PHOENIX — When Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix confirmed the excommunication of a woman religious for approving an abortion that apparently was needed to save a woman’s life, he provoked a wave of criticism and puzzlement from the general public and many Catholics.
But in the wake of news headlines pitting the Phoenix bishop against Sister Margaret McBride, the Sister of Mercy who approved the abortion, Catholic moral theologians, physicians and pro-life activists have come to his defense. The ensuing debate has clarified the Church’s increasingly countercultural stance within a health-care system shaped by liability concerns and a utilitarian cost-benefit perspective. Even in a medical crisis, the unborn child possesses the same inalienable right to life as an adult patient and must be treated with equal respect.
Bishop Olmsted confirmed this point in a public statement issued last month.
“An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother’s life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means,” stated the bishop.
“We always must remember that when a difficult medical situation involves a pregnant woman, there are two patients in need of treatment and care, not merely one.”
Bishop Olmsted said that Sister McBride was “automatically excommunicated” by concurring in the hospital ethics committee’s decision to abort the child. A diocesan statement said that Sister 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,” the statement continued. “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, No. 2272). This canonical penalty is imposed by virtue of Canon 1398: ‘A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.’”
Sister McBride was also reassigned from her position as vice president of mission integration at the hospital. The hospital did not say what her new job would be.
‘We Don’t Have All the Facts’
St. Joseph’s Hospital issued its own statement — on behalf of the hospital, its parent company, Catholic Healthcare West, and the Sisters of Mercy — which argued that Catholic ethics permitted a direct abortion during specific medical emergencies. “In this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother’s life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy. This decision was made after consultation with the patient, her family, her physicians, and in consultation with the Ethics Committee, of which Sister Margaret McBride is a member.”
Patrick Lee, the John N. and Jamie D. McAleer Professor of Bioethics at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio, and the director of the university’s Institute of Bioethics, noted that media reports about the story have focused on the medical needs of the mother but generally neglected the rights and needs of the unborn child. No party in the dispute has provided a complete account of the mother’s medical status, and thus Lee said that he could not address the specifics of the case.
The mother, who has not been identified, was suffering from pulmonary hypertension, a condition that the hospital said carried a near-certain risk of death for her if the pregnancy continued.
But Lee said that the choice to perform a direct abortion — even to save the mother’s life — contradicted a fundamental Catholic moral teaching: One cannot do evil that good may come of it.
“Catholic moral teaching does not permit direct abortion for any reason,” said Lee. The “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” (ERDs) approved by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops confirm this point.
The ERDs allow medical personnel to perform life-saving procedures that might result in the “unintended” death of the patient’s unborn child: “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.”
But the directives also sharply constrain the medical options available in the event of an ectopic pregnancy — a potentially life-threatening condition: “In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.”
Lee made the additional point that even “when the death of an unborn child is a ‘side effect’ of life-saving treatment — such as cancer therapy or intervention during an ectopic pregnancy — the Church requires that the unintended consequences of treatment be ‘just’ or ‘fair.’”
John Brehany, executive director and ethicist for the Catholic Medical Association, underscores the increasingly countercultural stance of Catholic moral teaching that guides tough health-care decisions.
“Two principles continue to guide treatment at Catholic hospitals even in ‘touch and go’ situations. First, the life of the unborn child has dignity, and we cannot choose to act directly against that life. Second, you cannot do a moral evil to achieve a good goal or outcome,” said Brehany.
“The world looks at it a different way, and many in the medical profession also have come to look at it a different way,” Brehany added. “In the wake of increased medical-liability judgments, it’s much easier for physicians dealing with medical complications during pregnancy to opt for an abortion. However, I’m not saying that was the case in Phoenix, because we don’t have all the facts.”
Trust in Providence
A number of Bishop Olmsted’s supporters have suggested that his refusal to rubber-stamp a decision he deemed immoral underscores a deeper reality: Catholic moral teaching affirms God as the author of all life, and when no morally licit treatment is available, trust in his providence remains the only choice.
“We cannot stop all naturally induced tragedies from happening,” agreed Brehany. “But the most important thing we shouldn’t do is choose a substantial moral evil that good may come of it. That’s precisely where the Church would be out of sync with contemporary popular culture.”
Bishop Olmsted’s public statements highlighted the gap between Catholic teaching and mainstream mores on tough medical choices.
