The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionShades of grey in a world of apparent absolutes
May. 26, 2010
"One who violates a law or precept is not exempt from a penalty but the penalty set by law must be tempered or a penance substituted if the offense was committed: …5. By a person who was forced through grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or through necessity or serious inconvenience, if the offense was intrinsically evil.
"In penal law necessity may be defined as that objective condition of things, brought about in any manner whatsoever, in which an act that according to penal law is to be placed or omitted cannot so be placed or omitted because of an absolute or moral powerlessness, whether this latter be physical or spiritual." (De Delictis et Poenis, I, 199).
"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."
Fr. Thomas P. Doyle (CNS/Lisa Kessler)
Analysis
Excommunication is the most severe penalty a Catholic can incur. It is so severe that it is not easily presumed or imposed. In the case of the sister from Phoenix who was declared excommunicated by Thomas Olmsted, the bishop of the Phoenix diocese, the issue is far from clear as it has been presented by the diocese in their Question and Answer statement issued on May 18, 2010. This tragic case involves the convergence of canon law, moral theology, medical ethics, and medical science, all of which should have been carefully considered before any prudential decisions were made by anyone directly involved.
The basic elements of the case have been widely reported in the Catholic and secular media: a religious sister who was directly involved in the decision making process to terminate an eleven week pregnancy in order to save the mother's life, was presumed by the local bishop to have fulfilled all of the requisites for the canonical crime of abortion. Abortion is one of seven crimes included in the Code of canon law that result in immediate and automatic excommunication. The Code contains a number of acts that are deemed to be crimes. All but seven require a process to prove guilt, convict and impose a sentence. Automatic excommunication, called latae sententiae in canonical language, means that as soon as the person performs the act, he or she is excommunicated.
An automatic excommunication may not be known by many and in some cases the person presumed to have committed the crime may not even be aware of the penalty. There is an added dimension to an automatic excommunication when the bishop formally declares it to have been incurred by the person. Thus the crime and the penalty become publicly known. The most dramatic and serious difference is that once the penalty is declared the person can be publicly prevented from receiving a sacrament or participating in a liturgical service. Declaration of an automatic penalty is not required by canon law and is left to the discretion of the bishop. In this case, the bishop declared the automatic excommunication. Canon law also requires that members of religious communities who are excommunicated for specific crimes, including abortion, be dismissed from their order.
On the surface it all seems clear, cut and dried, but it is not. The Catholic church has long realized that excommunication can be the ecclesiastical equivalent of a deadly weapon. Consequently canon law contains a number of requisite conditions that must be taken into consideration before an excommunication is declared (as in this case) or imposed as in most other cases of ecclesiastical crimes.
Preview NCR's Family Life Issue
Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.
You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.
Public or private resolution?
The primary purpose of excommunication is not punishment but correction. Consequently canon law states that the imposition or declaration of a penalty is a last resort. The bishop is obligated to try various pastoral means including fraternal correction and rebuke to achieve the purposes of the excommunication, namely the reparation of scandal, the restoration of justice and the reformation of the person who has committed the crime. Once an abortion is performed it cannot be undone, which means that the goals of pastoral intervention must be altered to fit the situation. In this and similar cases one must ask whether, apart from the factor of punishment, a greater good will be served by a public declaration of the excommunication or by a private resolution of the case.
No punishment may be imposed or presumed unless the crime is imputable to the person. This means that he or she must deliberately intend to violate the law and must do so with complete freedom of the will. Before imposing or declaring a penalty a bishop, for the sake of justice and in keeping with the canon that states that penal laws are interpreted strictly, must be certain that the factors required for the malicious violation of the law are present. This is done in the context of two vitally important canons. One (c. 1323) lists seven factors or circumstances that completely remove immutability meaning that there is no crime even though there was an act that would otherwise constitute a crime. The other (c. 1324) lists ten factors that diminish immutability. This means that if one or the other is present, there is still responsibility for the commission of the crime, but the most severe penalty must be tempered, reduced or replaced with something far less severe. These basic concepts should sound familiar to civil lawyers or to anyone acquainted with the civil law approach to determining degrees of guilt.
If an excommunication is imposed or declared before the bishop has objectively determined that it is not only the last possible resort but also that the person really acted with complete freedom (internal and external) and full awareness, then there exists the potential for a miscarriage of justice. This is no small matter when excommunication is the penalty. Getting to this point absolutely requires serene objectivity on the part of the bishop.
One of the factors that influences imputability stands out as applicable and relevant in the Phoenix case. The section is from canon 1324 and reads as follows:
The third paragraph of the same canon reads: "An accused is not bound by an automatic penalty (latae sententiae) in the presence of any of the circumstances enumerated in par. 1."
