The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionBishops' doctrine committee: 'direct abortion always wrong'
Jun. 24, 2010
Archbishop Donald Wuerl, chair of the U.S. bishops' Doctrine Committee
WASHINGTON
Analysis
Citing confusion about church teaching raised by media reports, the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Doctrine issued a statement of clarification June 23: Direct abortion is always intrinsically wrong and illicit.
The issue arose from widespread media reports about the mid-May revelation that a Catholic hospital in Phoenix, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center, had performed an abortion last year to save the life of the mother.
Mercy Sr. Margaret Mary McBride, the hospital’s vice president of mission integration and head of its ethics committee, had approved it.
When Phoenix Bishop Thomas Olmsted learned of the abortion, he asked McBride to step down from her post and informed her that by her act she was under automatic excommunication.
The doctrine committee said there were three views of what occurred:
- “Most Reverend Thomas Olmsted, the Bishop of Phoenix, has judged that this procedure was in fact a direct abortion and so morally wrong.
- “Some have argued that the procedure was an indirect abortion and therefore a legitimate medical procedure.
- “Still others have said that even the direct killing of an unborn child is sometimes permitted by Catholic teaching, and that this position is supported by certain provisions of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, a document issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops containing moral principles to be applied in such cases.”
There are two interesting things the doctrine committee did not do in its statement:
- It did not make a direct judgment on whether the abortion in Phoenix was direct or indirect; it only laid out the different views.
- It did not address the question of canonical penalties at all.
What the committee statement does is spell out the difference between direct and indirect abortion and clarify that whenever it is a question of a direct abortion, it is always, intrinsically wrong and is never permitted under Catholic teaching.
This is essentially a negative answer to an opinion posed by some theologians in different ways to respond to the dilemma when a pregnant woman faces almost certain death unless her pregnancy is terminated before the unborn child is viable.
The doctrine committee wrote, “The position that church teaching supports the direct taking of unborn life has been widely reported at the national level by media outlets, which has cause some confusion” among Catholics.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
As an example of an indirect abortion, which is permissible for grave reasons in church teaching, the committee cited the removal of a cancerous uterus of a pregnant woman: The doctor recommends removal of the uterus as the only way to prevent the spread of the cancer.
“The surgery does not directly target the life of the unborn child. … The death of the child is an unintended and unavoidable side effect and not the aim of the surgery,” the committee said.
“Surgery to terminate the life of an innocent person, however, is intrinsically wrong,” the committee added. “There are no situations in which it can be justified.”
It quoted Pope John Paul II: “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which intrinsically illicit.”
Jerry Filteau is NCR Washington correspondent.
NCR reporting on the Phoenix-excommunication case
|
And the direct killing of
And the direct killing of another in war?
What hypocrites!
...direct killing, indirect
...direct killing, indirect killing, principle of double effect; what we have is a series of rationalizations. What does one expect. A long time ago I realized the Church can justify anything through its legalizations. These arguments of the Church are its creations; it is giving existence to its opinions, legislations and finally 'in the beginning was the Word', but now the Church's authority is the Word.
If, as stated below, the
If, as stated below, the Phoenix case involved direct removal of the "placenta" then it's a clear-cut case of DIRECT abortion. The placenta originates with the *fetus* and is an essential organ of the child while in the womb.
The hospital staff killed a kid.
Period.
And that "kid" was about to
And that "kid" was about to kill it's mother...since when are women so expendable??
Wow--so you AGREE that a
Wow--so you AGREE that a Catholic hospital willfully killed an innocent child, and it's okay with you because you think the "kid" was killing the mom???
Since when are innocent children so expendable???
In any case, the baby wasn't "killing" the mom--the DISEASE was putting BOTH at risk. Sheesh....
Hospitals aren't supposed to kill people--ANY people--or am I wrong???? Should I be getting used to having hospital staff *kill* instead of heal???
"The hospital staff killed a
"The hospital staff killed a kid" who would have been dead with his/her mother in a few days due to the mother's health. The abortion was performed with the intent of saving the mother not because the pregnancy was "unwelcomed" or "unplanned". Yes, abortion as birth control is wrong, but in this case it was neccessary to save the mother. Doesn't the mother's life have value? I only hope that you never face the same situation.
Both and ONLY both lives have
Both and ONLY both lives have incredible value--NEITHER life has more "value" than the other. Which is why you can't KILL one to save the other. Regardless of what people might think, there is NO medical "crystal ball" that can infallibly declare a death sentence on the mother if she doesn't have her child killed. Doctors are not God, although they occasionally try playing God in situations like this....
So it's better to lose both
So it's better to lose both lives than to save one? Doctors were not playing God in this instance. They were saving the mother's life in the only way possible. Shame on those who put the letter of law above love.
Anonymous on Jun. 28,
Anonymous on Jun. 28, 2010.