“The question might arise, ‘Isn’t it better to save one life as opposed to allowing two people to die?’” said Father John Ehrich, medical ethics director of the Diocese of Phoenix, in a statement. “One thing we must always remember is that no physician can predict what will happen with 100% accuracy. We will never be able to eliminate all risks associated with pregnancy. What we should not do, however, is lower risks associated with pregnancy by aborting children. It is not better for a woman to have to live the rest of her existence knowing that she had her child killed because her pregnancy was high-risk.”
“When we try to control every possible situation in life, we end up playing the role of God,” Father Ehrich continued. “As people of faith, we know that our lives are always in God’s hands. In these situations, the reality of our dependence upon him becomes ever more clear and pronounced.”
But Austin Ruse, the president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, contends that some media reports pitting a bishop against a woman religious reflect another hidden agenda: “an effort by some on the political left — in media and among dissenting Catholics — to create two Churches, one ‘good’ and one ‘bad.’ In this case, the good Church is the nun who approved the abortion, and the bad Church is the bishop who punished her for violating moral theology.”
In Ruse’s view, “They are trying to separate the faithful from their shepherds. That’s the heart of this issue, and it has played out in the coverage of the visitation issue [for religious orders of women] and the health-care bill debate. But we know what happens when the faithful are separated from their shepherds, the apostles: Confusion reigns, mistakes are made, and death.”
Joan Frawley Desmond writes from Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Edward Pentin: Images of Rome's 2013 March for Life
Comments
Post a Comment
Wouldn’t there be 2 justifiable options?
1: Continue the pregnancy with until the baby is viable, keeping the blood pressure down with drugs.
2: Deliver the baby alive, with every intention of saving it. Provide a baptism and proper burial.
They don’t say whether the abortion was one that killed the baby in the womb first. Bp. Olmstead implies this is the case. They should provide the details on how the baby died. Delivering the baby alive would have been licit, wouldn’t it?
Touching a baby with poisons or instruments is a DIRECT abortion. Doing so to save a woman’s life is still a DIRECT abortion.
Having been actively involved with the pro life movement since 1979, I do see a great difference in the pro life atmosphere in our society. Even among Catholics, many would consider this nun’s decision ok. That’s how far we have come. So sad.
There is also a doctor who has a 100% success rate in dealing exactly with these types of cases. No, abortion is not the only option.
We’d like to know what Bishop Olmsted’s brother bishops say about the case; do they support him or not. We have been part of the pro-life movement since the early 1980’s and Nellie Gray (“March for Life”) has always had the right perspective: All abortion is murder, no matter what the circumstances, and murder is NOT justifiable under any circumstances, period! So says the Fifth Commandment. Anything less than that is known as “political correctness,” and there is no political correctness in Sacred Scripture.
Another point not touched upon is the detrimental health effects of the abortion itself upon the woman’s physical, mental, and spiritual health.
I’m a bit disappointed in this article. It starts out well enough with the headline; but, the majority of the article is spent affirming a tangentially related tendentious ‘counterculture’ that is of little value to a nuts-and-bolts breakdown of this issue. In fact, in this way the article is inconsistent with its headline because if one were to read the article, one would never realize that questions remain; those questions are seemingly answered. The article simply promotes a Catholic ‘countercultural’ ethic to defend the Bishop’s decision without raising questions that uncover the complexities of the situation. Seemingly, this also undercuts the notion of a reservation of judgment, because of the quickness with which the ethicists explain the Catholic position without relating it well to the Arizona issue. There is a serious issue of life which is being ignored in favor of a quick advertisement.
The Catholic moral teaching on abortion needs some rethinking if this Bishop is accurate in his Church view. If you have to choose between Mom and the very immature fetus—-Mom should get the nod. If not there is a good chance they’ll both die. The only treatment appears to have been the termination of the pregnancy—medical science hasn’t found a way to transfer the tiny fetus to another environment suitable for gestation—-yet. (the Church would probably appose that sort of research anyway). The bishop isn’t in the real world—-he can hide in poorly thought out moral theology—-he’ll never be pregnant. But he is a supreme authority on moral matters in his diocese. Poor Mom—a mere woman and not as important as his eminence because she is a “she”, faced death. Easy for the Bishop to pronounce his verdict—maybe Mom should have left the diocese for a diocese headed by a clear thinking Bishop and not remained under the jurisdiction of a hard headed devotee of the recently departed JP 2. Heaven help the Church—it needs it big time.
