happen 100%.
Sensus Fidei (sic) said:
“What is wrong within your psyche that you would even imagine a blessed fetus would ever suffering any emotional or physical pain? “
Ah, you’ve plainly shown your hand now. Pro-abortion zealots frequently use this argument. “It’s okay to murder children if they can’t feel pain!”
Murder is murder.
As to Sr. and her “informed conscience”. How was it formed? Was it formed consonant with the teachings of the Church? Obviously not. And yet that is what an informed conscience presumes. The bishop, in his capacity as teacher and shepherd, has “informed” Sr. of the reality of the situation. Just because something is “destined to happen” (i.e. all of us will die) does not justify the willful murder of a person, born or unborn. It is different if it is the indirect consequence of an action. however, an abortion such as this is always direct. You should probably brush up on your moral theology.
I simply ask myself What Jesus would do. Olmsted chose Not the Compassion of Jesus.
Move beyond the law? mercy over Justice?
Our hierarchy is overrun with lawyers.
Sensus Fidei,
Sister might have used her informed conscience, but it was not informed rightly.
Yes, the Church places great value on individual conscience BUT….
Informed consciences do not trump TRUTH.
The truth is that Sister helped in the killing of an unborn child, which is ALWAYS intrinsically evil.
I thank JPII for letting it be known again that abortion, artificial contraception, and homosexual acts are intrinsically evil, among other acts.
Yes, brush up I must. As soon as I retire from ministries, then I will be able to sit back and play the game without injury or a practical clue.
So Informed Conscience = always always doing exactly what catechism, doctrines, compendium, National Directory of Catechesis, encyclicals, etc… plus Bible and tradition too, as interpreted by a Bishop or member of the hierarchy.
If Peter of little faith in Our Lord’s infinite love and mercy prefers to imagine a fetus being inflicted with emotional and physical harm, he’s welcome to do so… that’s what choice is. I only tried to help him because spiritually and psychologically that’s extraordinarily unhealthy to dwell on such a thought and how do you suppose he successfully catechizes others in this mindset?
Since when is it the compassion of Jesus to kill 11-week old babies in the womb, John C.?
Sensus, do you think an informed conscience can be informed incorrectly?
We are dealing with a Catholic nun here, not a wild, unlettered barbarian.
To whom much is given, much is expected. I do believe that more is expected from a Catholic nun, even today.
The Church today does not explicitly “place great value on individual conscience.” If it did, ironically, the Church would be a much holier, more appropriate imitation of Our Lord Jesus. Informed conscience is actually a dirty little secret you have to dig for. Thankfully, there are some priests that clue faithful in, or rather affirm the obvious.
Informed conscience is an inspired decision made based upon the truth you know at that given moment of crisis. It doesn’t dictate or twist truth. In this case, the physical truth was the 11 week fetus was going to die regardless. The question was must the mother too?
In my humble opinion with 32 years nursing experience in a high risk labor and delivery unit, the information provided leads me to believe that the mother could have been treated with medication for the time it would have taken for the baby to develop enough to be delivered and taken to the Special Care Nursery.
The issue is DIRECTLY killing the fetus, rather than treating the mother.
Wow, talk about an instance of seeing a glass half empty or full…
I, like the many faithful, can not see the abundance of compassion, reason, common sense, and faith you claim is inherent in a mother of four dying given the absolute that her 11 week old fetus would. But I respect that is your choice.
I disagree, Sensus. The Church has always and does today put great value on individual conscience.
It was the Church and her teachings that came up with the basis for today’s criminal law, based upon one’s conscience and MOTIVES. For example, if I run over a kid at night because I didn’t see him, I would not be held as responsible had I did it in broad daylight and MEANT to do it.
From one’s conscience come one’s motives for a deed.
Cardinal Pell said in 1998, “Human beings have rights, these have to be respected. So as the Pope has said in one of those great moral encyclicals, the individual conscience is a proximate norm, it’s indispensable, there’s no substitute for sincerity.
But it is not the last word, we stand under the truth, and for Christians we stand under the Gospel and the solemn teachings of the Church.”
So, the Church has and does respect individual conscience, even if you do not see it. But truth trumps the conscience, because we can all be sincere- but sincerely wrong.
BTW, the Cardinal Pell quote is from one of his biographies- George Pell, Defender of the Faith Down Under.
A great read!
Sensus, was the mother in immediate danger of death at this stage in her 11-wk old pregnancy?
Why the need to kill in so soon?
I applaud Bishop for his pro-life stance. Other measures could have been performed. Was the option of sustaining pregnancy until the baby was of a viable age and a c-section performed to save both lives?
The devil is alive and has infiltrated the Catholic Church period. The bishops seem to be where he is dwelling, think about it.
NJ, is ranked among the highest abortion states in the U. S., why, when over 42% of NJ voters are Catholic? I’ll tell you why because it is not heard from the pulpit, and it needs to be. Our bishops need to shepherd their flock, they need to demand that respect life issues play a major role in their congregations. We finally have one that stood up for life and put the blame where it should be on Sr.‘s shoulders, kudos to Bishop, and prayers for healing for Sr. and the baby’s family, this will be the beginning of that mother’s hell, to have killed her baby. Coercion in it’s finest!
Hobby-Gobby Dum-Dum
An Ethics Committee Review of this medical matter is no minor occurrence. That an abortion TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER (who had 5 children waiting for her at home) was recommended (AT A CATHOLIC HOSPITAL)is no small feat in itself. For those who truly follow the abortion dogma to its horrible end - that an nonviable fetus is afforded more importance than a woman’s life, and as has been stated by the Rev. John Ehrich, the medical ethics director for the Diocese of Phoenix. “There are some situations where the mother may in fact die along with her child. But — and this is the Catholic perspective — you can’t do evil to bring about good. The end does not justify the means.”
I say NO LONGER! As a Catholic woman, I deserve better respect than: “oh well, thanks for your service and ministry to your family, but we are going to allow you to die along with the fetus and leave your family Motherless.”
Until the U.S. Church truly accepts what has already been decreed by the US Conference of Bishops in their 2001 Ethics and Religious Directive in Catholic Health Care Services - Directive 47 “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.”
By sitting here arguing about “the true facts” as it relates to the publishing of the story seem a bit disingenuous and I’d go so far as to accuse the author of “bait and switch”. The true fact is the life of the woman was at stake. What would Jesus do? Allow both to die? No, he would have shown compassion and mercy.
Patty Cakes, was this 11-wk. old baby nonviable?
I didn’t read that- perhaps I missed it.
If a procedure is done to save the life of the mother, such as operating on her womb if she has cancer, and the child’s life is lost, that is not an abortion. The intent was to save the mother’s life.
If the child at 11 wks. is killed when the mother’s life is not in immenent danger, than that is murder of the child.
The life of the woman was NOT at stake at this point in time.
I am a Catholic woman AND mother, and my daughter and I deserve to know the brutal truth: killing a child is not a noble deed, no matter how those withing the health care industry package it.
Liseux, that was the crux of it for me too, the basic medical facts. We all deserve to know the facts, agreed. No fan here of that atrocious health care package, need one but certainly not that one.
I don’t know anything except according to the experts 11 week fetus is non-viable and that the mother was in such grave danger that they couldn’t risk even moving mother to the emergency room. Death was imminent for the blessed fetus… was it going to be one or two lives lost?
I have a super prayerful, humble, faithful friend who said she would have insisted upon dying in this instance. She further said she may have well killed herself if they didn’t, honest to God, because she could never live if her child didn’t. And then she added that it was the ultimate insult to save the mother.
That might sound heroic for a protagonist living in a book, but when there are 4 other children and husband I can only view that opinion as selfish and immature. I didn’t realize my friend was an extremist until this discussion. I think she has a serious issue with this issue. Otherwise, she seems balanced, informed and reasonable.
From what I read, death was not imminent for this child, until the “experts” and mother condemned it.
Did you read that it was going to die in the womb?
Please cite your source.
BTW, we were all non-viable at once, and all of us lived.
That child deserved the same chance.
With modern technology today, we don’t have to kill babies early in pregnancy because the mother has a heart condition.
This is a case of pre-emptive war, and the child lost.
Obviously you know something many medical experts don’t. And I truly hope it is the case that an 11 week fetus has oustanding success in viability. That’s the progress we can all praise, that God gave incredible wisdom and talents to healers, like St. Luke. You need to relay whatever knowledge and studies you have to St. Joseph’s Hospital.
Let’s be clear:
The doctors and hospital ethics committee (AT A CATHOLIC HOSPITAL) determined that the woman stood a 100% chance of dying if she carried the 11 week fetus to viability. So, yes, the fetus was going to die in the womb if the woman carried this pregnancy to viability. I’d argue that it wasn’t just a “heart condition” but life-threatening cardiac failure. To suggest that it was a minor medical problem, and a minor decision made lightly, cheapens the debate and devalues the life of the mother, all the while propping up your argument. We women deserve better than be treated as a uterus on legs.
I’d rather we not put the pregnancy in the middle of a “war” (pre-emptive you say), but recognize that LIFE is sacred, and that the life of the living mother with other children at home needs to be valued MORE in this case.
This is a sad and distressing case. Our sense of compassion and care can be pulled in so many directions here (to the little fetal-human, to the mother, to her other children and family). That’s why it’s SO important for a Catholic hospital administrator to defer ultimately to the Church’s teaching. Catholic moral and ethical philosophy exists precisely because in these cases, our consciences can be overwhelmed by emotion.
PattyCakes quoted Directive 47: “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.”
PattyCakes, this case ostensibly does not meet the criteria outlined in Directive 47. If the operation, treatment, or medication used in this case was the direct termination of the pregnancy (and nothing else), that is NOT a medical cure for pulmonary hypertension. Yes, it lessened the risk of death for the mother. But it also intentionally guaranteed the death of the fetal human within her.
Let us pray for all persons affected…
I agree, KD. Killing the child was not a medical cure for pulmonary hypertension.
It seems to me there is an awful lot of “maybe this and maybe that” going on. Why bother to learn the facts, when it is easier to speculate in their absence? Why not have an opinion about something that happened somewhere else?
There is much pandering to “the public has the right to know”. No it doesn’t. It is not any of “the public’s” business.
I’m so grateful I never took any Catholic ethics courses. Based on what I read of a lack compassion, common sense, reason, WWJD decisions and responding to others’ needs rather one’s concern for position or desire to opine, I am convinced I wouldn’t be actively ministering and receiving the Sacraments. Indoctrination would’ve been the death of my faith in God Almighty.
Thank you, KD. You have spelled it out correctly. This case does not meet the criteria outlined in Directive 47. And now we have this tragic case being used by pro-abortion advocates to attack the Church for lacking “compassion” - and I am sure there are many other details here that even they don’t know yet presume to know.
Sensus Fidei, given what you have said here, perhaps you not should be “actively ministering” anywhere. You prop up “compassion and mercy” against basic Christian teaching concerning the human person and the sacredness of all human life. You refuse to see the bishop’s position here and his concern for the care of souls, proclaiming your unbalanced understanding of what it means to have an “informed conscience”.
Reading some of these posts is positively chilling. What is it that you people want? You want that this mother should have died in that emergency room with her 11 week old unborn child? You want her dead? You’re disturbed that she isn’t dead?——Do you understand what you’re saying? That Sr. Margaret McBride and others should have simply washed their hands of the woman and let her die, no matter she might have wanted, or what her husband might have wanted? If they’d done that, they’d be liable for murder. ——- This case deserves national attention. Every pregnant woman should understand the risks of being treated at a Catholic hospital. Responses supporting Bishop Olmsted make me ashamed to be Catholic.
True, MAP, I am completely not worthy to minister. There’s no doubt. But pickings are slim, candidates few and apparently God qualifies the weakest and most in need of penance to serve at times.
I don’t refuse to Bishop Olmsted’s position, I reject it outright and his lack of concern for all who are living will from now on be under intense scrutiny.
My spiritual mentor’s favorite Scripture is from Michah, “To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” That’s my story too and I’m sticking to it best I can.
Doesn’t the mother still have pulmonary hypertension? That doesn’t go away simply because the child does. Knowing people who’ve had this, knowing people who’ve worked in high-risk obstetrics facilities, knowing that we only in fact here have the sketchiest of presentations…it certainly sounds like we’re getting half the story, that the termination of the pregnancy was a pre-emptive strike, and that it didn’t really solve any health problems at all…it just permanently ended the possibility that this little one could have been brought to viability and still had his or her mother around to take care of all concerned. Unfortunately, we don’t have enough “facts” and probably never will to know whether this was a knee-jerk reaction for convenience’s sake (which it certainly sounds like) or whether it was a legitimate medical quandary that cost all concerned a lot of lost sleep and heartache (which it certainly DOESN’T sound like it did).
The only sure thing we can go on is the misguided statement of this nun that somehow this abortion, under these circumstances, was in line with Church teaching. No, Sister. It’s NOT. It’s a tragedy. And had you attempted to portray it as such, even mentioning it as a last resort, I might have believed your conscience was correctly formed. But…no.
As for the bishop? From the sound of this, he bent over backwards to show compassion for all concerned. He merely stood on the solid foundation of Church law, as the nun should have done, as the so-called Catholic hospital should have done, and as any Catholic other than “in name only” needs to do. What was he supposed to do in his statements? Moan? Wail? Applaud the nun’s “courage”? For heaven’s sake, people. No matter WHAT the Church does in this instance, it’s going to be wrong in YOUR eyes unless they pat everyone on the head and say, “There, there, you did the best you could, I’m OK, you’re OK, Jesus loves you.” Uhh…no. Jesus’s most common words in situations like this were “Go and sin no more.” And yes, He forgave—but you had to be sorry first. No sorrow evidenced here by anyone on that hospital staff, least of all the “good” sister involved.
BTW, there’s a canonized saint of the Church who willingly went to her death rather than take treatment for cancer that would have killed her unborn baby. Those of you who think that’s fanatical and unbalanced may need to read up on St. Gianna Molla…but you probably won’t. And you need not ask how I know this.
JB
I can not see any evidence that the Sister in quesiton was declared to be excommunicated. A “Q&A” by the communications office can not suffice in making such a declaration. Could it be possible that the Sister was automatically excommunicated? Sure. But, a formal declaration would only follow a long process. Hopefully, everyone involved has gone to confession and regularized their situation.
Anne Rice,
No, I for one do not want the mother dead. What I want is nobody to contravene the law of God (5th commandment), actively kill someone, and thereby at least threaten to kill the life of God in their own souls.
Forgot to mention, by all means when the undisputed facts reflect poorly and cataclysmically threaten an all/nothing stance, the logical next step for your argument is to insinuate that key facts are simply not known (due to some horrid legal protection of a woman’s medical record) and of course mystery info would fully illuminate every weakpoint in your position. Along with that, we should rightfully assume Sr. Margaret and staff were always pro-choice and desired to spearhead a movement.
Yes, Dan, many reports claimed it was a case of auto exco. Kudos to the author here for a good public service of relaying how it all became public. Dare we trust the info?!
We have not seen the footage yet of Bishop Olmsted exiting the confessional.
To Ms. Rice and others appalled at the Bishop’s decision.
Sometimes I think that these kind of comboxes are terrible because what ends up happening is that people on one side seize on the most horrible, most extreme and uncharitable comments from the people on the other side, and vice versa, and the actual reasonable points or things demanding answers go unanswered.
Honestly, I made it part of my Lenten practices to avoid reading comboxes altogether, and sometimes I think I should go back to that. However, since I’ve read this one, let me just point out a few things if I can.
First, to put everything in its proper perspective, let us ALL ask God our Father, in the spirit of the Lord’s Prayer, to give us the strength to forgive those who sin against us in the same way that we need to be forgiven by God and neighbor. We will all sin, and sometimes these sins are sins we are 100% convinced we are correct in committing. Therefore, while not condoning, we need to have compassion and forgiveness, not hatred, for people on “the other side”, no matter what side we are on, even when those people seem to us to be acting proudly in defense of evil. Because both they and us will only have perfect knowledge after death. Since we humbly wish God to forgive us these sins, we must also forgive, especially since we might be erring in our judgment. I hope this might diffuse tension a little. I find it helps me a LOT.
Secondly, regarding the issue of direct abortion vs. treatment that causes the fetus to die. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it’s the difference between police purposefully killing hostages so that a terrorist can be killed, or police attempting to stop the terrorist while accepting that chances are great that all or most hostages will be killed. So, a pregnant woman who has cancer may receive therapy that makes it very likely her fetus will die, and this is not sin. But directly killing the fetus, even if the ultimate intention is good, is sin, because the end does not justify the means. In one case, the death of the fetus/hostages is a regrettable side effect; in the other case, the death of the fetus/hostages are the direct means by which the illness/terrorist is attacked. (As an aside, in the case of St. Gianna Molla, part of the reason she is a saint is that she displayed heroic unconcern for herself, similar to someone jumping in the path of a bullet meant for someone else. It is not necessary, and it is not a sin not to do it, but it is admirable that people do those things.)
Thirdly, why do some offenses incur latae sentiatae excommunication and not others which seem more horrible in our eyes? Well, some canonists (such as the one Mr. Akin linked to) actually think that latae sentiatae excommunication shouldn’t be used at all. There are only eight sins, out of the countless ones which can be committed, which incur it. These sins are not the worst ones you can commit. They are all bad, but then, they are all sins. Dropping a nuclear bomb on a city isn’t on the list. If you look at the list, they seem to fall into two categories: things that might cause people moral confusion or to want to follow someone (such as schismatics), and things that are done in secret (such as abortion, and as another example, a priest soliciting a confessor for sex). In a lot of cases, I actually think that child abuse by priests would fall into this specific case of a priest soliciting a confessor for sex, for many of these odious wolves in shepherd’s clothing used the confessional as part of their control of their victims. However, we should not get confused and think that the Church only considers the latae sententiae excommunication sins as serious, and that all other sins are lesser, and that child-abusers who are not formally excommunicated are hunky dory with God and the Church. That is NOT true.
Lastly, just to reiterate, the Church is not morally relativistic. These are hard words, but listen well: your life is not more important than my life. The pope’s life is not more important than my life. My life is not more important than a mass murderer in a cell’s life. The life of a man with a genius IQ, a billion dollars in the bank, and a long history of philanthropy is not more important than a homeless, traumatized drug addict who dropped out of high school and mugs people to survive. And a mother’s life, even if she is a mother of twenty, is not more important than the fetus within her womb’s life. They are all equal. Sometimes not all lives can be saved. But when you start saying this life is inherently more valuable than that other life, then you decisively leave Catholic thought. Think well on that, if nothing else I’ve said.
Thanks for reading.
If she was strong enough to undergo an abortion (surgery or taking the pill which causes her body to expel the child) I think she could have kept the child.
Abortion does trauma to the body, yet the docs thought she was strong enough to undergo this invasive and even life threatening procedure. (I read all the time about women dieing from abortions, both surgical and chemical. Check out www.lifesitenews.com )
If she was strong enough to undergo an abortion, then she was likely strong enough to see this child through a 12 more weeks of life until it could survive outside the womb.
Pregnancy isn’t a disease! It’s a natural state of the female body.
AND, you would think with the best care that mankind can offer, the doctors could do better for the mother than killing her child.
Mercy, these “com boxes” are needed because we Catholics have to be on the front lines LEARNING and responding to these issues.
“As for the bishop? From the sound of this, he bent over backwards to show compassion for all concerned.”
Janny, what specific acts of mercy (corporal or spiritual) are you referring to? I made it my mission to keep up with every angle on this, but aside from press releases I haven’t heard about these acts.
Tell us more too about the abject lack of sorrow you know for a fact from Sister or staff.
Yes, we pray to St. Gianna and honor her accordingly. What mystery do you alone know about her?
To Mrs. Rice-
There are some difficult decisions and hard truths that we as Catholics have to face. This is certainly one of them.
I am glad that the Catholic Church stands for LIFE- mine, yours, and the child in the womb.
I have no where else to turn except to the Catholic Church for matters of truth. Every other person or body are simply children of the age in which they live.
Liseux, I know so little about any of the medical specifics. How are you possibly comfortable making such judgments sans specifics or knowledge? You really scare me!
“If she was strong enough to undergo an abortion (surgery or taking the pill which causes her body to expel the child) I think she could have kept the child.
Abortion does trauma to the body, yet the docs thought she was strong enough to undergo this invasive and even life threatening procedure. (I read all the time about women dieing from abortions, both surgical and chemical. Check out www.lifesitenews.com )
If she was strong enough to undergo an abortion, then she was likely strong enough to see this child through a 12 more weeks of life until it could survive outside the womb.”
People, we need to realize here that abortion is NEVER the right answer!! Anyone who feels that it is, in my opinion MAY be suffering from unresolved grief of being involved in an abortion in some way. If that be the case my heart goes out to you because I have been coerced into aborting as a teen and my heart is still in pieces.
You know what scares me? People saying that the woman could hardly even be taken out of the emergency room for fear of her dieing, yet they did an abortion on her!
Seems like they were willing to risk her life to do the abortion on her, but not willing to risk her life for a few more weeks FOR THE LIFE OF THE CHILD.
Now that’s the pro-abortion mentality for you- risk her life the abortion, but not for the child.
And it’s tragic that this was done in a “CATHOLIC” hospital.
I pray for this poor woman, who is sick to begin with, but now she has even more grief.
Thank you liseux
Thank you, Darlene for your witness.
Just so it’s clear - those who agree with Sr. McBride’s decision - you think that killing an innocent human being is sometimes justified?
This is what was authorized - the direct killing of an innocent human being. This can never be justified for any reason.
Thinking that this is justified by the mother’s life being in danger is the same as thinking that the end justifies the means.
Would it be justified deliberately to kill my innocent 2 year old son so that my life might be spared, even if you had a situation where he was “going to die anyway” (as if that makes a shred of difference??)
Compassion does not mean nice feelings for people. Failing to condemn evil when it occurs or to challenge a person who has sinned is the very opposite of mercy. God is all compassion and yet he tells us “When you do these things, shall I be deaf to it? Or do you think that I am like yourself? I will correct you by drawing them up before your eyes” (Ps 50:21).
Sorry to disappoint your theory, Darlene but I have absolutely no personal experience with abortion, aside from helping Rachel’s Vineyard beautiful faithful. But, from the bottom of my heart, I am extremely sorry to hear of your pain and do hope you reach out as you are. By your informed conscience, I understand you feel the need to speak of course. ‘Do whatever He tells you,’ that’s the truth.
I will confess this… extremely ironic as it is… I never ever considered anything but the pro-life position UNTIL I recently met one of the Rachel ministers. She tells everyone probably very similarly as you do, BUT she ‘knows’ in her private opinion, that for some reason (and Sr. Margaret’s case could be that) in some degree abortion needs to be legal. Yup, I said it.
Dear Mercy,
I am very grateful for your prayer and I as I read it I joined with you in intention. It is exactly what we all need and you are a blessing for sharing it. Love, love Divine Mercy Chaplet/Novena, btw. So perfectly simple, pure ... as theologically light as can be! Any child or non-catechized adult could quickly and easily understand Our Lord in this manner and the prayer!
I believe in being a peacemaker, even amid extremists. Extremism is not something the average layperson (majority too) can or cares to understand. And yes, Our Lord was extreme and radical but as we know apolitical and surprisingly non-specific, that’s probably the key difference. I sincerely hope and pray in these Catholic forums we could find common ground.
It may be impossible, if pro-life is all or nothing even with this most shocking instance, I suppose I am now officially pro-choice. That shocks me but now I must accept my label.
I appreciate the analogy you shared but this was an extreme case (the nightmare example any pro-lifer dreads) and I can’t go along with the terrorist/hostage part because of the proven 11 week old’s non-viability (unless experts reveal otherwise).
I love all the reminders you gave (which I really dare think all Christians would agree) about the equality and value of each individual’s life. I don’t believe it was a factor directly, but again when an 11 week fetus is going to die regardless, it’s nonsensical that the mother would too when she could have been saved. It wasn’t a choice between one or the other living and that’s what makes this incomprehensible to many.
St. Gianna
St. Gianna
St. Gianna
First, Sam, I’ve never known an “innocent” 2-year-old, there typically terrible… but I’ll assume you’ve been blessed by measure.
You’d have to come up with a perfectly exact scenario as the case with Sr. Margaret. That’s what the reality is, why many are questioning pro-life/pro-choice, so there’s no reason to bend our minds conjuring an n/a hypothetical when this actually occurred (even though only basic facts are known.) It’s ‘easy enough’ to discuss the facts, merits or problems with the case at hand.
Sensus, do you think abortions were not happening when it was “illegal”? Just because it’s not legal doesn’t mean it won’t happen.
Making them legal makes them convenient. That’s why 1/4 of my chilren’s classmates are DEAD from abortion, as nationwide 1 out of every 4 pregnancies ends in a dead baby from abortion.
More of the anti-child mentality, Sensus? You’ve never heard of an innocent 2-yr. old? Wow!
They are typically terrible????
See, this is the culture at work- the anti-child, pro-contraceptive, pro-abortion mindset that makes it easy for us to desensitize and kill children.
My children, ALL of them, are innocent and deserve protection.
“Posted by Anne Rice on Monday, May 24, 2010 8:00 PM (EST):
No pregnant woman should ever entrust herself to a Catholic hospital. My heart goes out to this mother; and my heart goes out to Sr. Margaret McBride.”
AND THE LITTLE INNOCENT CHILD RIPPED APART IN THE WOMB?
Anne Rice—I am sorry that you are feeling ashamed to be Catholic. I agree that some of these posts are chilling—both those which support Bishop Olmstead’s statements, and those which do not.
For myself, I do not wish the mother dead. I am presuming (I pray correctly) that all here agree.
I agree that in discussing these matters, there is much more room for expression of compassion, rather than dispassionate exchange of argumentation.
We SHOULD have compassion—we should suffer with this situation. We should suffer with the mother, suffer with the unborn child, suffer with the family, and YES, even suffer with Sr. McBride in the course of action she approved. We should be able to feel with the Mother, and with Sr. McBride, and say, “What a terrible, horrible, painful position to be in!”
But what we should not, and CANNOT do, if we are the Body of Christ, is to say that it’s right. We must be able to look back on these painful situations, while recognizing the distress and difficulty and fear and good intentions, we must be able to say, THAT WAS WRONG.
For your own benefit, you should pray to the Holy Spirit for the 8th gift, Liseux, a SENSE of HUMOR!! I don’t know how anyone lives without it in general, especially in the Church!
But now to the serious, since you mentioned it, dare I imagine how you felt about the vast network of (small percentage) of clergy sex abuse and significant hierarchy cover-up in our holy Catholic Church. Did you attend the PGC or become a Virtus training facilitator since you were, I’d imagine, most incensed?
And no, I’m done stating the facts and obvious about an non-viable 11 week old fetus. Until you detail the secret medical breakthroughs, that discussion to me is as dead as latin is.
“Just because it’s not legal doesn’t mean it won’t happen” very very true. In the Church ‘laws’ are disregarded perhaps equally as often as in the secular.
Actually, it is one in every 3 children are aborted, so it would be a third of our children’s classmates.
The only difference between legal and illegal abortions are antibiotics.
And over 52% of abortions are repeats!! That tells me healing is not happening. And I am sorry to hear that u r pro-choice Sensus, but I hope you can agree that if someone does OPT,(pivotal word here) for an abortion that the laws would change and full disclosure of all the possible side effects both emotionally and physically for the parents might occur, and exactly what stage of development the baby is at the time of the abortion, via 3-d sonogram. A decision so important needs to be made fully aware.
NPR reports on the very serious threat to the mothers life:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072
The issue here is whether or not this was a direct abortion. It seems that it was not and therefore there is no latae sententia excommunication.
God Bless
Is it really that complicated to understand that directly killing an innocent human person is always wrong?
Why are so many of us intellectual cowards who will bend any principle so long as it makes the problem in front of us seem to go away?
Why do we always cling to the illusion that we are the ones in charge? We are in the hands of a loving God and we do our best with what He allows to come to us. Sin is fundamentally a declaration of the first lie. It is an assertion that God is not good.
The Hippocratic oath was, “First, do no harm.”
The Christian coralary is “Do no evil.”
I, for one, submit myself to the Church. The ends do not justify the means. God is good, so I will choose His way even when it is hard.
Chris, I don’t trust NPR.
I also don’t trust doctors who say she was too ill to be moved to the operating room, much less another hospital, but could traumatize her body with an abortion- surgical or chemical.
I do trust the bishop and the forgiveness of Christ in this most agonizing situation.
May God have mercy on us all.
How can people say God Bless and condone abortion in the same sentence?
Great question: “Why are so many of us intellectual cowards who will bend any principle so long as it makes the problem in front of us seem to go away?”
I think that the abortion solution causes other problems too. Now unseen, but they sure do come out later…..
They are desensitized to evil, Darlene, IMHO.
Chris, just because the mother is sick doesn’t mean it’s not a direct abortion…no? I thought an example of an indirect abortion would be a cancerous uterus that is removed even though a child is within, i.e. the child’s body is not touched. I have heard Mr. Akin talk about this at length on catholic answers live. Please clarify.
Chris is not correct. That might be NPR’s position, or NPR’s understanding of Catholic teaching, but Jimmy is clear on this in the blog.
Darlene, I bet I probably would agree if I knew what OPT exactly was, pardon my ignorance I know little about this realm, just always assumed I was (completely) pro-life until very recently.
If that’s regarding the mother being shown an ultrasound or the doctor informing her as to exactly what she is doing (something like this is supposed to become law in FL) definitely, that’s a blessing and major progress. That’s exactly what one dear Rachel friend advocates for, letting women know exactly what horrible choice they are making as she didn’t have any info and was coerced too.
She amazes me so in her faith and how she survived and now thrives is a miracle! I don’t think I could live through it. I actually prayed that I would get AIDS rather than ever have an abortion (if I was doomed for one or the other) and not that I was even in either of those positions thankfully but that’s the truth… obviously how terrible it all sounded.
Sam Schmitt has nailed it. I don’t think that Catholics nowadays are used to thinking about the relative weight of death vs. sin. Theoretically speaking, we all know that we must choose death rather than sin. However, when the rubber hits the road, then we start singing a different tune.
There is little doubt that the direct killing of the innocent unborn child is a sin, otherwise we must concede that the end DOES justify the means.
