Nun excommunicated for allowing abortion

Indeed, perhaps the bishop would have advised and consented to the mother's use of artificial birth control. I feel 'holy mother the Church' is neither holy nor a mother. The harshness of the Church expressed through the bishops is like no mother I know or would recognize.

Anonymous on May. 18, 2010.

You stated:

"The "surgery" took place in 2009??? NCR shows its true colors. Should have been written: "the killing of an innocent child took place in 2009."

Bunch of baloney? Come on. Or perhaps you can show me in the 2000-years of Church teaching where it says it's okay to kill innocent people. I can't seem to find it.

Thanks be to God they've publicized these automatic excommunications, too. Is this what it's really come to? Supposed "Catholics" actually defending the killing of an unborn child?

Any sophistry attempting to cast this case as one of "double effect" will be futile, by the way. Thank GOD the bishop did the right thing."

---------------------------------------------

Let me start out by stating, for the record, that I do not believe in abortion. I have marched in "Right to Life" marches in Washington, D.C.
But I also know that there are exceptions to every law, every rule. God gave us the 10 Commandments with the 5th Commandment prohibiting murder. But there are exceptions to that law from God. In the case of self-defense---one is permitted to kill another.

It was the Church which gave rise to the concept of the "Just-War" theory which permitted war (the killing of others) to occur. According to what is WRITTEN---innocents are not to be killed. But the killing of others was permitted.

But what is WRITTEN and what was PRACTICED in the Church were two different concepts. We have plenty of examples where Popes either encouraged or took first hand action in the killing of others. Ex. Pope Boniface VIII (1032-48) had the whole town of Palestrina, Italy massacred because they refused to pay him the taxes that he ordered (Palestrina was part of the Papal States).

Or how about the Second Crusade (1147-1148---condoned by the Vatican), where Christian knights attacked the City of Jerusalem and killed the entire Muslim population. Then, for good measure, all the Jewish inhabitants---men, women, and children were rounded up, locked up in the synagogue---and the synagogue was set on fire and burned down to the ground. I could cite 3 more pages of PRACTICED MURDER authorized by the Church---condoned by the highest authority---the Popes.

Going to the story of today. What about the woman in this situation? We don't know anything about her. Was she married? Does she have any other children at home depending on her? Did she have aged or sick parents depending on her for their care? We don't know. But what we do know is that Bishop Olmstead---doesn't care about any of this. In his mind this woman's life and trying to save it, was nothing when compared to the Church Law.

Bishop Olmstead does not have a medical degree. He had no dealings with the mother or the doctors. He does not understand the grave situation that she faced. Do you think that the people in St. Joseph's Hospital took a flippant attitude toward this situation? Do you think that the Sister in charge did not agonize over this decision?

Human beings are not manufactured on an assembly line. We do not have neat, tidy, and predictable lives. Diseases affecting the physical conditions of people do not follow the laws set by the Church, either. While abortions are not to be performed---there are times, instances, when such a procedure is, sadly, necessary. These must be judged on a case by case need.

Shakespere stated in "The Merchant of Venice" that 'the quality of mercy is not strained.' Apparently Bishop Olmstead does not believe that. In his mind, the law is more important than either mercy or love. Like the Pharasees, who condemned a humped-back woman seeking a cure from Jesus on the Sabbath (public violations against the Sabbath were extremely grave sins), this bishop (and all like him) believe that the Law TRUMPS human life---the life of the mother.

This hierarch's decision is too much like the Archbishop in Brazil (about 18 months ago) who excommunicated a mother and the hospital's doctors who performed an abortion on a 69 pound, nine-year-old girl, who was raped and impregnated by the little girl's step-father. The little girl was pregnant with twins----but the doctors knew that all would die, unless there was an abortion--to save the 9 year old's life. The girl lived---but the Archbishop---would rather have seen all, child and her poorly developed twins, die, rather than salvage the life of one.

Olmstead is the bishop of Phoenix---but his actions do not demonstrate nor mirror the attitude of Christ. His executive actions show that he has not acquired the wisdom of the Holy Spirit as a result of his episcopal actions.

So you are saying that if you were the woman in question, her husband, possibly her other children you would be fine with her (and her unborn child) dying during her pregnancy rather than her unborn child dying as the result of a body that can not possibly carry it to term? That makes no sense. I am completely against abortion but I am against allowing women to die when medicine can save them too. Why do you put value only on the baby's life?

How about Just War Theory? This Church teaching demands that the killing of innocents must be minimized, even though it cannot be eliminated. You cannot have a war without some innocent dying with the guilty. Does that mean that we can't ever, for any reason engage in war? No. That's why we utilize the Just War Theory, to deal with those gray areas which do indeed exist in real life. In this case as well, we have a gray area. This is not a simple case of abortion vs. pro-life. It is a case of one death vs. two.