Thank you Brother Robert Anthony. You are right on and I know first hand
SQ:
My understanding is that this woman was on a hospital bed and unable to be moved. While I don’t know (nor seemingly does anyone else) whether or not she would been able to continue with the pregnancy under her conditions until she met that threshold you propose is something that would be useful to know. If we were to read into these news reports, that possibility would seemingly be slim.
If that first option were unfeasible, seemingly your second option would have been unfeasible as well. Unless she is asked to deliver an 11 week old baby, and in that case it seems cruel to both the mother and the child. We are preserving the form only, and that I would think degrades not only the entire pregnancy and childbirth process (note: I’m a male), which I think risks mocking the pro-life cause. More significantly, I would wonder what if any ethical considerations would be at stake if such a premature labor were to be induced under these conditions. The baby is not viable; it is unlikely to survive and I would suspect everyone involved would realize that this would be a process for show. It risks instrumentalizing both the mother and this underdeveloped baby in order to follow a hard reading of a relatively abstract rule. I think this further risks the deterioration of a pro-life ethic by elevating the process (of this rule) above the actual content of life that the rule is supposed to preserve. You end up shattering that ethic and leaving in its wake a hollow form.
I don’t know if this was an abortion. I don’t think we will know. What we do seem to know is that this case was unique in its difficulty.
JMP:
I see serious problems in your thought process. This “abstract rule” that Bishop Olmsted emphasized strikes me as being anything EXCEPT abstract. In fact, I will suggest that your contention that His Excellency has proposed an irrational view represents the root of the problem.
I laud our medical professionals for all they’ve accomplished at improving our health and quality of life. However, due to my own training in atmospheric science, I’m well acquainted with both the knowledge AND failings of scientific efforts..and the medical knowledge that stems from them. In my experience, if a professional in science claims to know what’s happening, that’s likely the first good hint that the professional has neglected something. We don’t like admitting it, but science does NOT have all the answers!
I find this case truly disturbing because it appears as though the hospital’s ethics board—and the nun—did not insist on doing thorough, rigorous research into other ways this condition might’ve been handled. I gather they formed a medical opinion, decided they knew enough, and took action.
At a secular institution, likely I would find that questionable. At a CATHOLIC institution, I find that wholly unacceptable!
Am I being unfair to the folks at Catholic institutions for holding them to a higher standard? May I suggest that this suggestion explains very well why we have such a fouled country today!
I think it’s precisely because we have NOT held ourselves—as Catholics—to a more demanding standard that we have many of the problems we have.
I will suggest that a better approach for the hospital might’ve been for a chaplain to either provide more thorough catechesis to the parents or for the chaplain to coordinate with the family’s pastor to accomplish this same catechesis.
Had the hospital been determined to follow Catholic teaching more rigorously, I suspect the end result could have been rather different.
We not only lost a life in this case, but lost an opportunity for a family to live it’s faith more deeply.
If I may be so bold, there may be unexpected (possibly negative) consequences for this incident for this family down the road.
JPM, I agree with you, there probably will be problems down the road for this family. I see this as a case of coercion. The medical industry and the Catholic nun both voted that this was ok, so the parents probably felt no sin was committed and it was ethical.
One day they will, I would assume, realize that coercion was indeed present.
They took the life of a baby and it will on some level hit them one day and I feel sorry for them.
I also agree that it should have been taken to a higher authority in the church and out of Sr.‘s hands.
OK—I don’t agree with Brother Anthony and all who jump on the simplistic anti murder stance. There are exceptions to the “thou shall not kill rule” of the fifth Commandment. There should likewise be for abortion where as in this case there was no other way to save Mom. Blindly standing on misguided moralistic principle would have lost two lives which is hardly a pro-life result. In fact it is anti-life.
I read somewhere else that a procedure could have been done that is fine with the Church, and would have given the same result.
I would never judge someone in this situation.
D. Dunn:
Unfortunately, I don’t know if we’re in as much agreement with each other as you think we are. When it matters most, I don’t think that it was a case of coercion. From the limited available news, it was seemingly a matter of (medical) necessity. The Sr. was on a board, a voice present with others who decided on the fate of this baby. I don’t I agree with you that it should have been taken out of Sr.‘s hands. That may not have been possible given the time constraints. I think this is far more difficult case however, than is being presented. We will probably never know the full details, though seemingly this issue and the excommunication may not be as clear as we may want to believe (let me be clear that this is not to deny the fact that she has been publicly announced as excommunicated by Bishop Olmsted).
