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

[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.

[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.

[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).

[dekeguy]

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.

==================

Actually, that might be drawing the line a bit too restrictively. The (RC) Church recognizes the validity of the sacraments if the celebrant is in recognized Holy Orders. This would include all of the Oriental Rites of the Church which are in Communion with Rome. Also recognized (but not reciprocal) are Western rite churches not in communion with Rome such as Old Catholic, Polish National Catholic, and other break away sects which have been careful to preserve the validity of their Holy Orders through Apostolic Succession. Anglican orders are somewhat difficult in that many Curch of England Bishops and Priests were influenced by the Oxford Movement of the nineteenth century and arranged to be "re-ordained and re-consecrated" by Bishops of Orthodox and valid but schismatic churches. Anglican clergy tracing their orders to these Oxford Movement re-consecrated bishops are viewed as being in valid holy orders but not in communion with Rome.
It is interesting to note that the late Pope John Paul II invited Anglicans to receive RC Communion when in areas where it was not reasonably convenient to attend Anglican services. In the case of recognized Anglican clergy it would appear that this is a major move towards inter-communion.
Thoughts?

[dekeguy]

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.

============================

Yes, Lord Peter Wimsey described them as "Roaming Catholics" although the usual rendition is "Anglo-Catholics".