It is impossible to believe that the mother had a 100% chance of dying if the abortion were not performed. To say that involves a lack of faith in God, among other things. Rather, the situation probably had a significant RISK of death. Statistics I have seen indicate a 36-50% risk of death during pregnancy in general, with the risk increasing as the pregnancy goes along.
At any rate, medically speaking, abortion is not a cure of her condition, so one can say, at best, that the abortion IMPROVED her chances of survival.
But let’s be clear, even IF the mother really did have a 100% chance of dying, the DIRECT abortion still could not be justified under Catholic teaching. Is that a hard teaching? You bet. Will you also leave? Or will you say, “Where else shall I go? You have the words of eternal life.”
Sensus, I am sorry by opt I meant that the mother and hopefully father both consent to having an abortion, their choice, not pressure or lies.
I thought u were pro-choice, u r confusing me?
lixeus, I am sorry for my ignorance but what does IMHO mean? Thank u
“Theoretically speaking, we all know that we must choose death rather than sin. However, when the rubber hits the road, then we start singing a different tune.”
“Is that a hard teaching? You bet. Will you also leave? Or will you say, “Where else shall I go? You have the words of eternal life.”
Dave, thanks. Well said. When it comes right down to it most people are situationsl in their ethics and morals. They talk the talk, but can’t walk the walk.
How dare Anne Rice accuse anyone that opposes this abortion of wanting the mother dead. Funny how the “compassionate” pro aborts in these comments have more knowledge than I do and can judge the hearts of those pulling for the baby. And how amazing that Sensus keeps asking Lisieux where she is getting her medical facts but then he uses his supposed knowledge of the case to say the hospital was right.
I really hope Chris is right and you should too, off to check, because the Church needs a major way out of this minefield. This case is a definite no win for the Church and pro-life. But it’s a quick a win-win for Planned Parenthood, Catholics for choice, etc… I hope those of you who fervently disagree with the mainstream in this instance will at least recognize this fact. There’s no good to come of this for the Church or pro-life efforts, honest to God.
I presume that the same logic which applies to Sr. McBride’s automatic excommunication also applies to the patient, her family, her physicians, the rest of the Ethics Committee, the attending nurses not to mention all the others at Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix (who presumably billed the patient’s insurance company for the procedure at more then the actual cost,thus profiting from the child’s death)?
I have read comment after comment from Sensus stating that the bishop must be wrong based on the medical facts. What facts? Do you have a source for those facts?
NPR is as reliable as a source as the word “Catholic” these days. It means NOTHING that the hospital was Catholic. Look what CATHOLIC nuns did for health care-made sure we will have more abortions in this country. Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood said thank you those nuns. Catholic only means something if you walk the walk.
Sensus and Anne Rice save your outrage for this one : Aborted baby cries before cremation
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/login.asp?url=http://www.shanghaidaily.com/sp/article/2010/201005/20100514/article_437014.htm
Darlene ~ my apologies, honestly this week has been confusing for me! I absolutely believed I was completely pro-choice but based on my opinion (IMHO - in my humble opinion) in this one instance, apparently I am officially pro-choice. I’m shocked too, but this case has opened my eyes and I can’t shut them.
“And how amazing that Sensus keeps asking Lisieux where she is getting her medical facts but then he uses his supposed knowledge of the case to say the hospital was right.”
Ann, as I relayed to Liseux, I am comfortable with the facts rec’d and reported by many outlets. They seem to be on par with the Phoenix Diocese as we haven’t heard anything to the contrary. Therefore, I feel comfortable assuming they are accurate. If somebody knows otherwise, it’s on them to prove it. And likewise, I am confidently assuming Sr. Margaret and staff up to that moment (saying this in terms of pro-lifer views) were
faithful to their duties, in good standing, reputations, etc… I refuse to let their character be assasinated and thus far no one proved otherwise.
Sensus, are you Catholic?
I think we should refrain from attacking Sensus/Anne and other in this discussion. They are acting out of compassion (albeit compassion at the expense of the baby) for the mother, and not out of any conscious rejection of Catholic principles.
However, there are two principles here that Sensus/Anne and others must think about:
1) The end does not justify the means. This means that even when one has the best of motives (and in this case, they certainly did), one may not commit an evil to achieve those aims.
2) It is an objective moral evil to directly kill an innocent human being.
Those who defend this action must decide which of these two principles they are discarding.
I am glad this mother of 5 children is still alive.
According to the HOSPITAL, the mother had “right heart failure,” and her doctors told her that if she continued with the pregnancy, her risk of mortality was “close to 100 percent.”
Pope Pius XII taught that an operation to save a mother’s life is not an abortion, even if it results in the foreseen death of the baby:-
God Bless
Sensus, I have proven without a questionable doubt that abortion is NEVER
the right answer. It has left me with unbearable pain, believe me, if God forbid u ever had to walk the walk, it is shear hell.
If she could withstood the abortion, why not try to keep the baby till viability. There is proof here!!!!! We are hurting souls, who miss our unborn children that we destroyed or allowed someone else to convince us to. We will never hold them or love them, and we live to regret, the pain is horrible. It is proof
Chris, Was it eminent that the baby be removed immediately?
The life of the mother really means abortion is ok under certain circumstances which is wrong, period! Sorry, don’t mean to be so cut and dry, but the truth of the matter is, it is cut and dry!
Chris,
You are misunderstanding the principle here. Pope Pius XII is saying that a treatment which would save the mother’s life and as an INDIRECT consequence might take the unborn child’s life would be morally permissible. An example of this might be the removal of a fallopian tube which would cause the mother’s death if not removed.
In this case, though, there was no “treatment”; the unborn child was simply directly killed.
Thanks, Chris, I for one appreciate that and it is spirit-warming to know the truth of Sr. Margaret’s good action is validated in Church doctrine. I had a feeling this really boiled down to mis-interpretation.
And thanks, Dave, for being a gift of wisdom and counsel. It makes no sense devouring each other… meanwhile innocents really ARE murdered.
One of the principals acting on principle in this tragic situation may be a Saint someday. I’m betting it won’t be Bishop Olmsted.
Anne Rice,
You are right, the comments are chilling. It is chilling that anyone could condone the killing of another human life in the name of compassion. The fact that some people are getting rather incensed is not a demonstration of a desire to see the mother dead, it is a reaction to a horror, the defense of killing, the defense of justifying evil in the name of the good that can be brought of it. Sure, some of the voices could do with some (or a lot of) tempering, but that does not make them monsters seeking the death of the mother to serve some ideological ends.
Compassion literally means “to suffer with.” It is not compassion to lie to a person and say that sin is not sin, that evil is not evil because some good became of it. It is compassion to suffer with that person, and to always call them closer to God and Truth .. even the hard Truth that we cannot commit evil in order to secure good.
Chris Sullivan, you’re misunderstanding the Pope’s statement: the key words here are the following—“therapeutic treatment which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life.”
If the medical intervention she received was directed toward the fetus, and intended to kill the fetus, then that is not an accessory consequence. That is a primary consequence, and a direct abortion.
This would be the indirect action the Pope was speaking to: If, for example, a surgical treatment existed for pulmonary hypertension (a condition that is independent of the mother’s pregnant condition), and it was a surgery that was focused on the pulmonary arteries, and the fetus did not survive the surgery, THAT would be an accessory consequence.
God Bless you! Encouraging us all to keep praying for all involved…
The treatment here is to remove the baby. That is licit for proportionate reasons (which certainly exist in this case) and happens naturally at birth and regularly in c-sections. It is NOT an abortion (which Catholic teaching defines as a direct and deliberate killing of an innocent human being - John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 62).
The unintended consequence is the unwilled and unintended death of the baby, which is a consequence not of the operation to save the mother, but of our current inability to keep the baby alive outside the womb at 11 weeks.
The very orthodox Catholic moral theologian Germain Grisez has established that even a craniotomy is not an abortion when necessary to save the mothers life.
http://www.twotlj.org/G-2-8-D.html
God Bless
Darlene,
I am not a doctor but the mother’s right heart failure sounds immediately very life threatening to me.
God Bless
Please, All the big words and quotes mean absolutely nothing, and down deep on some level we all know this. The bottom line is a life was taken in a Catholic Hospital, all that aided should be accountable, not just Sr.
It would be different, never ok, if it were just a regular hospital, but come on people, face the facts, under the auspices of the Catholic Church this was murder, a mortal sin.
Chris,
You need to be careful here. Dr. Grisez is, indeed, an orthodox theologian, and as such, his job is to propose and advance the Church’s teaching. In this case, he has PROPOSED that perhaps there is a way to justify the direct killing of an unborn child in a case where there is no way to save the child and it is necessary to save the mother.
However, he has simply PROPOSED this, he has not ESTABLISHED it…this does not mean that Magisterial teaching has changed, and in fact, he acknowledges the Magisterial teaching.
In this case, at any rate, it is still difficult to see how it would fit into Dr. Grisez’s criteria. In the case of the craniotomy, it is proposed that removing the physical blockage (of the baby’s head) is the intent, rather than the harming of the baby. It is hard to see how a direct surgical abortion, as happened, in this case, could fit into this criteria.
Chris Sullivan: “The treatment here is to remove the baby”.
No Chris, it’s not to ‘remove’ the baby. The treatment is to kill the fetus. To cause, by a primary action, the death of the fetus, without treating the underlying disease. “The unintended consequence is the unwilled and unintended death of the baby” Chris, the ‘treatment’ received by the mother was specifically intended and willed to end the life of the fetus, which was posing a risk to the mother’s life.
As for your justification that this procedure was instead “a consequence not of the operation to save the mother, but of our current inability to keep the baby alive outside the womb at 11 weeks.”
My friend, that is like saying that a death from a gunshot wound is not a consequence of a shooting, rather the consequence of our inability to heal all gunshot wounds.
Chris, your statements don’t make logical sense.
You say,“The treatment here is to remove the baby.”
That wasn’t treatment- that was killing the baby. Also, you forgot that the lady was still sick after that “treatment.”
Her ailment was not treated by the abortion; therefore, it wasn’t a treatment.
Faithful Catholics, I am heartened by the defense of life on this blog.
Yes, there are those who disagree or misinterpret the teachings of the Church, but the number of Catholics and others of good will who support life is encouraging.
Saint Gianna Molla, pray for us.
@Darlene “Please, All the big words and quotes mean absolutely nothing, and down deep on some level we all know this.”
I agree with your plea wholeheartedly. Mass confusion has been created and faithful are confounded by an endless stream of catechism, compendium, national directory, doctrine, encyclicals… everything other than the Bible of course, has made laypeople feel completely incapabale of ever really knowing, embracing and living their faith. It instilled passivity. “That’s Fr.‘s job to figure all that out… I’ll just pay, pray and obey for the most part.” We’ve fed into it by creating paperwork to justify ourselves, much as an bureaucracy does. Anyone who either works in a parish office or frequently calls the Diocese can attest to this.
But, I view this instance as a triumph, a life was saved. To try to imagine that one who need not die did for no reason and even as a sin of omission is ghastly to my informed conscience.
I really wonder how those who believe Sr. Margaret committed a mortal sin would “feel” should it be proven otherwise, via examination of the interpretations, by the Church? It would seem to me we Catholics would hope and rejoice rather than desire to persecute anyone needlessly and wrongly.
@Liseux, I well understand how welcomed support and like thinking are. I sincerely suggest you don’t venture to other forums outside the confined walls. Yes, even Catholic forums.
Two lives could have been saved. That’s a triumph of medicine and faith.
Sister Margaret should have known better.
Please explain, good poster.
Sensus, I’m quite used to the secular boards. I do enjoy the company here though, as I’m usually one of the few pro-lifers.
I have to say that most people here are quite courteous, as compared to the secular spots.
The mother had Pulmonary Hypertension, often fatal during pregnancy due to the extra load on the heart.
According to the wikipedia article Jimmy Akin linked to above:
Removal of the baby before the mother dies is certainly a treatment. It was exactly how our children were born.
God Bless
Dave Mueller,
We don’t know that this was a direct surgical abortion and patient confidentiality rules probably mean that Bp Olmstead didn’t know either.
God Bless
Chris,
It is true that *WE* don’t know what type of abortion it was, but it is difficult to imagine what type of indirect abortion it might have been.
Bishop Olmsted, however, must have known that it was a direct abortion, as the excommunication could not have been incurred for an indirect abortion.
Here is a quote from Evangelium Vitae (with caps added by me) which is pertinent:
I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end OR AS A MEANS, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. (EV 62)
Dave,
Killing the baby here was NOT the means to save the mothers life. The means was the removal of the baby (a licit means when done for proportionate reasons).
This was certainly not a DIRECT abortion.
If it was an abortion then it would have been wrong.
Unless we want to completely derail the pro-life movement in the public disquiet/outrage about this, we need to be quite clear that operations to save a mothers life which do not intend to kill the baby are not abortions even if the foreseen outcome is the unintended death of the baby. Thank God for Popes Pius XII and John Paul II who clearly taught this.
God Bless
Chris,
I certainly don’t want to derail the pro-life movement, but I’m not willing to fudge the truth in order to minimize outrage. Our Lord did no such thing when confronted with similar hard teachings.
How can we say with a straight face that the death of the baby was “unintended” when a dismembered baby was the ONLY result of the procedure?
What is your definition of a direct vs. indirect abortion? I do not think you are using the same definition as the Church.
Dave, You can pave the road to hell with all the good intentions u like, it was an abortion,and it was not done to save the life of the mother and Pope Pius did not say what u imply that he said. denial is a long river!!!!
Chris, pregnancy is not a disease.
If killing the baby were part of the treatment, the woman would have been healed.
She’s still sick.
I realize it might salve consciences to say that killing the baby was part of the treatment, but it is really Hitlerian to say so.
Hitler’s doctors did operations on Jews, Gypsies, and Catholics (unwilling patients, like this child) and declared the surgery a success while the patient died.
This is an agonizing situation, but killing a baby cannot be seen as a “treatment” by a civilized society.
Yep, denial is a loonngg river for some on here.
I would like a show as to how many on here have actually had an abortion?
I had 2 of them and I can attest to the hell can u who seem to think it was justified?
Dave,
Again, you are assuming that the baby was dismembered when we don’t know that. The baby may have been removed alive.
The death of the baby was the not the ONLY result of the procedure.
A mothers life was saved.
Surely her life is also a pro-life cause ?
Pope Pius XII distinguished between direct abortion and operations to save the life of the mother in the quote I gave above:-
I am not a fan of the term “indirect abortion” as it blurs the issue but wikipedia has a good article on the Catholic theology at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_abortion
God Bless
Please, No matter how the baby was removed, it would not have survived outside the womb, hence an Abortion, say the word please Abortion
Darlene,
I don’t know whether or not you are Catholic, but the Catholic Church’s position is quite clear that operations to remove a baby are not abortions even if the baby cannot survive outside the womb. It might help to read up on Catholic teaching in the cases of ectopic pregnancies and uterine cancer.
God Bless
Liseux ;~)
Chris, you are saving grace and possibly be saving faith. You have a great gift and I’m so grateful you are utilizing it for what it holy and pleasing.
I guess I have to accept it but it gravely concerns and saddens me that some seem to “want” this to be construed as murder. I’ll never understand that part. Above all, I’d hope a human being would want to celebrate the life saved and thank the medical professionals for using their gifts and talents wisely and faithfully to save that whom could be saved.
Sensus, Yes I am Catholic, please stop comparing oranges to grapes, what we are talking about is and was an abortion. Guess what? The elephant is still in the middle of the room
Chris,
What you are not understanding is that an “indirect abortion” does not act directly against the baby but takes out a compromised organ such as the womans uterus or fallopian tube, even though this will have a secondary effect of the baby’s death. This is called an indirect abortion.
A direct abortion is a procedure that directly acts against the baby, such as is the case for almost all abortions, including presumably this one.
It is good that you want to make the Church’s teaching appear “reasonable” and “compassionate” to the world where it is possible, but you are twisting it.
Dave,
An operation to remove the baby does not act directly against the baby either.
The subsequent death of the baby is a secondary effect, resulting not from the removal operation but from our current medical inability to keep an 11 week old alive outside the womb.
We are making great progress in keeping alive pre-term babies. Let’s hope and pray that one day we’ll be able to do it for babies at 11 weeks and this whole sad saga can one day result in saving two lives instead of only one.
God Bless
Chris, you are not making any sense when you say that an operation to remove the baby does not act directly against the baby either.
It kills the baby at 11-wks. gestation. That is acting directly against the baby. The doctor has removed it from its source of nourishment- directly; thus, the death of the child.
There is nothing indirect about this, other than your trying to make evil good.
Had the baby not been removed from its mother’s womb, it would still be alive.
How can you say God bless when you advocate the killing of a defenseless human being?
Chris’s twisting of the truth is an example of calling evil good and good evil. This is what we as faithful Catholics should be on the look out for.
“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.”
Since an 11-week fetus is about an inch and a half in length and weighs approximately a quarter of an ounce, it is extremely unlikely that either method of abortion resulted in it being “torn in pieces”.
Are you kidding.
I’ve seen picture of an 8-wk. old fetus that was torn in pieces and the picture had a quarter in the background of the bloody feet, hands, face, and body to show how little it was.
Yes, there was plenty to be torn in pieces.
If you want to see picture of babies being torn to pieces from 8 wks. gestation, here is a starter sampler for you. Navigate the site, and you’ll see all types of aborted babies, up to 9 months gestation:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.aspx
Jimmy, I want to thank you for getting out the facts on this topic.
Once again, you are a champion for the truth, and you enable the rest of the Church to engage in a dialogue so that we can go forth and be informed.
I cannot tell you how much you have helped me in writing letters to the editor, speaking to people, etc. AND, I always give you and NCREGISTER credit!
May God bless you and organizations like Priests for Life for fighting the good fight for Truth.
We love you!
A somewhat similar case occurs in some end of life situations where a dying person in extreme pain is given a high dose of morphine to reduce the pain, but also high enough to kill the patient. This has long been considered morally licit in Catholic medical ethics.
It is not a direct killing and not euthanasia but the death is accepted as an unintended and unwilled side effect of reducing the pain.
An observer might think “that looks like they are killing the patient by administering the morphine”. Just as an observer might think an operation to remove the baby is killing the baby.
But what is crucial in determining the moral object chosen is not what an observer might observe and think, but the proximate intent of the one doing the act.
If the proximate intent is not to kill then the medical act is not an abortion or euthanasia.
God Bless
lisieux,
Removing the baby does not kill it.
The baby can be removed alive.
Plenty of babies are removed and kept alive in incubators.
What kills the baby is not it’s removal but our inability to keep it alive outside the womb at 11 weeks.
If we could keep the 11 week old baby alive after removal in an incubator, would you consider the removal to be direct killing ?
Obviously not, which shows that the removal itself is not direct killing.
God Bless
Why is everyone assuming that this was an early cesarean delivery? That would change the morality of the act, but there is no evidence whatsoever that that is the act that took place. The hospital stated the act was an abortion. You guys are trying to assuage your consciences or at least cloud the issue.
I’ll state it again, as it seems too simple for the pro-death commenters:
It is always wrong to directly kill an innocent human being.
Period. Full Stop. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.
Sin is worse than death. It really is that simple.
The mother’s life was saved at the potential cost of several souls. That is not a price that Christ is willing to pay.
Thanks, Red-Beard for the new label. Within almost a week I went from pro-life, to pro-choice and now I am officially deemed pro-death. And I’m not even on or in need of meds, according to my friends and co-workers.
I was sure I was simple minded too and now that’s been disproven.
“Sin is worse than death. It really is that simple.
The mother’s life was saved at the potential cost of several souls. That is not a price that Christ is willing to pay.”
I really need to re-read the entire Gospels. Picking and choosing does catch up with me.
Pro-choice is an irrational moniker, I think pro-death is more honest, though an abbreviation of the position.
How about “Pro-killing-innocent-human-beings-under-certain-circumstances” vs. “Anti-killing-innocent-human-beings”?
It cuts through the spin to truly identify the positions but it sure doesn’t roll off the tongue.
If you do re-read the Gospels, pay particular attention to the Passion. It should be very clear that sin is worse than death.
Well I have to agree with u red-beard and of course lisieux, this is really not logical. I feel like Bill Clinton is behind these letters, like please pinch me to see if i am dreaming.
We go from removing a baby is not killing it to removing a baby is not an abortion at 11 weeks, r they kidding?
When u “remove” a baby from it’s life source it dies!!! this is an abortion. You can use any term u like, it is an abortion, how redundant, please stop rewriting history, again a Catholic Hospital, hello.
When u suffer through an abortion and its after effects, as I have, your heart dies with the baby. So u save ur life but kill ur kids, this is the real picture here
Chanelling my husband are you, Darlene? What would Bill Clinton have to do with any of this and what kind of strange dreams do you have woman?
Ok red-beard, it’s late, I’m punchy but I’ll give it a stab for you… pro-life-to the-incredulous-illogical-unnatural-inhumane-extreme-of-committing-a-sin of-omission-by-refusing-to-save-a-dying-mother-whilst-her-unviable-fetus-is-certainly-dying
So agreed, The Passion of the Christ was the most incredible movie. I pray it be is saving grace for Mr. Gibson given his choices, the irony is too much to bear. His magnificent gift meant so many newbies saw the face of Christ and heart of Mary brought to life!
I agree, I am tired too, the clinton referral was just calling removing a baby abortion, just verbiage, like what is is remember?
OK, well I am going to bed and I hope u have a good night.
I of course one day would love to hear how u became pro choice after talking to a counselor from Rachel’s Vineyard, which by the way I am not a fan of!
Darlene,
I have read your comments and my heart goes out to you. You know what first hand what abortion truly is, it’s aftermath, none of us really understand it as God would expect us to. God has blessed you with grace, wisdom, and forgivness in your losses. Keep up your Catholic faith in your suffering. And please pray for all of us.
God Bless.
Removing the baby does not kill it.
The baby can be removed alive.
Plenty of babies are removed and kept alive in incubators.
What kills the baby is not it’s removal but our inability to keep it alive outside the womb at 11 weeks.
If we could keep the 11 week old baby alive after removal in an incubator, would you consider the removal to be direct killing ?
Obviously not, which shows that the removal itself is not direct killing.
How silly. This line of thinking separates action and consequence, and by this reasoning one could commit abortion at any stage of pregnancy, as long as the baby wasn’t killed in the womb and was simply removed pre-viability. Let’s extend your analogy further, shall we?
Pushing a man out a 50th floor window doesn’t kill him.
Plenty of people are shoved and survive.
What kills the man is not the push, but the inability to survive the impact of hitting the sidewalk at terminal velocity.
If we could keep a man from getting hurt from a 50 story fall, would you consider the shove to be direct killing ?
Obviously not, which shows that pushing a man from a roof is not direct killing.
Of course, no one believes this “I didn’t kill him, the gun did” reasoning unless it refers to a preborn baby.
Here is a link to a beautiful reflection on the tragic situation of Sr. Margaret McBride, publicly criticized by her church for saving the life of a dying mother in a Phoenix hospital. I too pray for all involved, and for myself as I try to face this agonizing issue and it’s terrible ramifications.
MONEY ! MONEY ! MONEY! LOTS OF MONEY—- IT’S A WORLD OF GREED. IF ANYTHING AND I MEAN ANYTHING, GETS IN THE WAY OF THE PURSUIT OF MONEY AND THE ENJOYMENT IT BRINGS, THEN GET RID OF IT AND THAT INCLUDES BABIES IN THE WOMB. People can go backwards and forwards until the cows come home but the bottom line is—it always comes back to one’s perspective on life and “what’s in it for me?” Selfish people .....pftttttt they all make me sick
St Joe’s statement - “pt in critical condition”. If I am her MD with No regard for religion but every regard for my pt, I would never allow an abortion or any elective surgery in her condition. I perform elective surgery on my pt AFTER she has improved from critical to grave to guarded to serious to fair to improved to good. If those conditions do not occur due to her pulmonary hypertension, then I find her impending death is imminent; and I have no reason to suggest abortion. A critically ill pt can not well tolerate anesthesia or surgery for a life threatening problem, let alone elective choice. If on the other hand, my pt stabilizes, and wishes an abortion because of expected, serious, known exacerbation to this disease in the late 2nd to 3rd trimester, then I will send her to a non-Catholic clinic. St Joe’s did not need to answer this Q of abortion. The pt’s life did not depend on it at 11 wks. I am sorry for all involved. God Bless the Bishop
“the tragic situation of Sr. Margaret McBride, publicly criticized by her church for saving the life of a dying mother in a Phoenix hospital”
This is the silliest yet saddest comment of all. The tragedy is not Sr. McBride, she can rectify her position at any time through repentance. The tragedy is the baby that lost all its chances of anything and the tragedy of the mother who lost her baby. To that I would add the tragedy of having to explain these things to “Catholics”. Yes, it is a tragedy a tragedy indeed. Maybe the purpose of it all was to reveal how deep the tragedy is, how separated from God many souls really are, to separate the wheat from the chaff (sp?).
“Here is a link to a beautiful reflection on the tragic situation of Sr. Margaret McBride, publicly criticized by her church for saving the life of a dying mother in a Phoenix hospital. I too pray for all involved, and for myself as I try to face this agonizing issue and it’s terrible ramifications” ——- what a silly statement for anyone to make unless of course the person is pro-abortion. The longer I live the more sad I am at reading such distardly and ridiculous statement. Hell is real and it STARTS on Earth.. it continues after death .. let’s never forget this.
I want to thank all the opponents of Bishop Olmted for being so steadfast and obstinate in their defense of Sr. McBride. You have kept this horrifying abortion topic alive and have given the Pro life folks a wonderful chance to learn/review Church teachings. I for one have become convicted all over again of the evil of abortion and fact that we are falling headfirst down the slippery slope. If it wasn’t for Sr. McBride’s supporter this story might have fallen off the radar screen rather quickly since those who support the Bishop would have said “Amen” and moved on. Instead we have been called to witness to the TRUTH and in doing so I have been able to witness the poor intellectual and theological reasoning of the pro abortion folks which makes me stronger.
Thank you also to Lisieux, Dave, Darlene and others for the wonderful witness to the TRUTH.
God bless.
Thank you Patrick! Ann thank you also for your dialog, some people prefer to look at the good instead of the bad, yes a life was saved, u r correct, but at the expense of another. In situations like this we all share our views. I respect your opinion, but I do not buy into this propaganda, in my view and experience a baby was murdered, this woman will feel this. She will suffer the death of a child, for her life. She will grieve, cry, have nightmares, fear for her living children, become depressed, scared, think very poorly of herself, long to hold the innocent life she missed, always wonder what it would have grown up to be, have arms that are empty for her lost little one, have pain that at times is too much to bare, and have many triggers that send her back to that horrible time in her life, when her child was killed by her own will. I know this first hand, and I was coerced, but I still walked through that door, and there was a gun to my head, u just couldn’t see it, and I carry this pain in all aspects of my life, and I know our good Lord has forgiven me. One day it will hit her and she will know this hell that I have known for the last 35 years, it gets no better. Jesus went after that one sheep didn’t He? I pray for us and thank God we have a forum and the courage to speak. I am not on a soap box, just giving u my honest feelings, this is abortion aftermath, this is the hell.~God Bless and forgive us
All the best to you Darlene, you sound amazing in your faith and commitment, a true child of God. And I feel the same of you Lisieux. Not that imho is worth much, but you both sound golden. I agree to disagree but it certainly wouldn’t keep me from extending a hand at the sign of peace or praying for you as we receive Holy Eucharist together.
And Ann, I’m sincerely glad you see a bright spot in all of this for pro-life. Back in the real world where most Catholics and nons exist, I’ve read much and listened to parishioners about the immense damage this has done. I’m proof for whatever it’s worth… going from pro-life to pro-abortion to pro-death. I don’t doubt you grieve the loss of this soul.
Any rate, I’ve learned (thank you!) and shared all I can. When dogma and doctrines are required to prove that which many faithful know in their hearts, there’s a major problem and disconnect. I respect your choice to insist to die in this instance and will pray you can respect those who value saving life. It’s truly been the most surreal, ironic instance in recent memory.
And another completely non-theological thought here, just to help pro-lifers to know the sentiment you’re up against (not that it matters, I understand). I think this flies in the face of humanity’s timeless themes and dreams too… we always always desire to see good come from tragedy. We root in the theater when one survives the disaster, gives us all hope and affirms life! Trying to remember if it’s one of the 7 major literary themes. And yes I realize feelings are of no consequence to you in large part, I’m only relaying a “reality check” so you can relate in some way to the masses you are trying to reach.You have a huge uphill battle against that which is very deeply ingrained on many levels.
I do think everyone would be heartened to know there was a beautiful prayer published today in a secular paper of Terre Haute, IN (Tribstar com news.) If nothing else than this gets everyone thinking and praying, more good has come.
“Here is a link to a beautiful reflection on the tragic situation of Sr. Margaret McBride, publicly criticized by her church for saving the life of a dying mother in a Phoenix hospital.”
To be absolutely clear, she was not criticized for saving the mother’s life; she was criticized for assenting to killing an innocent child. This is the hardest of hard cases, given the likelihood that the child would have died anyway, but the principle is still clear that the deliberate taking of an innocent life cannot be justified by any good motive.
If it can be justified in this case, then it is open to discussion in what other cases it might be justified, because there is no absolute prohibition against taking innocent human life.
Sensus,
You and Anne Rice insist that the good that came from this is that a life was saved. So I have to ask a fundamental question:
Is a preborn baby (or fetus if you prefer that term) a human life? If not why not? If yes, then can you admit that a life was lost?
And I am still trying to figure out how you judge that one life is worth more than other. And no I am not saying the baby is worth more than the mother.
You seem to be a very judgemental person in that you are attempting to paint those who disagree with you as cold, unemotional and heartless. Have we met? Do you know me? Your attempts to pull at the heartstrings is a sign that you know you have lost the intellectual argument.
The problem with the emotional arguments is that when we make emotion the basis for our moral decisionmaking, then all TRUTH goes out the window. Our decisional making becomes relative to the situaion.
I don’t know where you are but where I am most folks, Catholic or not, are bliffully unaware of this issue or anything else percolating in the Catholic blogoshere or any blogosphere. The reality is that most people don’t bother to keep informed and are too afraid to take a stand. I am not at all worried that this issue is hurting the Church or anyone’s faith at all. How could a bishop standing firm on Church teaching be disappointing or hurtful to the faith? If it is, then you are in the wrong church.