JMP, Sr. excommunicated herself! And from what I hear repented, confessed and excommunicated herself.
D. Dunn:
I suggest you to read two articles which provide some useful insight into the ethics and canon law surrounding this issue
“Ethicists fault bishop’s action in Phoenix abortion case” by Tom Roberts
and
“Shades of grey in a world of apparent absolutes” by Thomas Doyle (an canon lawyer)
I think you reduce this issue’s complexity. The Doyle article is particularly valuable in its appraisal and explanation of the nuances of such a case as in Phoenix. I reiterate my position that this is a much more complex case than we would be led to believe by the news that has been released.
Where did you hear that Sr. repented, confessed and re-excommunicated herself?
Oh wow, someone posted a link on the original story on this issue. I will go back and try to find it or u can check, I will get you the title and date of the original.
JMP, The only time the Church agrees with any kind of in the womb casualty is when an indirect abortion happens. Like if the women needed a treatment and it caused a miscarriage, never on a direct abortion.
JMP,
The article from the Daily Register was by Jimmy Akin, “What are the *True Facts* Regarding the Abortion -Approving Nun?
Monday, May 24, 2010
If you check out the letters and there r many u will see the link. I know this is probably an archaic way of getting this to u, but I am new at blogging and even worse at computers, sorry!
D. Dunn,
I read the Jimmy Akin post when it was first posted, though I thank you for the recommendation.
A new article in America titled “What Happened in Phoenix?” by Kevin O’Rourke, a Canon lawyer and bioethicist, provides what is perhaps the best read summary of the events as they are known. It also examines the canonical responses available to this tragedy. The automatic excommunication may be not so cut-and-dry, nor the public announcement of it necessarily appropriate.
I agree, JMP, Fr. O’Rourke’s informed analysis and extensive knowledge provides much insight. I too was curious how/when Sr. Margaret repented, confessed, etc… last I read was about her silence. Thanks, Darlene, for the tip and your memory! Here’s the blip, but you’ll have to trust CNN reporting and sources if you dare.
“Sources tell us the nun has since met requirements to have her excommunication lifted, but she has been reassigned at St. Joseph’s, even though the hospital says it stands by her.”
How’s that for vague and sketchy? Who could know for certain except the 2 key people?
And who can trust CNN!!
John,
Apologies for the later response.
I don’t mean to suggest that the Bishop was irrational in any way. The application of Canon law in this instance is quite rational. So my implication, whatever it may be, is the opposite from how you have read it.
I see what you’re saying, but I disagree with it. My disagreement is rooted in what may be a different interpretation of the events. Simply put, the medical staff did not have the luxury of extensive laboratory testing. You may be correct in stating that they were ultimately wrong in their conclusions about the risks to the mother, we will never know. They operated with the knowledge they had. That is all they could do and it would, presumably be their obligation as medical professional to do that. This uncertainy and the exact knowledge possessed during the decision making process are other reasons why this abortion and the subsequent excommunication(s) may not be as cut and dry as it would seem.
JMP,
Would you be so lax and forgiving about the medical industry, dr.‘s and staff if the baby was 1 month old?
And please don’t go to the viability avenue…
D. Dunn,
I am not lax about the medical industry, the doctors or the staff. This was a tragedy.
A one month old baby? How on earth is that comparable to the scenario in Phoenix? Or are you testing my pro-life bona fides?
Your example of a 1 month old baby is not relevant. It lacks the particulars of the case we’re discussing. These events don’t happen abstractly, composed of easily replaceable parts.
People suffered and a baby died. Christ is looking down and ideally guiding everyone as they decide and take action.
I suggest that you read Fr. O’Rourke’s article found at America Magazine’s site. It’s very thorough and insightful, as was mentioned by Sensus Fidei.
I am not trying to be argumentative, but not decision made with Christ in the center would be for abortion under any circumstances. I don’t need to read anything to know that, I have been involved in abortion and believe me it is NEVER ok
No I am not trying to test your pro life stance, u have to do that
JMP:
I suspect that D. Dunn’s point is that, had the child been one month past birth, not still in utero, the hospital staff likely would’ve felt a stronger obligation to everything possible to enable the child to live. As it was, a child in utero does not inherently enjoy the same legal mandate.
