Nun Excommunicated For Abortion Decision To Save Mother's Life

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2010 5:40 PM GMT
    "When it comes to Catholic teaching on abortion, no exceptions are allowed. Even if carrying a pregnancy to term would result in the death of both mother and child, abortion is still not an option.

    Which is why a nun who is an administrator at a Catholic hospital in Phoenix this week found herself formally excommunicated -- essentially the sacramental equivalent of capital punishment.

    The episode stems from a series of events that began last November, when a 27-year-old woman who was 11 weeks pregnant with her fifth child was admitted to St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix. The pregnancy was causing severe health problems for the woman, who suffers from pulmonary hypertension, and her doctors told her that if she continued with the pregnancy, her risk of death was close to 100 percent -- and the baby would die as well.

    So the ethics board of the Catholic hospital -- which included Sister of Mercy Margaret McBride, a top administrator at the hospital -- deliberated with the woman and her doctors and decided this was an exception to the the code of Catholic health care directives that govern hospital ethics and care.

    The abortion was performed, and the woman survived.

    But this month Phoenix Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted found out about the hospital's actions. He disagreed in no uncertain terms and decreed that Sister McBride -- along with any other Catholic involved in the decision, including the patient -- were automatically excommunicated. ... "

    Read the rest: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/21/nun-excommunicated-for-abortion-decision-to-save-mothers-life/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2010 7:19 PM GMT
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/948732/
  • JayDT

    Posts: 390

    May 22, 2010 9:31 PM GMT
    That's terrible. This nun just insured that those other children still had their mother to come home and care for them and kiss their bruised knees and whatever.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2010 11:51 PM GMT
    What a blessing, that she was able to save that mother's life. Not really a hard decision, I'm sure.

    However, this is why the Catholic Church is destined for extinction. Evolve or die.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2010 11:53 PM GMT
    Religion's wacky y'all!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2010 11:54 PM GMT
    mickeytopogigio saidWhat a blessing, that she was able to save that mother's life. Not really a hard decision, I'm sure.

    However, this is why the Catholic Church is destined for extinction. Evolve or die.



    AGREE!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2010 1:31 AM GMT
    We've seen how the papacy has been revealed as the anti-Christ and this is just another example of how error plagued the Roman Catholic Church has become.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2010 1:51 AM GMT
    Oh lol! So barefootdude, who says abortion = murder. Some kinds of murder are allowed then? Mr. 'god-determines-when-people-should-die, you make little sense when held up to the preaching you do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2010 1:56 AM GMT
    meninlove said Oh lol! So barefootdude, who says abortion = murder. Some kinds of murder are allowed then? Mr. 'god-determines-when-people-should-die, you make little sense when held up to the preaching you do.


    Saving a life rather than killing both is what God would want you to do. It makes total sense and is Scriptural as well. To carrying a pregnacy that you know is going to cause the death of both is not only stupid, but immoral.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2010 1:57 AM GMT

    So is saying god deigns all who die in an earthquake etc is meant to be.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2010 2:05 AM GMT
    Check out this website which clearly explains that when both lives can not be saved, the God pleasing thing to do is to end the pregnancy to save the mother's life. God gives you a brain and expects you to use it to see killing both by carry the pregnancy is not right. Even when abortion was illegal, doctors were allowed to terminate pregnancy to save the mother's life.

    http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_womens_health/mothers_life.shtml
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2010 2:10 AM GMT
    Sorry, barefootdude, but we apply what you say in other topics to what you here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2010 2:14 AM GMT
    barefootdude saidCheck out this website which clearly explains that when both lives can not be saved, the God pleasing thing to do is to end the pregnancy to save the mother's life. God gives you a brain and expects you to use it to see killing both by carry the pregnancy is not right. Even when abortion was illegal, doctors were allowed to terminate pregnancy to save the mother's life.

    Not according to the Roman Catholic church, and that's who owns & runs the hospital in this case. I wonder if this creates a conflict with state & federal law?

    Can a denomination that believes in faith healing alone, and rejects all modern medicine, open a hospital, too? In any other locale this RC bishop might have opened a can of worms with medical ethics conflicts, but in right-wing and heavily Catholic Arizona, this of course will fizzle out as a non-issue, only the nun in question paying the price here. I hope she leave the church and finds a better life in some other freer state.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2010 2:18 AM GMT
    Ciarsolo saidReligion's wacky y'all!


    Religion itself is not necessarily wacky, but the false teachings in it are wacky. The Roman Catholic Church is full of false teachings which cloud the gospel and harm saving faith. Does this mean that all Roman Catholics do not have saving faith? No. But the false teachings in the church do cloud the gospel and can and do harm people's faith.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2010 2:29 AM GMT
    This is very similar to the situation Jesus encountered with the Pharisees who criticized him and his disciples for picking grain on the Sabbath day.

    Matthew 12:1-8

    At that time Jesus was going through a field of grain on the sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “See, Your disciples are doing what is unlawful to do on the sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry, how he went into the house of God and ate the bread of offering, which neither he nor his companions but only the priests could lawfully eat? Or have you not read in the law that on the sabbath the priests serving in the temple violate the sabbath and are innocent? I say to you, something greater than the temple is here. If you knew what this meant, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned these innocent
    men. For the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath.”

    Reflection

    People versus law: The basic issue here is Sabbath observance.

    Because of their hunger, Jesus’ disciples pick grain on the Sabbath. Since this action is considered equivalent to harvesting, the Pharisees deem it unlawful.