You stated:
"Both and ONLY both lives have incredible value--NEITHER life has more "value" than the other. Which is why you can't KILL one to save the other. Regardless of what people might think, there is NO medical "crystal ball" that can infallibly declare a death sentence on the mother if she doesn't have her child killed. Doctors are not God, although they occasionally try playing God in situations like this...."
---------------------------------------------------
The bishops are not God (although they THINK and ACT as though they ARE GOD). And they do not possess infallibility, either.
I would believe the doctors (with their medical training) sooner than any bishop. Which one of them has a degree in medicine? Not one---most have degeees in Canon Law---rules that their forebearers wrote (all men), back in a time when medical science hadn't advanced as far as it has. Too many of these bishops don't have backgrounds in spirituality either.
I would like to see any one of these bishops (from Wuerl to Olmsted) in that emergency room when this woman and her husband arrived. I would have liked to see what they would have done in this case. I would have liked to see what they would have said to the woman and her husband---about having to die for the sake of a man-made law (Canon law is Church law---not God's law). And if the mother died---I would have liked to see one of them go to the home and explain to the young children why their Mommy is dead.
And as the years went on----would any of them be able to justify to the children why their mother (or any woman) was supposed to die----even though she could have been saved?
Nope. The hospital prevented
Nope.
The hospital prevented the ---murder--- of a woman.
Period.
And by what twisted logic is
And by what twisted logic is it acceptable to murder one person in order to "prevent the murder" of another person?????
Yes! It's called self
Yes! It's called self defense!
And the aggressor can be perfectly blameless, as was the unborn child. It could be a crazy individual aiming a gun at me.
Anonymous on Jun. 29,
Anonymous on Jun. 29, 2010.
You stated:
"And by what twisted logic is it acceptable to murder one person in order to "prevent the murder" of another person?????"
-----------------------------
It takes a lot longer time than 11 weeks to have a "Person" developed. There was an embryo which has just developed into a fetus. And yes, it is human. But a person, yet? Hardly.
Saving the mother was an act of virtue---not a crime of murder. But if the mother would have been allowed to die (and no attempt to save her life) THAT would have been a crime of Murder #1.
Anonymous on Jun. 25, 2010.
Anonymous on Jun. 25, 2010.
You stated:
If, as stated below, the Phoenix case involved direct removal of the "placenta" then it's a clear-cut case of DIRECT abortion. The placenta originates with the *fetus* and is an essential organ of the child while in the womb.
The hospital staff killed a kid.
Period.
-----------------------------------------
Yes, and in your mind is is perfectly acceptable for the mother to die for no reason---except that some MAN-made law (and I do mean MAN made) stated that women with troubled pregnancies (where their life is in danger) are expected to die---whether her child can be saved or not. The mother is expected to DIE! That is what this teaching is about.
And I hope that in every diocese of America that point is taught in pre-Cana sessions, in Marriage courses, in Sponsor Couples' guidance of couple seeking to be married in the Catholic Church. Those brides-to-be must be made aware of the fact that if they have troubled pregnancies (where their life is in danger), they are expected to DIE. Grooms-to-be should be taught that they must encourage their wives to seek to die if their pregency is threatening the woman's life. And grooms-to-be should be taught how to be both mother as well as father if they are raising motherless children.
Well then - may I ask have
Well then - may I ask have the bishops considered how else they 'allow killing of children?'
Let me count the ways -
Pedophile and rape - killing the spirit of the child.
Why is it once children are born the bishops no longer see the need to protect them? Or why not protect a mother's life? Why is it that a medical procedure to save a mother's life when little to/ no chance for both baby and mother to live is such a wrong when pedophile, rape, sexual abuse are not 'such a wrong?'
Has anyone seen a priest or bishop excommunicated for this?
One may say, but no one died. I say to you - you have no idea of the 'inside- killing-of-the-person' that happens.
Or let's talk about "LIFE" ... Why has there not been an uproar about Utah and capital punishment? And what of all the people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan this week? (and last week and ...). Why not protect those lives?
Geez. The only confusion I have is why the bishops can be so selective about who's life gets to be protected.
I'm glad I believe in God. I know why Jesus wept.
I agree with your comment.
I agree with your comment. Thanks.
J, Amen brother/sister;
J,
Amen brother/sister; very, very well said. My sentiments exactly.
There is something wrong; very, very wrong when one situation like a tubal pregnancy, severe gestational diabetes/ blood pressure problems, etc. allows for and even demands the deaths women, while filth like pedo priests are excused, protected, covered up and allowed to continue, and by the Vatican itself.
All the best to you and yours--
bob
It is unfortunate that
It is unfortunate that abortion became such a notorious issue. It has become a test if one is Catholic or fully Catholic, and those who are "fully" Catholic determine the issues on which they define Catholicism.