I’d say that’s fairly in tune with my point: I have never heard of any case in which extensive laboratory testing was considered a “luxury”. Especially at a Catholic hospital, I would think that such testing, research, or other information required, would be a MANDATE before anyone would even consider an abortion.
As I understand it, the Church’s teaching declares that if the child dies in utero in spite of all the medical staff can do, then there is no error. However, we still teach that medical personnel may NEVER take the life of a child in utero, nor recommend such a procedure to the parents.
The difference lies in our intent: If we intend to attempt to save both and fail, that means we’ve done our job. If we declare that we know what’s going to happen and end the life of one—usually the unborn baby—we commit a grave error.
It’s always possible that I understand that incorrectly, but I don’t think I do. Noone ever said following and living Catholic faith was easy.
PS.
I’ve just read the piece in “America” and it seems that perhaps His Excellency acted pre-emptively. The nun and the hospital in question may have done the research and so on they should have and come up with the answer we got.
I must say this though: The first “test-tube” baby is now a grown woman, we’ve had how many examples of multiple birth pregnancies that people lived through, and we’ve had IVF and technologies that theoretically could support a fetus outside the womb, if needed.
Granted that it’s expensive, I must hope that the hospital board at least considered these options.
JMP, I can compare a baby to a baby that’s how I can compare. It is a baby in the womb just as it is a baby outside the womb. Abortion is never the right answer. I have read and been commenting on this issue for over a month. I have been involved in abortion and I can tell u first hand it is never ok.
I don’t need to read anything to tell u that. It does not matter at what age the fetus or baby is it was a life taken, period.
I am not questioning your pro life position, that is not up to me, u can be what ever u like.
JMP, I do not think abortion is ever the right answer. I see no difference between a 1 mo old and a baby in the womb, it is still a baby, no matter how u look at it. The abortion was not done to save the mother’s life, maybe u should re address the facts.
I am not questioning your pro life stance, I don’t care what ur stance is, that is your choice.
It is never ok to kill a baby, and I believe it’s a baby from day one, the medical industry, the nun and anyone else who advised the mother to have an abortion, especially while she was under stress with her illness, in my eyes is most certainly coercion.
I hope this does not appear on here 4 times, each time i try to post this or something similar it will not post, so excuse me if something from me shows up more than once on this answer.
JMP, Going back to your last letter:
“If we declare that we know what’s going to happen and end the life of one—usually the unborn baby—we commit a grave error.”
That is where I am pulling my info from, that exact point. The nun, the doctor and who ever else was involved knew that the baby was going to die, hence a “direct abortion.” A direct abortion is against the Catholic faith.
No excuses from the staff and Sr. at a Catholic Hospital, it was intentional and unnecessary.This to me is coercion.
Coercion comes in many ways from refusing help to someone is a crises pregnancy to pressuring someone. In this case a Dr. and a clergy advised her it was the best thing to do. My word, under those circumstances a lot of people would have buckled.
The mother was already in a crises with her health and knowing she had 4 other children at home. I feel sorry for her, the women had a gun to her head to abort, but no one could see it.
She is also the victim here, not just the baby. One day she may come to realize the severity of killing her child to “save her life” and the walls may come crumbling down and these dr’s and sr will not be there to pick up the pieces.
When she returns home to her other 4 children, I am sure they will put additional stress on her, as all children do, life in general does. Life is not easy, we struggle all the time with many issues, financial, health, family, etc…..
Where do we draw the line?
The baby was not killing her at 11 weeks in the womb JMP, don’t buy into this propaganda!
St Joseph’s hospital story mentioned that the mother was in “grave” condition upon admission and another source listed her circumstance as critical. In my years of hospital work, I have never heard of an emergency abortion, or the need for one. Primary pulmonary hypertension is a terminal condition. Some people die within weeks and some live for years after being diagnosed. Some patients survive labor and delivery with this disease. Each incidence of this illness is unique to the patient as it is dependent upon the severity of the disease, the progression of debilitation in the pulmonary capillaries, the overall health of the patient, and the progressive damage to the heart and the lungs. It is overwhelmingly evidential that no patient could survive anesthesia or surgery at her admission time. The patient would have to be stabilized medically before the abortion could be performed. So the abortion would have been done for the future well being of the mother - not her immediate health.