The key words are "…through necessity or grave inconvenience." To understand the applicability of this canon I did two things: first, I searched through several commentaries on this canon from the 1983 Code of canon law and on the similar canon (c. 2205, par. 3) and equally important, I had a long conversation with a medical professional who had been in a situation almost identical to that of the sister in Phoenix.
Let us presume that the religious sister knew that an abortion is not only intrinsically wrong but punishable by excommunication. Yet she was faced with a situation of having to participate in a decision which would preserve, at least temporarily, the eleven week old life in the womb but would almost certainly end in the eventual termination of that life and the life of the mother. On the other hand the procedure would terminate the life of the fetus but greatly enhance the chances of survival of the 27-year-old mother of four other children.
'Moral powerlessness'
This certainly appears to be a case of necessity as envisioned by the Code. One of the respected commentators on canon 2205, 2, Gommar Michiels, writing in 1929 said:
In less dense language, this means that the condition of things, that is, the combination of the pregnancy and the critical heart condition leading to a nearly 100 percent chance of the mother's death, and the absence of any other medical procedure that would enhance the mother's chances, presented a situation where the sister and possibly the others in the decision making process, were in a situation described by the canonical commentators as "moral powerlessness." (Information about the case obtained from the "Fact Sheet" prepared by Catholic Healthcare West and found on the National Catholic Reporter Web site.)
This is a situation the commentators refer to as "extreme moral physical necessity." This arises when there is an absolutely necessary choice between the violation of the law on the one hand and grave physical hardship such as damage to health or even death on the other. The necessity was extreme because it placed the sister, the mother and the attending medical personnel in a situation wherein the threat to life could not have been avoided without the transgression of the law. (Cf. Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum, VII, 107.)
The sister and the others involved in this case evaluated their options within the context of number 47 of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, published by the U.S. Catholic Bishops' Conference:
They were clearly placed in a no-win situation. A clear-cut choice was simply not possible. The risk of mortality was high no matter what choice was made and in the end the absolute adherence to the law of the Code meant the almost certain death of the infant in the womb and the mother.
The above-cited Fact Sheet clearly described the complexity of the case and the process that led to the decision. This statement included the two applicable norms from the Ethical and Religious Directives. Norm 45 is clear and presents the black and white dimension: "Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion."
Norm 47 interjects a shade of grey that pits the absolute up against the often painful, uncontrollable and unpredictable circumstances of life. The canonical criminality of the choice made by the sister and the others is by no means as cut and dried as it may have seemed to the bishop and his advisors. The canon law on abortion is quite clear. What is also clear is that the same canon law recognizes that real-life situations can be agonizingly complex. In this case the full recitation of the facts (to use the stark canonical terminology) seem to argue for the protection of the sister, the mother and all others involved from the harshness of excommunication rather than for their condemnation.
My canon law professor from seminary days regularly insisted that we always remember that the purpose of canon law is to "save souls." The soul of the unborn child was not the only one to be protected. There were six others directly impacted by whatever decision was made: the mother, her husband and their four children. My professor was right. What is also obvious is that it is far easier to presume guilt than it is to use the law to save rather than condemn.
[Tom Doyle is a priest, canon lawyer, addictions therapist and long-time supporter of justice and compassion for clergy sex abuse victims.]
NCR reporting on the Phoenix-excommunication case
|
God help the Catholic church
God help the Catholic church when bishops keep placing the institutional church and its hierarchical laws and precepts so far above the pastoral care of the people.
The scandal given by this
The scandal given by this excommunication by Bishop Thomas Olmsted is nothing less than worldwide.
If one accepts the facts as they have been presented, Olmsted went right in for the "kill" so to speak.
As Tom Doyle mentioned they were a number of steps that should have been followed but apparently were not.
Our church has suffered immense damage at the hands of an episcopal leadership that is collectively so very much removed from reality and those voices of reason among them seem genuinely afraid to speak out because that would mean taking a position and taking a position even when one realizes that it is a matter of conscience means repercussions, consequences and even retaliation.
Has anyone heard of any "fraternal correction" being sent in Olmsted's direction from the U.S. bishops?
I haven't.
In the case of bishops that means putting the brakes on any upward mobility.
God forbid one would spend the rest of his life in a place many of his brethren might consider a backwater location. Why he might even end up in Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, like Bishop John Michael D’Arcy.
The gross lack of civility, the denial of due process to both sisters and lay workers in the vineyard of the Lord along with the continued lack of justice, accountability and transparency for the crimes and mortal sins committed against innocent children for decades does make one wonder just how long we can continue like this.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
The absolute chutzpah of kicking an individual like Bernard Cardinal Law
"upstairs" to his own little fiefdom instead of sending him into some kind of monastic exile at the very least, is quite telling of the mindset of the Vatican. In the case of Law criminal charges were warranted.