Sensus, did you say that some have gone from pro life to pro abortion to pro death over this issue? That makes no sense to me and I question if they are being honest that they were ever pro life to begin with. Some might strongly disagree witht the bishop and the Church’s teaching on this but it seems a huge leap to say that someone is pro life but because of one case that person is now pro death.
Maybe I misunderstood you.
Thanks.
Sensus,
“or praying for you as we receive Holy Eucharist together.”
This is disturbing. One who stands in opposition to the Church on a matter of faith and morals should NOT receive the Eucharist. One of a million sources: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholics_who_support_abortion_should_not_receive_communion_says_archbishop_burke/
I’ll be praying that much harder for you as it seems you are bent on committing sacrilege every Sunday. I’m sincerely worried about you. My interpretation of this, is of course fallible. I know to you I’m just “some jerk on the internet,” but I beg you to honestly look into this matter for yourself before receiving the Eucharist.
You have used several emotional responses against monikers all while maintaining a fundamentally anti-Catholic position that the ends justify the means. How about a rational response (reasoned argument) rather than an emotional appeal?
I know it doesn’t feel nice, but your position really can be summed up as: “Sometimes it’s morally licit to directly kill an innocent human being.”
“We root in the theater when one survives the disaster, gives us all hope and affirms life!”
Ok, so the equivalent story would be a mother and her 4 year old being stranded at sea in a lifeboat. They are starving to death. Both could die, or one could kill the other and survive. There is no scenario, short of a miracle, where both could live. The mother decides to kill her child and eat it to survive.
Does that affirm life?!? Would we cheer such a monster of a mother?!?
Why can’t you understand that murder (the direct killing of an innocent human being) is wrong! It is wrong no matter how many lives it saves!
I know that this story tugs the heartstrings, but please, consider it rationally rather than emotionally. It is never a victory to murder a child.
Ann,
“did you say that some have gone from pro life to pro abortion to pro death over this issue?”
Sensus said this issue made her pro-choice. I mentioned that the moniker “pro-choice” is irrational and should be called “pro-death” or at least “Pro-killing-innocent-human-beings-under-certain-circumstances.”
Sensus is trying to shame me, or at least paint me as heartless, by referring to it in this manner over and over again.
It may have been silly of me to bring this up in the first place as she seems to have clung to it as an attack instead of trying to understand the point.
All my point has ever been or ever will be is that: Murder is wrong; Don’t do it.
Ann, They seem to be focusing on the fact that a life was saved, what escapes them is they feel the end justifies the means, even in a Catholic Hospital. What I find a lot is that for some reason those that are pro-choice feel that pro-lifers are trying to take their rights away from them, there seems to be no distinction between the baby and the mother. They seem not to understand that a mother does not have 2 blood types or 2 hearts, but be that as it may, it is not our responsibility to change their minds, just speak the truth. I for one know that abortion is the law of the land, and overturning roe v wade will not end abortion, so that is not my concern. My concern is that anyone going in for an abortion needs to be made fully aware of all the risks and side affects of the abortion both long and short term for parents and babies. Counseling needs to be done to rule out coercion, pressure and lies that the mother, father or caretaker have been told. I feel that many people on the pro-choice side are either misguided or have been involved in abortion on some level. I personally have many pro-choice friends, that is not a concern of mine, we will all meet our maker one day and God help us. Statistics show that one in three people have been involved in an abortion, that means a third of a church’s congregation and someone on either side of u has been involved. Unacceptable for a civilized society, don’t u think?
red beard, you make sooo much sense and your points are absolutely necessary to bring some kind of sanity to this dialog, thank you.
Please do not apologize for seeing the elephant sitting in the middle of the room!
Darlene, excellent points again today.
Red_Beard, please keep speaking the truth in love. You’ve done a wonderful job.
If some on here say they went from pro-life to pro-choice, well they were never truly pro-life to begin with.
As a pro-lifer familiar with forums, I get told all the time it’s the Catholic women who are pro-life that when THEIR daughter get pregnant are the ones who take them to the abortion clinic.
I believe this is true to a point. We must not only talk the talk, but walk the walk, prayerfully.
Perhaps this is the type of Catholicism we see here on this blog; those who were not superfcially pro-life.
Being pro-life is not about being pro-life when it’s EASY, popular, or CONVENIENT.
We’re seeing the who really lives and loves life.
God bless you all.
That should be “those who were superficially pro-life.”
I don’t think Sensus is saying that he/she became pro-choice. Sensus was saying that others are now characterizing him/her as pro-choice. At least that’s the way I read it.
Pulmonary hypertension is my question. Your link to the subject did
not tell me if that condition in itself would have caused the death of either the baby or the mother before the child was viable outside the womb of the mother. What the information did seem to reveal is that a thorough diagnosis could have taken considerable time to complete. Since the mother was admitted December 27, and the abortion was performed within 4 days, it seems quite possible that there was a very serious case of the condition/disease, or that the decision to kill the baby was unnecessarily
hurried. It does seem to me that a conference between the bishop and sister is called for. Again, the news media is always prone to dramatization of a story to capture the attention of the reader. Also, in today’s societal environment, any attack on the Catholic Church is to be preferred by the media over due consideration of any tidbit that comes along.
I read further back that she now considered herself pro-choice because of this difficult case. I could have misunderstood.
Another person echoed her thoughts earlier in these 178 comments.
Liseux, She said she became pro choice after speaking with a counselor at a Rachel’s Vineyard retreat, and guess what? You did not say she was pro choice she said it, they were her words not yours and we take people at their word~
Yes, I was thinking that she did say some event changed her mind. Thanks for having a good memory as to what event adjusted her point of view.
It is interesting to note how Sr McBride, being instrumental in the killing of a human being, is simply re-assigned to other duties at the hospital, while a priest/alleged child abuser is drummed out of the church and defrocked. Just an observation.
That’s some observation, James, in fact it does take the cake.
Do you imagine the diabolical grooming, absolute malice aforethought and recidivist nature of the pedophile priest and those Bishops who willfully, ongoingly re-assigned them might account for the disparity in sentences? The sentence, that is to say the one laity begged for not the one actually every rightfully imposed upon the majority of the priest pedophiles.
Sad, seriously sad, just when I thought we were making progress.. there we are again, rehashing the unspeakable pain of Church sex-abuse victims.
And thanks again for your thoughts, ladies. Yes, I am now officially pro-choice it seems and I’m the one who said that. I won’t be rehashing the fats of this case or beliefs ad naseum. It’s a one in a million granted and so the danger far outweighs any gains.
I think it is pretty disturbing that you now seem to define as a “gain” to convince someone that murdering a child is good.
What would the “danger” be?
I can only assume that the “danger” you speak of would be someone being convinced that murdering a child is bad.
The perversion of such a position (assuming I understand your position) is really quite staggering.
Her opinion is completely ambivalent, she states she seems to be now pro-choice implying that we labeled her, and then says she is pro=choice by her own words. We are not the judge here Sensue, u can be what ever u choose, but we must own our words and our actions. u just seem to conflict yourself. Maybe u r pro life, just feel empathy for the mother in this one case? I certainly do not believe you are a pro-abort, or a radical
Sensus, one could just as well describe the abortionists AND pro-choice Catholics using your words as they plan the killing of the 11-wk. old fetus and others:
“Do you imagine the diabolical grooming, absolute malice aforethought and recidivist nature…. of the abortionist and pro-choice Catholics and they plot their next victims…...!”
You should be careful what words you use on here to describe sinners; they can come back to haunt you. I take note of that as well for myself.
In Palestine 2,000 years ago, the chief priests and pharisees said, “It is better that one die than the whole nation perish.”
On this board, the bishop’s supporters agree: It is better that two die instead of one, lest there be any confusion about abortion.
Bill,
Good point, but poorly made. A better statement of the historical parallel is:
In Palestine 2,000 years ago, the chief priests and pharisees said, “It is better to murder one rather than have the whole nation perish.”
On this board, the pro-death members agree: It is better to murder one, lest two perish.
It is the exact same bad argument that rationalized the greatest evil that ever has or ever will be seen: Deicide.
The parallel is directly analogous - “murder one to save many” or “murder one to save one”. Only one word of the argument changes.
Thank you for bringing such clarity! I wouldn’t have thought of this on my own!
Au contraire, Bill.
It’s better that two live, and that we pray and give the best medical care to the mother and baby.
Paul’s comment is very pertinent here: “Since the mother was admitted December 27, and the abortion was performed within 4 days, it seems quite possible that there was a very serious case of the condition/disease, or that the decision to kill the baby was unnecessarily
hurried. It does seem to me that a conference between the bishop and sister is called for. Again, the news media is always prone to dramatization of a story to capture the attention of the reader. Also, in today’s societal environment, any attack on the Catholic Church is to be preferred by the media over due consideration of any tidbit that comes along.”
Well stated, Red Beard, I was trying to get that out, but you said it perfectly.
For some on this board, it is indeed better that one baby die….
It is indeed better that two live. And of course the bishop, with the medical expertise he gained from studying canon law, knows how that could have been accomplished. Wish he’d share that insight with the rest of us.
From everything I’ve read the good Sister and the ethics committee was following the health guidelines spelled out by the U.S. Catholic Church in allowing the abortion
“This was a Catholic hospital. They do not perform abortions. An emergency meeting of the Ethics Group at the hospital was held. They read and reviewed Directive 47, the U.S. Catholic Church’s ethical guidelines for health care providers : “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.” “
This was the guideline provided and now they are being punished for it. The woman was very ill and was not stabilizing. This sounds like a good faith move on everyone’s part. This is not as black and white as you are portraying things.
Wagener,
There has been so much misrepresentation of the principle of double effect on this thread that I think a lot of people are getting confused. The moral principle is that it is always immoral to directly kill an innocent human being. The operative word is “directly.”
If a woman has cancer, she can morally undergo chemotherapy even though it will kill the child in her womb. The action, chemotherapy, is not directly against the child. It is a good action for a good purpose with a known bad effect. Hopefully, Jimmy will expound upon this in more detail and precision. I’m an amateur.
The point is, any form of direct abortion can never qualify under the principal of double effect. The action itself is evil, even if it may have some good effect.
Basically, sometimes you can do a good thing even when it has a known bad side effect, but you can never do a bad thing even if it has a good side effect.
It all comes down to what act you are doing. A direct abortion, which is what the hospital says occurred in this case, is a bad thing, even if it has good side effects.
Souls are far more important than lives.
Unfortunately the world nor religion is that black and white. When it is hateful things happen in the name of God. Am not sure God meant that to be. The guidelines do allow what happened to happen. Either way the fetus would die. God gave us the free will to do the best we can. Judging such circumstances in such a black and white way seems very much against god’s purpose.
At this point, the Church does seem to be hypocritical on how it handles what it does in punishing it’s members. Womens matters are black and white; mens are gray.
Jesus expects people to not be involved with abortion directly or indirectly. To be a faithful follower, one must not support this injustice. By voting for officials, judges, or any of our leaders only if they are pro-life, and prove it by their subsequent voting actions. It is never right to kill the most innocent in our society, a helpless child that is trying to be born, sent directly from the hand of God. “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you”.
I have read the term compassion used on this site in reference to the person at the hospital. There is no doubt, Jesus has much compassion for us sinners, and expects it from us. The story where the crowd was ready to stone the woman. And his response to the mob about casting the first stone. However, the other point of the story seems to be often forgotten long after the mob leaves. He speaks directly to the woman (and indirectly to each of us) saying “Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more”.
We must repent in every way of our sins and erase any aspect of being involved with them to prove repentance to the Lord. When we indirectly support abortion with our comments or actions, though we may not have been directly involved, the Lord holds us accoutable if don’t repent.
We live in a time where 50 million plus unborn children have been destroyed. Do we really believe that God will not hold us accoutable if we have been supporting abortion on behalf of others although we have never been directly involved? He knows the true impact and will show us how our actions caused each one. The argument ‘I would never have an abortion but don’t feel it’s my right to counsel someone not too have one’ won’t cut it with Him when we are standing before Him. I think He will have a few questions for each one of us about what we did or didn’t do to defend the unborn.
Vote for pro-life candidates. Democrat, Rebublican, Independent, it doesn’t matter as long as they defend the unborn. Donate to charities that help pregnant women faced with this situation. And, support women who have had abortions and suffer regret. Speak the truth about it and that’s all, don’t inflame or anger those you speak to in an effort to win an arguemnt, and secure ego. Treat them with respect, and be on your way, because the Lord loves all equally. And pray to the Blessed Virgin as well since she knows exactly what it feels like to be poor and with Child with potential scandal swirling all around.
At the end of our lives, Jesus is either Our merciful Savior or Our Just Judge. The choice is up to us.
God Bless.
Wagener,
Did you read your own quote about the guidelines?
“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.”
The medical intervention MUST have the direct purpose of curing the mother. Abortion has the direct purpose of killing the child with the indirect purpose (secondary end or secondary effect) of possibly saving the mother. I explained this in more detail in my response which you apparently skipped.
I don’t mind if you want to argue that they did the right thing. I do mind if you want to argue that they are in line with Catholic teaching. Please don’t misrepresent the Church.
“Either way the fetus would die. God gave us the free will to do the best we can.”
I’m going to restate my direct analogy of this argument.
There is a mother and a 4 year old child in a lifeboat at see. Both are starving to death. Unless a miracle occurs, both will die.
Your argument is: “The mother can murder (take direct action to kill) her child and eat it so that she will survive. The end result of this action is one living murderer, and one dead child who would have died anyway. The life of the mother (now murderer) is most important and 1 life saved, even at this cost makes this the best scenario. It’s not black and white.”
My argument is: It is never right to murder an innocent human being. Don’t kill your baby.
By the way, I don’t have an original bone in my body. This the Church’s argument, not mine. I just submit myself to Christ and therefore to His body on earth.
It is interesting that the canon cited, and referencing back to punishments according to the cited canon, that murder does not incur excommunication, but abortion does automatically. And of course if the pregnant woman was Jewish, her religion should be overridden.
In today’s New York Times, Nicholas Kristof has written a beautiful column on Sr. Margaret McBride and her decision to save the life of a dying mother in a Catholic hospital in Phoenix, and the subsequent persecution of Sr. Margaret McBride by her church. I recommend the column to all. I continue to find many comments here chilling. It does indeed seem that some Catholics here wish this mother of four had died in the emergency room along with her unborn child. I salute Sr. Margaret McBride and others at the hospital for supporting the life of the mother. I continue to fear for the safety of pregnant women being treated at Catholic hospitals.
Cannon law is changeable. If the pope wanted to make every mortal sin incur an excommunication, he could. The real issue comes down to the state of your soul in relationship to Christ. When you commit a mortal sin (like murder or abortion or many more), you are severed from Christ. You are out of communion with Him and His Church, even if you are not visibly separated. In this sense, excommunication is a blessing as you see the rift that is already there. Upon seeing it, there is the possibility of repenting and reuniting with Christ. Excommunication is ordered to reconciliation.
This story is about the actions (and the results of those actions) of the nun who apparently approved of and recommended a direct abortion as a “moral” option. This is scandalous and evil.
In so doing (assuming we have the correct information), she committed an offense that has the result of severing her communion with the Church. This penalty is for the purpose of highlighting the objective problem with her position (that of an accessory to a particularly heinous form of murder) with the hope that she will recognize it, repent, and save her soul.
A person can only be held accountable for their own actions. The mother’s religion has nothing to do with the crime of the nun or the results of the crime of the nun. This story does not explore the culpability of the mother.
If I read your implicit argument correctly in the sarcastic statement “her religion should be overridden,” I must conclude that if a pagan (old school, not neo) came to the hospital and asked for help in sacrificing a virgin, it would be moral to help them as to do otherwise would be “overriding their religion.”
Obviously, that is a ridiculous argument. The doctor, the board that approved, and anyone else with a hand in the sacrifice of the virgin is responsible for their own part and no one else’s. Just because the pagan thinks it’s moral to kill the virgin, it doesn’t thereby absolve the other participants of their responsibility for their actions.
Please feel free to clarify if I misunderstood you.
You are judged for your actions and your actions alone. If you don’t commit evil, you won’t have to worry. Therefore, don’t kill babies; don’t encourage the killing of babies; don’t tell people that the evil of killing babies is good if some good may comes from it.
Anne,
Should the mother in the boat kill and eat her child so that one of them might live?
If I tell such a woman to not kill her child, am I “wishing” for her to die?”
If I say, don’t kill an innocent human being, even to save your life, that is not the same as me saying that I wish you would die.
Your characterization of the pro-life position is either emotionally driven and misguided or outright dishonest.
No one wishes for the natural evil of the death of a mother of 5 (please count all of her children) to occur.
Those of us who understand sin understand the the moral evil of the abortion is a far worse result.
Peoples souls are far more important than peoples lives. It is far better to die than to sin.
That is the primary takeaway of the Gospel: Love God and get to heaven. Nothing else matters.
Anne,
It is sad you continue to demagoge this issue and sidestep the real, underlying moral issues. You mischaracterize the opinion of those who support the Church’s ancient, consistent, Spirit guided position (“do no harm so that good may result”) as “some Catholics here wish this mother of four had died…” That is not the “wish” of the Bishop, the Church or anyone on this thread (as far as I can discern). The Church’s position is more accurately stated as requiring that every possible effort should have been made to save both the mother and her child, short of murdering one to save the other.
What I find “chilling” is the position that doctor’s, scientists, ethicists and others would put themselves in a position of “playing God” - contravening divine law and assuming authority over life and death. There are many current examples of this already - genetic manipulation, “enhanced interrogation” and forced euthanization. Indeed, we now face the prospect that a person in that woman’s position would be forced to have the abortion ....
red beard you rock!
Thanks Darlene, all of the pro-life crowd on this thread are providing a wonderful witness of the Truth of Christ. You guys inspire me.
Anne,
I notice that you never mention that life of the unborn child. Neither does the NYT. (Why is it so hard for some people just to acknowledge the life inside the womb?)
I’m also still waiting for any arguments against what Red_Beard and others have posted. Instead I hear distractions like “It does indeed seem that some Catholics here wish this mother of four had died” etc. which do nothing to elucidate your argument (if indeed you have one).
The point that is I would like to make here is that abortion is NEVER the right choice. It does not matter what religion u r or what political views u may have. When a woman or a man kills their child, it comes back to haunt them, (in most cases.)
I don’t mean to sound redundant here but, I have to because I HAVE HAD TWO ABORTIONS and I know first hand that that mother on some level in some way will grow to deeply regret this, folks is this not the beginning of mercy killing as well. Thousands of people every day are told by the medical industry that the baby is deformed or the mother can’t withstand the pregnancy and it is not true, many here to attest to that.
I would love to know how many men especially writing on here in favor of sr. have been involved in an abortion?
check out www.afterabortion.org or .com either u will see all the facts u need on the aftermath of abortion, coercion, post traumatic stress disorder that they refer to as PAS for Post Abortion Syndrome, this is no joke people it is real!!! The pain never goes away, i don’t care under what circumstances the abortion was chosen. If you have never walked the walk how can u talk the talk????????
Darlene,
We love you. Far more importantly, Christ loves you. Thank you for your witness; I can’t imagine how painful it is for you. I will be keeping you in my prayers. There is peace, hope, love, healing, comfort, and joy in Christ.
I know u guys do because u get it! Thank God~love u too
Ann let me till u, u rock too and lisiux!!! I agree 100% with u as well and I am still waiting for all the replies I have asked! I hear nothing from anyone who can attest to having WALKED THE WALK!
While I appreciate many of Red_Beard’s comments, and although I myself have a red beard, I should point out just to prevent any confusion that I am not the same individual as Red_Beard the commenter.
I was wondering…... just kidding…
Will someone please tell me how the “Principle of Double Effect” plays into this issue? I have been told and have argued with a ‘Mercy’ Nun the one can not judge an abortion without looking at the Principle of Double Effect - simply stated - what seems to be evil may not be evil - that there are conditions under which abortion is allowed. Can anyone say rationization?
Sorry, don’t mean to disappoint. I could write volumes and desire to… but it’s all been wonderfully explained at the NYT thread via the masses. There are many hurt and outraged Catholics there and as predicted, this case has indeed awakened many sleeping giants. Some considered themselves pro-life too, like me, prior to the atrocious treatment of a holy servant, Sr. Margaret McBride.
Although I failed, I tried to the best of my God given ability here to relay the dire nature of the damage being done to pro-life cause. You refuse to recognize that which is an absolute proven reality happenening in our midst.
But no more argument from me… we shall see, not later but sooner what the effects of the Bishop’s unwise, outrageous actions are. Btw, check out Time magazine’s article and exposition of reality on the Church. Again, even if you disagree as you do, you won’t be able to effectively help understand your thinking (well the Church’s that is) if you don’t even attempt to understand the common sentiments of many.
Marlene:
“- that there are conditions under which abortion is allowed. Can anyone say rationization?”
Any direct abortion is an evil act that can never be justified even if it has a good consequence.
Bad actions, such as directly killing an innocent human being, are never under any circumstances justified.
Good actions are generally justified but based on circumstances may not be. (ie. You shouldn’t make love to your wife if it is dangerous for some medical reason.)
When exploring whether or not a good action is justified, you can apply the principal of double effect, which Jimmy has stated he will explain in a later post. Basically, a good act (chemo) may be justified for proportionately grave reasons (to save the life of the mother) even if it has a known bad secondary effect (the death of the unborn child).
No bad action (means) can ever be justified under any circumstances (ie. for good ends). Anyone want to guess the moral principal we have here? Drum-roll please….
The Ends don’t justify the Means!
—And the peasants rejoiced in the knowledge that they are not set adrift in an irrational world without absolutes Bad is bad and Good is Good—
Abortion - the direct killing of an innocent baby in his mother’s womb—is, in every case and without exception, bad. It cannot ever be justified.
There will be emotional attacks, but not many rational attacks on this position. Mostly, people just pretend they don’t hear you. That’s why I keep saying this over and over.
By the way, I’m sorry for any confusion. Jimmy, you are my hero and you even have a better red beard. Sorry for the confusing moniker.
And I must admit it made my day to hear that Jimmy appreciated many of my comments! :o)
Good article with laying out the facts, what little is really known.
I didn’t read the bishop’s (or hospital’s) letters but I do know that in public, the bishop must be precise which may seem a little cold to some. His audience is not just every-day people and he doesn’t get to use third-grade English like so many of the ‘news’ organizations.
Also, in any serious problem of this sort, the FIRST thing that a bishop must do is offer PRIVATE talks with the person. These talks will never be made public unless the person makes it so and the Sr. has already said that her life is not to be aired in public. So, we have no way of knowing exactly what is going on or how ‘compassionate’ the bishop is. He is certainly doing at LEAST what a good bishop would do and that is keeping his mouth shut on the Sr.‘s private life and publicly proclaiming God’s will through the Church in a timely and accurate manner. I hope our new bishop is as good!
Sensus Fidei,
Like what the article and the Q&A said, the facts are still unknown. As your fellow Catholic Christian brother, I urge you to excerise restrain and respect in tone and language when you address our Bishop and the office he represents.. Even Padre Pio slapped a layman’s face when he [the layman] called an abusive bishop names. Padre Pio demanded him to respect the bishop. Again, it was not the bishop’s personal decision. He did not have to excommunicate Sr. McBride - She already did that to herself.
God bless you for all the service and love you give to our church as a Eucharistic Minister, DRE, Youth Minister, RCIA Director and more. Unfortunately, these positions/functions do not give you ANY license to demean and diminish a priest. Not to mention, it is very unbecoming of a person with your capacities to infuriate an officer of the church as such.
Also, you are guilty of causing similar pain you accuse the bishop of inflicting. By your sanctimonious display of self-rightheousness, you did not help me and others - you even caused more hurt. Now, I ask you - WHERE IS THE HOLY SPIRIT IN YOU?
It’s not your job to judge the bishop - it’s your obligation to love him. Leave the JUDGING to God.
Pacem Hodie!
To those who HAIL Sr. Margaret McBride at the victim, you want to see these images of what see approved to happen and then re-examine your position, specially you Sensus Fidei. You really broke my heart.
http://endued.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/malachi-aborted-baby.jpg
http://www.markmallett.com/blog/wp-images/Abortedbaby.jpg
http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/images/abortedbaby11.jpg
http://www.clinicquotes.com/site/images/news/abort11w4.jpg
HAIL TO YOUR Sr. Margaret !!!!
Link below is the aborted 11-week old unborn child. (same as that which Sr. Margaret approved to terminate)
http://www.trosch.org/pas/11-12wks.html
Once again, I salute Sr. Margaret McBride for saving the life of a dying mother in a Phoenix hospital. And I thank Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times for writing a wonderful column about her. ——I think Bishop Thomas Olmsted has given grave scandal by his public condemnation of Sr. McBride. Allow me to remind people here that we do not know exactly how the woman’s life was saved, what procedure was used, or what specifically was done. We only know—- thank God—- that the woman was not forced to die with her unborn child. We can assume from what we’ve read that she was restored to her children and her family. ——- Once again, I warn pregnant women: be very leery of going into a Catholic hospital. ——- And once again, let me say I think the Roman Catholic Church indulges itself in double standards, when it comes to women. A church that supports Catholic soldiers going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a church that burned heretics at the stake “for the good,” could easily work out a theology that protects a dying woman from having to die along with her unborn child, if the pregnancy is threatening her life. No one else is asked by canon law to make this kind of sacrifice.
Dear Pacem,
I love Padre Pio and have made pilgrimages to several of the sites endeared to him and dedicated to him, where faithful pray for his powerful intercession. Indeed, St. Padre Pio, pray for us!
In the 1940’s he prophesied hypocrisy is one of the greatest sins of our time. Almost never were truer words spoken. I’ve often meditated on what St. Padre Pio would have done to pedophile priests and Bishops that willfully enabled them! Can you imagine? Sounds like you’d love a front seat to that holy showdown!
I will express my opinion ad nauseam and judge just as you seem entitled to do. I owe a Bishop nothing. Respect and honor are to be earned, not doled out… unless you are too lazy or afraid to think and consider everything for yourself. I don’t possess the power to infuriate powerful men of God, but thank you for letting me dare dream I could. If I’ve caused you to be so incensed, I take it you haven’t been on other faithfuls’ blogs and respected mainstream outlets lately if ever.
If truth of horrors and tremendous scandal in the Church offends you, I don’t imagine how you exist. I’m sorry you choose to focus your gifts and talents from God by attacking someone who is simply here to inform the few of how much damage they are doing to a cause for which they claim to live. You can shoot the messenger and see me as the enemy if that eases your immediate pain but it does 0.0 to prevent an actual abortion from occurring.
My obligation is to love and honor God and serve His people. Sr. Margaret is a heroine and is lauded daily by more and more faithful dissidents. She has the qualities of a modern Saint! I’ve been blessed to know several religious with similar herculean faith, wisdom and service of Sr. Margaret. Now I praise God that many others do too!
I’m not checking out any of links as you honestly sound unhealthily unhinged. I pray your intelligence prevails and impedes you from doing even greater damage to what you claim is a pro-life paradigm.
Nevertheless, I look forward to celebrating in community with you Holy Trinity Sunday, just as you said for the resplendently infinte Gifts of the Holy Spirit upon all religious and faithful. Together we will share the Lord’s Peace and Blessed Sacrament Who is the cause for all our joy and hope!
So true, Anne. I too thank God for Nicholas’ article. The Holy Spirit truly came upon him and I am amazed. It unleashed an incredible fire and brimstone storm and successfully informed many many more readers and Catholics of this outrage. I’ve also learned a great deal via the comments as tons of truths were reaffirmed. Plus posters were remarkably respectful!
Sensus Fidei,
Your response just proved my point. Between you and be, you seemed to be way more advance in faith, service to God and knowledge of the lives of the saints. I don’t have that ammunition.
Padre Pio’s prophesy on great Hypocrisy is very much alive not jus in the church but in this very exchange. I sense in you and I sense in me. YOU ARE NOT BETTER NOR WOSRE - just like me.
No HOLY showdown for me… I am in no way HOLY like you (as you seem to imply).
I guess, it’s pointless exchanging. Your language and tone is not enlightening. You are a very angry person. If I am wrong, your suppose to correct me and my points lovingly. But go ahead, hoist your self-indulgentness at my expense. I lose - you win!
PS - Modern saint is the like of Mother Teresa (not equal with Sr. Margaret)
PSS - One thing is for sure Padre Pio will NEVER stamp ‘APPROVED’ on this abortion.
PSS - The sexual abuse of the church is not in discussion here. So, please don’t bring it up for your re-inforcement because we share the same disgust everything about it. (Also, NOBODY WAS MURDERED IN THOSE ABUSES.)
Anyway, please don’t bother responding. You have better things to do. I’m just flattered you’re taking time to read my note. Thanks.
Word of Advise: Don’t be toooo angry. It’s a turn off.
By the way, Sr. McBride has confessed and repented. Her excommunication has been lifted. All should be happy now!! There’s a lot of Non-Catholic hospitals around - lots of them even better. Pro-choice people should bring their patients there. In which case, the bishop will not have a say.
Pacern, I was trying to craft a response, but keep getting hit with the auto refresh without remembering to save the text. Finally, I read your response more thoroughly and you had all the same thoughts as me. The so called “art” of linking the saints or Our Lord with evil is as old as the hills, and frankly, is transparent. You are (spiritually) much wiser than you let on to be.
Dear All,
By Sr. McBride’s stamping “APPROVED” on the abortion of the little one, she supressed God’s grace and killed an innocent soul. Even if the mother and child died. God will NOT forsake her 3 other children and family. He will take care of them and infuse His grace. This particular action of Sr. McBride is tantamount to lack of trust in the Lord which is a SIN. I should know, I may guilty of the same lack of trust in our Lord. But for some of you who lauds her action and her lack of trust in God is really disturbing.
She may have made a sound and practical judgement by approving the abortion BUT it clearly demosntrate her lack of Faith in God in this particular case. And to think, some of you even call her a Saint - WOW! Thanks damningly misplaced!
Pacem Hodie
I am glad Sr. McBride has repented. I assume she meant no harm, however, abortion is pure evil. Sensus you need a life sister!
Pacem Hodie-do you have a source for the news that Sister McBride has repented? I can’t find anything.
Thanks.
Happy Holy Trinity to you too, crazyhorse. I hope you are enjoying a blessed life full of peace and joy. I’m especially grateful that four children have a mother who has a life thanks to Sr. Margaret, a holy, faithful servant!