People like to argue that the abortion at least saved one life. But the truth is; it did not save the mother’s life. The medical intervention allowed the mother to survive this one acute episode of exacerbation, and the subsequent abortion may have prolonged her life expectancy. She is still terminally ill. The baby, at 11 weeks, weighed about 1/3 ounce(see mayoclinic.com). The growth of the baby would put extra strain on her vascular system due to the increase in blood volume.
Final result - baby was aborted to enhance the future health of the mother.
D. Dunn, John and Mary Ann, here is a blog post from America. It contains a letter published in the Tablet by Canon lawyer Professor Ladislas Orsy, SJ, in which he explains that the excommunication is “null and void.”
The web address is http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=3013
I will quote here the first few paragraphs
Excommunication null and void
The articles by Michael Sean Winters (Sister of Mercy, June 4) and Tina Beattie (In the Balance, June 4) convey the complexity of the case of Sr. Margaret Mary McBride whom the Bishop of Phoenix, Arizona, declared automatically, latae sententiae, excommunicated for allegedly cooperating in a crime of abortion. May I complete their reflections on morality by some clarifications in legality?
1. The Code of Canon Law, following centuries of tradition, draws a sharp distinction between an act that is morally wrong, and a legal penalty that may, or may not be, attached to it. Thus, the correctness of the penalty must be judged by its own laws found in the Code.
2. The term “excommunication” can be misleading. Briefly, in modern canon law it means that a person is prohibited from receiving the sacraments and from holding an office in the church (cf. canon 1331). In no way does such a penalty “excommunicate the person from the Catholic church,” as Mr. Winters states (emphasis is mine).
3. According to canon 1321 § 1 „No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or precept committed by the person is gravely imputable by reason of malice or [grave] fault, ex dolo vel ex culpa. Excommunication is an extreme penalty; it condemns a member of the community to spiritual starvation. The church, therefore, does not want to inflict it unless there is a deliberate act of defiance. Nothing that we know about the attitude of Sr. Margaret speaks of defiance.
End of excerpt. The entire letter is rather lengthy. It’s informative.
You wrote:
“Nothing that we know about the attitude of Sr. Margaret speaks of defiance.”
Sorry JMP but Sr. most certainly did something defiant, she voted in favor of abortion. We all know that abortion to save the life of the mother is purely propaganda. It is used by a lot of politicians to fool voters into thinking they are pro-life.
The abortion did not save the life of the mother. Possibly the medical industry could have kept her pregnant until the baby could have become viable and then a c-section to save the babies life.
Abortion is never OK, not by the Catholic Church’s teachings or anyone who knows the horror of abortion first hand, such as I.
Jesus Christ would NEVER have opted for abortion. Cannon Law would never OK a direct abortion, which is exactly what that was.
A direct abortion is a mortal sin, and Sr. excommunicated herself from the sacraments. It was reported that she went to confession and repented.
Bishop did nothing but acknowledge that Sr. excommunicated herself, which it seems she has repented since. So, if she repented, as was reported, then she herself knows that her actions were wrong, by God’s law.
D. Dunn,
Not to cop out of this, but I would take Professor Orsy’s opinion of the situation above yours. I think his brief essay effectively demonstrates the complexities of the case and the perhaps rushed judgment by Bishop Olmsted.
As for not saving the mother’s life: perhaps not in the long-term, but seemingly the immediate cause of her problems (pulmonary hyper-tension and heart failure), were relieved by the termination (not direct abortion). From what I’ve read, it would have been unlikely to impossible to sustain her until the time that the baby were viable outside the womb. so a decision had to be made. It was.
You’re comments about direct abortions are of questionable utility. We Catholics know that direct abortions are always immoral. Toral status of direct abortion is not the issue under consideration. The excommunication of Sr. is.
According to Fr. Orsy, the conditions required for an automatic excommunication were not met.
Where was it reported that sister went to confession and repented?
There is a blog from one of the older posts on her repenting, I will try to find it for you later, or u can just search back. There are a few of these blogs going on NCR. It was actually printed 2 times.
You may have to go into the original posting or just google it.
I will never agree that it was ok, nor do i believe everything i read, nor should any of us. There are many clerics that are not pro-life no matter what they may say, that is quite evident and I am sure you are aware of this fact.
The devil has certainly infiltrated the church
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.