We all have the responsibility to form our consciences to help us do good and avoid doing evil. Besides life experience and teaching by our parents and others charged to teach us, Catholics must be attentive to Church dogma and doctrine. In only three cases is automatic excommunication incurred and abortion is one of those three. Essentially, all that excommunication does is to restrict access to Reconciliation. No one who is excommunicated wears a scarlet letter, shaves their head or kneels on sackcloth and ashes outside the church building. All Catholics have an obligation to seek Reconciliation (Penance, Confession) whenever they do a mortal sin.
Abuse of children by priests and bishops is no different from abuse by parents, close relatives or non-relatives. It is always wrong and it is always atrocious. But from a history that has taken 2000 years to accumulate, priests have always held a special place in the Catholic Church (btw, bishops are priests too). When the scandal initially surfaced, many bishops failed the Church miserably -- their first course was to protect the Church, which meant protecting the priest involved but they failed as shepherds in that they gave little, if any, consideration to the children. But, rather than learning of the need to protect the children, many bishops took the scandal as an attack on the Church and so dug in their heels. This was the real scandal in my mind. And, with the partial exception of one, no bishop was punished. Some did resign but nothing like what should have happened.
The war in Iraq was condemned by Pope John Paul II. The Afgan war is more murky. I happen to believe the theory of a "Just War" is not worth the paper it is printed on. Even when a war fails to meet the standards of a "Just War," who incurs the sin? I think it would be more fruitful to act on the "collateral damage" and there has been a lot of that.
I think if JPII had lived longer, we might have had a direct condemnation of capital punishment. I know I've changed so I hold to the late Cardinal Bernardine's Consistent Ethic of Life.
As to the excommunication of the Nun who approved the abortion in the given case, I'm sorry that the bishop involved felt he had to speak out, but then as I said above, there are Catholics and those who are "fully" Catholic. But he didn't excommunicate her. According to the teachings of the Church, she did it to herself.
I love my Church. Its leaders are no more immune from error than I am. But I wish they would admit more often that they, too, are still learning; and that maybe the wrongs that they do could be admitted from time to time.
Deacon Bernie this is the
Deacon Bernie this is the part where I am getting lost on this excommunication thing. Sr. McBride was part of a committee which made a recommendation to the parents. The parents made the decision. It seems to me Sr. McBride was not materially involved in the actual procedure. The parents were free to make another choice and Sr. McBride reflected the thinking of a group, not just her own opinion. As far as any of us know she personally could have disagreed with the committees decision, but would still have been responsible for passing on their recommendation.
It seems to me Sr. McBride is considered self excommunicated because she offered a recommendation about a choice, not because she made any direct decision to abort the child. This leads me to believe Olmstead spoke up about this because it's an attempt to make the pro choice position equally culpable to deciding to have an actual abortion. If this is some sort of new Catholic standard then a number of past decisions of some of our most illustrious leaders become very morally suspect.
Very well said, J.
Very well said, J.
Why issue this statement at
Why issue this statement at all if the committee had no intentions of addressing the issue at hand, namely the "automatic excommunication" of St. McBride?
Oh my dear HEARTBEAT OF
Oh my dear HEARTBEAT OF AMERICA, don't you know, the brotherhood must 'save face'! Oh...and remember Sister McBride is not a 'member of the royal band of brothers'. Besides, she's a member of the 'humble band of sisters' whose moral and spiritual qualifications are under Roman scrutiny
SOMETHING JUST CLICKED IN MY
SOMETHING JUST CLICKED IN MY HEAD....THIS IS A HANDY 'FORUM' AND OPPORTUNITY FOR THE BISHOPS TO 'HIT BACK'...A FORM OF PAYBACK REGARDING THE BACKING OF THE HEALTH CARE BILL. i DON'T THINK I'M STRETCHING THE POINT!
This response simply avoids a
This response simply avoids a basic question: when there are two lives at stake and only one can be saved by killing the other, whose presence constitutes the fatal threat to the other, is this not a classic case of self defense, and thus the killing is permissible? Even more so when you add the factor that both will clearly die unless the one is killed. Add more factors, such as other children and a husband at home, it seems clear that the abortion is permissible, however tragic the decision. To sweep this question aside by simply declaring a direct abortion morally wrong in all circumstances does not do justice to the circumstances involved. When those circumstances are evaluated in a comprehensive manner, the answer is not nearly as clear as the guy wearing a red trimmed dress who never has to bear the burden of such a decision likes to think.
when there are two lives at
when there are two lives at stake and only one can be saved by killing the other, whose presence constitutes the fatal threat to the other, is this not a classic case of self defense, and thus the killing is permissible? Even more so when you add the factor that both will clearly die unless the one is killed. Add more factors, such as other children and a husband at home...