How about Just War Theory? This Church teaching demands that the killing of innocents must be minimized, even though it cannot be eliminated. You cannot have a war without some innocent dying with the guilty. Does that mean that we can't ever, for any reason engage in war? No. That's why we utilize the Just War Theory, to deal with those gray areas which do indeed exist in real life. In this case as well, we have a gray area. This is not a simple case of abortion vs. pro-life. It is a case of one death vs. two.

well sir, either you have really been drinking the kool-aid or are the best religious troll i have ever seen.

If not "killing" a fetus is ethical, letting the mother and child die is fine and dandy? I would like you to tell her other five kids that she isn't here right now because you said is wasn't right.

Has the Catholic Church ever approved of its members going to war? Is that not condoning killing?

Is it not murder that the Catholic Church would require medical professionals to stand by in a case like this where the mother of several other children will most likely die -- along with her unborn?

Grow up! Think for yourself and see beyond the obsolete dictates of a church that seems determined to exterminate itself. The operative word for your comments is "silly."

Please read the following http://www.twotlj.org/G-2-8-D.html
LIVING A CHRISITAN LIFE.

This issue is by no means BLACK OR WHITE. I doubt you have done any serious study of the issue or made any effort to clear your mind and make a decision on your own. The easy way out is to just follow some one like the good Bishop of Phoenix and avoid any thought on your own.

You write: " . . . the killing of an innocent child."

Did you read the article? The fetus was ectopic, trapped in a fallopian tube. There was no way the fetus would have survived, but surely the mother would have died had not the operation taken place. An 11 week fetus is an "innocent", but the pregnant woman is not?

This bishop is yet again another prelate who should be stripped of any judicial authority.

So the mother must die! That is what you are saying.

The issue of abortion is very clear cut. At conception, a human being is created. To kill this human being is murder. Murder is not condoned by the Catholic Church except in certain circumstances. In these circumstances it is not called murder (which seems to presume premeditated ending of a human life) but is called "killing" or "defending" one's own or another's life in the face of a grave threat.
Just wars have been approved by the HRCC for centuries, and rightfully so. When Hitler began his rampage, there was little doubt that he would have to be stopped by killing hundreds of thousands of German citizens. This act was eventually approved by the HRCC although Pius XII hesitated for some time.
When a pregnant woman is in a condition that is life threatening, doctors must do what is necessary to save both the baby and the mother. Neither one has precedence. No teaching of the HRCC says that the life of the mother may be purposefully sacrificed for the baby's life. Neither may a baby's life be sacrificed to save the mother.
All of the above assumes a "vacuum" in the time line of medicine. No one can stop time. No doctor can say, with any certainty, "We can wait one more week before making a decision." Doctors, by definition, are the final determinants in the decision of life or death.
When the Catholic Church steps in to excommunicate someone because they agreed with a doctor's decision, such as in this case, the Church is saying that they "know, without doubt, that the decision was immoral".
Assumptions of Papal infallibility aside, a Bishop, priest or Cardinal does not have such power. To say that a person "excommunicates themselves" as the Bishop states, is to once again state that the Law governs.
Jesus Christ died to redeem us from sin and to set aside the "Mosaic Law".

and the Bishop still won't confront politicians who are admittedly pro-choice.

Jesus wept for his children.

The Catholic Church is sick. The nun made a decision to save one life and not lose two. It makes no sense that so many priests have acted in a way that is evil and has absolutely no good outcome associated with it yet they are not only tolerated but protected by the Church and not excommunicated. The Sister was in an untenable situation, faced with losing not only an unborn child but the mother of five other children who love and need her, and the Sister made the only decision that had any good or grace associated with it.

Ok let's look at it like this. Suppose the abortion never took place and both
the mother and baby died. Now what? I think the family of the patient would
go to an attorney and file charges against the church which could lead to
second degree murder!! He would be the cause of the death of both the mother
and the unborn child. If you see a situation where a person is dying even if
the unborn child and her medical condition would cause the mother to die
and you did nothing to save the mother and/or the unborn baby then you might
just be charged with murder. Remember this church and state are separate here
in the United States. There have been cases when parents pray over a sick and
dying child, do not give it medical treatment due to their faith and they
get charged with murder!!! The Catholic Church made a horrible and stupid
mistake not to commend the nun for saving the life of the mother, but instead
condemned her for killing the baby. I hope that loving nun leaves the Catholic
church and finds one that does not condemn her when she did something right.
The mother did not want to lose her child, but what good would it do if she
and her baby were dead? Who will raise the other living children?

