Nun excommunicated for allowing abortion to save the life of a mother

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Was the fetus nonviable for any other reason in this case, other than it would die because it killed the mother? My understanding of the original case was that there wasn't anything wrong with fetus or pregnancy. Did I miss something?

I mention this for reasons other than my reading skills, but because that's why the OP case can't really be compared to the ectopic pregnancy stuff in terms of double effect.

That's where this case would be the same as an ectopic. Ectopic pregnancies have nothing wrong with the fetus. They are just located outside of the uterus. There are actually a lot of cases in the literature where ectopic fetuses are carried to term and survive as normal babies. The only thing "wrong" with these fetuses is that they kill the mothers.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

The only thing "wrong" with these fetuses is that they kill the mothers.

There's nothing funny about this topic, but this statement made me think of "It's Alive."

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

That's where this case would be the same as an ectopic. Ectopic pregnancies have nothing wrong with the fetus. They are just located outside of the uterus. There are actually a lot of cases in the literature where ectopic fetuses are carried to term and survive as normal babies. The only thing "wrong" with these fetuses is that they kill the mothers.

I thought that most ectopic pregnancies couldn't progress because they'd get to a point in development where they wouldn't be able to get the nutrients and such that they needed because they wouldn't actually have a placenta, etc.

By "a lot of cases" what percentage are we really talking about?

I don't mean to come across as confrontational so much as really surprised by the medical information. If it's really the case that most ectopic pregnancies are sustainable, why wouldn't there be more interest in just trying to move them to the uterus, rather than just removing them.

I'm thinking of the cases in which people really want to be pregnant and are devastated by having to have the pregnancy removed or even Catholic heath institutions who would probably love to have options to save both.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Was the fetus nonviable for any other reason in this case, other than it would die because it killed the mother? My understanding of the original case was that there wasn't anything wrong with fetus or pregnancy. Did I miss something?

I mention this for reasons other than my reading skills, but because that's why the OP case can't really be compared to the ectopic pregnancy stuff in terms of double effect.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Sorry. I posted before I read the whole thread and I basically just duplicated something about excommunication that you said on the first page. It didn't occur to me that my post was up long enough for anyone to have read it.

Sorry.

As far as "if you want it to be", you're probably right in terms of being true to your conscience and invalid confession. But I feel as much heartache about the idea of wanting to be in full communion with the church if you aren't down with its teaching in actuality. There's got to be some room for Catholics to sort of look at the church as horribly flawed human political institution while still loving the sacraments, but if you don't really accept what the church teaches about medical procedures and pregnancy, especially if you are a director of care in a Catholic medical facility, how horrible should excommunication from the church really be? How in communion were you before the decree?

I'm not judging the nun particularly, but I feel like her relationship to the church is pretty much in her hands, rather than that she was victimized or punished unfairly.

I don't know, personally I wish that belief in the Church didn't require signing on to their ideas of medical or sexual ethics, as I do not feel like they reflect medical/sexual science and are often more based on tradition than on biblical principles.

And I don't think she's being victimized, but I think public announcement is more about PR than actually trying to correct someone or guide them back to the Church. YMMV on whether that is a negative or not.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I thought that most ectopic pregnancies couldn't progress because they'd get to a point in development where they wouldn't be able to get the nutrients and such that they needed because they wouldn't actually have a placenta, etc.

By "a lot of cases" what percentage are we really talking about?

I don't mean to come across as confrontational so much as really surprised by the medical information. If it's really the case that most ectopic pregnancies are sustainable, why wouldn't there be more interest in just trying to move them to the uterus, rather than just removing them.

I'm thinking of the cases in which people really want to be pregnant and are devastated by having to have the pregnancy removed or even Catholic heath institutions who would probably love to have options to save both.

In reading up on this previously, though some fetuses have survived moving to the uterus, it's rare that they carry to term. One doctor had 3 successes but then none afterward.

The ectopic pregnancy would kill the mother before it would kill the fetus, if i'm understanding correctly. Obviously the fetus dies following that.

[UGAalum94]

Oh, signing on completely to the Church's teaching on sexual and medical ethics is really hard, no doubt. And I think a significant number of Catholics deal with it by just living with a constant baseline level of hypocrisy in their own private behavior, (I think most draw the line before abortion.)

But I'm not sure that the solution is for the Church to modify its teachings necessarily. Their concerns may rightly be focused only on the more spiritual or metaphysical aspects, but of course, I can't say for sure. There's no historic reason to particularly assume the Church has no political motivation for a given teaching.

I doubt that God takes a hard "love it or leave it" attitude about the Church, but I get frustrated a little when people think the church should modify its teachings rather than just maybe that they shouldn't worry about being Catholic when they don't agree with the positions.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

but I get frustrated a little when people think the church should modify its teachings rather than just maybe that they shouldn't worry about being Catholic when they don't agree with the positions.

But what if they believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church? Or what if they are in countries with a tiny protestant, Anglican or non Christian population?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Oh, signing on completely to the Church's teaching on sexual and medical ethics is really hard, no doubt. And I think a significant number of Catholics deal with it by just living with a constant baseline level of hypocrisy in their own private behavior, (I think most draw the line before abortion.)

But I'm not sure that the solution is for the Church to modify its teachings necessarily. Their concerns may rightly be focused only on the more spiritual or metaphysical aspects, but of course, I can't say for sure. There's no historic reason to particularly assume the Church has no political motivation for a given teaching.

I doubt that God takes a hard "love it or leave it" attitude about the Church, but I get frustrated a little when people think the church should modify its teachings rather than just maybe that they shouldn't worry about being Catholic when they don't agree with the positions.