Matt,
Here is the link from CNN confirming Sr. McBride’s confession and repentance (just copy and paste):
http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/21/nun-excommunicated-for-approving-life-saving-abortion/?iref=allsearch
Sensus, Your thought process seems like an oxymoron, u speak out of both sides of your mouth, you praise God with one word and than agree to the slaying of His children in another. Please don’t take my words as mean, just an observation~
I am sure that the views of someone who is not a Catholic are not wanted on this website, but I must say that it is fascinating, and chilling, to read about the views of many of your posts about the issue of abortion. My interest was piqued when someone wrote in another section of this website on the issue Laura Bush and her “confession” that she covered up “her support for abortion and gay sex”,
I have a slightly different point of view as a non-Catholic Christian. On the issue of support for abortion I strongly suspect that Laura Bush is totally against the idea of abortion, and would never counsel either of her girls to have one. But - and that is a big word - she may also believe that a woman should ultimately have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. For example, if a girl has been raped, or if carrying a baby to term might in any way endanger her life she is entitled under the law of the land to have an abortion. I recall the recent case in which a Brazilian woman procured an abortion for her 9 year old pregnant daughter who had been raped after the doctors advised that the little girl was too young to give birth to twins and survive. Ironically, the doctors, hospital staff and the mother were all excommunicated from the Catholic Church for their heinous crime. The only person NOT excommunicated was her step-father who had raped her because Archbishop Jose Cadosa Sobrinho pronounced that the culprit should not be thrown out of the church because although he had committed a heinous crime the church took the view that the abortion was more serious. This sounds to me like a heinous miscarriage of justice.
My own personal view on the issue of abortion is informed by a tragic incident I had to deal with many years ago in the UK when I was called to a house where a 16 year old girl had accidentally taken her own life after trying to perform an abortion on herself. I will not describe the gory details, which have never left me, but this young girl came from a very poor home and could never have afforded an abortion, whereas the daughter’s of middle class families were always able to pay for a professional abortion even if they had to travel abroad to procure one. At that time abortion was illegal in the UK but the law was changed as a result of thousands of such tragic deaths.
I literally hate the very thought of abortion, but I know in my heart that allowing women to have control of their own bodies is infinitely better that changing the existing laws of the land in the UK and in the US to prohibit abortions, because the rich will always be able to find a way around the law, and the poor will revert to back-alley abortions.
As I understand it, abortion under many circumstances is legal in the US as it is in the UK. In my humble view, labeling a girl who has a legal abortion as “evil” is itself an evil act and has absolutely no place in any Christian church. I believe that any girl or young lady who has had an abortion needs our love and care and compassion, not our rejection, contempt, and hatred. She certainly does not need, nor should she ever be subjected to excommunication from her church.
Your comments are just another smoke screen for so called “woman’s rights. After a rape a person can go to an emergency room for a d and c and be cleaned out, hence not pregnancy. This would probably be considered ok by the Catholic church because fertilization would not have had a chance to occur, or implantation.
I for one am totally pro-life because of being coerced into aborting at a very young age, and I know the damage it does to the mother and all of her family. I have been keeping up with these opinions on this site and I don’t recall anyone pro-life calling anyone who has had an abortion evil, if they had I would have responded, being in the position i am in. Please inform me which letter writer said such a thing. Anyone truly pro life would not condemn the sinner, just the sin.
First of all it is not a woman’s body! Since when does a women have 2 blood types, two hearts, two brains etc….I for one am not trying to overturn roe v wade, it is the law of the land and overturning it would not stop abortion. What I do know is imperative to anyone thinking about an abortion is full disclosure, which is non existent. The abortionist and staff do not counsel to see if coercion, rape or incest is the cause of the decision, and if any of these reasons for the abortion are disclosed to the clinic, the Dr and staff return the woman or child back to the perpetrator. Abortion is intrinsic evil and there is never a reason to think otherwise, I am living proof. Yes on this site we have a lot of big words, a lot of scientific data, a lot of medical terms, blah blah blah, they are only a smoke screen to hide pure evil, evil which will always kill the baby and most of the time damage the mother both emotionally and possibly physically for the rest of their lives. Again, call it what u may, use any big words u can find, and use all the correct grammar and write it very eloquently, that is how evil and Satan work. Unfortunately Satan has convinced a lot of people that he does not exist, and he has infiltrated the churches, and the minds of people. Since he can’t destroy God, he will try his best to destroy God’s creation. I know from statistics that most people who claim to be for woman’s rights have been involved in an abortion on some level and need healing, repentance and confession, denial is a long river, but it keeps you from feeling the real pain.
Your comments are just another smoke screen for so called “woman’s rights. After a rape a person can go to an emergency room for a d and c and be cleaned out, hence not pregnancy. This would probably be considered ok by the Catholic church because fertilization would not have had a chance to occur, or implantation.
I for one am totally pro-life because of being coerced into aborting at a very young age, and I know the damage it does to the mother and all of her family. I have been keeping up with these opinions on this site and I don’t recall anyone pro-life calling anyone who has had an abortion evil, if they had I would have responded, being in the position i am in. Please inform me which letter writer said such a thing. Anyone truly pro life would not condemn the sinner, just the sin.
First of all it is not a woman’s body! Since when does a women have 2 blood types, two hearts, two brains etc….I for one am not trying to overturn roe v wade, it is the law of the land and overturning it would not stop abortion. What I do know is imperative to anyone thinking about an abortion is full disclosure, which is non existent. The abortionist and staff do not counsel to see if coercion, rape or incest is the cause of the decision, and if any of these reasons for the abortion are disclosed to the clinic, the Dr and staff return the woman or child back to the perpetrator. Abortion is intrinsic evil and there is never a reason to think otherwise, I am living proof. Yes on this site we have a lot of big words, a lot of scientific data, a lot of medical terms, blah blah blah, they are only a smoke screen to hide pure evil, evil which will always kill the baby and most of the time damage the mother both emotionally and possibly physically for the rest of their lives. Again, call it what u may, use any big words u can find, and use all the correct grammar and write it very eloquently, that is how evil and Satan work. Unfortunately Satan has convinced a lot of people that he does not exist, and he has infiltrated the churches, and the minds of people. Since he can’t destroy God, he will try his best to destroy God’s creation. I know from statistics that most people who claim to be for woman’s rights have been involved in an abortion on some level and need healing, repentance and confession, denial is a long river, but it keeps those hurting from involvement in an abortion from feeling the real pain of taking a real life for their own convenience or the convenience of someone who pressured, lied or coerced them.
Had the situation gone “the other way” and the woman had died, what would have been the legal defense of the criminal (felony) charge either of negligent homicide or manslaughter, or of the civil charges of wrongful death, professional misconduct and/or malfeasance? Had Sister conferred with the Bishop and decided in accordance with his guidance, how would they have been defended against conspiracy to commit homicide/manslaughter? How could the facility have retained licensing if it were proven that it would act similarly in the future?
Should a coulda woulds, what ifs are all over the place, bottom line A CHILD WAS MURDERED IN A CATHOLIC HOSPITAL WITH THE APPROVAL OF A CATHOLIC NUN!!!!
NOW THE MOTHER WILL START THE GRIEVING PROCESS ON SOME LEVEL OF KILLING HER CHILD, THE ABORTION KILLED A PART OF THE MOTHER AS WELL!!
You people really do make me sick, call a spade a spade, just say u believe in abortion and get on with your twisted thinking that is convoluted with demons, sorry to sound so fundamental, but it is the truth based on the Bible and God’s word, not some nonsense we make up to justify our humanness!!!
To answer your question, if the District Attorney could demonstrate that the woman had a reasonable expectation of “competent medical assistance” but instead was “allowed to die” to protect the 11 week embryo, there would be sufficient grounds to view the situation as actionable in most jurisdictions. The issue is so politically charged, however, that no local authorities in the current environment would have the stomach or the funding for the protracted legal hassle that would almost certainly involve the local Ordinary and the hospital ownership.
It is a CATHOLIC HOSPITAL, what is wrong with u people?
Dear, dear Darlene…Might you, in other circumstances,cry from the rooftops that a “MOTHER WAS MURDERED”...had your alternate scenario held? It is, dear one, a terribly, terribly complex issue and calling either viewpoint “twisted”, “convoluted”, “nonsense” inhibits God’s love at work. Grief is terrible, mother for embryo, husband for wife.
Please do not be condescending to me Billposter, I have had 2 abortions and I know the pain, horror, grief, guilt, trauma of being pressured by others, both from the medical field and family members. This woman was coerced and a nun approving it was more coercion and convincing. Do not ever minimize the pain that this woman will feel one day along with most other women who have chosen or been coerced into abortion. If you have never been involved in one, then I dear sir am your teacher!
This is not a complex issue like you stated, this is evil!
Billposter, the hypothetical situation you bring up can be countered with another hypothetical situation.
Darlene and I, and other people of good will, crying from the rooftops, “MOTHER AND CHILD live after doctors and “Catholic” ethics board suggest abortion!”
That’s what the Teebow (sp?) SuperBowl ad was all about and the pro-abortion people had such a fit about- the mother was told by the docs to abort her baby.
Well, she did’t abort her baby, and now he’s a football star.
God’s love at work is life, not death.
Thank you liseux, I am so glad a voice of reason has come back! Bless you
The other article on abortion and mysticism from today’s NCR is awful, I wish u and redbeard were adding your comments, I need u, they are brutal!
After reading some of these post, I wonder if we are all talking about the same case. The “facts,” as we know them are these: the woman came into the emergency room, too sick to be moved to an operating room, let alone another hospital. She was suffering from “right heart failure.” She was 11 weeks pregnant. She was told that her chances of dying if she continued the pregnancy was close to 100%. She had four other children. ——I applaud Sr. Margaret McBride and the ethics board for supporting the termination of the pregnancy to save this woman’s life. I hope and pray she not have any regrets; she has four children to take care of. ——We have no evidence this woman was pressured or coerced. We don’t know her medical history; we don’t know what she went through in earlier pregnancies. We don’t have her chart. We do know that the people who did know all the relevant details of the case recommended that the pregnancy be terminated: and they included Sr. Margaret McBride and the ethics board of the hospital. ——I support their decision, based on the facts that we know. I trust their decision. I respect it. I respect the mother and the family as well. ——I applaud Sr. Margaret McBride. Once more, I will say that I think this bishop has given grave scandal by his public discussion of what he calls Sister’s automatic excommunication. Thank God the woman was not abandoned to die, or forced to die with her 11 week old unborn child.
When you are in a crises pregnancy and the medical industry and people representing ethics tell u it’s ok, then that in my book is coercion. If I had my wits about me, as a teenager at the time, I would have taken my chances and risked both of us dying instead of killing my baby. At least we would have had a chance, the baby never had a chance. I will regret tot my dying day having giving up my children no matter what the circumstances, a big part of me died that day anyway!
It is all a matter of what the person having the abortion believes, I can only speak for my feelings out of experience. I do fully believe that if someone had the chance to interview or talk to the mother, maybe not today, but in a few years from now, she will agree that it would have been better to give both of them a chance rather then end her childs life w/o giving he or she a chance. Guilt and remorse will absolutely follow in my opinion. You should check out www.afterabortion.com or .org.
Ann, she was coerced by the medical industry most definitely, they played God. How many women were told the same thing and the children are here to prove the dr’s wrong? Believe me Ann, if you believe nothing else that I write, she was coerced, pressured or scared into believing that she had no other choice, just as I was. I speak from the pain that is always here, and more than likely one day so will she and sr. and all the others. There is no position that should have been taken accept lets try to save them both, by the drs, sr and the mother, who was probably too scared to think clearly, poor thing, I can so relate to her, welcome to the hell. Please excuse my poor grammar, spelling and punctuation!
Hello Anne,
Do you think it was a responsible thing to traumatize the woman’s body with either a surgical abortion or a chemical abortion if she was experiencing “right heart failure”?
If she was really in such dire straits, why the necessity to do the invasive procedure NOW?
Why not wait until she was stabilized and could be moved to another hospital? That’s why I agree with Darlene- she could have been coerced.
The rush was to kill the baby. Didn’t seem like any caution to stablize the mother and move her elsewhere. And the “Catholic” ethics board FAILED her AND the sister.
An 11-wk. old fetus is not such a drain on a body as the process of having it ripped from one would be.
Anne, I respect your conscience and your sincerity, but I have to respect truth and natural law first.
I hope you can come to see that souls are more important than lives, and that we should trust more in God’s mercy and plan for our lives than we should trust in our fellow flawed human beings.
Darlene, whose blog is that abortion and mysticism topic on? I did the search but can’t find it.
Liseux, It is Mark Shay May 31st, if u can’t find it let me know and I can forward it to u~Thank u, God love u
Liseux, your questions about the woman’s condition and the approach taken by the doctors at the hospital are best put to them. As I’ve said, based on the facts as we have them, I salute Sr. McBride for her decision. ——- This is a Catholic hospital. How can we assume that doctors should have done this or that, and were “rushing” to kill a baby? ——- It seems to me that some on this site want to re-write the medical story here. They want to speculate as to what should and should not have been done. They want to speculate that the woman was traumatized by the abortion. They want to re-write the diagnosis as it has been given to us, and fill in the blanks with fictional scenarios. —- We don’t have sufficient information to support a re-write.——- Based on the facts as we have them, I do not see any evidence that this woman or her family were coercer, or given bad medical advice. We do not even know how the abortion of the 11 week old unborn child was accomplished. ——- If our responses or opinions are to have any validity here, we must stick with what we know. I’m glad that the woman is alive today, and united with her children and her family. ——Maybe some day some one will tell us more about what actually happened.
I disagree that the questions are simply to be put to the doctors and the woman.
I think those who support killing the baby and those who salute Sister McBride should look at these questions too.
The mother has a severe heart condition, but is healthy enough for an ABORTION?
I think they put the cart before the horse, and the cart was the death of the baby, while the horse was the health of the mother.
Anne, have you no compassion for the child?
Why was the baby killed so soon?
I’m glad the woman is alive today also. I would be more glad if her baby were with her.
Do you think lives are more valuable than souls?
Kudos to you Liseux, Ann are you new to this movement, being pro-life or pro-choice? Because this follows suite in the pro-abort movement. This happens so much, again check out statistics. When u r for life, u don’t need to question what the motives or facts are, when there is an abortion performed, someone made a big mistake! period!! Notice I said abortion, pivotal word here, it is never ok! Ann your battle has no place among people who see the truth, u are wrong, the only fact that we need we already know, a baby was sacrificed!
I hope one day u allow yourself to see the truth, and stop buying into this propaganda!
Thank you Matt. Of course they got it wrong with the church’s teaching on abortion, direct verses non direct, but I am not surprised. They did not specify that only a non direct abortion would be ok
I can only hope the bloggers who feel the nun is being mistreated could see a video of the abortion procedure itself. Please, please spend time in front of the Blessed Sacrament and ask God to help you understand His Truth and therefore His Church’s Truth. I will pray for all! Godspeed.
Amber, likewise I pray for everyone here. I continue to praise God that none of us have to see a video, as many there would be, of a husband, four children and other loved ones trying to understand the unfathomable, that a blessed mother died in complete vain, for the pride of the hierarchy. While her fetus was destined for heaven, the Church decided not to save a mother who could have been saved and continue here on earth with her loved ones and responsibilities.
Billposter, Anne Rice, 67, etc… other informed, reasonable, logical, ‘see the forrest through the trees type of faithful,’ I dare say we gave it our best… trying to gently, respectfully to relay the facts that throngs refuse to get past and “accept” the agenda of a Bishop struggling terribly feebly to get some assemblance of control, momentum and ire of the masses. It not only failed, but resulted what in any other business would be called a disaster… sold “the product” of the “enemy” to some of the “Company’s” faithful customers.
Guaranteed, you have lost a faction of pro-life faithful… although from your perspective they weren’t truly pro-life to begin with or were improperly formed. Whatever, you’ll continue to see how this continues to unfold and bear fruit for the other side.
Please explain how any mother who heroically risks or ultimately gives her life for her child sacrifices her life in vain and for the “pride of the hierarchy.”
Please explain how St. Gianna Molla, a doctor herself, refusing to have an abortion and giving her life for her child, died in vain.
She left behind a husband and four children, including the one saved from the abortion.
Sensus, Do you know the pain of actually having or helping someone have an abortion? Have you ever seen the hell that a person grieving from abortion for ANY reason goes through?
pro-choice mystical rubbish is the name of the other ncr piece Liseux
This is written in response to Darlene Dunn’s post of May 31 regarding my own comments. First of all I want to say that I feel truly and sincerely sorry for the pain and suffering Ms. Dunn has suffered as a result of her two abortions. It is abundantly clear that these two terrible experiences continue to have a devastating impact on her life and will no doubt always haunt her. She is an example of someone who should never have had an abortion. However, that is her experience and is not the experience of many thousands of other women who have chosen to have abortions for a variety of reasons, including after being raped, or because of a serious health concern for the mother as appears to be the case involving Sr. Margaret McBride.
Ms. Dunn states that “I don’t recall anyone pro-life calling anyone who has had an abortion evil”. Anyone reading through these posts will see that they are replete with the word “evil” in relation to abortion. Even Ms. Dunn in her posts of 31st May states “abortion is instrinsic evil”, “that is how evil and Satan work” and “This is not a complex issue like you stated, this is evil.” liseux clearly states, “I thank JPII for letting it be known again that abortion, artificial contraception, and homosexual acts are intrinsically evil, among other acts.” He makes no exception for the woman who has the abortion or who uses artificial contraception.
And as for Ms. Dunn’s suggestion of going “to the emergency room for a d and c and (being) cleaned out, hence not pregnancy” you have got to be kidding! In his post of Tuesday, May 25, Ted Gauvin states “I could not support abortion for Rape, Incest, or for the life of the mother. You cannot be a Traditional Catholic and support death? of the unborn for any reason, or for that matter any abortificants (Birth Control such as the pill and more.). Surely, if you cannot take the birth control pill I seriously doubt if your fellow Catholics will agree to a woman having a d and c in a Catholic hospital, or anywhere else, because in their view, this would be both evil and the murder of a baby shortly after conception.
I must confess to some difficulty with the logic of the comment by liseux on Tuesday, May 25, in response to Sensus when she says about abortion, “That’s why 1/4 of my children’s classmates are DEAD from abortion, as nationwide 1 out of every 4 pregnancies ends in a dead baby from abortion.” That is sick in the extreme. Now we have gone from aborting a fetus, to a baby, to a classmate. I can only hope and pray that liseux does not try to convince her children that ¼ of their fellow classmates are “DEAD from abortion”. That would be an exceedingly difficult concept for a child to grasp. It is also the most ridiculous and illogical statement I have ever read. Would that include “d and c’s”?
No Ms. Dunn, my post was not intended as just a smokescreen for so-called “women’s rights”. It is a loud and clear proclamation that even though I hate the very thought of any women having to go through an abortion for any reason, I passionately believe that a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion is hers to make. I came to this conclusion after seeing first-hand the dreadful scene of a 16 year old girl who accidentally took her own life trying to induce an abortion after discovering that she was pregnant and was afraid to tell her mother who happened to be a Catholic. I later discovered to my horror that this was not an isolated incident. If you want to see blood and gore; why not show images of dead young girls who have accidentally killed themselves and their fetuses at a time when abortion was illegal – and they died in their many thousands. Fortunately, the law has now changed although when I was last in Ireland there were many young Irish Catholic girls heading for the mainland to procure abortions that were still illegal in their homeland.
If those who are pro-life have their way and stop all legal abortions, believe me, the abortions will continue but the horror will be far worse.
Now you can go through all that “evil” “Satanic” nonsense, but at the end of the day I support a woman’s right to choose, and thankfully, that is the law of the land. Thanks to Anne Rice and Sensus Fidei for attempting to provide the voice of reason.
Well 67, it’s not the voice of reason its the voice of evil! When I said a d and c I meant immediately after the rape, not 2 wks.
I NEVER called a person having an abortion evil, I then would be considered evil, I called the act evil.
Oh and let’s compare the amount of self induced abortion to 52 million legal ones. My deepest sympathy to those who have had self induced believe me. Did you ever consider full disclosure for women seeking an abortion? If you want to keep the right, then at least make it up to par with other medical procedures. Abortion is a million dollar industry, ethnic cleansing and pure evil. You and anyone who agrees with your propaganda has some unresolved grief or are just very callous in your thinking. Why not tell our children that one in every 3 chairs would have another child in it if they were not killed by abortion, it is a fact, true, real! One in every 3 children die to abortion, why hide it? Are you ashamed of the truth? I wish u well jAND I would never judge anyone for having an abortion, I would just try to help them with their pain and grief, which most people do feel. Check out www.afterabortion.org or .com~Bless u
Excuse me for my question but I don’t seem to know which letter u wrote that i responded to, did u use the name 67? How long ago, I can’t find it. I will find out the churches teachings on a d and c immediately following a rape, I think, again think, that is correct according to the church, but I could be wrong as i stated….fertilization and implantation would not have occurred yet, that is why i think it is acceptable, again i will try to find the correct teachings tomorrow
I appreciate reading all the thoughtful respectful comments here. I have been pained in reading the angry diatribe on the NCR site.
The mayo clinic site described an 11 week fetus as being about 1/3ounce in weight. At another med site, the average wt of an 11 week fetus is said to be about 1/4 ounce. I then learned that the uterus is the size of a fisted hand before pregnancy. By 11 weeks it is about the size of an orange or possibly, if the mother has had prior pregnancies, the size of a grapefruit. This is why most mothers, at 11 week gestation, do not yet “show”. So; baby and pregnancy were secondary to the presenting issue of pulmonary hypertension. I believe the woman, the MD, the hospital, and the group with Sr. McBride were discussing the FUTURE of the mother rather than her current condition. When people look for “reasons” to abort, they would find many in this woman’s situation. She is terminally ill-she has a limited life span left to spend with her 4 children. She is too ill to care for a newborn. Life is hard for the first 4 as they WILL be losing their mother to this disease, let alone share what precious time she has left with a newborn. This pt finds herself pregnant in this overwhelming hardship of illness with 4 children at home that she can not care for in her condition. THESE are the reasons an abortion was considered. The hospital stated that she was critically ill. Until she improved medically, the abortion COULD NOT occur. Abortions are not done in ERs on critically ill pts. They are NOT done in the intensive care. They are done on mothers who are well enough to sustain anesthesia and surgery. If an Emergency surgery of any kind had to be done, there would have been NO MEETING to discuss it beforehand.
As morbid as this may seem, consider that a leg amputation would have helped the over burdened heart and lung vascularization problem much more successfully than aborting the few ounces of placental growth with the child. One below the knee amputation, not total body and life of child. As horrid as this suggestion sounds, her perfectly good leg was no match for her perfectly created child of GOD. “First, do no harm.”
God Bless our Bishop Olmsted.
Sensus Fidei wrote:
“Billposter, Anne Rice, 67, etc… other informed, reasonable, logical, ‘see the forrest through the trees type of faithful,’ I dare say we gave it our best”
Um….as far I could tell, none of you ever offered a coherent logical system which could explain why this was a moral action, other than “I am glad a mother’s life was saved”.
Leaving aside the fact that we don’t, in fact, know whether a mother’s life was saved (but we do know a baby was killed), I can only assume that your morality boils down to “the end justifies the means”, so basically there is no action which we could not do as long as it is anticipated to produce a good result. For example, it was OK to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki out of existence because it is anticipated to have saved even more lives (and American lives, which are more important anyway - sarcasm alert). It would also be all right to kill 100 innocent hostages if that was the only way to save 1000 other people, etc.
Catholic morality, like it or not, says NO to these scenarios. We can’t do evil things regardless of the (anticipated) good effects of those evil actions.
Sensus, Are you a mother? Motherhood requires heroic actions: What would a mother do if she was on a boat with all her children and her littlest fell into the water? Let the toddler drown because after all if she jumps in she risks drowning too and she might leave her other children on the boat without a mother? What an example of a heroic mother they would have had! Despite the probable terrible suffering they would endure as a result.
Blessed Sacrament, frequent daily Mass! I hope your prayer aligns with the Holy Will of God.
Likewise, 67, I appreciate all you shared and for explaining some vital points. Plus I meant to tell you how sorry I was to hear the pain you witnessed too. It sounds much like what a priest I know relayed, who is pro-choice based upon similar realties. I tried for years to show him otherwise and the other week when we discussed Sr. Margaret’s prayerful decision he kindly didn’t say “see I told you so… see why abortion needs to be legal in some measure.”
All who labor here relaying the obvious (which btw even a child without delay would scream, save the mother!) earn some sort of badge as this is a spiritual work of mercy. Similarly those enamored with the Bishop’s perversion should venture where the scores are, to present your view. A bunch of ‘counter to you’ blogs by active religious (gravely scandalous) have popped up since the NYT coverage. Not much is accomplished here singing with the choir, although I’ve “learned” here and some stereotypes have sadly been affirmed.
Sensus,
Look, if you are a Catholic, then you are obliged to believe that the Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit, and the Church’s teachings on faith and morals are protected from error.
If you don’t believe that the Church’s teaching on abortion is correct, then you are not really a Catholic in the full sense of the word. I am sorry to have to tell you this, but since you are calling the Bishop’s action a “perversion”, you have gone beyond just struggling with the issue, which is quite understandable, to rejecting the Church’s teaching outright.
Seriously, though, 270 comments, and not one of those comments by your “side” has tried to explain why killing one person to save another is OK. It is simply presumed. I find a lot of emotion there, but not a lot of thought.
Mary Ann, I agree that the abortion was done for the future.
I made the analogy earlier that preemptive war took place, and the baby lost his life because of it.
I also pray for the good bishop and all bishops that they will speak the truth in love, especially in difficult situations.
NONE of the abortion excusers here have the GUTS to look at the mutilated, snipped apart with pruning shears, cherry red burnt with acid, corpses of babies—first, second or third trimester. You are all cowards, liars and frauds. Quite often (an infamous case was all over the web two weeks ago), babies are aborted, cling to life, and are thrown in plain old trash cans, in-sink-erators, or even incinerators while they gasp and cry. You are all going to face Christ when you die. I will too. That’s how I can be so blunt.
Good morning! As I reread my post from Wed 6:16AM I want to add clarification to my thoughts. Medically, an abortion would save the mother the extreme burden of a 2nd and 3rd trimester pregnancy. Saved from the burden only - not saving her life. the mother could and will suffer additional acute episodes of right-side heart insufficiency which will cause further damage and eventual death. Before Roe v Wade, abortion was not an option, even for this mother. Why? Because the people of this country decided that abortion is not a right from God. What changed? God? NOT!! My sorry description of an amputation is not a valid consideration, and has never been studied as a possible solution because “first, do no harm”. Likewise, abortion was never an option until we the people allowed it to be. Did God change His rule, or did we change our rules? I know the SCOUS decided in R v W; we did not make the official decision. But as a nation, we did allow 50,000,000 abortions to take God’s children. We will see their faces in heaven. God have mercy on us all.
It’s a little depressing to watch people tie themselves in logical knots all in the service of trying to justify potentially killing a woman so that a couple of old men might not find their random made-up proclamations about morality, devoid of compassion, contradicted.
Deane,
bahahahahaha…logical knots?
If you find it that complicated, you must be extremely IQ-challenged, to say the least.
Here are the complicated principles
1) The end does not justify the means.
2) It is intrinsically wrong to kill an innocent human being.
Yes, I know, that is REALLY difficult to follow, but I’m hoping that a few geniuses might be able to wrap their minds around those two statements.
“Random made-up proclamations”...tell me why I should take you seriously?
Talk about a story having legs or 9 lives, it’s mindboggling how many daily blogs are continually discovering and dissecting this case. Many faithful are transfixed by it and that’s truly heartwarming and hopeful: people praying, caring and considering others’ plight and suffering. A beautiful modern day example of compassion in action!
In all my reading and medical knowledge, I have yet to see or hear of a pregnancy where it was certain that the pregnancy will kill the mother.
All “life threatening pregnancies” can be survived with the proper care.
I am concerned that if the Catholic Church allows one abortion, the flood gates will open for 1,000’s of others.
The Catholic Church is not perfect. We all know that and can find examples of it everyday, but that doesn’t mean it has to let other things slide. Maybe if we pressured those in leadership, more would be done to prosecute the pedophiles, etc. And I don’t find it as “picking and choosing” either. It is doing what it can, where it can.
I live in VA and haven’t paid much attention to the diocese in Phoenix but maybe Bishop Olmsted is strong on all the issues he is faced with. What is his record on other cases of Canon law?
This is a huge issue with many facets. Points I have considered are:
1- Was there truly no other way to save this mother? the baby?
2- Was the mother already sick before the pregnancy?
3- Did she get the chance to speak to a priest or anyone else before making this decision?
4- Did she accept the decision without remorse? And assuming that she is Catholic, will she be excommunicated? Will anyone else involved be excommunicated?
5- Where is her husband in all of this?
6- Are we assuming that she was married, Catholic, using Natural Family Planning and everything else in her life was in line with the Catholic Church?
I don’t mean to sound crass and please don’t take what I am about to ask the wrong way but I believe this to be a valid question in light of all that is at stake here…How is it that if she were so ill, that she was even able to have sexual intercourse? Assuming she was already sick and knew the risks, should she have eliminated the chance of even getting pregnant by being celibate?
The Catholic Church must stand firm on this. And probably stand firmer on a lot of other things.
God help any of us if we are ever in the situation as this mother. What it all boils down to, at least to me, is we must pray for all their souls. Only God can decide what will happen to our souls and we must always pray for His mercy since none of us want to be judged by our own standards.
This is a further response to Darlene Dunn. In answer your last question, I wrote for the first time on this blog on May 30th.
I note that none of the “experts” have deemed fit to confirm whether or not your suggestion that a rape victim be permitted under Catholic church doctrine to seek a “d and c “ immediately after she has been raped. Until I hear otherwise I will have to presume that the opinion of Ted Gauvin in his post of May 25 is the church’s view, that is, “You cannot be a Traditional Catholic and support death? of the unborn for any reason, or for that matter any abortificants (Birth Control such as the pill and more.). If a woman cannot use a birth control pill and a man cannot use a condom then I seriously doubt that a ‘d and c’ is permitted if there is any chance that a female is pregnant. It would apparently be tantamount to the murder of a child.