When one reads what many bishops have done instead of protecting children and now they say that they are "sorry," they made "mistakes," they didn't "know," etc., etc. It's enough to curl your hair.
What planet are they living on? They knowingly put thousands and thousands of children in harm's way. Aahhhhhhhhhhh.
Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims' Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com
Sister Maureen, As you have
Sister Maureen,
As you have taken a position to publicly lambast my Bishop over the St Joseph Hosp abortion, I would like to hear what you may know of the facts that brought this reponse. Do you know there is a Banner Hospital just a few mile away from St Joeseph Hospital in Phoenix, that the condition of the mother did not require imediate action, but that her condition may have been edetrimental to her life. This was not an emergent condition requiring imediate action por else the woman was to die. How culpabale were the physicians in demanding they perform the abortion on this woman; did they storm the sister's office with demands of performing the procedure at this hospital, may it have been so that the physician did not have those medical privlages at the other near by hospital? Was the sister concerned of loss of business, admisions, to her hospital if the physician did not get his way. Think that does not happen? I think you are out of line Sister, and seem to part of the liberal, progressive movement in the Church.
There is the national Catholic Church of America that welcomes gay, homosexual, abortion lovers, get the picture Sister?
God help those who think they
God help those who think they are wiser than the teachings of the Catholic Church.
It's not the teachings of the
It's not the teachings of the church that's at stake here. It's the pharisee-like approach to life instead of the Christ-like approach to life.
And which life is more
And which life is more important? Mother or baby?
God help those--the
God help those--the hierarchy--who think they are wiser than Jesus. You need to read the history of papal mistakes and reread Matt 23.
When I received my Master of
When I received my Master of Arts degree in medcal ethics from St. Thomas Theological Seminary in Denver, Colorado, in 1990, we were taught that the Principle of Double Effect demands that when presented with two evils sre present and neither is mutually exclusive, one MUST choose the lesser of the evils. In this case, two deaths are less than the death of the fetus, therefore, Sr. Mcbride acted in accord with my (and I presume her) principles of moral conduct - threrfore, in this case, Bishop Olmsted is clearly wrong and MUST recind his actions or be faced with excummication himself by the laws of the Catholic Church.
I graduated from a catholic
I graduated from a catholic seminary in 2003 with a Master of Arts in Pastoral Studies and we too were taught The Principle of Double Effect. I agree Sr. McBride and the ethics committee acted in line with the principles of moral conduct, they followed the conditions for the application of the principle of double Effect. I applaud this brave woman and the members of the committee for making this very difficult and correct decision to save the mothers life.
I might add that Thomas Aquinas is credited with introducing the Principle of Double Effect in his discussion of the permissibility of self-defense in the Summa Theologica (II-II, Qu. 64, Art.7).
Here are 4 conditions that need to be met and I believe were met:
1.The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
2.The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
3.The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
4.The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect.
I'm 80 years old. I left the
I'm 80 years old. I left the Sisters of Mercy Dec 1966 after 20 years. It seemed to me at the time that at the slow rate of change the institution was making, and the much faster rate of change of "the world", on a geometric charting they would eventually be almost completely out of touch with each other. This case bears out my 1966 view, I think. Only one instance among many, unfortunately, in the larger Church intitution.
As a young child in Catholic school, and again in a high school sociology course, I learned the principles of how to make moral choices: given two goods, one must choose the greater good; if an evil and a good, one must choose the good; and if all one has for choice is two evils, one must choose the lesser of the two evils. If a child could understand this, why can't a bishop?
Incidentally, I left the entire theological belief system before I left the Convent. However, I have deep respect for the feelings of those who still have it. Ostracism by public excommunication, with all its legal, social, personal, and sacramental ramifications, is unconscionable in this case, only a step removed from ancient public stoning for breaking an arrogant and self-righteous Pharisee's interpretation of his God's mind.
The well-taught moral base of a lifetime remains for me, as it does for this Sister, who should be commended for her courage and for her reality-based knowledge and choice of right and wrong, especially in the service of the sick and a real family. The world needs more people like her. So does her Church.
These are today's sadducees
These are today's sadducees and pharracies --
Thank you for speaking up.
Thank you for speaking up.
Three cheers for Tom Doyle's
Three cheers for Tom Doyle's scholarly analysis. I do wonder if a Moral Theologian would arrive at such a compassionate solution using different language.
As usual, Tom Doyule cuts
As usual, Tom Doyule cuts through the thicket of canon law with the scissors of logic and compassion. Bravo. The statements I have read from the Dioces of Phoenix are lacking in compassion, condemnatory and lacking any display of prudential judgement. Most people I know who have studied this issue --Catholic and non-Catholic--do NOT understand the Bishop's position and do not agree with his moral logic that it would be better to allow the mother and child to both die than to save the mother. This is a tragic case and should be understood within the permaters set down by Fr. Doyle.