I think it is seriously high time to start rethinking some thinking going on
here and try to understand what happened before you start judging other people
and their actions.

As someone who went to Catholic school for 10+ years, I am absolutely disgusted by the Church in this issue. It is showing that it cares more about politics than about true right to life.

The mother has a right to live. Far more than any baby she might be carrying, as without her the baby is dead as well. The bishop says "a baby is not a disease," I would like to know what exactly his medical credentials are to make this diagnosis that pregnancy/birthing cannot claim a woman's life.

There are numerous ways an unborn child can pose life threatening risk to the mother, and the position that the Church wishes to impose on women is insufferable. On the one had, contraceptives are condemned. On the other, there are women who simply cannot bear children without sizeable risk of death.

One can only surmise that the Church wants these women to still get pregnant, not be able to get the best medical treatment and techniques possible (on pain of excommunication for all involved?!) and ultimately die, just FOR WORDS. For an ideology that is choosingly and hypocritically enforced by a remote group of men that by their actions don't seem to believe in either poverty nor chastity.

Yes, I am saying that. The fact that the "Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Phoenix" has been appointed does not mean that he is "successor of the Apostles," nor does it mean that he is capable of judging what is morally acceptable in his diocese.

Plain and simple, it means that Olmstead doesn't know "jack" about miscarriages and clinical abortions. Refer to your textbook on Catholic Ethics: the duty of the doctor was to save the mother, NOT to perform an abortion.

Olmstead should do public penance.

oh please get a life! This is the 21st. century!

Not when it is just politics! Why is it that priests who molest children are not excommunicated or immediatly defrocked, but women who are in the midst of struggling with complex and difficult moral decision are immediately excommunicated? It is a double standard! Remember, Jesus spoke about those who scandalize children, but never about abortion.

TNCath....you're unbridled ignorance knows no bounds.....unbelievable!

The bishop is a successor of the apostles: you are right. But as bishop, he cannot change the teaching of the church in this regard. In fact, any faithful Catholic, BISHOP or NOT, needs to follow the teaching of the church as given by Jesus Christ and his apostles since its founding more than 2000 years ago.

Bishop Olmstead is merely doing his job: to teach the Gospel. Because the devil is very much interested in TWISTING the truth, he is merely clarifying that abortion is evil no matter what the intention is.

Today's culture of death teems with half-truths. It is also full of men who try to use the Gospel and make it mean this way or that. God is the same before, today and tomorrow. Bishop, doctor, nun, president or politician: one cannot change God's plan.

One final note: God gives us these rules (that is, Abortion is evil) because it is good for you and me. God wants us to be a joyful people. We can only be joyful if we follow His will.

The bishop can make any judgment he wants, I suppose. But it's disturbing that our church only requires women to put their lives on the line to save another. For men, it's always optional. We might think less of a man who didn't throw himself on a grenade to save a child, but he's certainly not going to be excommunicated for deciding not to do it. There were TWO innocent lives at stake here--why does Catholic doctrine always assume that a woman's life is expendable simply because she is pregnant?

I'm sure this nun wrestled long and hard with her conscience over this.

The Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Phoenix has a DUTY and OBLIGATION to witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In this instance I am of the opinion that he has failed... and failed miserably.

Bishops are human and are just as prone to error as the rest of us. Witness the former Bishop of Hawaii who had to resign for molesting boys and engaging in homosexual relatioships. Witness the recent resignation of a Scandinavian bishop for abusing young boys. As I argue further down this thread, and will not repeat here, there was indeed double effect in the actions of the doctors, and only a blind bishop with his hand picked blind theologian can not see it.

By the way, during my Confirmation, I was rapped gently on the face by the late Bishop Thomas Tschoepe in the Dallas Diocese, a successor to the Apostles, who 2 years later in 1972 placed a known pedophile priest into my parish where I was a 15-16 year old altar boy. That priest, "Fr." Patrick Lynch, abused boys over 4 decades (60's, 70's, 80's, & 90's) before the jig was up and he fled to his native Ireland. He has never been defrocked, continues to be a priest affiliated with the Dallas Diocese (although with no faculties), and continues to draw a diocesan pension. He was suddenly transfered out of my parish (St. Williams in Greenville) after 6 months and went on to molest boys at the next parish, and a few more down the road. We were never told why he was suddenly transfered, and to this day no one from the diocese has ever gone back to St Williams to explain why he was transfered so suddenly and to seek out any victims willing to come forward for help. It has been documented by SNAP that "Fr." Lynch, acting as a retired priest, has at least once approached a parish priest in Ireland seeking to help run a youth program. It is beyonad pale to me that the diocese has not required him to show up in person to collect his pension checks so that he may be forced to face his accusers, either in criminal or civil court. The last 2 bishops of Dallas (also successors to the Apostles) have continued to just ignore all that I have listed above, and are in effect, aiding and abetting his comfortable retirement in Ireland. I suggest you go visit the following site if you want to continue to let these men judge for you "what isn't spiritually and morally acceptable" in your diocese.