I trust you will not mind me quoting another example of which I have some personal knowledge. A very dangerous psychotic man escaped from our local prison and went on a rampage which included breaking into a house in the middle of the night and raping a 12 year old girl. He was eventually caught but not before scarring a young girl for the rest of her life. The man happened to be of a different ethnic group than the victim of the crime. I will, at this point, refrain from saying what happened to this young girl, but I do have a question. Is it pure evil for her parents to make a decision to either have their little girl subjected to a “d and c”, or if she becomes pregnant to procure a legal abortion? Do you think that either of those two choices are much worse for the victim than for this child to give birth to a baby and face the rest of her life with a daily reminder of the most terrible crime committed against her, and face the ordeal of explaining to anyone who asks that her child is the result of her being raped when she was a child.
You accuse me of propaganda and of being very callous in my belief, even though you do not know me at all. Yes, I too hate even the thought of 2nd and 3rd semester fetuses being aborted, but reading such a ridiculous statement that every 3rd child in a classroom is a dead baby because one in 3 pregnancies are aborted , is mindless propaganda at its worst. It appears from some of the posts on this blog that once an egg and sperm have combined they are an unborn “baby”, and therefore “a child”, so that must make your suggestion of a rape victim having a “d and c” not only wrong in the eyes of the church, but also immoral and evil because it is killing - at whatever stage of development in the womb.
I have read so much on this blog about the terrible sight of dead aborted babies who have been described as “children” and questioning whether they will go to heaven. Brad says that “NONE of the abortion excusers here have the GUTS to look at a mutilated, snipped apart with pruning shears, cherry red burnt with acid corpses of babies – first second or third semester. (We) are all cowards, liars and frauds.” What utter nonsense.
As I have already stated earlier I have witnessed the direct result of a lovely young girl who died as a result of desperately aborting herself with a knitting needle. And I became aware of the desperation of so many young women who resorted to illegal abortions when, for whatever reason, they did not want to have children. Prior to the legalization of abortion in the UK it was estimated that 15% of maternal deaths were due to illegal abortions. I would submit that the vast majority of people in both your country and mine are not evil people who want women to abort their babies, but speaking for myself, I believe, and so do the majority of people, and the laws of the land, that women should have the right to choose whether to terminate their pregnancy - within the parameters of the law and not without counseling when making such a difficult decision.
Again, speaking on a personal note, my own wife had a number of miscarriages (the medical term is spontaneous abortions) before giving birth to our beautiful children. I am not sure of the current official estimates of miscarriages and spontaneous abortions etc. or even if there are any such estimates, but I have difficulty believing that when we die and go to heaven we are all going to be sitting there along with all of those dead fetuses, whether natural or induced, even those caused by a D and C the day after conception.
In conclusion, I further believe that Ms. Dunn and anyone who has gone through the pain she experienced is not helped in ANY way by the constant references to “evil” associated with abortion which she herself now clearly believes. It only adds to her feelings of guilt. It does not assuage it in any way.
67, I agree with the fact that a person is not evil because they have had an abortion, never said they were. It does not hurt me so much as saddens me when people so easily throw out the word evil when referring to a person who aborted. The hell that I went through for 7 weeks prior to having my abortion was horrendous. When a person is in a crises pregnancy and are being pressured they may succumb to anything, oh by the Grace of God go I, well not I, but i think u get what i am saying.
My heart goes out to all people who have been involved in abortion in any way.
When you speak of an individual case, as us did with the 12 yr old, it makes abortion more tangible, but trying to imagine 52 million, is merely impossible. So I can understand your point but don’t agree with the abortion being the end result. As she grows up and deals with the horrible rape, she will also deal with the fact that she aborted an innocent child. I was adopted, I could have been a product of a rape, you see, it really is never ok. Oh and 67, it is a fact that 1 in 3 children are aborted, look it up.
I am not sure but I think there is a parameter of time that u can have a d and c after a rape, I could have sworn I heard a pro life priest say it at a speech some yrs. back. I will try to find the answer, and I agree with you, it does sound like an oxymoron.
I know u said people need to be counseled before an abortion, but they are not, believe me! I have prayed outside of clinics and every man woman and child who came over to us said they were never counseled. I was though, at 18ys of age, I was counseled never to come back. The only counsel I had at the second one was “Shut up,and stop screaming, if one girl leaves this office because of you, I will end this abortion right in the middle of it.”
Blessed Corpus Christi to all!
Thx Darlene and 67, I was also wondering about how a D&C was permitted. I admit to not knowing any of these particulars before, just going along with the pro-life flow, not imagining any of these realities, but I appreciate the facts on that instance too. Ironically, I had a sense it was best I didn’t delve into the matter in detail and now I understand how knowledge is dangerous.
Zina, I appreciate your insights and thought process, focusing on consistency. Were you being serious about #6 whether mom used NPF, etc? Sounds like she shouldn’t have been a patient there to begin with if not in perfect adherence.
This is getting Catholic hospitals a second look by some folks, that’s for sure. I called around too to see which if any tout faith heals or kills practices.
About my question #6, I was wondering because our local Catholic hospital is full of non-Catholics but does not give abortions. When my Catholic friends are on what they consider to be their last baby, they go to a different hospital in order to have their tubes tied. You don’t have to be Catholic to go to a Catholic hospital and you don’t have to be in perfect adherence to go to one when it suits you and then go and do something non-Catholic somewhere else. I am not judging anyone but I was wondering what ALL of the facts are surrounding the case. Do we know if the mother is Catholic? I am wondering if she saw it as a moral issue or not. That sort of changes things for me with regards to her. Again, I am not judging just wanting of all the information.
I pray that none of us are faced with her situation and that babies are not seen as problems that need to be aborted but as the miracles that they really are. I don’t know of anyone, Catholic or not, who has had an abortion and is happy with their decision. I am sure it is not an easy decision to make or to go through with. I know Catholics who have had them for ridiculous reasons like “I didn’t want to be pregnant in my wedding gown.” This situation appears to be truly a matter of life and death but I am not sure how we decide whose life is more important than another.
Again, I call into question the responsibility of her and her husband (again I am assuming she has one) to possibly remain celibate in order to prevent pregnancy. I do hope I don’t get a lot of back lash from that comment but if we are talking about Catholics here, then this again is a matter of fact and not opinion. This is part of the reason I am wondering if she is Catholic. (I don’t want to deviate from the abortion issue here when I bring up the celibacy issue. I have already made the assumption that most people responding here are Catholic and/or know the Catholic traditions whether they practice them, believe in them or otherwise. So please let us not get side tracked on the issues of celibacy in marriage and birth control. We all already know about it.)
As I stated before, I am not judging anyone. That is not my job…that is God’s job and His alone. I am just curious about the facts and do strongly believe that abortion is wrong. I am praying not just for its end but for the end of any reason to think we need it. I pray that no other girl/woman is raped again. I pray that no pregnancy is ever unwanted for any reason.
On a side note, I am so proud that we are able to have these kinds of open discussions in a public forum with so many different opinions. This is a blessing not realized in many parts of the world. My family comes from a part of the world where women are not always considered worthy to fully participate so this is a real blessing. God bless America!
67, In your last paragraph you stated: “In conclusion, I further believe that Ms. Dunn and anyone who has gone through the pain she experienced is not helped in ANY way by the constant references to “evil” associated with abortion which she herself now clearly believes. It only adds to her feelings of guilt. It does not assuage it in any way.”
First off let me thank you for thinking of my feelings, I do appreciate that, but I must set the record straight. I planned my pregnancy, the day I found out I was pregnant I was elated, the father had asked me to have his child. What did we know we were young, stupid and in love. After I told him that I was indeed pregnant he pressured me into aborting. I fought for 7 weeks and lost, I gave in. I was scared to death to tell my parents. But listen to this carefully, I knew I was killing my child! I knew it was murder and it was wrong and I knew that when I walked through that door, I would die with that baby and I did!
Although I have a wonderful family and other children, I still mourn my aborted babies every single day of my life. I wouldn’t have the space nor the time to put into words the anguish I feel.
I knew it was evil, and I went in knowing I was never going to be the same, and I wasn’t and never will be. So you see I honestly felt like I had no choice, there WAS a gun to my head, but only I could see it.
Coercion is abuse, it is never OK and it is not screened in clinics. I write on here with a lot of pain and emotion so I don’t always make my points as precise as I would like to, not to mention grammar etc.
When I write it is from my heart. To better explain the previous part of my letter on counseling at the clinics, I was not counseled an I walked in crying and numb, it was so horrific that I don’t remember 90 % of that day, I blocked it out, it’s part of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which I suffer from because of it.
For the first one the only thing a nurse said to us, was she hoped never to see us there again. Of course I had another one, trying to replace, but the dr. misinformed me and again I repeated it, which is also a symptom of PAS-Dr. Nay refers to PTSD as Post Abortion Syndrome, same thing just related to abortion.
I received no counseling either time. What saddens me the most with this issue of abortion is that coercion is so rampant, up to 85% of abortions are either coerced, misinformed by the medical industry or pressured by family members. Even though women who abort because of coercion or misinformation, they still carry the burden of guilt, loss, shame, grief ect….the list goes on. You see, 67 abortion is a multifaceted thing. I feel so sorry for those who are pressured into killing their child, I know how they will one day feel, it is hell for sure. Thank God He is forgiven, and one day we will be reunited with our lost little ones. We should have taken their hand, not their life.
But there is help and hope for us and a good place to start is a wonderful website called www.afterabortion.org, after confession of course~
I fully agree with Ms. Dunn that abortion is multi-faceted, or a continuum, that is, each case, and each set of circumstances need to be based on their merits. I also admire her for sharing her own highly personal experiences which were clearly traumatic in the extreme. I would never agree with any woman or young girl being coerced by anyone into having an abortion. Nevertheless, I remain a firm believer that a woman should retain the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, and it should be her choice, not that of anyone else through any kind of coercion, as happened in Ms. Dunn’s case.
In the UK where abortion is legal, there are strict guidelines which include obtaining the approval of at least two licensed medical practitioners, having the procedure in a National Health Service hospital (or licensed premises) and the reason must fall within statutory grounds. These include preserving the woman’s life including her physical and mental health, and if the child born would suffer a severe handicap. There is also a strict limit of 24 weeks with the only exception being grave risk to the mother. I would never suggest or recommend compulsory abortion for women who receive a diagnosis that their fetus is suffering from a severe handicap, but I also firmly believe that they should be informed of the facts, counseled about the seriousness of having an abortion, and be able to make their own decision. The only exception is in cases where young girls are pregnant, and their parents should be involved in helping to make such a difficult decision.
I should add that in the UK, medical and hospital treatment is free, so there is generally no financial gain for doctors or the medical industry to promote or encourage abortions.
In closing I would like to add to the comment from Zina who states, “ I am praying not just for its end but for the end of any reason to think we need it (abortion). I pray that no other girl/woman is raped again. I pray that no pregnancy is ever unwanted for any reason.” That is a heartwarming prayer, but sadly, we know that women and young girls will continue to be raped; that some women will continue to have life-threatening illnesses associated with pregnancy; that women living in desperate poverty will feel that having one more mouth to feed is more than they can bear. Yes, there will also be women who seek abortions for purely selfish reasons (such as wanting to look good in their wedding dress as quoted by Zina), and cases such as Ms. Dunn’s where girls can be coerced by family or so-called friends to have an abortion.
There was a time when abortion in the US and in the UK and elsewhere was strictly illegal, but it NEVER stopped abortions and it resulted in many thousands of tragic deaths due to primitive methods use such as the type I witnessed. Abortions will never disappear hence the reason to set rules which allow them, albeit with legal guidelines to protect woman making such difficult decisions.
My prayer is that women who do not want to get pregnant be allowed to use birth control methods of their choosing, that men stop raping women, that women considering an abortion are allowed to do so without fear or intimidation from anyone else, but with counseling as to the implications of their decisions. But above all, I pray that other people and the church stop making blanket moral judgments on others and stop using the term “evil” to describe every woman who has an abortion, and to describe each and every doctor or nurse who assists in carrying out a legal procedure, especially in cases such as the one subject to this blog, that is the case involving Sr. Margaret McBride.
Sadly, I stand by my comments referred to by Ms. Dunn in her last post. Ms. Dunn, and anyone who has gone through the pain she experienced is not helped in ANY way by the constant references to “evil” associated with abortion which she herself now clearly believes. It only adds to her feelings of guilt. It does not assuage it in any way.
I also note that no-one has offered the Church’s view on obtaining a ‘d and c’ as suggested by Ms. Dunn in a case where a young girl has been raped. The silence is deafening.
67, Thank you for your compassion towards me. I however, do not get offended by the term “evil” when it is used towards abortion, in fact the opposite applies, abortion is always “evil”, period! I never refer to a person as “evil” because they have had an abortion.
You are actually putting words on my mouth, I am not offended by the word evil.
Abortion is and always will be pure diabolical intrinsic EVIL, no exceptions ever!
Please stop saying that I feel the term evil is bothering me, it is not.
I did not forget about the d and c, I will call Priests for Life today and ask them, the cannon law on it and I will write asap.
You are still paving the road to hell with good intentions!
Ms. Dunn, The issue of whether abortion is always evil is where we part company. I have not put words in your mouth in any way shape or form, but you clearly believe that all abortion is “evil” and that any “abortion”, without exception “is and always will be pure diabolical intrinsic evil.” Those are your own words. However, abortions being labeled “evil” is purely the teachings of your particular Church. Abortion is not against the law in your country or mine if carried out within the limits of the law and for the right reasons. I believe it could be argued that it is diabolically and intrinsically evil to accuse other people of being evil when they have broken no laws and have acted with good intent even if I personally believe that abortion is wrong.
I’m reminded of other religions that consider their particular beliefs to be absolutely paramount and beyond question. Some believers in Islam, for example, believe that apostasy (abandoning their religion for another, for example, Christianity) is a grave sin and should be punished - by death. They believe that apostasy is a grave sin and that god has decreed the punishment.
I appreciate that you are seeking an answer to your own suggestion that if a young girl is raped she could quickly seek a “d and c” as a means of ensuring she does not carry a child fathered by her attacker. But if Ted Gauvin’s post of May 25 is any indication of the Church’s position then a Catholic cannot support the death of the unborn by the use of any abortificant under ANY circumstances. In fact, even I would find it totally hypocritical if a child who has been raped was admitted to a Catholic hospital and given a “d and c” on the grounds that those administering the procedure don’t actually know whether she has been impregnated so they could argue that, technically, they were not procuring an abortion.
If a “d and c” IS considered to be an abortion then your own suggestion would, in your own words, be deemed by the church to be diabolically and intrinsically evil. The church may actually accuse you of paving the road to hell with good intentions! In my humble view you are not an evil person, even though you have made mistakes and been influenced by others to do something that you believed to be completely and absolutely evil and wrong in every sense of the word.
I am quite astonished that no-one has seen fit to answer your question regarding the issue of a “d and c”.
The good sister excommunicated herself, latae sententiae. Canon 1398 referring to the objective EVIL of catechism 2271 and 2272. No one should be running interference for the good nun, other than praying for her metanoia. I have a suspicion she might “go episcopal” or something over this. If she remains Catholic, she should be relieved that in order to lift her excommunication, she doesn’t, in the US, have to go directly to the Holy Father. The reason she doesn’t is because we are so evil here, the number of abortions makes it necessary for local clerics to have the power to grant absolution for these sins.
67, Again I am not calling anyone that has an abortion evil! I would never judge a soul, I am only calling the act evil. The act meaning, coercing people, pressuring, threatening, medical mistakes yadayadyad, the list goes on, even not helping someone seeking aid to keep the pregnancy is in fact a part of this diabolical intrinsic evil.
You certainly have a right to your opinion, but your rights end where another ones rights begin. I don’t care how many laws or weeks of gestation any country or state has, the bottom line is “abortion is never the right answer.”
I have called and mailed a pro-life organization to find the correct teachings of the d and c and I will write it asap.
You seem way too passionate about this issue not being evil, which leads me to think, (pivotal word here, think)that maybe you have been involved in some way in abortion, not saying that you actually had one, but maybe a loved one did and u feel obligated not to turn against them….I don’t know 67, but I do know that I have walked the walk, so I can talk the talk…...denial is a looooong river 67
We’ve heard denial is a verrryyy long river many a time here, Darlene. We’re all here to help you in whatever way possible and I know I am grateful for all you share. Please restrain yourself, though, from automatically projecting your very traumatic experiences on to others unless you had some tangible evidence from conversation that they may have been involved and feel similar. I realize it’s incomprehensible to you that although you may share the exact same circumstance with another adult, they may view it very different.
I’m relaying this because your opinion is so valued and message is vital but will be disregarded if you don’t share it wisely and fruitfully. I hope you don’t do this in real life because irrational appeals and personal assumptions are one of the biggest turn-offs. You feel compelled to lovingly inform others so please conside evaluating your technique and emotional triggers which may thwart your mission.
Why Brad, you’ve really hit on something… evil & Episcopalian. Please keep postulating aka going postal, you have no idea how helpful this thread has been.
Sensus, Thank you for the insight, maybe I am a little too harsh, sorry for that, I mean it.
Statistics show one in three are involved so I just automatically look for it, not to hurt or point the finger, but to help if I could in some way.
But realistically Sensus, I probably could never really help anyone when I myself still suffer from a broken heart.
I wish u well and I will stop with the denial, thanks for the advice
Above all please continue to help others Darlene in your journey, there’s no doubt you can do far more than many of us to prevent any pain and grief. You are already helping many with your prayers, sacrifices, and sentiments. You’re the one who will understand what some are feeling and don’t know how to bring forward or deal with. You are on the way to healing and will continue, there is no doubt. Be kind to yourself and proud for who you’ve become, a new creation.
Thank you Sensus,
One day while standing outside of an abortion clinic praying the Rosary a woman came out hysterical because she actually saw the baby on the ultrasound that the abortionist was using to inject the digoxin into the baby’s heart and she wanted him to stop but he didn’t. She sat on the curb and cried out of control, so I sat on the curb next to her crying as hard as she and she looked into my eyes and I said, “I know how you feel, I have had 2 abortions myself.” At this point I was crying for myself and totally regressed I am sure to my own abortion. She looked at me and said, “Thank you so much, that is all I needed to hear.”
All I can really do for anyone is relate my pain, help them to admit if they are in denial of their pain, tell them of a good web site, tell them to go to confession and bring into light the question of coercion.
So Sensus, all I really can do is say “I know.” And I try so hard to get my point across because I don’t want anyone to feel what I feel. I don’t want anyone to be pressured or uninformed, that is all. It’s like a mother when her child is going to touch a hot stove, she will tell him how it will feel, I feel compelled to do that.
I hate that I can say “I know”
Ms. Dunn, My rights actually begin and end with the laws of the land. Not only is it my opinion that abortion is not evil as such, but abortion is permitted under the law, and the majority of people in both my country and yours agree. It is a minority that considers every abortion to be “evil”.
You are right in a way to say that I was somehow involved in an abortion, but not at all in the way you have concluded. If I had had an abortion it would have been a miracle - I am a man. I have described in a previous post how I had to deal with the tragic death of a lovely 16 year old girl (no relation whatever) who tragically killed herself in a bath tub trying to induce her own illegal abortion at a time when any abortion was strictly against the law. That experience informed my eventual, and reluctant, conclusion that society is better off legalizing abortions under reasonable conditions to avoid the kind of needless death I had to deal with. Prior to that time I had no knowledge of abortions, but I subsequently discovered to my horror that thousands of woman were dying accidentally in the UK by either trying to induce their own abortions or by receiving “back alley” abortions from amateur abortionists. I seem to recall that 15% of all maternal deaths were the result of illegal abortions.
At that time the wealthy would invariably find a way around the legalities, often travelling abroad to pay for an abortion, while the poor would be left to fend for themselves with often tragic results.
Fortunately, the law was eventually changed, and much to the surprise of many conservatives in the UK even Margaret Thatcher supported legalization.
My only other direct involvement with a woman seeking an abortion was when a young nurse who I knew only casually (and NOT intimately) confided in me that she was newly pregnant after a brief affair with a young man who wanted nothing further to do with her or any offspring. She was quite desperate and although she knew what was involved, she wanted to talk to someone about her predicament. I listened sympathetically, pointed out the seriousness of having an abortion and recommended counseling, perhaps with a Minister. I did not in any way indicate that abortion was an acceptable option, but neither did I say that such a course of action would be “inherently evil”. She was an adult, and it was her choice. With all due respect to your Church and your own beliefs, I do not believe it was my place to make a pronouncement to this young lady about what is and is not “evil”. She made the decision to have an abortion, and to the best of my knowledge, she later married and had children. Needless to say, she never spoke to me again, probably because I may have been the only person in our community who knew of her predicament. Clearly I do not know if she came to regret her decision, and with all due respect, neither do you, even though you may conclude, according to your last post, that what I did was “a part of this diabolical intrinsic evil” because I did not advise her to keep the pregnancy.
I just want to reiterate the point that in my humble view, women must continue to have the legal right to choose what to do about an unwanted pregnancy or a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother etc. within the bounds of the law, and without any sort of coercion. Accusing every woman who ever makes the choice not to carry a fetus to term, or to decide on having a d and c after being raped, is purely and simply, coercion. I will continue to fight passionately for the rights of woman in this regard so that the day never returns when thousands of woman die as a result of self induced or “back alley” abortions.
Hello 67,
With your logic you would also condone slavery, as it too was once the “law of the land” and a majority of people did not at one time consider it evil.
African Americans were property, by the law of the land. Lot of good the law of the land did for them.
As for a return to “back alley abortions” that is one more of the lies of the abortion movement.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who as an abortionist did more than 50,000 abortions, stated, “We claimed that between five and ten thousand women a year died of botched abortions,” he said. “The actual figure was closer to 200 to 300 and we also claimed that there were a million illegal abortions a year in the United States and the actual figure was close to 200,000. So, we were guilty of massive deception.”
“I mean as a founding member and chairman of the medical committee, I accepted the figures which came from a biostatistician named Christopher Tietze and he and his wife passed along these figures to us at NARAL. We were in no position to validate them or not, so we accepted them in the interests of higher standards, or at least higher objectives,” he explained.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08072904.html
D. Dunn, thanks for your witness. Please do not ever apologize or let anyone make you feel guilty for calling evil actions evil.
What 67 doesn’t apparently know is that according to Doctor Bernard Nathanson, those same doctors doing the illegal abortions pre-Roe v. Wade are the SAME doctors who did the abortions legally AFTER Roe v. Wade.
The abortion methods didn’t change, just the auspices of legal vs. illegal.
67, That is your choice and I respect your choice. I am sorry your had to go through such an agonizing situation, God rest her soul.
I never said you yourself had an abortion because I kind of thought you were a man. I only wanted you to understand that I do not think anyone who has had an abortion is evil, I would never think that.
You have the right to fight for anything you believe in, and I do not think you are evil for it. I would not judge your soul or the soul of anyone.
I am glad you responded to me and that we can agree to disagree. Maybe if you had not witnessed what you have and I have not been through what I have, we would look at things differently. Thank you for understanding that I would never call anyone evil for having an abortion.
Bless u 67
Thank you liseux! Bless you!!
I to am familiar with Dr. B. Nathanson. 67, honestly the only real difference between back alley abortions and making them legal was the use of anti-biotics, the same risks are still there. The dangers from the abortion are often lethal to the mother as well, that’s just physical risks.
liseux u certainly do rock!
Hello liseux,
With your logic you would also continue to condone the burning of witches, as it too was considered to be the “law of the land”, at least by Catholic clergy during the inquisition. I wonder how many of those innocent women were actually evil “witches”. I seem to recall that the Church itself wasn’t exactly supportive of the abolition of slavery as evidenced by a quote from Saint Isidore of Seville:-
“Because of the sin of the first man, the penalty of servitude was inflicted by God on the human race; to those unsuitable for liberty he has mercifully accorded servitude.” (Pierre Bonnassie, From Slavery to Feudalism in South-western Europe, 1991, p57). What a twisted view of the bible!
Fortunately, times change. Pope John Paul finally vindicated Galileo in 1992 for making his ridiculous assertion that the earth circled the sun! And in 1996 Pope John Paul also finally accepted the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin. Yes, times change.
I’m not familiar with the statistics for illegal abortions in the US but to state that the same doctors who performed “back alley” abortions prior to its legalization were exactly the same as those who performed them afterwards is, without doubt, a gross exaggeration and more twisted propaganda.
Abortions have been procured since ancient times, perhaps first by the Chinese over 5,000 years ago, and the vast majority, whether successful or unsuccessful, would have been unrecorded, and they would have used the most primitive of methods, ranging from potions, to sharp instruments, to deliberately falling, or being pushed down steps.
I know from first-hand experience that one desperate young girl tragically died of her own hands trying to abort herself using a knitting needle, and I also know that many back-alley abortionists in my part of the world were women who often had no professional training. Yes, I’m sure that some doctors in the UK and elsewhere carried out illegal abortions because they realized that the women who came to them for help would otherwise go to the “back alley” abortionists.
Now, I wonder, liseux if you could answer the question posed by Ms.Dunn in her post of 5 June. I had described the case of a young girl who had been raped by an escaped psychotic prisoner. Ms Dunn stated, “I am not sure but I think there is a parameter of time that u can have a d and c after a rape, I could have sworn I heard a pro life priest say it at a speech some yrs. back.’
However, I have presumed that if Ted Gauvin’s post of May 25 is any indication of the Church’s position then the Catholic Church cannot support the death of the unborn by the use of any abortificant under ANY circumstances. Even I would find it totally hypocritical if a child who has been raped was admitted to a Catholic hospital and given a “d and c” on the grounds that those administering the procedure don’t actually know whether she has been impregnated so they could argue that, technically, they were not procuring an abortion. Presumably a “d and c” under those circumstances would be deemed to be instrinsically and diabolically evil as described by Ms. Dunn.
Whether you agree with it or not, whether the law is changed or not, abortions will continue, and I hope and pray that we never return to the time when women are forced to adopt the primitive methods of the past for a procedure that can now be carried out in relative safety by caring professionals. Yes, times have changed.
67, there is a higher law than the law of the land- that is the law of God. And, you are getting your anti-Catholic smears confused with Protestant misdeeds….
It was the Puritans (Protestants who left good ol’ England.) who burned the witches. Usually, the Catholics aren’t pulled in on that one. The Inquistion is our boondoggle, though most people don’t realize that in the end it was the secular Spanish courts that killed the people.
67, I will not be drawn into your emotional d and c quiz.
We do agree that whether I approve or not abortions will continue, legal or not. That just means that evil will continue. How tragic that you give your seal of approval to might makes right.
I see nothing “advanced” in putting a vacuum suction wand to a woman’s uterus and sucking out the brain, the intestines, and the other body parts of an infant.
Times have changed, but we’re more primitive than ever.
liseux, there were no witches burned in the American colonies. Those witches were hanged. In Europe both Protestants and Catholics burned witches in many countries; in fact, the witch perseuction cut across religious lines and bound the two faiths together in a belief in “real” witchcraft. Catholics produced, as far as I know, the first of the great books on witchcraft and witches and how to detect them and try them, etc.—— The Dominicans played a major role in the persecution of witches. —- Countries which burned witches included Protestant Scotland and Catholic France. But the persecution was very widespread and went on for a considerable length of time. It did not take place in the Middle Ages as many believe, but after the Reformation and during the Renaissance. The printing press might well have contributed to the witchcraft craze because the books and pamphlets about it were printed and widely circulated.—-
Thanks for the information, Ms. Rice. I stand corrected.
I have spoken to the appropriate person about a d an c following a rape and I was totally wrong. After a rape the medical industry will administer the morning after pill, not a d and c, both of which would be considered an abortion in God’s eye following the 10 Commandments, and in the eyes of the Catholic Church.
So I take back the statement of a possible d and c, I was wrong.
Having said that I pray that the Holy Spirit will open anyone’s eyes to the fact that abortion under any circumstance is murder.
I thought there may have been an amount of time before fertilization occurred when something could have been done, but there is not.
“After a rape the medical industry will administer the morning after pill, not a d and c, both of which would be considered an abortion”
The morning after pill prevents CONCEPTION and does not have any effect whatsoever on a zygote, blastocyst or embryo. If a person is already pregnant when they take Plan B, they stay pregnant. If they have not released an egg, Plan B PREVENTS that egg from being released. That may be considered ‘an abortion’ by the anti-contraception Catholic Church, but ‘not getting pregnant in the first place’ isn’t considered an abortion by anyone else.
Not sure just who the appropriate person is, as referred to by D. Dunn, but taking a morning after pill, or having a d and c after being raped is decidedly NOT murder in the eyes of the law - and that is what truly counts. Such treatments are also NOT included in the 10 commandments, despite the statement that they would be considered an abortion in God’s eyes. It might be considered such by some in the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church has no exclusivity over what it considers to be murder in God’s eyes.
Ms. Dunn sums it up when she says she thought there may have been an amount of time before fertilization occurs when something could be done. Oh dear, just for one moment Ms. Dunn was using common sense, but she has had to recant. It’s rather like Galileo having to recant his belief that the earth circled the sun. Yes, he indeed did recant (probably to save his life) but I suspect that he still knew that what he said was the truth despite the Church calling him a heretic.
Many thanks to Anne Rice for her clarity in repudiating liseux’ weak attempt to avoid the Catholic Church having any responsibility for the punishment of witches during the Renaissance.
67 why do u feel the need to hurt people with your remarks. I was stating something and ur remarks sting. Sorry but the Catholic Church is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. We are the one true religion, believe it or not. Stop attacking people, when u do it only shows that u lost the argument or debate.
Facts r facts. The Pope is infallible on matters of faith. Murder is murder.
67 “in the eyes’s of the law-and that is what truly counts” Really, we are dealing with an ethical question here; the law is irrelevant. Secondly, logically, if life does not begin at conception, when do you consider it begins?
Ms. Dunn aptly summarizes the problem with the Roman Catholic Church - “we are the one true religion”. Believe it or not most religious groups, including Islam, and countless others believe, mistakenly, that they are “the one true religion” and they have a direct line to God. Religious extremists are killing each other every day for that very reason. You might believe that the Pope is infallible on matters of faith - but that view is not shared by any other religion and certainly not by the vast majority of the World’s population (last time I checked Catholics comprised less than 20% of the world’s population).