I wonder whether Bishop
I wonder whether Bishop Olmstead will read this and have the courage to reconsider his "arbitrary'decision.
Miracles do happen, but I'd
Miracles do happen, but I'd not hold my breath on this one.
Thank you, Fr. Doyle for
Thank you, Fr. Doyle for taking the time to write.
Thank you for spelling this
Thank you for spelling this out in a way that even the most Pharisaical bishop could grasp... assuming he has any genuine interest in listening.
.
How sad that those designated as 'chief shepherds' are more interested in punishment and protecting their laws, rather than in ministry to, and restoration of, souls.
.
In discussing this tragic case with several of my Catholic associates in the medical community, we all concurred that the only real "scandal" was the one created by a cold-hearted bishop who was a bit too eager to abuse his power. There was definitely nothing "medicinal" in Olmsted's behavior.
Thanks Fr.Tom Doyle for
Thanks Fr.Tom Doyle for saying, " we always remember that the purpose of canon law is to "save souls." What is also obvious is that it is far easier to presume guilt than it is to use the law to save rather than condemn.
Why are we even having this
Why are we even having this conversation.? The Institutional Church has so little credibility at this time, who is listening? Excommunication be damned!!
That is the only threat Rome and all of John Paul II's ultra-coservative bishops have left to scare their "subordinates." The Sister involved in this heroic act of mercy and justice should be the one canonized as a living Martyr of a disgraced Church, rather than Pius XII or John Paul II.. Only God knows for sure the extent of Pius XII's implication in the failure to protect Jews during the holocaust, and who among the exalted Curia had a hand in the suspicious untimely death of John Paul I.
As a validly ordained Catholic priest, active for 15 years, and for the past 39 years a husband and father, I am ashamed of those who now claim to be
sucessors of the Apostles. Most of them are hypocrites and unworthy of
the priesthood. I remain a Catholic and a priest for the sake of countless millions of disillusioned and betrayed laity, to whom I hope to be of service.
Thanks to Fr. Tom Doyle, exemplarary canonist, for sorting out the obvious.
My mother was told by her
My mother was told by her doctor not to have any more children because her heart could not take the strain of a pregnancy. She was 41 when she did become pregnant for the fifth time. Of course there was no question of ending the pregnancy. My mother was born in Ireland and from what I hear was a very good and observant Catholic. She did die during childbirth. The fetus had died in utero but she carried it to term. She died according to her death certificate from an infection of the lining of the heart. I was 2 years old, my sister was 5 and my brother was 8. They remained with an alcoholic and gambling-addicted father and I was raised by an aunt and uncle. We have no memory of her except that my sister remembers "a white-haired lady". Lately I have begun to think about what life would have been like for all of us if she had lived - maybe even to see her grandchildren. There is no point to this comment except that I guess. What might have been for her husband and children.
If it were likely that the
If it were likely that the mother would have died before the baby was old enough to be viable outside the womb, then, in my opinion, the abortion was justified.
I am not a canon lawyer, but am moderately well trained in civil law.
And it appears you are not at
And it appears you are not at all trained in ethics. Committing evil for a good is called, "Ends justify the means."
Tom A. on Jun. 01, 2010. You
Tom A. on Jun. 01, 2010.
You stated:
"And it appears you are not at all trained in ethics. Committing evil for a good is called, "Ends justify the means.""
---------------------------------------------------
One life saved is better than two dead any day! Jesus didn't have a degree in either Canon Law or in Ethics. He regularly broke the law of the 'Shabbat'
(Sabbath), by healing on it. But Jesus did teach us that showing mercy is more important than sacrifice. It seems to me, that you are too quick to offer up two lives up on your altar of sacrifice. And would you tell the Merciful Christ--that the ends do not justify the means?
LittleBear, that was a
LittleBear, that was a nonsensical response. You throw out some facts and opinions but never once refute the fact that you are defending the principal that ends justify the means. You say it your self. One life saved is a good end given the situation. So you justify the evil of kiling and innocent human being in order to attain that good end. Where do you draw the line?
Rome "draws the line" with
Rome "draws the line" with the fallopian tube when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy.
Remove the new offspring WITH its fallopian tube, and everything is just hunky-dory morally.
Remove the new offspring WITHOUT its fallopian tube, and Rome condemns what you've done.
Either way, the woman lives and the offspring dies.
Direct vs Indirect abortion.
An abortion is still an abortion.
What hypocrisy on the part of Rome.
Except Rome calls it "casuistry".