http://www.bishopaccountability.org/

Click on the map and go to Tennessee, and see what's been going down in the Dioceses of Nashville and Memphis. The Knoxville Diocese is one of the few in the country that has escaped the scandal, but that does not mean for certain that stuff wasn't dealt with under the table.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines mortal sin as involving grave matters AND complete knowledge AND full consent.

Face it, we NEVER possess complete knowledge. (The hospital has to consider probabilities when it pursues a course of treatment or care.) And it is ludicrous to imagine any person of even wishy-washy ethical commitment giving full consent to any of the choices in these tough lose-lose, back-up-against-the wall, no-ideal-alternative, between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place situations.

So the bishop really acted rashly, uncharitably, and cruelly in blasting Sister with the "E word."

I thank my fourth-grade teacher in Catholic School for teaching me this reasoning. It has helped me realize that God is infinitely loving, merciful, and understanding toward his beloved creatures. It is our job to realize little by little how vast this love, compassion, and understanding is.

Lets face it, "the virtue of ordination" does'nt hold up too well these days, and who's fault is that?
The Vicar of Christ is a little hard put as well, telling us the "us" he refers to in his recent public comments, is meant for the Princes of the Church, dealing with the spiritual lives destroyed through sex-abuse.
We can't claim credibility in one thing and not another.

So exactly where does that put Bishop Arius?

You say that the catholic church has a right to stand in moral judgment about an abortion. Then tell me, what are your thoughts about how the catholic church wont stand up for all of the innocent children that had their innocence and childhood ROBBED by sexual abuse? I dont see them being excommunicated. Theyre being PROTECTED by the same establishment that seems destined to ruin the lives of millions of their followers. If you think for a minute that God is pleased with that then you are deceived and blinded. God is merciful and He is full of grace. Pull that plank out of your eye. Stop messing with the speck of dust in someone elses. The religion you follow is not one of love or compassion. God will hold YOU accountable for agreeing with them.

Long live live: truth, honor, courage, and a good dose of common sense in service to God's people. We (the Church) could do with MORE Brennans and LESS
'Golden Boys'. Thank you Archbishop Brennan for your human service in the name of Divine Compassion.

Is there really an Archbishop Brennan? I like to meet him.

Whoever, whatever the "nom de guerre" this arch has it dead-on, bulls eye.

What were the actual health outcomes for this woman and her family?

Only celibate hierarchs could think that it a greater good that both this mother and the fetus die leaving a father alone to raise possibly other siblings by himself. All children need to be raised by a mother. If hierarchs weren't leading the "head-up-your-a**" parade, maybe they would have a clue

I've always been pro-life, and I could never sanction abortion to save the life of the mother.

That said, I think the church should (and, for credibility, must) nuance its teaching in this "hard case" scenario by acknowledging that the physician not only has two patients but also is confronted with a moral nightmare that no one would want to face. In such cases, Catholic doctrine should state that the church will leave any decision (abort or not) to God alone in his love, mercy, and wisdom.

If I were an expectant mother told by my doctor that continuation of a pregnancy virtually assures my own death, how would I react? (We might compound such a scenario, as in this case, by the doctor telling me that my child is too young to survive outside the womb, regardless.) Might I have the moral courage, family and other social supports, and ideal motherly love effectively to relinquish my own life for my baby --- even if, as in this case, baby cannot survive outside my body? Or might I, succumbing to understandable fear of death, opt for the abortion (especially, as in this situation, when baby cannot be kept alive on artificial life support in neonatal intensive care)?

If hierarchs in certain quarters of the church were forced to deal personally --- i.e., one-on-one --- with mothers in such critical "hard cases", might we hear less about "automatic excommunications" and be prepared to acknowledge our ultimate helplessness before God?

Patients, their doctors, and others don't need legalistic, condemnatory reminders from celibate men who, like the rest of us, ultimately stand naked before their Creator.

There are some situations best left to God --- not to theology, philosophy, or law.

Go and sin no more, Jesus told his disciples.

But he also instructed them to forgive without limit.

Something our hierarchs might want to remember before issuing pronouncements.