    Jesus counters the Pharisees’ argument by reminding them of an Old Testament incident: The eating of the holy bread by David and His men (cf 1 Sm 21:2-7). This account, however, does not deal with the breaking of the Sabbath rest but with a violation of the law because David and His men were hungry and without food.

    This example is typical of Jesus’ perspective on the law in the Gospel of Matthew. Human need, such as hunger (of the disciples and David and his men), takes precedence over the law. People are more important than the law.

    Moreover, Jesus uses a legal example which contradicts itself. In order to observe the Sabbath laws concerning their Temple duties, the priests must break the law concerning Sabbath rest from work.

    What Matthew is arguing is this: Even the law recognized that Temple duty was more important than observance of the Sabbath rest. In other words, there is a hierarchy of mandatory observance built into the law. One part of the law can be violated — indeed, is mandated by the law itself! — in favor of a more important part of the law.

    Therefore, the satisfying of a human need — food — cannot be a violation of the Sabbath observance.

    Likewise the ending of a pregnancy to save a life, is not a sin against God's law against murder.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2010 3:05 AM GMT
    Sister McBride is a saint.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2010 3:08 AM GMT
    meninlove said Oh lol! So barefootdude, who says abortion = murder. Some kinds of murder are allowed then? Mr. 'god-determines-when-people-should-die, you make little sense when held up to the preaching you do.


    Most people who say abortion = murder are usually reasonable enough to understand that abortion is necessary if both the baby and the mother would die anyway if it weren't performed...unless they're religious fanatics like Phoenix Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, in which case reasoning murdering a woman for no logical purpose (i.e. letting a pregnant mother die just to gestate even though the baby will die anyway) is almost as bad as murder.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2010 3:44 AM GMT
    Jake, you may not have seen some of his other posts in the spirituality forum.

    Quite frankly, we think abortion is solely between a woman, her doctor and her Maker, if she has that belief. icon_wink.gif

    -us

    No one else should be dictating that she risk her life in some hotel operation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2010 3:57 AM GMT
    Lord Ba'al knows I'm no Catholic. But, here for counterpoint--specious as it may be to an atheist like me--is some reasoning which I think the Church has used for justifying a decision like this: ending the life of the baby by the hand of man is the sin; if God chooses to take both the baby and mother in the end, they'll be with him in Heaven. A decision like that is for God to make, not the nun.

    Barefootgirlfriend's stance is more closely related to a secular standpoint (humans weigh the value of life on earth).

    For me, NOT aborting the fetus (thus killing the mother AND the baby) is negligent homicide.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2010 4:22 AM GMT
    mickeytopogigio saidLord Ba'al knows I'm no Catholic. But, here for counterpoint--specious as it may be to an atheist like me--is some reasoning which I think the Church has used for justifying a decision like this: ending the life of the baby by the hand of man is the sin; if God chooses to take both the baby and mother in the end, they'll be with him in Heaven. A decision like that is for God to make, not the nun.

    I certainly hope that's not the Church's reasoning. That would be indistinguishable from those religious extremists who refuse any medical attention, including for their children, believing illness is God's will. In that case, why operate a hospital at all? If it's better to die and go see God in Heaven, since he's choosing who's dying in the first place, let's not defy him with expensive procedures.

    That is precisely why the Catholic Church should not operate any medical care facilities, since it applies religious doctrine first, and medicine second, as I said in my earlier thread, linked after Caslon's OP. I think medical associations should get tough with the Church on this, and tell them they either adhere to medical ethics, or not get involved with medicine.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2010 4:24 AM GMT


    Hey Mickey,
    In many of his posts, we wish he was.

    "Barefootgirlfriend's stance is more closely related to a secular standpoint (humans weigh the value of life on earth)."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2010 4:37 AM GMT
    Leaving decisions in God's hands does not mean living life recklessly and dangerously and without common sense. This is what religious fanatics do when they refuse to make use of medical doctors and medicine, but use only prayers. It causes people to think they can play with fire and not get burned because after all they falsely think, if God doesn't want me to get burned, he will perform a miracle and not let me get burned. This is NOT trusting God,but tempting him and he may just let you get burned in your stupidity.

    This is an excellent link which shows the stupidity of tempting God by failing to take responsibilities for our own actions: (making a human decision which kills both lives when another decision which will result in the saving of one life can be made is tempting God) "You shall not tempt the Lord your God."

    "Tempting God"
    The errors of presumed protection

    http://www.informedchristians.com/articles/ART-tempting_God.htm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2010 9:29 PM GMT
    Buffhunk64 saidCaslon1400...why are you always so interested in the Roman Catholic Church...guess what if you are not a Catholic...then none of this should matter to you.

    Buffhunk64, why are you so interested in me? Ignore my threads and ignore me and none of this should matter to you. NGFY.

    Sarcaztic Kitteh  Iz Mocking U

    Besides, I post on way more than the Catholic Church. You're just an idiot.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2010 12:00 AM GMT
    I remember this story that a plane crashed in the ocean and a guy was fighting for survival and a rescue helicopter came, but he said, "no" I don't need any help, God will save me. Another helicopter came, but he said the same thing. Finally a 3rd helicopter came to rescue him and he said, "no, God will save me. Finally the man drowned and he asked God, "Why didn't you save me?" And God answered him, "I sent you 3 rescue helicopters, what more did you want me to do? icon_smile.gif