Allowing two to die, when one
Allowing two to die, when one of them could be saved, is not virtue - it is moral cowardice.
Just War principles are based
Just War principles are based on "ends justify the means". Self-defense is based on "ends justify the means". Your supercilious, bumper-sticker thinking misses the mark.
The Cathecism of the Catholic
The Cathecism of the Catholic Church No. 2263-7 deals with legitimate defense against AGGRESSORS. The child in a mothers womb is not an aggressor. This case is not about self defense. I am simply pointing out that advocating doing evil to bring about a good is called Ends Justify the Means. This is what many on this site are advocating. Defending oneself legitimately is not doing an evil. Killing someone is not always inherently evil. Killing an INNOCENT person INTENTIONALLY is ALWAYS inherently evil AND is NEVER permitted.
Thank you, Fr. Tom: It seems
Thank you, Fr. Tom: It seems that the Diocese of Phoenix has more than one sheriff in that country who shoots from the hip ...WWJD ... HE showed compassion on the woman in the Gospel and sent her on her way when no one threw a stone. Maybe Phoenix, Denver and too many other places have too many "Davids" with stones ...
WOW! I wonder if this is what
WOW!
I wonder if this is what Jesus had in mind?
I have a head ache after reading all that;
Did Jesus excommunicate
Did Jesus excommunicate Judas? Didn't Jesus share in the Last Supper?
Would Jesus have his earthly mother die in a like situation?
How far this church of old, tired, hide bound unforgiving men has come from the teachings
of Jesus.
This is what makes
This is what makes Catholicism so absurd. Where are the teachings of Jesus that even allow this hierarchy to determine who can be part of the church and who is "out". In the end your soul will be bare before God and then it will be decided what will happen. What the priests and bishops and cardinals and yes, even the Pope say is irrelevant. As the above comment implies we could be sitting next to Judas in Heaven if he truly repented. So why are we playing with this woman's life and and her family's future for the sake of laws made up by man on behalf of God? Let's consider what God is going to say if Catholics are stumbling around in the dark making up these laws, and getting it wrong at the expense of peoples' lives?
Jesus never would have had a
Jesus never would have had a chance to excommunicate Judas. Judas had yet to betray Christ with a kiss, so to excommunicate him would have been to excommunicate someone that has yet to perform an action.
So, are you saying that if Jesus's birth would have caused Mary's death, that Mary would have been justified in killing Christ? Is that what you're saying? Because that's where your line of thinking leads you.
And that church of old, tired, hide bound unforgiving men can count me among them (I'm 21). However, that Church is called the Catholic Church and consists of men and women, lay and priest, and all those faithful to the Church that Christ founded and promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against.
There is more than canon law
There is more than canon law that also interplays here. What about the implications of homocide---if the woman was not treated?
This woman is a living, breathing citizen of Arizona, of the United States, an adult member of society, a wife and a mother. Maybe she is also employed somewhere---a worker and taxpayer. She came to the hospital, in critical condition---at death's door, for medical help. St. Joseph Hospital, up to that point, was NOT IDENTIFIED, a facility that would not deal with hypertension. According to my sources in Phoenix, the woman was warned a few weeks earlier, by her OB physican, that her pregency was putting her in a dangerous condition. She was advised to have an abortion. The woman had declined. But when she came to the hospital, in trauma, she willingly consented to the abortion---to save her life.
IF Sr. Margaret McBride had stated that the law of the Church, Canon Law, the Bishop or any other reason she could give---forbids the procedure that this woman needed to save her life---what then?
This is not a situation the Church, the USCCB, or Bishop Olmstead is even considering. IF she had died---the results leading to her death are much, much more involved than, "Oh, too bad....eternal rest grant unto her, O Lord."
The United States is not the Papal States---the Pope is not the Chief Executive of the United States. There are laws in the State of Arizona, in the United States---against this type of treatment of a patient. This would have been a Capital Crime---a Homocide.
This (would have been)a medical facility REFUSING a medical proceedure that it was EQUIPPED to do (and it did in reality, offer). There could and would be criminal investigations. The woman's death would be a wrongful death, manslaughter, and in the case of the one directing staff to withhold the procedure---a deliberate, calculated, cold-blooded murder!
Bishop Olmstead, you cannot treat viable, breathing people like that! You are not a demi-god, pronouncing moralisms that condemn wives, mothers, daughters, sisters, and friends to death----because of a THEORY! Theory---there is no consensus among theologians as to when ensoulment actually occurs in a fetus. The abstractions used, long ago, to determine ecclesiastical cupability---do not take into account the practical, everyday, lived realities of people of the 21st Century. No decent husband, father, or brother would stand-by and accept the death of this woman---because of a Church Law---that obviously has little regard for women.