I don't know that I see it as hypocrisy unless they're actively professing the opposite of what they're doing. Sort of back to the 'why would you confess a sin if you didn't think it was a sin' thing.

The implication within your last paragraph though is that Catholicism is more about the social mores than the belief in Jesus and the sacraments. In my mind, those should take priority and it shouldn't be all or nothing. My voting for a politician who is pro-choice, whether it is because s/he is pro-choice or not, shouldn't be a determining factor in my religious identity. I think people can have their actions/votes/etc informed by their faith and come to different conclusions.

A person who thinks that abortion should be legal because otherwise more women die, who think that gay marriage should be legal, and supports birth control while encouraging sex to take place only in a committed loving relationship AND believes in the full Nicene creed from beginning to end, the just war theory and the other teaching of the Church... they really have no place to go. There's no United Liberal Catholic Church (pick name here) under the authority of Rome.

[RU OX Alum]

This thread makes me sad

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I thought that most ectopic pregnancies couldn't progress because they'd get to a point in development where they wouldn't be able to get the nutrients and such that they needed because they wouldn't actually have a placenta, etc.

By "a lot of cases" what percentage are we really talking about?

I don't mean to come across as confrontational so much as really surprised by the medical information. If it's really the case that most ectopic pregnancies are sustainable, why wouldn't there be more interest in just trying to move them to the uterus, rather than just removing them.

I'm thinking of the cases in which people really want to be pregnant and are devastated by having to have the pregnancy removed or even Catholic heath institutions who would probably love to have options to save both.

No. The fetus makes a placenta wherever it implants. The problem with ectopics is that if they implant in the fallopian tube is that it will rupture the tupe, causing life threatening bleeding. The ones that implant on the ovary will outlive their blood supply because the placenta doesn't have enough tissue to grow into. Ectopics, however, can grow into bowel, abdominal wall, organs and proceed into normal pregnancies.

The vast majority of ectopics are removed before this happens because women seek prenatal care, have symptoms or die. The ones that don't come to the hospital when they are term and are discovered to have a term ectopic. My mom has actually been involved in an ectopic term delivery for a ectopic that implanted on small bowel. The woman lost a large portion of her small bowel since it is impossible to remove the placenta.

There is no moving an ectopic to the uterus. The whole point I'm making is that trying to differentiate an ectopic pregnancy from this case is fallacious. The fetus in this case would die too when blood flow stopped when mom died just as the ectopic pregnancy will die as soon as mom dies from lack of flood flow when mom dies.

[RU OX Alum]

well both

I didn't realize there were that many way a pregnancy could go that wrong.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I don't know that I see it as hypocrisy unless they're actively professing the opposite of what they're doing. Sort of back to the 'why would you confess a sin if you didn't think it was a sin' thing.

The implication within your last paragraph though is that Catholicism is more about the social mores than the belief in Jesus and the sacraments. In my mind, those should take priority and it shouldn't be all or nothing. My voting for a politician who is pro-choice, whether it is because s/he is pro-choice or not, shouldn't be a determining factor in my religious identity. I think people can have their actions/votes/etc informed by their faith and come to different conclusions.

A person who thinks that abortion should be legal because otherwise more women die, who think that gay marriage should be legal, and supports birth control while encouraging sex to take place only in a committed loving relationship AND believes in the full Nicene creed from beginning to end, the just war theory and the other teaching of the Church... they really have no place to go. There's no United Liberal Catholic Church (pick name here) under the authority of Rome.

They have somewhere to go...an ELCA Lutheran Church. They could come every Sunday and we'd (the congregations I've been involved with) never ask them to convert, be rebaptized, reconfirmed, or anything else. They could call themsevles Catholics Affiliated With Lutherans, or something like that. I know quite a few Catholics who spend Sundays with ELCAs Lutherans because they want a home and a relationship with God, but don't feel as if they fit in anywhere else without religious pressure to convert.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

They have somewhere to go...an ELCA Lutheran Church. They could come every Sunday and we'd (the congregations I've been involved with) never ask them to convert, be rebaptized, reconfirmed, or anything else. They could call themsevles Catholics Affiliated With Lutherans, or something like that. I know quite a few Catholics who spend Sundays with ELCAs Lutherans because they want a home and a relationship with God, but don't feel as if they fit in anywhere else without religious pressure to convert.

The Episcopal Church is much the same. There is even a term for Episcopalians who still follow most of the beliefs of the RC church.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

They have somewhere to go...an ELCA Lutheran Church. They could come every Sunday and we'd (the congregations I've been involved with) never ask them to convert, be rebaptized, reconfirmed, or anything else. They could call themsevles Catholics Affiliated With Lutherans, or something like that. I know quite a few Catholics who spend Sundays with ELCAs Lutherans because they want a home and a relationship with God, but don't feel as if they fit in anywhere else without religious pressure to convert.

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

The Episcopal Church is much the same. There is even a term for Episcopalians who still follow most of the beliefs of the RC church.

But RC's believe that communion is only valid at a RC Church (or an Orthodox church but that's not reciprocal). There are certainly strong similarities but if you truly believe the dogma then there is no substitution.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

But RC's believe that communion is only valid at a RC Church (or an Orthodox church but that's not reciprocal). There are certainly strong similarities but if you truly believe the dogma then there is no substitution.

http://www.examiner.com/x-27298-Indi...Holy-Eucharist

That is the problem, posted above. If you believe that, you cannot accept another denomination, even if you don't believe in all the man made rules the Catholic church has (birth control, abortion, etc).