Don't forget...Saint Gianna Molla was named a saint specifically because she chose to to die rather than remove the fetus & thus left her three children motherless & her husband a widower...I believe this shows quite clearly in what esteem women's lives are held by our institutional church. We are breeding machines & nothing should stop that...not abortion, not contraception, not rape, not incest, not death.
St. Gianna Molla's child was
St. Gianna Molla's child was born alive. In any case, she had the right to choose to sacrifice her life in an attempt to save her child. Her life, her choice. I will say it again: No one should denigrate Saint Gianna's sacrifice in order to argue that the church is wrong to condemn a woman (and her health care professionals) who sacrifice an unborn baby as a last resort. It's completely unjust--and unnecessary--to use St. Gianna as an example of how the church devalues women. You may not agree with her decision, but she was a brave--and yes--a holy person. The church should honor her, and it CAN honor her without condemning other women for not making the same choice.
What I find interesting: The bishops term direct abortion (for any reason) intrinsically wrong and immoral rather than intrinsically EVIL. Evil is a strong word--much stronger than "immoral" and "wrong."
Unlike Gianna Molla, there
Unlike Gianna Molla, there apparently was no way the woman would have carried her pregnancy to term. The two cases are not that similar.
Unlike Gianna Molla, there
Unlike Gianna Molla, there apparently was no way the woman would have carried her pregnancy to term. The two cases are not that similar.
The woman could've chosen to live as long as possible with the fetus growing inside her...even to the point of being kept alive by medical machinery...this has occurred in many cases of women who have been rendered brain dead, yet kept alive to keep the fetus intact until viability. She made a decision that it was better for her to remain alive & care for her current children & be with her husband.
That Gianna Molla made the decision to keep a fetus alive, yet allow herself to die and remove herself permanently from caring for her already born children & her husband may not be exactly the same medical situation as this woman, but it certainly does speak to the same issues.
I certainly do not see that many sane women would choose to die when they have every chance to live, especially when their choice to die would not only leave alreading living children motherless & a husband a widower...and then have them raise a newborn without her! It unduly burdens the family.
Absolutely....I even remember
Absolutely....I even remember being taught this in high school ethics in the early 60's. Now have the bishops forgotten this part of Canon law, was it rewritten or was it never there in the first place. Maybe our ethics teacher forged that idea out of his own brain but I don't think that his character would have allowed that. Does no one else remember being taught that the life of the mother comes first because of the obligations at home?
Your question gets the heart
Your question gets the heart of the issue. This is not a case of self-defense. In the cases of war and self-defense the goal is to stop the unjust agressor from doing harm. In this case THERE IS NO UNJUST AGRESSOR. What we have is an innocent child in a precarious situation with his innocent mother. Both are morally innocent and possess equal dignity and worth. The Catholic hospital should try to save both. But if that is immpossible. Then they should care for both persons until NATURE takes its course.
No "unjust aggressor"?? Is
No "unjust aggressor"?? Is that how the hierarchy is trying to avoid and skirt the self defense stance?? Evidently. No man has a right to tell a woman what to do with her body, at any time -----whatsoever-----.
Desperate measures there "Fr".
Won't wash here or anywhere else.
I'm sorry, but your "No man
I'm sorry, but your "No man has a right to tell a woman what to do with her body," doesn't stand up to modern science. Everybody knows that, the innocent child is not her body. It has its own DNA, and is its own self contained living organizim. It stands to reason, that the woman implicitly consented to the possibility of pregnency at sexual intercourse. After all, this is a natural consequence. She, therefore, gave her consent to use her body then. If she wishes later to withdraw it, after the creation of human life. I don't think she has the moral right to do so. If she is having difficulties, we should be there to support her. But, every innocent human life must be protected by the law of a moral society. How sad, that human life is today treated so disrespectfully. May we always be there to help mother and child.
Fr., it is indeed self
Fr., it is indeed self defense!
And the aggressor can be perfectly blameless, as was the unborn child. It could be a crazy individual aiming a gun at me. That crazy person may be without guilt in the eyes of God and The Church, but I have every right to defend myself, even to the point of killing an "innocent/just" person. The mother in this matter faced the same dilemma. She could defend herself against the aggressive innocent unborn child or she could do nothing and both would die anyway.
As to the concept of staying on a respirator, her lungs would have failed anyway. You can blow all the air you want down someone's windpipe, but if the lungs can not move enough blood through the alveoli to absorb the oxygen(the pathology that creates pulmonary hypertension has to do with restriction of the diameter of the pulmonary arterioles) , the patient dies anyway as the heart and other critical organs become starved for oxygen and fail. A bypass machine would have been useless as well, as no one has survived for months on such a machine due to the damage it does to the blood flowing through it.