Bishop Olmstead can quote the fact that "Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted."
But according to Civil Law, a medical facility that fails to act on behalf of a patient is culpable. Criminal penalities (jail or prison) can be imposed upon doctors, nurses, and the Sister. People in the medical profession could loose their medical licenses for life. Bishop Olmstead, himself, could be charged.
This isssue is certainly not clear-cut, nor black or white.
The RCC needs to get out of
The RCC needs to get out of the medical business since they don't believe in medical treatment. Very well stated about the Theory...I would like to see a law suit for a hospital that refuses to treat a case this way...I am sure it has happened at some RCC hospital somewhere in the US..
Could the Sister removed
Could the Sister removed herself from this 'no-win- situation, rather than participate? Seems to me an 'ethical committee' is just that, a committee to offer opinion, not be a controlling force. The woman and her doctor enjoy the freedom of decision under Roe V Wade. I appreciate the legalese of the Canon Code but keep it simple. Thank you. TIM
"Could the Sister removed
"Could the Sister removed herself from this 'no-win- situation, rather than participate? "....and die a coward, a craven coward, and lie a coward in my grave...". I think these lines from the Gary Cooper starred "High Noon" are fitting here.
Just wondering: weren't those
Just wondering: weren't those predatory, abusive priests who preyed on children's souls automatically excommunicated in the eyes of God no matter what the Bishops and pastors did? And won't the 11-week embryo (must be 12 weeks to be a fetus) automatically go to heaven (Limbo no longer being in fashion) if it dies in order to save the mother and her entire family from destruction?
We use the term "medieval"
We use the term "medieval" with some impunity to describe the machinations of hierarchy, hierarchical rituals and administration of the church, the pomp, flair, costume, the patronizing and arrogant disdain for the common "serf" (wherein we non-"princes" fall). This case seems to get under that superficial level of appearance to the nub of the accusation.
Doyle speaks of the required perspective of "serene objectivity", meaning, I suppose, more than just an emotional distancing from the case but also an informed intellect properly considering the act and the circumstances, their influence, gravity and priority as well as the nature, purpose and range of "punishment". I assume "serene objectivity" is somewhat like the Aristotelian principle of "epichaia" (spelling ?) - the mediation of the judge in applying the law in context of its intent and fairness to the specific circumstance - without which the "law" really is an ass. But the "law" is not a person, so what does this case say about the wielder of the (canon) law?
"Excommunication", as Doyle notes is the equivalent of "deadly weapon". Worse, it seems to me; it is more like the proverbial application of the deadly weapon - the execution. It is more than an exclusion from the sacraments but a public and eternal "dismemberment" - note his reference to an automatic dismissal from the order. In medieval terms it was/is a condemnation to the fires of hell as a heretic and without public humiliation and abject recanting (regardless of conscience or due process)being turned over to sychophantic public authority and literal dismemberment.
It is this presumption of absolute, unaccountable authority and power without due process or respect for the equality of the "sinner", or the relevance of good faith and conscience or even intelligence and the arbitrary application of disproportionate punishment that equates with medievalism, with totalitarianism of a divine right monarchical system. In this context the reverential appellations "your lord", "your grace" are significations of a much more perverse reality than merely a linguistic anachronism.
"Let's teach the serfs a lesson they will not soon forget" and/or "let the religious women and the Catholic health authority know what is in store for them". Sure there are good, compassionate bishops, most are I suppose. But when a "class", the "princes" enjoy from the soverign the inherent right to be arbitrary and absolute and unaccountable and callous that is the problem. The existence of good "princes" is simply a charade, a terrible charade that masquerades the genetic disorder within the breed.
To Dennism: "Huh" ????
To Dennism: "Huh" ????
There is only one person who
There is only one person who can excommunicate me and that would be me. No matter what these men believe, it is my choice. No one, and I sy again, no one but me. God can then judge me when I die.
You are correct. No man
You are correct. No man excommunicated her. No bishop excommunicated her. She excommunicated herself by her conscious decision to seek the murder of a child. This guy Doyle could have been bishop and SHE STILL WOULD HAVE EXCOMMUNICATED HERSELF.
Anonymous, That's in fact
Anonymous,
That's in fact what happened. She and only she excommunicated herself. It was her choice. And, unconfessed God will judge her. Enough said. Too bad we can't accelerate the outcome and see which side is right.
How generous of you to allow God to judge you by the way. I'll be standing on my tiptoes from the back row at the general judgment to see how you fare.
Thank you, Fr. Tom Doyle, for
Thank you, Fr. Tom Doyle, for describing how our Church should respond to heart-breaking situations like the one in Phoenix. It is important for us to understand what should happen, even in cases where it does not happen. And perhaps we can do something to encourage it to happen.