To suggest that taking a “morning after pill” is murder is absolutely ridiculous in the extreme. Facts r facts. The law might be irrelevant to Mr. Bisciglia but, fortunately, the Catholic Church does not make the law, it is made by legislatures in democratic countries - and that’s what we live in in the western world, democracies. Yes, one might argue that taking the morning after pill, or having a d&c after a rape is ethically wrong according to your religious beliefs but as I stated earlier, it is not against the law in any way shape or form and, fortunately, the Catholic Church is no longer in a position to prosecute (or should I say persecute) those who do not share its views.
67, sorry but Catholicism is the one true religion and our only savior will be Jesus Christ. He is the only prophet who resurrected for our sins. Ha do u think Buddha will save u? Nothing against him, he was a great prophet, but not THE SAVIOR. Sorry 67 u r mislead.
Not saying that if u don’t believe in Catholicism u r damned to hell.
Facts r facts.
Ms. Dunn. You are simply enforcing the totally mistaken belief that YOURS is the one true religion - whatever that religion - in your case Catholicism. For your information the Anglican Church, of which I am a member, also believes that our saviour is Jesus Christ as do many other Christian religions. So who decides who best interpretes God’s word? Does God actually sit up there deciding that if one does not belong to the Catholic Church there is no chance of redemption! Islamists believe in God, as do Jewish people, and no doubt they all believe that theirs is the one true religion. Facts r facts.
Perhaps I have not been misled. Perhaps I try to look at issues from all sides and try not to let blind religious dogma dominate common sense and reason.
For what it is worth—On account of my faith in Jesus Christ,
and His teachings, I left the Roman Catholic Church. It was a matter
of conscience.
When religions teach what we hold to be immoral, I think we must
stand up to them, as politely as possible, yes, but we must stand up
nevertheless.
The case of Sr. Margaret McBride and the dying woman in the Phoenix
Emergency room played a definite role in my getting the courage to
step away from organized religion in the name of the Lord.
I believe Sr. Margaret McBride was morally right in providing a
life saving abortion to a dying mother.
I admire her courage, and always will.
And incidentally many Catholics think Sr. McBride was right in
her interpretation of canon law, and in approving the abortion.
see, i never said u would not have redemption if u r not catholic…..
don’t put words in my mouth. you believe what u will and i will believe the truth!
I totally agree with Ms. Rice who hits the nail on the head once again. I know it is interpreted as being “anti-Catholic” but my own Catholic friends also agree that it was morally right for Sr. McBride to provide a life saving abortion to a dying mother.
I agree with many of the teachings of the Catholic Church, most of which are identical to those of most other Christian churches, but in one matter I abhor the Church’s position on a matter that is apparently considered to be a mortal sin - and that is the issue of having a vasectomy. It is personal because after my wife and I had two children we had medical reasons for believing that any more pregnancies for her would be extremely risky. We discussed possible solutions and I had no hesitation in having a vasectomy. This is “immoral”? This is a “mortal sin” Give me a break! We have continued to have a healthy sex life for more decades than I care to mention, and no-one can ever persuade me that we were, or are morally or ethically wrong, or that God will send us to hell because we do not “repent”!
Yes, Ms Rice, when religion teaches what we hold to be immoral, and we know in our hearts that it is manifestly wrong, then we have to stand up to them as politely as possible, and let them know that we know the truth and we will not be blinded by outdated religious dogma.
As has been explained earlier, the mother was NOT dieing. This was a preemptive abortion.
I am thankful to belong to the Church that clearly teaches the sanctity of all human life, from conception to natural death.
The further one gets from Catholic teaching on faith and morals, the further one gets from the truth and God himself.
Susan Boyle’s mom was told by doctors to abort her as well. Thank God she didn’t listen to the doctors to have her preemptive abortion. Other celebrities have stepped forward to tell similar stories:
“In recent years, a number of popular icons have revealed that they had mothers who were faced with the choice to abort or give birth.
Andrea Bocelli, Italian pop, opera, and classical singer, revealed to the world this year that doctors recommended abortion to his mother after she experienced an attack of appendicitis, making it likely that her son would be born with a disability. Bocelli is completely blind.
Bocelli said he hoped that the story of his brave mother “could encourage many mothers that find themselves in difficult situations in those moments when life is complicated, but want to save the life of their baby.” (see coverage)
In the United States, college football star Tim Tebow (now back-up quarterback for the Denver Broncos) revealed that doctors recommended abortion to his mother after she became sick in the Philippines.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10101512.html
When asked about the scourge of cancer and about its cure, Mother Teresa reportedly said that the doctor who was to cure cancer was conceived, but was aborted…... how tragic.
Anne Rice, you have left the Church of Jesus Christ for man-made religious syncretism. I do hope that you return home someday.
67, the Catholic Church as Natural Family Planning, which is AS effective as the birth control pill, when both are used correctly.
(Actually, a German study I saw had NFP as MORE effective than the pill.)
Did you know about God’s plan for fertility in marriage before you had your vasectomy?
liseux, How long has this discussion been going on? Good points
Based on what we know from the hospital,
the woman was indeed in danger of dying,
when the abortion was approved to save her
life.
Until we have further facts, I think we must go
with the hospital’s statement.
If this woman had been forced to die,
I wonder if the hospital would have been charged with
murder.
We’ll never know.
No woman is forced to die with an 11-wk. old baby inside of her.
Having the abortion, if she was truly dieing, is more invasive and more of a risk than allowing the child to live.
How many women at death’s door and are recommended to have an abortion at 11-wks? Yea, tell me that baby’s heartbeat is a real DRAG on the woman’s system.
This was a preemptive abortion, period.
Death is not always the answer, Ann.
Thank God the mothers of Susan Boyle, Andrea Bocelli, Tebow, and even Mozart gave life (someone ELSES) a chance.
Liseux, it is a waste of our time to “argue” with the hospital about the
woman’s condition, the risk, etc. We have their word as to the conditions
that went into their decision. Until somebody gives us more facts, we
can only base our discussion on what they have told us.
Your statement: “Death is not always the answer, Ann,” intrigues me.
Let me suggest the following: Countless Catholics wanted this woman to
die. They were furious that her life had been saved. They made this clear
on my Facebook page and in blogs like this one.
They wanted her to have died with her unborn child.
The bishop made it clear that this is what he wanted.
Let me suggest that the Catholic Church is not pro-life and never has been.
It has a very active culture of death of its own and always has had.
“Revising” the hospital’s story to argue that the abortion wasn’t necessary
is really unjustified and beside the point.
Catholics who accepted the hospital’s version of things wanted that
the woman should have died with the child. This is clear from the public
record.
Ann Rice, I agree on one point some of the bishops and priests in the Catholic church are not pro life absolutely, but u r way off base here.
We know that killing that baby would not save that mother’s life, there are ways to keep the baby alive until a c section could be performed and baby could have survived too.
There are no normal Catholics that wanted the mother to die! That is ridiculous. We just wanted to save them both.
Sr. even admitted she was wrong and repented. You need to read way back on all the posts and do some research. Liseux is absolutely correct on all counts.
Some people can’t face the truth for what ever reason. Paving the road to hell with good intentions is still paving to hell.
Ann, How could the hospital be charged with murder when it it legal to kill a baby on demand up to nine months in the womb?
I’m sorry but I must base my response on
what the hospital told us. Until we have some
real information as to the mother’s condition
that is different from what the hospital presented
it is pointless to insist that the baby could have
been saved along with the mother.
I don’t see why anyone would take that tack.
If you believe that the life saving abortion was wrong,
then why not stick with what you believe? Why try to
change “the facts?”
I am very familiar with the case as it was reported in the
press and discussed by Catholics.
Many indeed were perfectly furious that the woman
had been allowed to live.
I have moved on from this.
I have left the Roman Catholic Church.
And unless we are given new information by
the people involved, I see no point in discussing it further.
Entertaining speculation as to alternative theories of what
happened is a waste of time.
I continue to believe that Sr. McBride did the right thing.
I continue to trust her based on what we know about her.
I thank God bishops like Olmsted are not allowed in
hospital emergency rooms.
And I would never encourage any pregnant woman
to be treated at a Catholic Hospital.
In fact I think pregnant women should be warned against
being treated in Catholic hospitals.
Unless of course they are responsibly staffed with
people like Sr. McBride and not subject to the
authority of bishops like Olmsted.
Whether the Catholic Church will admit it or
not, the life of every man, woman, and child has
value.
Remember, this is a church
that opposed Child labor laws.
It is a church that opposed Women’s suffrage.
It is a church that has never been in favor of the
integrity of the individual.
This is a church that canonized Thomas More,
who burned heretics at the stake.
This is a church with a long active culture of death.
When churches behave in immoral ways, I feel
that people should speak up about it.
Sorry, Anne, the 11-wk. old fetus was not a threat to her life.
Also, if she was near death, does it make sense to perform an abortion on the woman? No.
So the fact that she was healthy enough to sustain an abortion refutes the lie that the child was killing her.
I don’t think you have left the Catholic Church, Anne. If you really had, you wouldn’t be here.
This nun was a Catholic professional who KNEW the teachings of the Church on life, and she chose to go against them.
If she was an Orthodox Jew or Muslim, I doubt if you would be on their websites disputing Jewish or Muslim law as you are here.
Anne, this is a Church that fought FOR the rights of workers to earn a living wage, and continues to do so today.
This is a Church that fights FOR the rights of migrants.
This is a Church that told the world you CAN’T treat women as property in marriage, and because of the Christian view of marriage, Jewish laws and common law has evolved to our Judeo-Christian marriage ethic of today.
Above all, this is a Church that says, Anne Rice, just because it feels good doesn’t mean you should go about your life promoting a cause.
When one breaks the natural law, as you are with promoting the killing of children through abortion, and with the support of homosexual acts, contraception, sterilization, etc. YOU will be broken by that natural law.
Witness Europe today- a society that has conracepted, aborted, and sterilized itself into oblivion. That’s what an Anne Rice, post-modern America will look like: “If it feels good, do it; it it’s convenient, do it even more, baby.”
Thank God for the Catholic Church, which G.K. Chesterton has said is the only institution which keeps a person from being a child of her age!
Viva el papa! Viva la iglesia!
ok anne then why did Sr. repent?
d.dunn, I’ve heard all these tiresome, foolish arguments before. I don’t have time to
go over the history of the Roman Catholic Church with you here, or the history of
Western Europe. You’ve made crude and inaccurate statements and crude distinctions.
As a matter of conscience I will continue to stand up for Sr. Margaret McBride and
her decision, and I commend the Catholics nationwide who have also spoken up in
support of her.
I urge you to study the history of your church.
Once again, I caution any pregnant woman to be very
careful about seeking care in a Catholic hospital.
Anne, you are being very disingenuous with us here.
In recent years you came back to the Catholic Church. Could it be that Anne Rice only in the NEAR recent past found out about all of what society would call “warts” on the Bride of Christ? That the Church is against artificial contraception, homosexual acts, killing children in the womb, etc.
Surely, you were not that much in the dark when you came back to the Catholic Church.
Yet here you are lecturing us about how evil the Church is.
Sadly, you warn pregnant women about Catholic hospitals.
Who can warn the babies that in Catholic hospitals there are renegade Catholics who will kill them??
D. Dunn, very good point about the repentance of Sister McBride.
I wish her well and hope that she is at peace.
One other reason to love the Church- the sacrament of Confession and the healing and peace it brings. Thanks be to God!
Agree Liseux, When someone feels the need to argue on the defense of abortion it makes me wonder if that person has been involved, in some way.
I myself have had two so I am not judging, just wondering.
Helping someone abort, or withholding help, or having one themselves or pressuring someone….there are many ways we become involved in abortion, even by pulling the lever for a pro choice candidate.
If Ann has left the church why is she still here? I hope maybe she has had a change of heart.
Oh and Ann you don’t have to go over or teach me anything. Having had 2 abortions I know the pain, guilt, heartache, grief, mourning, regret, coercion, pressure, abandonment etc…of abortion.
Yes thank God for confession.
D. Dunn, let us pray for all those who are for abortion, that they too might be healed by God’s hand.
Let’s especially pray for aborted babies:
“Heavenly father, your love is eternal. In your ocean of love, you saved your world through your only begotten son, Our Lord, Jesus Christ. Look then, at your Son who is constantly bleeding for love of his people and forgive your world. Purify and Baptize aborted babies with the Precious Blood and Water which flowed from the Sacred Side of our Lord, in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. May they, through his Holy Death, gain everlasting life, through his wounds be healed, and through his Precious Blood be freed, there to rejoice with the saints in heaven.” (from the Precious Blood prayerbook)
Thank you Liseux. I prayed it, beautiful. I want so badly to be united with them one day! I think u r an angel
Mmmm. I truly wonder if liseux simply did not read what I wrote about having a vasectomy, or whether he chose to ignore what I said. In his reply he informs me that “Natural Family Planning”, as recommended by the Catholic Church, is as effective as the birth control pull when both are used correctly, and then goes on to say that some German study (he does not quote the source) stated that NFP was MORE effective than the pill. So, let me get this right. My choice to have a vasectomy, which ensured 100% that my wife would not have another pregnancy after we were advised that it would be dangerous for her to do so, was a mortal sin in the eyes of the Church! What I apparently should have done - with the pill presumably not being an option, was to take a chance on “Natural Family Planning” - and if it was not 100% successful, then what the heck; wife gets pregnant, dies during pregnancy, but I have the comfort of knowing that I did the “right thing” and refused the advice of the medical experts who warned us of the consequences!
Of course the other possibility, and perhaps the Catholic Church’s preference, would be that we refrain from having sexual relations for the rest of our lives. Believe me, that was not an option! Sorry, but we would not take kindly to a group of elderly males deciding what is moral and what is mortal sin, and telling us that it is “God’s Word”!
And as for liseux’ question about whether I knew about God’s plan for fertility in marriage before I had my vasectomy. Well, yes, I did. He had already blessed us with two wonderful children as a result of being fertile. And he went on to bless us with a long and happy marriage, a healthy sex life, and beautiful healthy grandchildren who revel in still having their grey haired granny around to share her love in their lives. Yes, I firmly believe that this was, and is, God’s plan.
On the subject of Sr. Margaret McBride, I personally tend to want to read reports that are as independent and unbiased as possible in order to get at the truth. From what I read and heard about this case there are a few facts that seem indisputable:
• Sr. McBride had been working in the health care system for several decades and had an impeccable record;
• Sr. McBride was on the Ethics Committee at a Catholic Hospital that included fully qualified medical practitioners;
• The medical practitioners concluded that a pregnant woman in the hospital’s care was suffering from a life threatening condition that, in their professional view, would likely have caused her death if she continued her pregnancy.
• The pregnant woman was described as being seriously ill with pulmonary hypertension. The condition limits the ability of the heart and lungs to function and is made worse, possibly even fatal, by continuing with a pregnancy;
• The decision to terminate the pregnancy was made after consultation with the patient, her family, her physicians, and in consultation with the Ethics Committee, of which Sr. Margaret McBride was a member;
• Sr. McBride did not procure the abortion or having any direct involvement in it, other than presumably listening carefully to the professional medical advice and to the patient and her family, then making what I suspect was an extremely difficult decision for her to make.
I have not seen one shred of evidence from independent medical practitioners to say that the pregnant woman was NOT suffering from a serious condition, that there was NO danger of her dying during pregnancy, or that the chances of her dying during pregnancy were remote, or most unlikely etc.
However, I see that liseux has provided us with his expert medical opinion which is briefly that if the pregnant women was truly dying, then an abortion at 11 weeks would be more invasive and more of a risk than allowing the child to live. He makes no real mention of the pregnant woman herself or the effect on her health that carrying a baby to anywhere near to term in her condition would have had. To be frank, I get the impression that what might have happened to the pregnant woman was of no real concern. It would be God’s will. If she died later in her pregnancy because of a serious condition known by the doctors to be “likely to cause her death if she continued the pregnancy” well - so be it.
This is clearly where many of us, including Anne Rice, part company with the Catholic Church. For me it is summed up best by Lois Shepherd, Associate Professor of Biomedical Ethics and Law at the University of Virginia, “We live in a country where these decisions are made by the patients themselves — not by religious dogma.” Thank God for the law of the land.
Briefly, on the issue of Sister McBride repenting or recanting as stated by Ms. Dunn; I have not been able to find any independent documentation that she did so, but I would imagine that after more than 3 decades working as a professional in the health care system she would have been totally devastated to be excommunicated from her beloved church. Quite frankly, I would look upon any such “repentance” in a similar vein to that made by Galileo who stated the following when ordered to recant his observations that the earth was not the centre of the universe but that it circled the sun:-
“I have been judged vehemently suspect of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that the sun is the centre of the universe and immoveable, and that the earth is not at the center of same, and that it does move. Wishing however, to remove from the minds of your Eminences and all faithful Christians this vehement suspicion reasonably conceived against me, I abjure with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I curse and detest the said errors and heresies, and generally all and every error, heresy, and sect contrary to the Holy Catholic Church. (Quoted in Shea and Artigas 194)”
Wow. What power the Church doth hold! Yes, he indeed recanted but, of course, his words were empty. Galileo knew he was right – and the Church was manifestly wrong. In my humble view, the Church is wrong again in its abominable treatment of Sister Margaret McBride.
67, I’ll get back with you more on this later, as I am quite pressed for time now, but Galileo was in hot water with the Church not for holding that the sun was the center of the universe, but for advocating changing scripture to concur with this fact.
So, yea, he did need to recant of his heresy.
If you’ve ever said “sun up” or “sun down” you too are astrophysically incorrect, as was the observation in the Bible. The sun NEVER SETS nor does down; it is just a human observation. In this light, we can see how the writers of the Bible interpreted that the Earth was the center of the universe. It kind of is, as we are made in God’s likeness and image, not any “beings” on the sun.
And, I’m a she, not a he.
BTW, from whence did you obtain your indisputable facts? I’d like to see the source.
Thanks.
67, This argument has been going on for a long time. I know Sr repented and I will find it for you in the near future. If her repentence was just a sham and to get back into the good graces of the Church then shame on her “again”.
She made a decision to agree that in this circumstance abortion was ok, period. Abortion is NEVER ok, NEVER!!
If, God forbid, your wife and daughter or son were both drowning and u could only save one, which would u chose? I know ur answer already, your wife, because she is here with responsibilities.
But so is this child, even though not tangible. Believe me once you have murdered your child they become VERY TANGIBLE!!!!!
Killing is killing and one day that mother will come to feel like this. She will probably regret her decision.
That may not be totally her fault. She was coerced, pressured and mislead my the medical industry, so the church would probably take into account that her sin was not as great as Sr.‘s and the medical industry. She was coerced!!!! One day she will hurt real bad.
I feel sorry for her and all involved. My pain will never leave me and I was coerced. A life is a life and she and they took that babies life, end of story.
You can sugar coat it, spin it, and do whatever it is that will make it seem ok to you, but it is and always will be murder. That baby has a soul. That baby will be with Jesus waiting for it’s mother. If it were not a baby or if it were dispensable or not viable it would not have a soul. That baby had value and it’s life was ended needlessly.
No the mother should not have been put in a position to die and she would not have. Wake up please. What a shame u can’t see the evil here. It is like ignoring the elephant sitting in the middle of the room. See Satan has some convinced that he nor evil exists.
67, I’m with you on both your posts above.
The church has tied itself in hopeless knots now
on the subject of “family planning” and its privileging of
“the rhythm method” has caused it to “support” this
means, when, I suspect the spirit of Humane Vitae
does not justify supporting any particular means of
birth control.
I applaud your getting the vasectomy, and I suspect
many a priest would have approved your choice in this
matter.
You thought of the life of your wife.
And I am happy for you and your children and your
your grandchildren.
As I mentioned above the Catholic Church is not really pro-life.
And it is certainly not pro-family, or pro-woman, or pro-child.
But I do wonder if we are seeing the depth of Catholic thinking on
this blog.
I think not.
The prayer for the unborn
mentioned above is a ludicrous example of Catholic superstition.
Do these people really think they have to plead
with Our Blessed Lord to “save” aborted children?
What an appalling notion.
What do they think He will do with these children if
they don’t pray?
Send them to Hell?
I thank you for posting here because I believe it will reach people.
And that is why I’m responding to your post, in the hope of reaching
people.
But I suspect this is not the best place for an in depth discussion of
these matters.
d. dunn, I think your last post above is simply shocking.
Thank God that Sister was there to save the life of
this dying woman, and to return her to her four children.
Thank God for that.
You know what ann and 67 I would like to know if either of you have ever had or helped or withheld help with anyone who aborted their child. Do u know first hand the terror and horror that it is to have a living human being shredded to pieces an ripped out of your body??? that is appalling!
and if u dislike the Catholic Church so much why r u here?
And u 67 a man! how would u know what life feels like inside of u?
67, u will be shocked one day when u stand before the Lord and he asks u what u did to prevent the senseless slaughter of the 52 million babies. Babies that He created. Babies that Satan knowing he can’t harm God will harm God’s image in man.
Not judging u because maybe you do other things prolife and this is just one area where u think it is ok. (this thinking to me is shocking)
No judgments from me here but I am very proud to be Catholic. I am sorry that we live in a world where all that matters is this life right here, right now. We have completely lost touch with the fact that this life is fleeting; that this is a stepping stone to our eternal life in either Heaven or hell. You choose where you will go tomorrow by your actions today. Whether you use the Catholic Church or Islam as your guide, or your own made up set of rules, the fact remains that you choose where you will spend eternity even if you don’t believe in it.
And there is nothing wrong with dying so that your child will live. Born or unborn, who wouldn’t die for their child? The Bible states that there is no greater gift than to give your life for another…like Christ did for all of us. There are a lot of details, however that need to be taken into consideration.
If this woman was so sick, how was she able to have sex in the first place? Why wasn’t she using birth control (if using NFP was not possible or NFP for that matter)? I guess it would have been better for her to use birth control in this case than to be faced with having to have an abortion. I am at a loss as to how she could have suddenly gotten so sick after she was pregnant but not before. And no, I am not saying that she was never to have sex again but she did have several children already that she probably wanted to live to see grow up. What was she doing to ensure that? Was she advised not to have children being that she was so ill with pulmonary hypertension? I really wish we had all the facts here and I personally would like to know how much she knew before she ever became pregnant in the first place. Again, I am not suggesting that anyone go without having sex with their spouse but not having sex isn’t going to kill you.
As a side note…Just because you don’t agree with something that the Catholic Church calls sin, doesn’t mean the Catholic Church is wrong and you are suddenly right. The Catholic Church has to make a stand, just like all churches do; it can’t go through each individual scenario and make excuses for one abortion and not another. God is our ultimate judge and the Catholic Church is the surest path to God. We can’t pick and choose what we will follow or not. And I think it is wrong to leave the church because you find it doesn’t fit with something you want to do. And yes, I know that Muslims think they are on the surest path to Heaven and so do the Jews, and the Buddhists, etc. Good…that is great. Who doesn’t want to be on the winning team? If you are part of a faith that you don’t feel like is the surest way to Heaven then you should find the right one for you. I am suggesting that you don’t leave the Catholic Church just because they don’t permit abortions or whatever. The only people I know that have left the Church are those who wanted to do a certain thing or live a certain way and the Catholic Church said, “No” so they left. I don’t know if that is the case for anyone here…just the situation in my small circle of Catholic and ex-Catholic friends.
Ultimately, however, I am not the judge of anyone. I pray to God that I am never ever faced with this situation. I am glad that it is not my place to decide where everyone will spend eternity. I do know that from the moment of conception, a child is a human being…allowed to grow it will only be a human being, nothing else. No one can deny that from the first instant, it is a unique being with unique DNA. Even if you believe that it is not worth anything, it is still a unique individual being that will only be human - allowed to grow and for the cells to divide it will only become more human…it is not a cat, dog, bird or fish. I think it is worth fighting for and I am glad to be among the faithful, not just Catholics, that believe in the sanctity of human life.
God bless each of you here and thank God that we live in a country where we can have these types of discussions openly and freely.
Anne Rice, please explain your hypocrisy of criticizing the Church NOW, when not too long ago, I saw you on t.v. saying that you were glad to be back in the Catholic faith.
None of the teachings of the Church have changed since then. An intelligent women as you would have known of all these things you now decry.
Why the hypocritical criticizing of the church when not too long ago you were blushing and beamin that you were “Catholic” again?
Also, Anne, may God have mercy on your soul for mocking a prayer which calls for the salvation of unborn babies.
God wants us to ASK for his blessings. Ask, and you shall receive, knock, and it shall be opened. We should be doers of the word, not just hearers.
Prayer works!
Praise God for all that he does for us.
Hey there, 67, I just now saw your post with the “Hmmmmm….”.... beginning.
Yes, I did read about your vasectemy. I try to deal with one or two issues at a time, but here goes, since you ask.
So, you knew you were committing mortal sin, as you knew about the Church’s teaching on sterilization? Wow.
I suspect much of your decision was based on somehow having “healthy sex” as you stated after your vasectemy. Is that what it comes down to, 67?
You could have all the “healthy sex” you wanted to now with your vasectemy, and your wife wouldn’t have any excuses, such as “It’s the fertile time of the month, darling”?
How convenient! Your ideas fit in with the current society so well. Men want women to get on birth control so the PLAYGROUND is open and no excuses! Never mind that birth control pills lessen desire for women. This goes far into explaining the divorce rate for contracepting couples- 50%.
If that’s not it, then please explain how your vasectemy made sex “healthier.” And remember, a child is not a disease.
Also, vasectemies are NOT 100% failproof, as I have a beatiful nephew to prove it, and many other people also have children after having had them as well.
So much for “healthy sex.”
P.S. and when the birth control fails or the vasectemy fails, abortion is the back up birth control for many people.
Don’t you see the stamp of the Culture of Death on all of this, 67. I hope you don’t fall for it ultimately.
Not to mention that the birth control pill kills. Babies are conceived and then aborted by birth control pill. Chemical abortions. Oh but the Devil does not exist!!! Nor does evil. Sad. Or maybe it’s just people who think they know the teachings of the Church and Jesus Christ.
I am a sinner, and I don’t know a lot, but the Catholic Church follows Jesus’s teachings to the letter, if one would take the time to learn and not depend on human error.
We have had many bad Popes and priests etc. but the teachings of the Church is infallible.
The church is both human and divine. The divine side is certainly infallible.
People like to admonish the whole Catholic church because of some humans who err.
I just love liseux’ twisted distortion of facts in order to neatly fit me into her (I apologize for thinking you were a man) category of the uncaring sex crazy male who had a vasectomy so my wife wouldn’t have any excuses, such as “It’s the fertile time of the month, darling”. And I just love her reasoning that “men want women to get on birth control so the PLAYGROUND is open and no excuses”. And then she caps off the lecture by making the remarkable statement “And remember, a child is not a disease”!
I pray for liseux because if that is her thinking about male/female relationships then she has clearly been tainted by selfish and unfeeling men and that is a real tragedy.
As for me, perhaps I should have explained that after we were advised that it would be medically dangerous for my wife to conceive again, she went on the pill to avoid conception. We are not Catholic so it was not, and is not considered by either of us to be a mortal sin – or any other kind of sin. In our case the pill did not suit my wife because of a risk to her health, and we discussed the alternatives, including a vasectomy. I had no hesitation about having this relatively minor operation, even though, as liseuz points out, it is not absolutely 100% failproof. Judging from our research, however, it’s not far off 100% and in our case, it was 100%. Our decision was exactly that – our collective decision between two equal partners.
Liseux tries to diminish the action of having a vasectomy by questioning whether my (it was our) decision came down to somehow having “healthy sex”. As she says, “Is that what it comes down to”.
Again, it appears that liseux chose to ignore the actual problem we faced which was that carrying another baby was considered to be dangerous for my wife’s health. We were, and still are, a happily married couple and our sexual relationship is a seamless aspect of our marriage. Some men apparently choose not to have a vasectomy because it might somehow affect their masculinity, plus they might decide to divorce and want to marry another woman. I had neither of those issues. My masculinity was not an issue, and I was already married to the love of my life.
Quite honestly, I think this is the point where people who are not Catholic, or people who choose to leave the Catholic Church, part ways with Church dogma and doctrine. Healthy sex is about as natural as anything under the sun (whether the sun actually rise or sets!) and that includes contraception in its many forms in order to avoid pregnancy where appropriate.
To me a healthy sexual relationship is one of God’s great blessings and I am a passionate believer in monogamous relationships. And just to make a point before liseux again uses her twisted logic to ask the question; I know that if either partner in our marriage could no longer enjoy sexual relations we would still remain happily married - and faithful to each other.
To suggest that I am in any way falling for “the culture of death” as suggested by liseux is ludicrous in the extreme.
I look forward to responding to the comments of Ms. Dunn for whom I have always felt a great deal of sympathy as outlined in my previous posts of 31st May and 1st June.
why do u feel sympathy for me? because of my pain or because u disagree with me 67? I could not find your posts.
67, I applaud your long post. But I think you can see here that
Catholics do not really care about the wellbeing of married people,
the health of a wife, or the health of the entire family.
This is why I say the Roman Catholic Church is anti-family and
anti-life.
Of course these people are going to impute low motives to you,
and they will attempt to trivialize your values.
They can’t help themselves.
They are tying themselves in knots drying to defend the Roman
Catholic Church’s indefensible obsession with sexuality, and they
are simply unable to come up with anything better than
cynical dismissal of people who disagree with them.
I respect entirely your love for your family, and your concern
for them, and your long marriage.
Again, you will not get respect for any of this from many
Roman Catholics here.
But be assured, there are other kinds of Catholics who do share
your loving and positive values.
Thank you for posting here. Perhaps you will reach some who really
need to hear your voice on the matter of responsibility and love in marriage.
I continue to post, hoping that some Catholics will
hear opinions that may cause them to think critically
about their church and its anti-family and anti-life values.
Dear Anne Rice,
In all sincerity, you seem very conflicted, confused and frustrated.
You write, “Responses supporting Bishop Olmsted make me ashamed to be Catholic.”
But then you write,
“I have moved on from this. I left the Roman Catholic Church”
Obviously you cannot be ashamed to be Catholic if you have already left the Catholic Church. Perhaps you have not so completely “moved on from this” as you say?
You’ve negatively broad-brushed, engaged in hyperbole, dredged up past offenses (whether entirely accurate or not) and made absolute statements against Catholics and the Catholic Church. I often see this kind of extreme reaction from certain kinds of people who have either left or are in the process of leaving their faith (whether Catholic or not). It’s not unlike what spouses sometimes do in the process of a divorce. For some, there is a strong tendency to exaggerate, over-simplify and demonize that which they have left (or are leaving) in an attempt to either rationalize their decision or to build up momentum in carrying it out.