To be an aggressor, one must
To be an aggressor, one must simply will the aggressive act. A "crazy individual" may have less guilt due to his or her state of mind, but it cannot take away their guilt altogether. Therefore, they can still be termed an aggressor, and be stopped by any proportionate means. Whereas an innocent baby in a precarious sitiuation cannot be termed an aggressor. He or she does not will the precarious act.
Fr. Steve on Jun. 28,
Fr. Steve on Jun. 28, 2010.
You Stated:
"Your question gets the heart of the issue. This is not a case of self-defense. In the cases of war and self-defense the goal is to stop the unjust agressor from doing harm. In this case THERE IS NO UNJUST AGRESSOR. What we have is an innocent child in a precarious situation with his innocent mother. Both are morally innocent and possess equal dignity and worth. The Catholic hospital should try to save both. But if that is immpossible. Then they should care for both persons until NATURE takes its course."
--------------------------------------
And within a few hours, Fr. Steve, nature would have taken its course. The woman's arteries would have burst---and both would have died. The unborn fetus certainly did not CHOOSE to place its mother's life in danger. But IT DID. What you are saying is that the woman, in this case, was expected to die. In your mind it doesn't matter that the mother's life could be saved or that her child could not exist outside of her body---the woman was expected to DIE!
We live in modern times where medical science has made major advances in saving lives. But the official church keeps insisting that today's people are to observe medieval laws that don't reflect the age in which we live.
Also, your concept of 'Just War" is just as dated. No longer do armies face each other on opposite side and fight only each other. Cities are bombed, homes, schools, and hospitals are bombed as well. Non-combatants are killed---what is 'just' about that? Innocent people, the elderly, women, children, babies, even pregnant women are killed. Oh, and the intention to kill is there. To deny that, is to be blind to modern warfare.
LittleBear, As a former
LittleBear,
As a former Marine, you don't have to lecture me about modern warfare. I know it all too well. What is important to understand here, is that we can't directly choose evil so that good may come about. St. Paul condemns this very clearly in his letter to the Romans. If that were ever allowed, then Christianity's entire moral structure would collaps. Then we would end up with an unconsistant heep of relativistic positions that can't be defended. What we have now is a very consistant set of unambigous moral standards, which follow from the top ten; i.e. Thou shalt not kill. Lest you didn't understand what I said, Both MOTHER AND BABY are INNOCENT and no one has a right to directly choose to kill either of them. That would clearly be murder. BOTH SHOULD TRY TO BE SAVED. Medical Science should do everything in its power to save them BOTH. But, what it can't do is directly kill one to save the other. That is not the poragative of man. Yes, there are unfortunate innocent casualties of war but they are not directly intended. That's why we have "Rules of Engagment." Unfortunatly, it seems that you have declared war on the innocent child; where is the charity in that? Somtimes medical complications or natural illness claim the life of mother and child. It is very unfortunate, but we live in a fallen world. As Christians, let us do everything we can to consistantly bring healing and defend life.
Fr. Steve on Jun. 29,
Fr. Steve on Jun. 29, 2010.
You stated:
LittleBear,
As a former Marine, you don't have to lecture me about modern warfare. I know it all too well. What is important to understand here, is that we can't directly choose evil so that good may come about. St. Paul condemns this very clearly in his letter to the Romans. If that were ever allowed, then Christianity's entire moral structure would collaps. Then we would end up with an unconsistant heep of relativistic positions that can't be defended. What we have now is a very consistant set of unambigous moral standards, which follow from the top ten; i.e. Thou shalt not kill. Lest you didn't understand what I said, Both MOTHER AND BABY are INNOCENT and no one has a right to directly choose to kill either of them. That would clearly be murder. BOTH SHOULD TRY TO BE SAVED. Medical Science should do everything in its power to save them BOTH. But, what it can't do is directly kill one to save the other. That is not the poragative of man. Yes, there are unfortunate innocent casualties of war but they are not directly intended. That's why we have "Rules of Engagment." Unfortunatly, it seems that you have declared war on the innocent child; where is the charity in that? Somtimes medical complications or natural illness claim the life of mother and child. It is very unfortunate, but we live in a fallen world. As Christians, let us do everything we can to consistantly bring healing and defend life.
------------------------------------------------------
Fr. Steve---I also know all about war. My father was in Special-Forces---25 years. I ate, drank, and slept stories of war while growing up. And guess what? When a town or city was targarted for bombing---innocent people would die---and it was/is intended for them to die----
And in your heart of hearts you know that reality of war just as well as I do. That is why the Church subscribed to the Just War theory---so that armies could get around the 5th Commandment of God---when there was an economic or political need to kill people. Even Popes like Boniface VIII (1294-1303) felt no guilt when he ordered the massacre of the entire population of Palestrina, Italy.
Terms of the Just War Theory
1) The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of
nations must be lasting, grave, and certain.