Does it matter to you whether
Does it matter to you whether or not Tom Doyle is supportive, just, a man of integrity, not a life long celibate, misleading to young women -- in his "personal" life and relationships -- yet a virutal ace at "work"? Is the priesthood a vocation or a consumate way of life? If he wants a companion in life do you think he should step down? What about the children of women he created relationships with who knew him and wonder where he went?
Tom, I'm reminded of
Tom, I'm reminded of something that you and I both, as aircraft pilots, know very well. In the event of an emergency, the pilot in command is authorized to do whatever, even in violation of the FAR's (Federal Air Regulations) that s/he deems to be necessary to resolve the emergency, and to protect lives and property.
This occasionally gets used as a "get out of jail free card."
Unfortunately, when it does get legitimately used, the heroic pilot usually ends up running the gauntlet of license suspension, penalties, and so on, before being hailed as a hero and having his or her privileges restored. Sometimes, the last never happens, even when it should, as bureaurats seem to love retribution.
Bureaucrats and bishops. What's to distinguish between the two?
i would certainly like to
i would certainly like to know if that bishop had ever heard of ectopic pregnancy because that is also a abortion and has been done many times in catholic hospitals. we do not stand around and watch someone bleed to death which is the outcome.
The Second Commandment of
The Second Commandment of Jesus: “Love Thy Neighbor As Thy Self.”
And who is my neighbor when confronted with making a moral decision in a heart-wrenching situation case such as this?
Jesus is the answer.
Pray to the Lord and make your decision, after serious consideration, based on common sense.
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
Fr. Doyle writes: "My canon
Fr. Doyle writes: "My canon law professor from seminary days regularly insisted that we always remember that the purpose of canon law is to "save souls." I would hope that would be the canon writer's ultimate purpose.
I wonder what kind of a soul a Bishop has who would condemn a woman to die, leaving four motherless children. Does that demonstrate the greater good? Are the people who labored over this "case of necessity" (Fr. Doyle's words)not to have the same weighty deliberation due before excommunication that they gave to the medical/moral dilemma presented to them?
H.G. Bishop Timothy (MacLam
Pilgrim Prayer & Healing Ministries
Or one could just say that it
Or one could just say that it is obvious to anyone with a mind and a moral sense. I pity anyone who needs a church lawyer to figure this one out.
Very few things that I have
Very few things that I have seen are black and white - Tom Doyle has stated this with the clarity of a Cannnon Lawwer and made it understandable.
My question is: What has happend to the other people on that Medical Ethics Committee. Were they not also Excommunicated? They came to the decision as a group. Why was this num singled out? Who publisized this decision? Who violated teh patients privace and released this information?
And the questions continue - where is the justice in saving a life?
And how many pedophile
And how many pedophile priests have been excommunicated for child rape? The souls of these children are equally as important as those of the unborn.
Hooray for the voice of
Hooray for the voice of reason. It is a shame that bishops do not consult knowledgeable persons before taking draconian means to enforce their understanding of right and wrong. I find it interesting that even commentaries from the supposedly rigid pre-Vatican II days are found to be far less rigid than our more modern and enlightened(?) times. Even the probabalism that was drilled into us in the early 60's should have been sufficient to warn about imposing a penalty in what is clearly a controverted matter.
"Abortion is one of seven
"Abortion is one of seven crimes included in the Code of canon law that result in immediate and automatic excommunication."...
Is there at least one of these seven crimes which are included in the code of canon law: "Sexually abusing a child"?
I have a feeling it is not included in these 7 crimes that get catholics excommunicated..
Judy Jones... SNAP Midwest Associate Director, snapjudy@gmail.com
Abusing a child is a mortal
Abusing a child is a mortal sin nonetheless, just like cooperating in an abortion. Both separate one from God and will result in everlasting hellfire unless sacramentally absolved. Excommunication is only a formality. Both abortionist and abuser, unless absolved, damn themselves. Canon Law only states that one of the crimes is more heinous and needs a higher level of repentance than the other.
Father Doyle is an
Father Doyle is an unappreciated prophet in the service of the truth. Whatever else is said it is clear that the Bishop's decision to announce the ex-communication publically was a political decision of warning to any others who in the future may be faced with a life or death situation. His decision obviously has nothing to do with trying to save her soul.
Apparently the bishop can be absolutely certain because Rome will approve, whereas the sexual abuse of a child by a priest has to take 15 or 20 years to be judged. The crimes are not the same, but the disparity of time seems very extreme and it is Rome that is responsible. Absolute medieval monarchists in high ivory towers may pride themselves in defending abstract absolute truth, but it is out of touch with the injustice that victims suffer in real life.