It’s seems likely to me that this is what you’re doing as well. At least, I prefer to assume that because it’s more charitable than concluding that you believe your statements in this combox could actually persuade faithful, orthodox Catholics.
But as to the Church’s teaching on abortion, it really isn’t that difficult to follow. It is never permissible to intentionally and directly kill an innocent human being. Period. Human life begins at conception - that’s a simple matter of science, not faith. And obviously, such a human being is still innocent while in utero.
As glad as I am that any woman is alive to care for her children, that could never justify directly and intentionally killing another human being. And no amount of rationalization and mud-slinging against Catholics and the Catholic Church will change that fact.
Here are some quotes from experts in biology and embryology about when human life begins:
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm&h=8142f
I hope one day that you revisit your change of heart. The Church has been and will always continue to be here for you.
God bless.
I looked up Ann Rice and u r the woman who wrote the Twilight Serious? I rest my case. God bless you. Open the door and the demons will come.
67, I can understand Anne Rice’s opposition to Catholic teaching, but I think you’re here to simply bait the Catholics. I did think you were Catholic at first. Or else, why are you here?
Do you go to Orthodox Jewish sites and complain about their religious beliefs and observances?
As a Protestant, if you want to sterilize yourself, go right ahead! For me to tell you, a person of a different belief system what to do, would be as hypocritical as you trying to tell the Catholics on here what to do. (I hope you get the irony.)
Finally, I expect more from a Catholic, especially one whose conscience has been formed according to the natural law and biblical principles. My children will know God’s plan for fertililty in marriage, even in difficult medical situations. We don’t plan on contracepting, abortion, and sterilizing our family out of existence.
However, you are complicit in the Culture of Death, if even by default or ignorance.
If you want to argue just for argument’s sake and have a chip on your shoulder against Catholics for some reason, I don’t have time for that. I have a family to take care of.
Great post, M. Forrest. I agree.
Sorry Ann Rice didn’t mean to say the Twilight Serious….please accept my apology.
I saw the vampire books along with other demonology books. It’s a dangerous arena.
Anne, I respected your coming back to the Church. I realize that the teachings that you hurl at us now were the same then, so something must have happened for you to vacillate.
We are a church of great sinners and even greater saints.
It’s the Church of St. Francis, Teresa of Avila, Mother Teresa, and John Paul the Great, along with all the dregs.
It is Jesus Christ that brings us all together in his Truth.
I pray that you will one day see that and return once again. Christ’s arms are always open.
I don’t have anything more to say on this topic.
May everyone have a blessed Advent.
Perhaps I can comment briefly on Darlene Dunn’s posts and the reason why I said that I feel sympathy for her. Firstly, with regard to my earlier posts Ms. Dunn. The 1st was dated Sunday May 30, 11.09pm (EDT) and the 2nd was on Tuesday 1 June, 11.1pm (EDT). You may recall that you mistakenly advised me that you thought it was okay for a young girl who had been raped (I had provided brief details of the case) to have a d & c immediately after the rape. Of course, once you had checked on Church doctrine you had to retract the statement and advise that there are NO circumstances in which a d & c would ever be permitted. You may also recall that I referred to the fairly recent case in which a Brazilian woman procured an abortion for her 9 year old pregnant daughter who had been raped after the doctors advised that the little girl was too young to give birth to twins and survive. Ironically, the doctors, hospital staff and the mother were all excommunicated from the Catholic Church for their heinous crime. The only person NOT excommunicated was her step-father who had raped her because Archbishop Jose Cadosa Sobrinho pronounced that the culprit should not be thrown out of the church because although he had committed a heinous crime the church took the view that the abortion was more serious.
I guess a similar analogy would be that we have been inundated with thousands of scandals within the Catholic Church about the sexual abuse, sodomization etc. of children, but I don’t actually recall any statement from the Church to say that these heinous offenders should be punished by excommunication. I am sure that supporters of the Catholic position on contraception and abortion would argue that what Sister Margaret McBride did was much more “evil” than the crimes of all those priests, but I, and many, many, many people from outside the Catholic Church, and I have to say, my own close friends within the Catholic Church, would respectfully disagree on that issue.
The reason I feel great sympathy for Ms Dunn, and it is absolutely genuine, is that she has first of all suffered from having had two abortions as a teenager, and in her own words she was “coerced, pressured or scared into believing that she had no other choice”. That in itself as a tragedy. She has also been blessed with a Church that makes no bones about the fact that any abortion is, in her own words, “evil and Satanic”. These are two threads that are constant in her posts, and that implies to me a feeling of extreme guilt in addition to the physical and emotional trauma she went through when having the two abortions.
I see 67. I remember and understand. I feel that abortion is evil and satanic. I am forgiven even though coerced, but I still believe that Satan can not destroy God so he tries to destroy God’s image in man.
As for the guilt I don’t have that anymore, because I know I am forgiven. I still, however, suffer from ptsd and I will always mourn my children that I have killed.
I do agree with u though, these other crimes from sexual abuse etc. that u mentioned should come with the same excommunication as abortion. ABSOLUTELY.
The church is both human and divine and the human part does make the divine part look bad, but we need to remember that Christ was perfect and focus on that. Thank you.
Further to my last post, I am personally opposed to the very idea of abortions, but having witnessed the result of a botched illegal abortion as a young man who had to deal with the aftermath of a tragic death as described briefly in my posts, and after hearing of similar cases, I gradually came to the conclusion that it was manifestly unjust to punish poor desperate young women who either tried to induce their own abortions or who sought illegal back-alley abortions, while the wealthy could pay to have a “professional” take care of their “problem” or travel abroad to a country where abortion was legal! To be honest, no matter how much we write on this subject, and no matter how hyped up some people get in creating this great “moral panic”, women the world over will continue to have abortions as they have no doubt done since the beginning of time.
For the reasons above I have reached the conclusion that it is far better to permit legal abortions, with strict safeguards, such as how developed is the fetus? Is the pregnant female capable of deciding for herself? Has she been coerced? Has she been fully informed of alternatives and consequences? etc. etc. My understanding is that that is what you presently have in the US – legal abortions with provisos.
This is clearly the exact opposite of the Catholic Church’s position, but it is the law of the land, and I find it morally reprehensible to add to the guilt felt by women who have abortions by calling all abortions “evil” and “Satanic”. To suggest that taking the “morning after pill” or having a d & c soon after an horrendous rape, or terminating the pregnancy of a 9 year old child who is considered by the medical experts who examined her to be incapable of carrying twin fetuses to anywhere near term, or, in the case of Sr. Margaret McBride, where a panel of medical experts and an ethics committee, in conjunction with the pregnant woman and her family decide that the risk of continuing to carry a fetus is a distinct danger to the mother’s life and advise her accordingly, is inherently”evil” and “Satanic”, is in my humble view - a nonsense.
I initially opened this website to view the comments of a particular gentleman who argued that the Catholic Church’s sex abuse scandal had been greatly exaggerated and that the Church should basically be left to investigate such cases. I then viewed comments on other issues and found it quite frightening at times to read what I suspect are the accepted Catholic views of persons who write on this website. I was horrified to read, for example, comments referring to the President of the United States as the “anti-christ”, and to read comments suggesting, as with some of the posts on this subject, that Catholicism is the one true religion, and that all other religions, whether Christian or not, are simply dismissed out of hand. I noted that anyone who questions the accepted doctrines of the Catholic Church in any way is immediately attacked and subjected to such comments as “open the door and the demons will come”!
I am delighted to hear that Pope Benedict is calling for a one-day conference of his cardinals to discuss how the Church should deal with the sex abuse scandal involving priests. I look forward to hearing the result and I pray that attitudes will finally change in this regard, and that without exception, allegations of criminal sex abuse against children will be immediately reported to the proper authorities for thorough investigation. We’ll see if my prayers are answered, but I will not hold my breath after reading the comments on this website.
I would never judge or use terms to hurt anyone who has had an abortion and if i have I am sorry.
I myself having two would be completely hypocritical. After feeling the pain and the fear of coercion I believe with my whole heart and soul that abortion is evil and satanic.
Having said that I do believe that anyone opting for an abortion does need full disclosure, I agree 100% with u on that.
If a 9 yr old after being raped goes in to have an abortion, do u really think that is reported to the authorities? It’s not 67. The abortion is performed and the minor child is handed right back into the perpetrators hands. It is the most unregulated demonic industry there is.
Abortion is legal up to 9 months on demand, for any reason.
I would hope to not offend anyone who is trying to deal and heal with abortion. It took me years over 30 to come to grips with Christ’s forgiveness but the pain will always be there.
67, I appreciate your long and patient explanation of how you came to this website and why you were interested. Catholics do, in my experience, want to address the entire world with their views and pronouncements and want to be taken seriously by the whole world; so for people to question your motives in being here is not exactly fair. ——— Though I am no longer a Catholic (I left publicly at the end of July), I urge you not to judge the church by what you see here. ——Many Catholics publicly supported Sr. Margaret McBride, just as I did. ——I ask that you try Commonweal online to discover a wholly different kind of Catholic. I also suggest the National Catholic Reporter online.——For some time arch-conservatives have dominated the Roman Catholic Church, and sought to own it and define it, and they often (as I see it) express considerable hostility to people who disagree with their views. However the Roman CC has never been a monolith and there are many Catholics working for reform within the church. At Commonweal and the National Catholic Reporter, I trust you will encounter many compassionate and loving Catholics who do want justice for the victims of clergy abuse, and do have a great interest in the welfare of women, children and the family.
That some one here would tell you that you are complicit with the culture of death is shocking.
I applaud your having a vasectomy for the sake of your wife’s health and for the
health of your family. And I suspect that many an enlightened Catholic priest would
have entirely approved of your decision.
I continue to be interested in what Catholics do and say as a matter of conscience.
I feel that when religions teach and preach immorality, people have to say something.
All that is necessary for evil to flourish,is for good people to do nothing.
I want to be a good person and I have something to say on the matter.
Again, I’m glad you’re here. You may cause a lot of people to think about these
serious issues.
Dear Anne Rice,
In all sincerity, I’m not sure what is so difficult to understand about the Church’s teaching here. It is never permissible to intentionally and directly kill an innocent human being. Period. We’re not utilitarian consequentialists. We believe in objective morality.
Human life begins at conception - that’s a simple matter of science, not faith. No amount of rationalization and mud-slinging against Catholics and the Catholic Church will change that fact. And no number of unfaithful Catholics who refuse to accept that truth will change the Church’s teaching.
While I applaud and share your concern for pregnant mothers, yours is a misguided and confused compassion and, unfortunately, you’re trying to spread your confusion, frustration and error to others.
Again, here are some quotes from experts in biology and embryology about when human life begins:
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm&h=8142f
Dear Anne Rice,
Here are some other relevant facts about the unborn baby for you:
A new human life is formed at conception that will never be repeated. From conception, an unborn child’s DNA is as complete as an adult’s. At 3 weeks after conception an unborn child has a heartbeat and her own blood supply. At 6 weeks she has measurable brainwaves.
Here are many more developmental facts about children in utero:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14267313/ProLife-Talking-PointsFetal-Development-Stages
Anne Rice writes, “On account of my faith in Jesus Christ,
and His teachings, I left the Roman Catholic Church.”
I think it would be more accurate to say, “on account of my personal interpretation of Christ’s teachings, I left the Roman Catholic Church.”
67 writes, “Galileo knew he was right – and the Church was manifestly wrong. In my humble view, the Church is wrong again in its abominable treatment of Sister Margaret McBride.”
Apples and oranges, 67. Whether or not the earth revolves around the sun is not a matter of faith and morals. Conversely, whether or not it is permissible to intentionally and directly kill an innocent human being most certainly is. The Church was given the power to bind and loose by Christ Himself on matters of faith and morals, not matters of science. And he who refuses to hear the Church refuses to hear Christ. (cf. Matt 18:17-18 and Luke 10:16).
I would also point out that the Church does make allowances for procedures designed to save the life of the mother that may also *indirectly* and *unintentionally* result in the loss of life of the unborn child. The following article on “double effect” would be worth reading for anyone who would like to know more:
http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffid=56
And for anyone who is confused by the difference between war and abortion, the following articles may be worthwhile reading, too:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/11/27/abortion-capital-punishment-and-war-one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other/
M. Forrest, your post is indefensible. Throughout its history the Catholic Church has supported willfully and intentionally taking human life for any number of reasons. It has burned witches and heretics. It has engaged in and supported wars.
It has canonized Thomas More who burned heretics.
It becomes “squeamish” about taking human life only when saving the life of a pregnant woman is involved. ———I don’t think people today will tolerate this double standard and egregious unfairness any longer.
Christ died for women as much as for men.
You can no longer justify killing on the part of men in all kinds of circumstances,
yet deny a dying mother a life saving abortion.
Sr. Margaret McBride did a good thing.
It’s well known that we have volunteer armed services,
that Catholics serve in them like anybody else, involving
themselves willfully in wars in which women, children and pregnant
women are killed all the time. No one questions these men about these
activities. Bishops in America don’t target governors of states in which capital
punishment is carried out.
No, it’s only when it comes to saving a pregnant woman’s life that the
church applies its rigid standards, that “evil” can never be justified to do good.
The rest of the time, it’s working out all kinds of ways for men to do “evil”
and to willfully and intentionally take human lives.
i think we’ve all had enough of this, don’t you?
Sr. Margaret McBride acted responsibly and morally in saving
the dying mother in the Phoenix emergency room.
The church has lost credibility in this discussion.
Any reading of the New Testament will reveal Our Lord Jesus Christ
preached to women just as He did to men. He saved women just as He
did men. He never said they were inferior beings to whom separate moral
standards apply.
This is a post directed to Anne Rice. Ms. Price, I sincerely thank you for your careful and considered opinions and for explaining that there are many Catholics who do not share the ultra-Conservative views expressed by so many people on this website. To be honest, the views so often expounded on this website are completely contrary to those of my own friends and acquaintances who happen to be Catholic - and that includes my two oldest and closest friends who always insist on taking my wife and I to St. Patrick’s Cathedral whenever we visit New York. It is a spiritual ritual that we both appreciate and look forward to even though we are not Catholic.
Our friends have introduced us to several of their friends who are homosexuals, and they treasure them as true friends with no conditions – and no condemnation. They have a close relative who was a Catholic priest who happened to fall in love and decide that he wished to marry. He, of course had to leave the Church, and it was they (our friends) who pointed out the total hypocrisy of the Church allowing married Anglican priests to become Catholic priests while at the same time excommunicating one of their own who, according to someone on this website, abandoned Jesus for a woman!
Likewise, I have Catholic friends who have used contraceptives for years and scoff at the very idea that they are committing mortal sin for doing so, and fellow former police officers who despair at the Church’s stance in doing everything possible to avoid having allegations of criminal sex abuse of children by priests investigated by the proper authorities who are specially trained and equipped to do so.
I was of the mistaken impression that maybe my Catholic friends were complete exceptions to the rule, but you give me hope that the Church may eventually re-think its position on some of these ”moral panic” issues propounded by the arch-conservatives. I look forward to reading the sites you have recommended because I have a genuine interest not only in websites such as this one, but also with other views expressed by fellow Christians of whatever creed.
Just a couple of additional points regarding replies from Ms. Dunn and M. Forest. Ms. Dunn does not seem to be aware of the actual case involving the 9 year old Brazilian girl who was raped, became pregnant with twins and was given an abortion to save her life because medical experts stated clearly that at that tender age she was physically incapable of carrying two fetuses to anywhere near term. In order to check on the facts of the case I recommend she do some research on this case of a child who had been raped continually by her stepfather since the age of 6. Of particular interest is the statement of Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of Olinda and Recife, who in deciding to excommunicate everyone involved in the abortion, including her mother who reported the crime. but NOT the rapist, made the following statement, “The law of God is higher than any human laws. When a human law—that is, a law enacted by human legislators—is against the law of God, that law has no value. The adults who approved, who carried out this abortion have incurred excommunication.” Even the Vatican appeared to cringe at the Archbishop’s action.
And that brings me to my second point with reference to the comments of M. Forrest who points out that human life begins at conception. I think we can all agree that this is the case because without conception we would have no human life.
Now I have a question for M. Forrest. If, as you assert, the killing of any human life, even immediately following contraception, is murder, and murder is a crime, and crime should always be punished, then it must surely be your position that anyone who takes the morning after pill is at least committing an “attempted murder” and anyone having a d & c is committing the act of murder, and certainly anyone who decides to have an abortion, and all those who participate in any way shape or form in providing a d & c, or an abortion, are murderers, or at the very least are accessories to murder, and of course murder (killing) is in breach of the ten commandments, and the bible clearly states that murderers shall be put to death (phew, sorry for such a long sentence), and if we are going to have to conform to God’s laws as you advocate, then all of these heinous crimes will have to be legislated so that justice can be done, and can be seen to be done. And once the legislation is amended to fit God’s laws, (in Islam I believe they call this Sharia) and if all human life is of equal value, then the legal system will need to be adjusted so that these heinous criminals can be tried and brought before the Courts, and if they happen to reside in those States where murderers are executed (is it usually in cases where murders are premeditated, in which case just about all of these ‘murders’ are premeditated?) then those found guilty will either face execution or at least life imprisonment. Just to go from the sublime to the completely ridiculous, it might even be possible to introduce legislation to prevent women going abroad to procure the morning after pill, or a d & c, or an abortion, so the courts can seek to extradite them back to the U.S. for trial! This might not fly in most Western democracies but it might be acceptable in several of the more radical Islamic nations.
Do you have any idea of the practical implications of the absurd proposition that the laws be changed to criminalize the “morning after pill”, or “d and c’s” or abortions carried out within the parameters of the existing laws. Or perhaps you are simply talking from a purely moral point of view and not from a practical point of view. If that is the case then it is indeed a “moral panic” that has been created – and common sense will eventually prevail.
Yes, the Church can attempt to provide guidance with regard to how we live our lives, and can call anyone who disagrees with its views “evil” or “Satanic” but when it begins to dictate our so-called moral standards through legislation then watch out because we will NEVER go back to the Dark Ages.
67 Just as it is horrible to rape a child, God forbid, so is it horrible to kill one in the womb. The only difference is one u can see and one u can not see yet.
You seem to get that it is not ok to destroy a child as long as it is not in the womb. What is the difference?
Dear Anne,
First, for the sake of argument, let’s completely accept all of your characterizations and applications of the (often very distant) past in the Church (which I don’t). We can then basically sum up your argument thusly:
The Church condoned and/or participated in some very bad things in the past, therefore she should condone and/or participate in the killing of innocent, unborn children now.
Again, while I share and applaud your deep concern for pregnant mothers, that’s just not a very compelling argument. A new, unrepeatable human life begins at the moment of conception. As I illustrated, that’s a biological fact, not Church doctrine. You’re obfuscating the reality of what you’re condoning here and making it appear to be merciful and compassionate – the murder of innocent human beings. Far from being a “good thing” as you stated, that’s immoral.
Now, let’s look at a couple of your other statements:
You write, “throughout its history the Catholic Church has supported willfully and intentionally taking human life for any number of reasons.”
If you still have a Catholic Catechism, please pull it out and go to #2258-#2269 about human life and killing. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM
You’ll notice that the word “innocent” is sprinkled liberally through this context – a word that you forgot to include in your statement. The Church has always taught that it may be permissible to directly and intentionally take human life under certain circumstances. For instance, in self-defense, it may be permissible to use lethal force (whether used by an individual or by a nation). But it is NEVER permissible to intentionally and directly kill an innocent human being. Period.
As such, there’s a fundamental difference between abortion and war or the death penalty. There is no such thing as a just abortion. Ever. Abortion is the direct and intentional killing of an innocent human being. But there is such a thing as a just war and just recourse to the death penalty (although only rarely on the latter, according to the CCC). Whether or not an actual instance of war or the death penalty actually IS “just” is a matter of fallible, prudential judgment. Although, the Church has provided criteria to help discern whether a particular war is just or not and you’ll find them in the Catechism: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2309.htm I suggest reading all of #2307-#2317 and #2266 - 2267. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM and http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P81.HTM
The following explanation from the current Holy Father might be helpful also in understanding the proper distinctions:
“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” ~ Cardinal Ratzinger (now, Pope Benedict XVI) http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
Next, you write, “Christ died for women as much as for men. “
Of course. But the Church defends the right to life of ALL innocent women and men – born and unborn. You keep forgetting about the girl or boy waiting to be born.
Next, you write, “it’s only when it comes to saving a pregnant woman’s life that the ?church applies its rigid standards, that ‘evil’ can never be justified to do good.”
That’s completely false, Anne. As the quote above from the Holy Father illustrates, euthanasia is another instance where there are no exceptions to the rule – regardless of gender. Directly and intentionally killing an innocent human being is wrong. Period. Another example? Embryonic stem cell research. It involves the intentional and direct destruction of innocent human life. Would you like more examples that don’t involve human life that prove your statement to be false?
Next, you write: “Bishops in America don’t target governors of states in which capital ?punishment is carried out.”
There’s a reason for that. Capital punishment is not immoral without exception. Refer to the statement I provided from the Holy Father on the difference between war/capital punishment and abortion/euthanasia. Also reflect on the Church’s teaching on killing as it relates to the “innocent.”
You write, “The rest of the time, [the Church is] working out all kinds of ways for men to do ‘evil’ ?and to willfully and intentionally take human lives. I think we’ve all had enough of this, don’t you?”
The rest of the time the Church is working out all kinds of ways for men to do evil and to take human lives? Anne, that’s just so terribly exaggerated and detached from reality that it serves as it own refutation. So, yes, I do agree that we’ve had enough of this…
Last, you write, “Any reading of the New Testament will reveal Our Lord Jesus Christ ?preached to women just as He did to men. He saved women just as He ?did men. He never said they were inferior beings to whom separate moral?standards apply.”
Well, of course. And the fact that you seem to think your statement here conflicts with the teaching of the Church is very strange.
At least based on what you’ve written in this combox, it’s clear that you never really understood the faith that you’ve now left. You’ve effectively appointed yourself as your own Pope. That’s a heavy responsibility, especially considering that Christ never said that he’d build His Church on you (cf. Matt 16:17-19). I hope one day you truly return to the Church that Christ established.
M Forrest, Thank u for ur time and effort. This is brilliant and sanctified.
Dear “67” –
I understand what you’re trying to get at, but you’ve presented a very long non-sequitur in your hypothetical question to me. Your argument connects points that don’t inevitably follow from each other.
I understand that you and Anne would like to portray the Church and orthodox Catholics as a cold, merciless behemoth just itching to dole out punishment and condemnation but that’s just not the reality. Under the New Covenant in Christ, the immorality of an act doesn’t strictly dictate a certain civil/temporal punishment like it did under the Old Covenant. There are many legitimate factors that need to be considered as to how best to respond in concrete terms, ranging from mercy to the purely practical. You seem to forget that the Church is renowned for appealing to governments to refrain from executing even the worst murderers – the Vatican even appealed to Iraq not to execute Saddam Hussein.
Additionally, in the case of extremely early abortions, there are practical problems determining whether one actually even occurred. Then there’s the distinction between the actions of the doctors – who actually directly commit the killing – and the woman who seeks and permits him to perform it. In such a situation it is arguably more effective to address the providers of abortions as those seeking them are often under coercion from family, boyfriends, and may be suffering from hormonally based emotional disturbances, depression, etc. There are reasons for mercy in the case of the woman in the middle of it all. But it does not alter the fact that abortion is fundamentally evil and that steps must be taken by a just society to prevent it.
There are a couple of goals in view here. The first is the protection of innocent human lives. The second is changing behavior. The third is changing hearts and minds. While the law is far from perfect, it does serve as a pedagogue. As Martin Luther King once stated, ““the law can’t change a man’s heart, but it can certainly help stop him from lynching me.”
I also don’t think you understand that even something like excommunication is both an act of mercy and justice. The intent is pedagogical for the individual involved and the rest of the Church as well as being remedial for the individual involved.
CCC 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,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. ?The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. ?Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.”
The intent of ecclesiastical discipline is to persuade the person in error to come back to the truth, back to full communion with the body of Christ. Perhaps this has already happened with Sr. McBride. If so, praise God.
M. Forrest
P.S. You wrote, “If, as you assert, the killing of any human life, even immediately following contraception, is murder…”
I think you mean “conception”, not “contraception”. Contraception is designed to stop conception and failing that, to make it impossible for a newly conceived human being to develop in the womb.
I look forward to responding to M. Forrest as soon as time permits. My apologies for the typo. I did, of course mean “conception” not “contraception”. Mind you I had no idea that if contraception fails it is then designed to “make it impossible for a newly conceived human being to develop in the womb”. Really? Is that a fact? No wonder our Catholic friends are against all forms of contraception! It seems that condoms have miraculous powers that the rest of the world is not aware of. Please provide peer reviewed scientific support for this assertion.
Dear “67”,
No apology necessary. I was just a little confused by what you wrote at first and had to read it over a couple of times. I wasn’t sure if you were trying to make a different point. Sometimes people confuse those two terms because they’re so much alike.
As to the ways in which contraception works, I was speaking broadly of the whole. But of course, you’re right in the specific case of condoms - they don’t prevent implantation post conception (preventing a newly conceived human for developing). I didn’t intend to imply that as that would indeed be magical! LOL There are other reasons the Church opposes even condoms, but at least they aren’t potentially abortifacient like IUDs, the Pill, Plan B, etc. If you’d like to read about the Church’s teaching on contraception, try these links:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
You might find these articles particularly interesting because they’re by or about non-Catholic Christians regarding contraception:
http://www.armenianchurchlibrary.com/files/orthodoxconcernedaboutthepill.pdf
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9704word.asp
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f
If you’d like to read a little about the multiple ways in which contraception works, read below. Remember, human life begins at conception (a fertilized egg - refer to the links on this point that I provided earlier in this combox). Therefore, the prevention of implantation and subsequent expulsion of a fertilized egg would then be a very early chemical abortion of a young human life.
++++++++
How do the PREVEN® emergency contraceptive pills prevent pregnancy?
PREVEN® can stop or delay ovulation (the release of an egg), it can stop sperm from fertilizing an egg if it was already released, **and it can stop a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus.**”
Source: http://www.drugs.com/mtm/preven-ec.html
+++++++++
How Does Plan B® Work?
Plan B® (levonorgestrel) may prevent pregnancy by temporarily stopping the release of an egg from a woman’s ovary, or it may prevent fertilization. **It may also prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.** “
Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20070629181439/http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/AboutPlanB/HowItWorks.aspx
++++++++
“How do intrauterine devices work? The progesterone intrauterine device releases a constant low dose of a synthetic hormone continually throughout the day. Both the progesterone IUD and copper IUD prevent pregnancy in one of two ways….**Changes the lining of the uterus, preventing implantation should fertilization occur.** Ethical Consideration.”
Source: http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/iud.html
++++++++
The following is from the Physician’s Desk Reference, product information for Ortho-Cept, as listed by Ortho, one of the largest manufacturers of the Pill:
“Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus, which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus, and **changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation**” Source: Physicians’ Desk Reference; Montvale, NJ: Medical Economics
++++++
The FDA-required research information on the birth control pills Ortho-Cyclen and Ortho Tri-Cyclen also state that they cause “changes in…the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).” Source: 1995 Physicians Desk Reference, p.1782
+++++++
Statement by Prolife Physicians:
http://www.prolifephysicians.org/abortifacient.htm
+++++++
“The Pill also causes the lining of the uterus to thin, possibly preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg.”
Source: http://www.epigee.org/guide/pill.html
+++++
Interesting video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhZOBqdlE5M
Here are some additional articles if you’re interested:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_taking_birth_control_just_like_having_an_abortion
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07080303.html
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0658.html
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0659.html
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0169.htm
As to any future responses you may make, my apologies if I don’t get back to you. I’m going to be away for a while and may not have ready access to a computer. And candidly, I’m very busy and have already spent more time on this than perhaps I should have. You made other incorrect statements and/or arguments earlier that I would like to have addressed, but I didn’t have the time.
I hope you’ve at least found that the Church and her teaching are more defensible you seem to have initially thought. I’m just a simple layman who owns a small business, coaches sports and is trying to raise 4 kids. There are far more qualified people than I to answer your questions, if you’re genuinely interested in understanding. I encourage you to seek them out.
Here are some excellent resources for both you, Anne Rice and anyone else who has questions about the Catholic faith:
http://www.cuf.org/
http://www.catholic.com/
http://www.ewtn.com/
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
I pray God’s blessings upon both you, Anne and your families.
Dear “67”,
No apology necessary. I was just a little confused by what you wrote at first and had to read it over a couple of times. I wasn’t sure if you were trying to make a different point. Sometimes people confuse those two terms because they’re so much alike.
As to the ways in which contraception works, I was speaking broadly of the whole. But of course, you’re right in the specific case of condoms - they don’t prevent implantation post conception (preventing a newly conceived human for developing). I didn’t intend to imply that as that would indeed be magical! LOL There are other reasons the Church opposes even condoms, but at least they aren’t potentially abortifacient like IUDs, the Pill, Plan B, etc. If you’d like to read about the Church’s teaching on contraception, try these links:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
You might find these articles particularly interesting because they’re by or about non-Catholic Christians regarding contraception:
http://www.armenianchurchlibrary.com/files/orthodoxconcernedaboutthepill.pdf
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9704word.asp
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f
(continued)
(continued from above):
If you’d like to read a little about the multiple ways in which contraception works, read below. Remember, human life begins at conception (a fertilized egg - refer to the links on this point that I provided earlier in this combox). Therefore, the prevention of implantation and subsequent expulsion of a fertilized egg would then be a very early chemical abortion of a young human life.
++++++++
How do the PREVEN® emergency contraceptive pills prevent pregnancy?
PREVEN® can stop or delay ovulation (the release of an egg), it can stop sperm from fertilizing an egg if it was already released, **and it can stop a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus.**”
Source: http://www.drugs.com/mtm/preven-ec.html
+++++++++
How Does Plan B® Work?
Plan B® (levonorgestrel) may prevent pregnancy by temporarily stopping the release of an egg from a woman’s ovary, or it may prevent fertilization. **It may also prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.** “
Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20070629181439/http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/AboutPlanB/HowItWorks.aspx
++++++++
“How do intrauterine devices work? The progesterone intrauterine device releases a constant low dose of a synthetic hormone continually throughout the day. Both the progesterone IUD and copper IUD prevent pregnancy in one of two ways….**Changes the lining of the uterus, preventing implantation should fertilization occur.** Ethical Consideration.”