2) All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be
impractical or ineffective;
3) There must be serious prospects of success;
4) The use of arms must not produce evils and disordrs graver than the evil
to be eliminated. However, the power of modern means of destruction
weighs very heavily in evaluation this condition.
The occurance in Phoenix, was not a state of war. But is was a situation that demanded more than a concern that the 'moral structure of Christianity' be perserved. It required that the overwhelming mercy and love of Christ be abundantly shown.
In the consideration of JUSTICE and MERCY---this woman---a wife, a mother of four---had more reason to live and be kept alive to return to her husband and her already born children---and that had to take major consideration.
In JUSTICE and MERCY this woman had already begun her life's journey in Christ---and she had a right to continue it.
In JUSTICE and MERCY---you save whom you can---not whom you can't!
This case was unique and special. Bishop Olmsted should have seen that. But both he and the Doctrinal Commission of the USCCB gave an assembly-line answer
and a lazy one at that. Their attempts to clear up confusion succeeded only in putting Catholics into a moral straight-jacket.
Finally, Father Steve, given the demonstrated morality of the American Bishops in dealing with the sexual abuse scandal (seen in America and other parts of the world as well), in the cover-ups coming from the highest levels of Catholicism, with the all of the bishops' lies, with their desire to utilize every devious method that they can to avoid being transparent---I don't rate their moral fiber to be above that of foxes in the hen-house.
The Bishops are more concerned with maintaining the 'moral structures of Christianity,'or should I call it 'Churchianity' than in demonstrating a respect for the holiness of the lived life---the loving union of husband and wife---the mystery of the love of a mother for her born children. This woman, her family and their situation should not be the basis for objective statements---but a celebration of the subjective reality of all family life.
And as far as Sister Margaret McBride is concerned---she responded to this situation with a deep sense of justice and in loving concern for the woman and her family. She deserves much more honor and respect for saving the life that she and the doctors were able to save. She doesn't deserve the condemnation of a cold-hearted eunich---hiding behind his chancery walls. The people of the world need pastoral bishops who demonstrate in their own lives a practice-based religion. We do not need mitered pharasees, who spew moralities, doctrines, and dogmas--that are misunderstood, misused and mishandled.
Your name calling is
Your name calling is unnecessary. The moral structure of Christianity is not oppossed to the mercy and justice of Christ. That's its very foundation. But, killing an innocent baby can never be termed mercy or justice no matter how you try to twist it. If the woman and her entire family (unborn baby included) is harmed by a medical condition, we call that illness, from which some people die. But if they are harmed by a direct wilfull act, we call it malice and murder. A merciful and just follower of Christ can never permit it. The Bishop was totally right to ratify the excommunication that Sr. McBride incured when she cast the mercy and justice of Christ aside. Oh yeah, and the sexual abuse scandle has nothing to do with wither or not this is a morally just act, so don't waist your typing skills.
the commandment is thou shall
the commandment is thou shall not kill.... how come the church lets soldiers kill to save a life, police officers kill to save a life, allows for people to be executed and church officials have never excommunicated any of these people or denied them communion. The bishops say killing is never acceptable but their real meaning is (as shown by their actions) you can kill the mother and it is acceptable... for in the church a woman's life is worth ZERO. Which is why I am no longer Roman Catholic because I believe and act as a person who is of value.
The commandment translated
The commandment translated from Hebrew literally means "Never murder" -- not "you shall not kill". This is important because in Biblical Hebrew there are at least three verbs for "to kill" which all have different nuances and meanings. Apart from murder, there is a generic verb "to kill" (which is often used by Hebrew students to learn the verbal system) as well as a different verb used to describe killing out in the open (battlefield killing, political assasination, etc.), and further one for sacrificial slaughter. The fact that there are a number of different verbs in Hebrew which can all boil down to kill, and the fact that the generic "to kill" is not used in the commandment suggests very strongly that what they mean is cold blooded, premeditated murder for no reason. Why else use the verb they did when they had some to choose from?
I would like anybody who even
I would like anybody who even thinks there is a question of wrongdoing here to face the children of this mother and ask them what they think about the scenario that involves letting their mother die when, in medical fact, their sibling baby was going to die regardless. Tell me how you'd face them and their father. And perhaps the mother could be in the room, too. Tell me what you would say to them. Certainly the children will eventually (if they have not already done so) deal with this reality.
And how many angels can dance
And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Are we going to split hairs, The intent was to save the life of the mother, the baby would have died along with the mother if nothing was done. Would that have been pro-life???
Aren't these guys full of
Aren't these guys full of themselves! Soooo, it is better to lose both mother and child than to save at least one! Here's a case of serving theology rather than serving the people of God!
May God forgive them, though they DO know what they do!
This article must be phony!
This article must be phony! How could it possibly have been posted on NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER, which I have come to know and hate. [Pardon the hyperbole.]