This is why Jesus said from the cross, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." The Church used to know that the good news was mercy and its ministry was reconciliation. Father doyle knows that. It is a scandal that the hierarchy doesn't.
At the end of the day, it's
At the end of the day, it's still a case of directly killing a child to save a mother. ABSOLUTELY wrong. All the time.
The excommunication is completely understandable and quite simple.
"At the end of the day, it's
"At the end of the day, it's still a case of directly killing a child....". I pity you and fear your kind.
My mother had 7 children and
My mother had 7 children and she was 44 years old when she gave birth to her 8th child a beautiful little girl. During labor the doctor told my mother she had to chose which life she wnated the doctor to safe, her life or her baby's as both were at risk. My mother a strong believer in God told him: "please try to save both, I know that God will take the life he choses to take. If God wants to take both of us then so be it." Today, more than 15 years later I can tell you both are alive and doing great. My little sister is beatiful teenager. God is the giver of life and God is the only one that should pick and chose who to take. It is wrong to kill the one(helpless)in order to save the other.
But isn't doing nothing the
But isn't doing nothing the direct killing of the mother to save an embryo (because it's not even a fetus till 12 weeks) which will die anyway if the mother does?
This doesn't make ANY sense at all.
No, doing nothing is not
No, doing nothing is not KILLING an person. Doing nothing is just that, doing nothing and letting someone POSSIBLY die. The results may be the same, but the Church teaches that we may NEVER kill an innocent person in a premeditated manner, NEVER. Allowing someone to die is not the same as killing them. The medical profession should try to save both lives. It sounds cruel in this case, but nothing justifies murder. This is not a self defense issue, those involved decided to MURDER an innocent human being and they used saving the life of another as justification. All the posts I read here are justifying murder under the guise of saving a life. You are all looking at the wrong way. The Bishop is correct. NOTHING justifies murder.
Under your reasoning medical
Under your reasoning medical professionals should also never ever use triage to determine care. Everyone should be just left to die or make it on their own. Tell that one to the military.
Great! So they both die!
Great! So they both die! Would that make you happy?
It probably would. EWTN could
It probably would. EWTN could cover the funeral, with the 4 orphans and the widower at the graveside.
Since American Idol is over and Dancing With the Stars nearly so, that'd make great entertainment. We could all rattle our beads and kneel before the TV, and kiss the cross at the end of the Rosary.
"These strong and merciless
"These strong and merciless statements are usually made by
Annonymous Owners"
Actually, canon law states,
Actually, canon law states, "Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure WHOSE SOLE IMMEDIATE EFFECT is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion." Had you thoroughly read the article, you would already be aware of this.Nevertheless, my point is that in this case, the termination of the pregnancy was clearly not the sole immediate effect of the procedure. There were multiple immediate effects, not the least of which was preserving the life of the mother. This in and of itself validates the decision.
Your position, however, begs the question of why is her life not worth the same consideration as that of the fetus? In fact, if one truthfully examines all of the mitigating factors in this particular case, as the ethics committee at the hospital most certainly did, there is simply no rational or moral reason to decide to do anything other than attempt to save the life of the mother. Did this have an unfortunate consequence? Yes. But the intended immediate effect was to PRESERVE life, not to take it, and as such, the question of intent bears consideration here. It is sad that people such as yourself are unable to look more complexly at what is, to be sure, a tragic situation, and to see that a truly ethical approach cannot be discerned through lenses that see merely in black and white.
Excellent. As is becoming
Excellent. As is becoming clear to all thinking Catholics, the problem is not the moral teachings of the Church, but the moral bankruptcy of its shepherds.
Excommunication does NOT
Excommunication does NOT carry the same weight or stigma as it once did. Consider the source. This bishop acted incorrectly and his actions were not appropriate. A large number of the bishops lost their authority over the child sex abuse cover-up. Millions of Catholics no longer trust them. This is more a political action than a moral one. This brave Catholic Sister has many other branches of the Holy Catholic Church she can attend and receive the Eucharist. She may no longer be welcomed in the Latin Rite Church based on this bishop's shameful actions, but she has many options, including the Anglicans (in America the Episcopal Church) and also the greek Orthodox or the Old Catholic Churches. She would be welcomed in so many. It is a sad statement of the current state of decay of our hierarchy that they would resort to Excommunicating this remarkable woman who really did act according to her conscience. The bishops are so obsessed with power that they use canon law as a political weapon. I do not believe this nun is excommunicated in the eyes of Jesus. That's all that really counts.
Thanks for an excellent and
Thanks for an excellent and in depth explanation of this extremely tragic and complex set of circumstances. This is a tragedy on many different levels. My heart breaks for the mother and for the entire family but also for all those who were asked to help make this excrutiatingly difficult decision. We need to extend our compassion and empathy to all involved.
Post new comment