Source: http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/iud.html
++++++++
The following is from the Physician’s Desk Reference, product information for Ortho-Cept, as listed by Ortho, one of the largest manufacturers of the Pill:
“Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus, which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus, and **changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation**” Source: Physicians’ Desk Reference; Montvale, NJ: Medical Economics
++++++
The FDA-required research information on the birth control pills Ortho-Cyclen and Ortho Tri-Cyclen also state that they cause “changes in…the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).” Source: 1995 Physicians Desk Reference, p.1782
+++++++
Statement by Prolife Physicians:
http://www.prolifephysicians.org/abortifacient.htm
+++++++
“The Pill also causes the lining of the uterus to thin, possibly preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg.”
Source: http://www.epigee.org/guide/pill.html
+++++
VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhZOBqdlE5M
(continued)
(continued from above - sorry - the filter for this blog was concerned that I was “spamming” because of all the links - had to break the post up into three sections)
Here are some additional articles if you’re interested:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_taking_birth_control_just_like_having_an_abortion
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07080303.html
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0658.html
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0659.html
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0169.htm
As to any future responses you may make, my apologies if I don’t get back to you. I’m going to be away for a while and may not have ready access to a computer. And candidly, I’m very busy and have already spent more time on this than perhaps I should have. You made other incorrect statements and/or arguments earlier that I would like to have addressed, but I didn’t have the time.
I hope you’ve at least found that the Church and her teaching are more defensible you seem to have initially thought. I’m just a simple layman who owns a small business, coaches sports and is trying to raise 4 kids. There are far more qualified people than I to answer your questions, if you’re genuinely interested in understanding. I encourage you to seek them out.
Here are some excellent resources for both you, Anne Rice and anyone else who has questions about the Catholic faith:
http://www.cuf.org/
http://www.catholic.com/
http://www.ewtn.com/
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
I pray God’s blessings upon both you, Anne and your families.
(continued from above - sorry - the filter for this blog was concerned that I was “spamming” because of all the links - had to break the post up into four sections)
Here are some additional articles if you’re interested:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_taking_birth_control_just_like_having_an_abortion
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07080303.html
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0658.html
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0659.html
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0169.htm
As to any future responses you may make, my apologies if I don’t get back to you. I’m going to be away for a while and may not have ready access to a computer. And candidly, I’m very busy and have already spent more time on this than perhaps I should have. You made other incorrect statements and/or arguments earlier that I would like to have addressed, but I didn’t have the time.
I hope you’ve at least found that the Church and her teaching are more defensible you seem to have initially thought. I’m just a simple layman who owns a small business, coaches sports and is trying to raise 4 kids. There are far more qualified people than I to answer your questions, if you’re genuinely interested in understanding. I encourage you to seek them out.
(continued)
(continued from above - sorry - the filter for this blog was concerned that I was “spamming” because of all the links - had to break the post up into three sections)
As to any future responses you may make, my apologies if I don’t get back to you. I’m going to be away for a while and may not have ready access to a computer. And candidly, I’m very busy and have already spent more time on this than perhaps I should have. You made other incorrect statements and/or arguments earlier that I would like to have addressed, but I didn’t have the time.
I hope you’ve at least found that the Church and her teaching are more defensible you seem to have initially thought. I’m just a simple layman who owns a small business, coaches sports and is trying to raise 4 kids. There are far more qualified people than I to answer your questions, if you’re genuinely interested in understanding. I encourage you to seek them out.
Here are some excellent resources for both you, Anne Rice and anyone else who has questions about the Catholic faith:
http://www.cuf.org/
http://www.catholic.com/
http://www.ewtn.com/
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
I pray God’s blessings upon both you, Anne and your families.
Correction:
“I hope you’ve at least found that the Church and her teaching are more defensible you seem to have initially thought.”
Should have been:
“I hope you’ve at least found that the Church and her teaching are more defensible THAN you seem to have initially thought.”
Again, I pray God’s blessings upon both you, Anne and your families.
Thank you so much for all of this information, M. Forrest. I’m not sure that Ms. Rice and 67 really are interested in hearing it, but I certainly am! I’m sure that others have been, too. You’ve really helped me to understand the Church’s teaching better. I never would have recommended an abortion like Sister McBride did, but I couldn’t put everything into words like you have. The Church’s teaching is very beautiful. Casti Canubii and Humanae Vitae are amazing. God bless you for your patience!
Contrary to Dianne Johnson’s assertion I am always interested in hearing the points of view of others, particularly in those areas of concern written about on this blog. I now feel much more informed about the position of the Catholic Church and I now have a better understanding of the reasons why people hold such extremely strong views on these issues. Having said that, I’m afraid I still find myself maintaining my own equally strong views that are, in some cases, at variance with the teachings of the Catholic Church and of those opinions expressed in these posts. And I know that I will immediately be accused of being “anti-Catholic” by one particular writer!
To summarize my own position; much as I dislike the very thought of abortion, I believe that a woman has a right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, or to terminate a pregnancy in accordance with the laws of the land, such as having a d and c shortly after a vicious rape, or having an unwanted pregnancy terminated in the early stages, or having a pregnancy terminated if there is a serious danger to the life of the mother. The 9 year old Brazilian girl expecting twins discussed in earlier posts is a prime example, as is the case for which Sr. Margaret McBride was fired and excommunicated. I say this despite the protestations of some persons on this blog who continue to distort the facts of the Sr. McBride case to suit their own points of view.
I also strongly believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a man having a vasectomy, particularly in a case such as my own where the decision was made by both myself and my wife in order to ensure that she did not conceive again due to serious health considerations. It is in no way sinful.
I believe that we human beings have every right to practice birth control, whether it is through the use of condoms or using most, if not all of the methods mentioned by Ms. Forrest, even though her intent was to persuade me that there are sound moral grounds for NOT doing so. I do not accept that point of view.
Please forgive me for again personalizing an argument or point of view, but let me briefly describe an issue faced by my own daughter who just recently had a second baby. Unfortunately, there had been problems with her first pregnancy, resulting in an emergency “C” section in order to save her life and that of her then unborn baby (both, thankfully, survived and thrived), However, my daughter also required a second “C” section to deliver a premature baby. She has been strongly advised that she really cannot continue to have “C” sections if she has many more pregnancies because it would be physically dangerous to do so. I’m sure that liseux will vehemently argue that it is not dangerous, or that “if that is God’s will …….” but to be honest my daughter is a doctor and I know that she will more than likely base her decision as to whether or not to run the risk of further pregnancies based on facts – not on religious dogma. It is more than likely that she and her husband will make the decision to use some form of birth control. This will not, in my humble opinion be sinful in any way shape or form.
Now I accept that there are many people in the Catholic Church who will strongly disagree with the aforementioned positions. There are those on this blog who may well harangue and shout from the rooftops about “coercian”, “murder”, “intrinsic evil”, “Satan at work” etc. etc. It is my personal belief that this throwing of such epithets is actually an evil in itself, and I have previously pointed out that the calling of some of our leaders the “anti-Christ” (whether it is President Obama, or George Bush, or the Pope) just because we have a perception that they do not share our own belief system is to me quite abhorrent.
Believe it or not, I was just about to post this when I read about the Pope’s comments yesterday on the issue of condoms. I may have it wrong (some will no doubt blame the media) but as I understand it he was saying that perhaps the use of condoms by prostitutes might be perceived as having a moral dimension if used to reduce the risk of infection through HIV/Aids. I am sure there will be much backtracking and reams of explanations to say that this is not at variance with the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church, despite the fact that I seem to recall the Pope saying exactly the opposite during his visit to Camaroon last year, that is, that the use of condoms could endanger public health and increase the problem of HIV/Aids rather than help to contain the virus.
The reason I mention this latest news, is because I find it very encouraging to hear that even the leader of the Catholic Church appears willing to look at the issues we face with perhaps a slightly different perspective. And that to me, is a good thing.
I feel sure that my posts on this website may have caused a great deal of annoyance to some writers who have so clearly expressed their displeasure with my comments and accused me of “anti-Catholic smears”. That is the price one pays for having and expressing a contrary point of view.
To conclude I would like to answer a question posed by Darlene Dunn in her post of November 7 at 9.39pm (EDT) in which she stated “ God forbid, your wife and daughter or son were both drowning and u could only save one, which would u chose? I know ur answer already, your wife, because she is here with responsibilities.?But so is this child, even though not tangible. Believe me once you have murdered your child they become VERY TANGIBLE!!!!!?Killing is killing and one day that mother will come to feel like this. She will probably regret her decision.”
This goes to the very essence of the issue of judging the moral standards of someone else. With respect to Ms. Dunn, she of course, knows very little, if anything, about either myself or my wife, or my children, but she has presumed that I would have “murdered” my child; that “killing is killing” and that the mother (presumably my wife) would live to regret “her” decision. That is laying on the guilt in the extreme! And that is before I have even had an opportunity to answer the question. So here goes!
First of all, this is the typical ethical question where one is faced with two impossible choices, both of which result in the loss of a life – a “Sophie’s Choice” if ever there was one! (Did Sophie kill her other child – of course not.). In my particular circumstances, my wife and I have had a wonderful life for the past 40 years - we have been truly blessed. On the other hand my daughter is fairly recently married and now has two beautiful babies to raise, both under the age of 2. If I really had to choose, and had the luxury of time to think it through for at least a few seconds, I believe that I would save my daughter for two reasons. The first is that she has the responsibility of having to raise two young children who deserve to have their mum, and secondly my wife would NEVER forgive me if I let the mother of her two grandchildren drown. It would be more than my life is worth!
I would say to all those who make pronouncements about “evil” and who pass judgement on others, that in my humble opinion you are being very un-Christian. I expect better from fellow Christians – and I expect MUCH better from good Catholics.
67, thank you for your generous and eloquent post. I agree with every word you’ve written here. I think you have remarkable kindness in you to come back and give people here the benefit of your reflections and your insights. I thank you again from the bottom of my heart. ——I wish I had your restraint.——I am convinced after my experiences with Catholicism, that many many Catholics feel the way you do about these many issues. Many were horrified by the condemnation of Sr. McBride by Bishop Thomas Olmsted. And I am sure many Catholics would practice birth control if they faced the situation your daughter is facing. Again, I commend your generosity and patience. I hope and pray that your comments will be read by many.
Thanks for another great article, Jimmy. You’ve gotten a lot of comments again!
The last couple seem very confused and angst-ridden. Sad. Oh well, more people to pray for!
Happy Thanksgiving.
On this Thanksgiving day, 2010, let’s pray for Bishop Thomas Olmsted, that he may come to value the human life of all persons, including women, and
children already born into this world. That he may come to respect the fathers and
mothers of families and their offspring.
Let us all thank God for Sr. Margaret McBride, who saved the
life of a dying mother in a Phoenix Emergency room.
Her courage has made history.
Even in her silence she has spoken truth to power.
God bless her.
On the basis of what we know, a family can be united
on this day for their Thanksgiving Feast.
Lord grant us the serenity to accept what we cannot understand.
This is with reference to the post from Francis. I presume I am one of the “last couple” so I’m now just a little “confused” at being described as being “very confused and angst ridden”. Not sure how Francis considers me to be very confused. My views are are fairly consistent and have been for most of my nearly 70 years on this earth. The last time I checked the dictionary “angst” indicated “a feeling of dread, anxiety or anguish.” I hardly think that the latter two apply in any way shape or form. Life has been, and continues to be good for me personally. I cannot imagine anyone who knows me would every call me either anxious or anguished. In fact quite the contrary. As for dread - dread what? Perhaps I dread the reaction to Ms. Rice’s prayer as it relates to asking those who read this website to pray for Sr. Margaret McBride. Perhaps Francis can explain.
Thank you Anne and 67 for speaking the truth to power. Don’t take any guff from these fetus-loving misogynists in funny hats and dresses. Who are they to tell us women what we can do with our bodies? Who are they to tell us what we can do and can’t do with our fertility?
What we have inside of us is just a parasite. So what if it has a heart beat and brain waves? If if it needs to be killed then it needs to be killed. Get over it! What do you women-haters care, anyway? Get your laws off our bodies!
These Catholic “bishops” are all women haters, every last one of them. Tell me it’s not true. They need leaders like 67 who have real wisdom and understanding. These haters have no compassion for us women who give everything we have. We are the ones who suffer, not them! WE are the selfless ones. We are the compassionate ones. Shame on this selfish men’s club for women haters.
We need more people like you and 67 to help everyone know the real truth, Anne, to see what life-affirming and self-sacrificial love really is! So bless you for your incredible love, mercy, sensitivity and compassion. You’re helping women to see the lite.
Good one Margaret S. Now Anne Rice and myself are allegedly attacking Catholic “bishops” as woman haters and misogynists, and consider fetuses to be parasites to be gotten rid of at the drop of a hat.
Sorry Margaret, but in my case you are attaching the wrong label to the wrong person, and I have no doubt that the same applies with regard to Anne. But of course, this is so typical. The only way to attack someone with a slightly different point of view is to first demonize them, then throw in phrases such as “intrinsically evil” and make lots of references to the “devil” so that you can claim the high moral ground.
Had you actually taken the time to read my post of 21 November, and my other posts you would see that I actually abhor the very thought of abortions, but I agree with a woman’s right to choose in certain cases which are covered by the law such as when a pregnant woman’s life is at risk (as in the case involving Sr. Margaret McBride), or when a 9 year old Brazilian rape victim is pregnant with twins and the medical experts decide that she simply cannot physically hope to carry the fetuses to anywhere near term; or when a rape victim is given a “d and c” very shortly after a rape. I wonder whether the heart beat and brain waves you refer to are there for all to see, say 24 hours after the rape. I guess it would be wrong or immoral of me to say that you, or the bishops couldn’t care less about whether the pregnant mother, or the pregnant little child rape victim actually survives pregnancy, or the young girl in my community who was viciously raped by a man I will politely label a “monster” (he had committed the same type of attacks on young girls previously) will ever get over her experience. No, I’m sure you are right; she richly deserved to get pregnant, have a child, and be reminded of her living nightmare for the rest of her life, if that is God’s will. Perhaps the bishops might think differently if she was their own child – but that, of course, ain’t happening!
And I even, heaven forbid, see absolutely nothing “evil” about my having had a vasectomy to avoid my own wife having another pregnancy for medical reasons, or my daughter considering birth control after having to have two “C” sections in quick succession. No, I guess the bishops would be right in recommending that both mother and daughter could either take a chance and pray not to conceive again, or better still, avoid that horrible “sex” thing altogether.
But wait, even the Pope is now saying that the use of condoms can be justified, and boy oh boy has that stirred up a hornets nest. I hear an awful lot of backtracking on that one. Oh well, lets wait and see what all the bishops have to say about that little bombshell and how it plays out in the coming months and years. As I stated previously, the Pope has opened Pandora’s Box and it’s a box that is going to be extremely difficult, even nigh on impossible to ever close.
67 writes,
“Good one Margaret S. Now Anne Rice and myself are allegedly attacking Catholic “bishops” as woman haters and misogynists…Sorry Margaret, but in my case you are attaching the wrong label to the wrong person, and I have no doubt that the same applies with regard to Anne.”
Wrong, 67. Read a little more carefully, and you’ll see that Anne attacks the Catholic Church basically as woman haters.
Anne Rice: “No, it’s only when it comes to saving a pregnant woman’s life that the church applies its rigid standards, that ‘evil’ can never be justified to do good. The rest of the time, it’s working out all kinds of ways for men to do ‘evil’ and to willfully and intentionally take human lives.”
That’s just one quote. There are others if you take the time to wade through her condemnations, pontifications and other odd and sundry musings. For her, this is a woman vs. man thing. She’s got a personal problem there. It’s not the Church’s problem.
And as for the “condom thing”, not surprising (although sad) that you would twist that situation to your destruction as well. It would at least be better for you to keep your confusion to yourself.
Condoms are immoral because they make a lie of the marital act, 67. The marital act is an act of complete openness and giving to the other that physically reconfirms the marital vow of fidelity, the bond. In the case of male prostitutes (as the Pope singled out), we’re already dealing with a fundamentally immoral act. It’s a completely different context. There is no marriage to reconfirm through the marital act when we’re talking about sex with prostitutes. It’s already a complete abuse of sexuality.
So, in this very different context, the use of a condom could suggest that such a person was at least considering something beyond momentary sexual satisfaction. That could be a step forward for someone like a male prostitute or those who have sex with them.
Here’s another article about the Pope/Condom issue:
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=8658
WOW! Thank you to ALL the anti-Catholic haters on here! Once again, you have proven to me CLEARLY that the Catholic Church is the one TRUE Church started by Jesus Christ Himself 2000 years ago!! You see, it has been shown to me repeatedly that the more hatred there is for the Catholic Church, the more that proves it is the REAL DEAL! The enemy NEVER wastes his time on that which is not truly of God, Jesus Christ Himself ... this is why there is so little hatred directed at all other religions combined - but that directed at the Catholic Church only appears to be escalating as the times (and our sins in this country, such as abortion) increase in their gravity. And for those of you (especially claiming to be ‘women’ on here in support of the murder of an unborn child created by God), I encourage you to ponder the following during this Christmas week:
“... And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.” ~ Luke 1:43-44
*** NOTE *** the word used by GOD (not me) is ‘INFANT’, ‘BABY’, ‘CHILD’ ~ no matter what translation of the Holy Bible you read this verse in!! NOT ‘FETUS’, ‘BLOB OF CELLS’, or ‘TISSUE’!!
Merry Christmas to all of you, and thank you, once again, for confirming for me the truth of our Catholic Faith! May God continue to bless our Bishop Olmsted and all of his staff for making the right decision here!
As for ‘Sr’ McBride, she is clearly in need of prayers. Very sad.
http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2011/01/sin-against-holy-spirit.html
The following is a synopsis of a bulletin insert entitled “Those Who Defend Evildoing,” by Fr. Robert D. Smith:
... It is possible to think of a sin against the Holy spirit, the sin which Christ says will never be forgiven (Matt. 12:32), as an obscure and rare sin ... But is it really so rare?
What is it? Christ identifies it quite clearly. It relates essentially to a commitment to identifying a good action as having an evil source or else evil actions as having a good source ....
... The person who defends his own sins in a public way in conversation of some kind, is often admitting not just the sin but also that he is committing a sin against the Holy Spirit. What we hear most often is not a statement such as “I arranged for an abortion. I know it is wrong, but I did it out of human weakness.” No, rather we often hear, “I arranged for an abortion and did so out of the goodness of my heart to help those close to me and to help humanity.” ...
What such a person is defending is what Christ Himself identifies as a sin against the Holy Spirit. “Adulterous conduct, fornication, stealing, false witness, blasphemy” do not come from a good heart, but “make a man impure” (Matt. 15:18-20). Such actions by no means constitute evidence of goodwill.
This is why all sin is so dangerous. And any delay of repentance leads strongly away from the initial sense of wrongdoing, into the increasing, naturally human conviction that one must, after all, still mean well even in the sin itself. The person who does not go this far and who keeps his sense of his own wrongdoing has retained a strong position from which to repent. Not so with the person who has allowed himself to slip into the kind of self-righteousness which involves calling himself good for his very evil acts themselves.
Can it be that when Christ dispatches His angels on Judgment Day to gather all evildoers to hurl them into the fiery furnace (Matt. 13:41-42), it will turn out that many if not most of these evildoers heading directly and headlong for damnation will have somehow, during life, in addition to their iniquity itself, committed themselves to some kind of sin against the Holy Spirit, become involved long-term in the defense of their evildoing as good?
I am grateful to Margaret M for her response on 21st December. She, of course, continues to pontificate but cannot quote any of my own writing alleging “women haters” and “misogynists” in the Catholic Church. It is the very weakest form of defence to attack others when they have a different point of view – and I certainly have a different point of view on the issue of condoms.
To suggest that “Condoms are immoral because they make a lie of the marital act” is a nonsense. Happily married couples very often use condoms to avoid unwanted pregnancy for a wide variety of reasons, including danger to the health of the wife (I have quoted several such examples).
To suggest that using a condom is somehow “achieving just a moment of sexual satisfaction is also a nonsense”. Sexuality should be celebrated – not condemned. It is a gift from God.
To suggest that any sexual contact that does not have the aim of procreation is the ultimate nonsense. There are millions of happily married couples who are infertile, again for a variety of reasons. For example in the case of my wife and I, we are both way past the age where she could conceive, and we still enjoy our sexuality as a loving couple who have been happily married for over 40 years– perhaps more so now than when we were younger.
It is ridiculous to equate all sexuality outside the act of attempting to conceive as being somehow evil or morally wrong.
In her response to my comments on the use of condoms, Margaret M states, ‘And as for the “condom thing”, not surprising (although sad) that you would twist that situation to your destruction as well. It would at least be better for you to keep your confusion to yourself.” What on earth does that mean?
Is the good Lord going to “destroy” me because I hold a different point of view about the use of condoms? In what way am I “confused”? I believe that my views are fairly simple and straightforward.
As stated in my post of November 26th, the Pope appears to have stirred up a hornets nest with his comments on the use of condoms by homosexuals, and his comments seem to have not only opened a Pandora’s Box but also caused some confusion within the Catholic Church.
And I am being labeled as “confused”? Am I going to be “hurled into the fiery furnace” for my views? I really don’t think so!
67, you ignored the proof I gave that Anne does see this as a case of the Church being pro-man and anti-woman. I addressed you and Anne together because you were working as a tag-team on this. Why is it that there is so often an inverse relationship between the amount of knowledge a person has about something (Church teaching in this case) and the amount of criticism they feel compelled to make? You’re confused. If you understand what abortion is, then you would also understand why it can’t ever be permitted. You believe it’s okay to murder in some situations. That’s evil. You’re confused, speaking only on your own authority, and you really should stop because you’re only bringing condemnation on yourself by possibly spreading your confusion to others.
You’re also confused about and ignorant as to Church teaching on condom usage, but you continue to pontificate about it. As to twisting the Pope’s words about condom usage to your destruction (read the article I already gave: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=8658 and the explanation I already made above), that’s a biblical reference in which St. Peter (the first pope) warns of those who twist the words of St. Paul “to their destruction” (2 Pet. 3:16).
You say, “It is ridiculous to equate all sexuality outside the act of attempting to conceive as being somehow evil or morally wrong.”
It’s also ridiculous to attack a straw man. I never said that. Neither does the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that a person has to “attempt to conceive” or a sexual act is automatically “evil or morally wrong.” But it does teach that intentionally frustrating a marital act - which is what a condom does - intentionally rendering the marital embrace sterile, is morally wrong. That is what makes it a lie. Do you understand the distinction? This is also why your comparison to sterile couples is invalid (and couples where the wife has entered into menopause). Such a couple did not intentionally make themselves or a specific marital embrace sterile. If you’re observant, you’ll notice that word spread liberally throughout Catholic discussions on morality: intention. The marital act is supposed to be a loving act of complete openness and self-giving to the other. Condoms are manifestly designed to close off the marital act and render it sterile.
You say, “Sexuality should be celebrated – not condemned. It is a gift from God.”
Of course. But there’s a difference between celebrating and abusing or perverting.
Now, rather than coming in here weeks later again in hopes of getting the final word and achieving some kind of imagined, pyrrhic victory in a comments box, why not take the time to learn what the Church teaches before presuming to teach and attack Her? Here are some links to Catholic teaching on contraception:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html
And here are some “Cliff Notes” if you won’t take the time to read and carefully try to understand the actual documents themselves:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
http://www.ewtn.com/library/marriage/cclbc.txt
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0658.html
http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/nfpdifferences.html
Now, I suppose you’ll feel compelled to have the final word. So have at it. I’ve tried to help you understand what the Church teaches and why. It’s not my teaching. If you don’t want to learn and understand, that’s your choice.
Margaret M. My sincere apologies for giving the impression that I delayed writing “weeks later again in hopes of achieving some kind of imagined, pyrrhic victory”. Tut, tut. I was actually away for almost 4 weeks with very little access to a computer. I am flattered indeed to read that you consider me as part of a “tag-team” with Anne Rice; flattered because I have the very highest regard for her opinions and literary ability, and so, apparently do most of those who read her books and writings. I am definitely not in the same league by any stretch of the imagination.
Very briefly, we clearly will never agree on the majority, if any of the issues in these posts, but I don’t think I’ve written anything about the Catholic Church being pro-man and anti-woman , although it would be hard to argue the opposite with regard to an organization that is completely and absolutely ruled by chaste men (with some notable exceptions). Maybe Anne has a point if that’s what she has argued.
Re your stance that abortion can ‘never be permitted’. On that point you are of course, completely wrong. I can only point out that, yes it can, and yes it is, legally permitted in most of our western civilized countries, particularly in the U.S. as per Roe v Wade, and in other strongly Catholic countries with more being added each year. You may consider all abortions to be murder and immoral but, believe it or not, I, and many millions of others, do not. Quite frankly, I think that our society has it right. We have legal controls with regard to abortions and that is also as it should be. I am a member of the generation who lived through a time when all abortions were illegal, when desperate and poor pregnant young women either resorted to self inflicted abortions, or back alley abortions, both of which often resulted in the death of both the mother and the fetus. I had a personal experience of witnessing such a death as a young police officer and it will remain forever embedded in my psyche, so much so that I will never idly stand by and allow the law to be repealed, even though I personally abhor the very idea of abortions.
I heard the Prime Minister of Canada (a strong Conservative) being interviewed on television last night, and when questioned on the issue of whether he would seek to change the legislation to ban abortions (an issue included on his party election platform 5 years ago) he stated that after careful consideration he had concluded that what was needed was to change hearts not laws, and that sums up my own views. I would always counsel against abortion, but I believe that women have the right to choose – period. One thing for sure, if ever the US bans abortions it will greatly increase tourism in Canada!
By all means continue to urge women not to have abortions but it ridiculous to equate abortion with murder. It is nonsensical.
With regard to the issue of condoms, pontificating about their use under any circumstances being immoral is an absurdity, not least because millions of people use them for purposes other than being immoral. I love your phrase “intentionally rendering the marital embrace sterile, is morally wrong.” Again, that may be what you believe and what the Catholic Church teaches, but respectfully, that does not make it so. I realize that your point of view strictly follows the teachings of the Catholic Church, but there are other points of view that need to be considered in a rational way. Perhaps, just perhaps the Pope was making a similar point when he was being interviewed about the use of condoms. Whether you like it or not, he did NOT completely rule out the use of condoms, even though he could easily have done so. And that is a simple fact.
Well, I’m saddened that you’re not interested in learning and understanding what the Church actually teaches and why. You can’t have read the information provided. You just seem to want to vent with your personal opinion. I’m sure we both have more productive things to do with our time. So, barring some real evidence of change and openness, this will be my last.
First, the “tag team” comment just meant that you two were feeding off of each other in this comments box. Not a big deal, really.
Regarding what the Pope said on the use of condoms, I don’t know how I can help you an further. If you truly understood the Church’s teaching, you would realize that your point is irrelevant. He didn’t change anything in Church teaching by what he said. I already explained that and gave a link to an article that explained it more. http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=8658
You say, “I love your phrase ‘intentionally rendering the marital embrace sterile, is morally wrong.’ Again, that may be what you believe and what the Catholic Church teaches, but respectfully, that does not make it so.”
Then why not learn why the Church teaches what She does? Read about what has happened as the result of the widespread use and acceptance of contraception. Learn before dismissing and condemning. Consider the societal consequences of decoupling sexual pleasure and procreation. I already provided some links above. You might also want to read some of the research and work done by Dr. Janet Smith. Here’s a link to get you started (again, this is just scratching the surface).
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html
Your arguments about why abortion needs to be legal are both old and invalid. Each utterly unique human life commences at conception. As I read the comments above, I see that others have already covered some of this ground:
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
The fact that some women feel desperate enough to kill that innocent human life is not a justification to make it “easier and safer” for them to do so. That’s a diabolical argument, really.
The moral answer is to do everything possible to help such poor, misguided (and often confused) women. Help them to know that there are good options available to them that do not involving the murder of their unborn children. And there IS help out there. I know because I’m personally involved in it. Housing, financial assistance, work training, adoption, childcare, etc. That is what we need more of. Not killing.
What we don’t need more of is the pseudo-answer (snuff out the human life within you) that truly answers nothing and only creates more wounds and death. The fact that it is legal to kill an unborn child doesn’t mean that it is ever moral to actually do so. Morally, it can never be permitted. It was once legal in this country to own other human beings. A right given by the Supreme Court of our land, no less. Some argued that while they didn’t personally own slaves, they didn’t believe it was the government’s place to tell other citizens that they couldn’t own slaves. Many argued that it certainly wasn’t worth fighting over. Some argued that it was an unfortunate necessity. It was also once legal to force black men, women and children to use different bathrooms and water fountains than white people. Different schools. And millions upon millions of Americans participated in these practices that we all (hopefully) now view as utterly vile and unacceptable.
But arguably the most vile of them all is intentionally killing a defenseless, innocent child in the place where it should be safest. His or her mother’s womb. It’s vile to defend such a murderous practice as somehow “necessary.” Even more vile to defend it as actually the “loving” thing to do at times.
As to changing hearts and not laws, with the recent celebration of Martin Luther King day, it seems timely to recall what he said in that regard: ““It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.”
Can you even imagine saying, “after careful consideration, I have decided that in regard to child abuse, we need to change hearts and not laws?” Any “conservative” who utters such a cowardly and inane excuse for failing to take action to protect innocent human beings has fundamentally betrayed his principles and his job. The first job of government is to protect the right to life. Without life, there are no other rights to consider. All other rights (legal and moral) assume existence.
Pax Christi
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in praelio. Contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium. Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur. Tuque princeps militiae caelestis, Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos, qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo divina virtute in infernum detrude. Amen.
Jimmy, you are a great writer, but I hate the redundancy of “true facts.” The facts are always true. We don’t want to hear the “false facts” do we? :)
How about guys
I wanted to ask a question to the forum www.ncregister.com .
I can tell you that I so far have found a method that works on the Internet ,
send women is slightly older than you,
is easier to start a private chat .
Here is better explained :
http://mydatingstories.info/ singles
I hope some help , greetings.
http://startrekguide.com/community/download/file.php?avatar=4562_1208345142.jpg
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.