Pat Phillips
Pat, If you hate the NCR so
Pat, If you hate the NCR so much ,why are you reading this article?
I think what he means is that
I think what he means is that he hates the hypocrisy of the NCR. It calls itself the National "Catholic" Reporter whereas there is nothing Catholic about it.
Why do you read NCR if you
Why do you read NCR if you hate it so much?
The headline should
The headline should read:
"Bishops Say to Mother of Four: Just Die"
GUILTY! BISHOP WHO DIRECTED
GUILTY!
BISHOP WHO DIRECTED DOCTORS AND MEDICAL STAFF TO LET MOTHER OF FOUR DIE ALONG WITH HER FETUS IS CONVICTED IN MULTIMILLION DOLLAR WRONGFUL DEATH SUIT AND SET TO PRISON.
... and so two lives are
... and so two lives are lost! What happens if there are remaining children who are now without their mother?
I must have missed something.
I must have missed something. The question isn't whether direct abortion is always and everywhere wrong for any reason. The question is "Was what happened in Phoenix in fact a direct abortion?"
And, as I was reminded just last night on EWTN, excommunication does NOT mean a person is damned -- that judgment is left to God's grace and mercy -- excommunication is a decree putting the person outside the celebration of the sacraments (other than Reconciliation).
"...putting the person
"...putting the person outside the celebration of the sacraments." I've never been able to understand why we describe Jesus as "dying for our sins" if we exclude sinners from the recreation of that sacrifice. I think Jesus said "Take this ALL of you and eat it". He didn't say take this if you are free of sin. I think someone made that up!!
"Take this ALL of you . .
"Take this ALL of you . . ."
Uh, not according to the new institution narrative in the Eucharistic Prayers of the forthcoming missle, just sayin'.
Anonymous on Jun. 25,
Anonymous on Jun. 25, 2010.
You stated:
'"Take this ALL of you . . ."
Uh, not according to the new institution narrative in the Eucharistic Prayers of the forthcoming missle, just sayin'.'
----------------------------
No matter what the Roman Missal states---Jesus didn't say that. Jesus spoke his words in Aramaic---not Latin, not in any other language. But even though the Apostles were sinners (one betrayed Jesus, the other sold Jesus) Jesus did not shoo them away from the table.
An abortion should only be
An abortion should only be considered a direct abortion when the intent is to dispose of the child, irregardless of the mother's condition. Of course, the current crop of Catholic ethicists on this issue have put coalition politics and a fetishism on life ahead of common sense.
So,are we to understand that
So,are we to understand that in the eyes of these bishops, that it is better that both die? Again, what about the other children...and their father? Is this all black and white to these men? To quote another writer,"Would bishops, or priests, who have families of their own make such a decision?" The God I worship, the Jesus I follow don't seem to be this judgemental to us poor sinners.Perhaps these automatic excommunications should be also applied to the priests who abused children and the bishops who covered up the mess.
GO...........GO.........GO...
GO...........GO.........GO...........GO.............GO!
WELL SAID!
I think the idea of
I think the idea of 'automatic excommunications' applies only to women. Isn't that the deal?
Historically, the church had
Historically, the church had always stated that the unborn baby should get a chance to live. However, medical conditions / circumstances always dictated what decision was made. Now, it seems there is no concern over the mother...the baby always comes first. If the mother dies, who takes care of the baby? If the mother has other children, what happens to them? Shouldn't that be a factor in the decision process? Is Mercy Sr. Margaret Mary McBride still excommunicated? Our clerical leaders still cling to that one controlling point...they should be shepherds...they are losing their flock. My faith in God's mercy still exists.
Historically? Not true! Isn't
Historically? Not true! Isn't it time NCR told the truth about the RCC's dirty little secret!
GOOD GRIEF! THE MORE BISHOPS
GOOD GRIEF! THE MORE BISHOPS ENTER INTO THESE AREAS OF 'EXPERTISE' THE MORE MUDDLED SIMPLE THINGS IN LIFE BECOME. SIMPLY PUT, FOR ME, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE 'BISHOPHOOD' ARE EXCELLENT AT 'PRETZLISING' WHEN IT COMES TO SAVING FACE.
AS I SEE IT THEY KNOW ONLY ONE ASPECT OF 'ABORTION', NAMELY THAT IT IS WRONG. AND I MEAN WRONG PERIOD, THAT IS TO SAY 'NO FURTHER DISCUSSION OR OPINION IS ALLOWED'. OUR HIERARCHICAL CHURCH DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE MADE MUCH, IF ANY, PROGRESS WHEN IT COMES TO HAVING 'DOGMATICAL,DOCTRINAL, MEDICAL, ETHICAL, MORAL THEOLOGICAL, SCIENTIFIC, ETC., ETC. HOW MANY OF THESE EPISCOPAL MINDS ARE VERSED
ENOUGH IN ANY OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED FIELDS OF EXPERTISE? HOW MANY OF THEM, IN MAKING THESE DECISIONS, WOULD BE WILLING TO UNDERWRITE THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF AN 'ABSENTEE MOTHER OF 4'?? i NOTE THAT THE BISHOPS WERE VERY SLOW TO EVEN ARRIVE AT THE THRESHOLD OF THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN THE MATTER. MY GOD! THE MOTHER WOULD BE LONG DEAD IF ANY OF THE 'SAVE A LIFE TEAM' HAD WASTED TIME IN MAKING THE DECISION TO SAVE A LIFE AS OPPOSED TO HOW THE HIERARCHY PUTS IT: 'TAKES A LIFE'! MY ROYAL BROTHERS, HAVE THAT MIND WITHIN YOU WHICH WAS ALSO IN CHRIST JESUS.
The Phoenix case , as was set
The Phoenix case , as was set forth, was the removal of the placenta, which would indirectly cause the death of the 11 week fetus. In Bio-Ethics, it is one case at a time. And in the case of illness, pulmonary hypertension is a rare disease on the list of "orphan diseases" because it is so rare,and as such, perhaps, there is no precedent for this type of pregnancy which put both mother and child in danger of death! There is no room for dogmatic generalization. One case at a time! Can the Canon lawyers learn from this??
Men, Bishops, can you not
Men, Bishops, can you not see, BOTH would have died? All or nothing thinking is a cognitive distortion, immature, rigid, and unrealistic. One mature person, the mother of four children, was saved. Did you want the Ethics Committee and Sr. McBride to stand by and let the mother die too solely to satisfy some rigid rule? They did an intervention to save the mother. They detached the placenta. The fetus, barely past being an embryo, died. We are all sorry. The four children still have a mother. The mother, a child of God, is alive.
How can we trust you when your thinking makes so little sense? Your authority is going, going... Don't you see that you will allow the deaths of many in war, often for economic reasons, that you will cover for men who abuse their "flocks" to protect the economy of the Organization? Do you really expect a thinking people to continue to be ruled (not merely guided) by you?
In Catholic school, we were taught: (1) that each of us was responsible for our actions, (2) that we could not simply obey anyone without examining our own consciences and deciding that what we were doing was right, (3) that we must be able to stand before God and be judged, on our own, for what we did or didn't do. I guess the Church meant that applied to anyone BUT them. We were also taught that those men,priests, were human beings and fallible? That is the teaching that allows me to stay in the Church. That and the Eucharist.
So after reading this and all
So after reading this and all related articles, I'm still confused. Anyone else?
Sadly, I am not confused nor
Sadly, I am not confused nor surprised. A surprise would have been a modification of Directive 45 to clarify that if the child had no chance of survival, any means necessary must be taken to preserve the life and health of the mother.
Imagine what the poor mother
Imagine what the poor mother of this child is feeling. What would Jesus do? I can tell you he wouldn't be so judgemental, and cruel in the midst of such grief. but then when the priest and bishops kill the spirit of children aparently far and wide, well that's just another story isn't it. How anyone can be a catholic and not be ashamed AND sick to their stomach of the catholic church is a question I find no answer too.
I am so "glad" that the
I am so "glad" that the Bishops are promoting the direct killing of a mother to prevent abortion.
At least they are slowing down the excessive aging of our our Western societies.
As I understand the
As I understand the conclusion of the bishops, it is that both the mother and the fetus should die rather than save the mother by aborting the fetus.
This is just one more reason why I am coming to believe that the bishops are evil personified.
That does seem to be what it
That does seem to be what it boils down to, Bob P.
The way this entire issue is approached by the Church, a huge difference of moral judgement hinges on the doctor and ethics board's technicality of wording and how the decision is packaged (direct, indirect, etc.). That makes me uncomfortable. Doesn't it make the bishops uncomfortable?
I think about the Confiteor: "I confess... in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do." Based on this prayer, it is clear that doing nothing can be an evil and cowardly choice. But the bishops would have preferred that it seems.
Sister Margaret Mary should
Sister Margaret Mary should be commended for following her conscience.
These life and death issues are what have brought so much shame on the church during the inquisition --- and many other times in the history of the church. The Pope is always right, the bishops are always right, the clergy are always right.
The poor dumb Brothers and Sisters: What do they know? We are on the front lines. We see the realities of life and the world.
Make the Pope, Cardinals and Bishops live in the ghetto (without armed guards) for three months and I guarantee you their attitudes would change 100%!
The Pope, Cardinals and Bishops ARE NOT THE CHURCH.
WE are the church. God bless Sister Margaret Mary and others who use reason and common sense which God gave us.
Brother Luke
Post new comment