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

[dekeguy]

In this case I think the Bishop has erred and probably needs to be referred to the Holy Office of the Inquisition, er, I mean the Secretariat for the Propagation of the Faith.
Abortion per se is never acceptable, but a necessary medical procedure to save life is acceptable so long as the intention is not to abort but to perform a life saving procedure that has an incidental, unwanted, but inevitable side effect. The key here is the intention. Based on what is known in this discussion thread the intention surely was to save life via a procedure which was intended to save life.
This is not a new concept. This has been taught at Catholic Universities since the question was first raised, long before I was born.

The concept of excommunication is also not too hard to grasp. Traditionally the Church defines it as formal recognition of being seperated from the sacramental life of the Church. It exists in two degrees, only one of which is normally used:

Excommunicantii Tolerati which means one is cut off from the Sacraments and is considered to be in a state of mortal sin.

and

Excommunicantii Vitandi which means one is cut off from any interaction with the faithful. In effect no one can speak to, have business with, or have any dealings with this person. Not unlike being 'Silenced' at West Point.
This extreme sanction has not been imposed in modern times. Current Catholic thinking sees this as counterproductive and un-Christian in its effect.

I sometimes wonder where we get our bishops. This one seems to have missed the point that the message of Christ was all about reconciliation and redemption - not calling down hellfire and brimstone on someone who was faced with a terrible choice and followed the guidance as she understood it.
I believe he should have discussed the matter with her, determined the intention and established the medical necessity, and then confirmed her action or admonished her if he was convinced that she had made a wrong call. I hope this matter is reviewed by the Papal Nuncio to the US and the excommunication is lifted by the Secretariat for the Religeous of the Vatican Curia.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

It's the principle of double effect. The gist would be that an action that has two effects -- one morally good and one morally bad -- is morally acceptable if there is no intent to cause the morally bad act and if morally acceptable means are used. So for example, removal of the fallopian tubes in an ectopic pregnancy would be moral as necessary to save the mother's life even though it will result in the death of the fetus. The death of the fetus would be considered an indirect (though certain) result of removing the fallopian tubes, which is necessary to save the life of the mother. But if an actual abortion were performed, that would fail the double effect test both because a morally bad effect (an abortion) is intended and because it is use of an immoral means.

The principle is also sometimes invoked in situations involving the withholding or removing of life support.

As someone on another site I was reading pointed out:

How exactly does the Church justify the "just war" theory while arguing that you cannot commit evil to do good when it comes to abortion?

Originally Posted by dekeguy

In this case I think the Bishop has erred and probably needs to be referred to the Holy Office of the Inquisition, er, I mean the Secretariat for the Propagation of the Faith.
Abortion per se is never acceptable, but a necessary medical procedure to save life is acceptable so long as the intention is not to abort but to perform a life saving procedure that has an incidental, unwanted, but inevitable side effect. The key here is the intention. Based on what is known in this discussion thread the intention surely was to save life via a procedure which was intended to save life.
This is not a new concept. This has been taught at Catholic Universities since the question was first raised, long before I was born.

The concept of excommunication is also not too hard to grasp. Traditionally the Church defines it as formal recognition of being seperated from the sacramental life of the Church. It exists in two degrees, only one of which is normally used:

Excommunicantii Tolerati which means one is cut off from the Sacraments and is considered to be in a state of mortal sin.

and

Excommunicantii Vitandi which means one is cut off from any interaction with the faithful. In effect no one can speak to, have business with, or have any dealings with this person. Not unlike being 'Silenced' at West Point.
This extreme sanction has not been imposed in modern times. Current Catholic thinking sees this as counterproductive and un-Christian in its effect.

I sometimes wonder where we get our bishops. This one seems to have missed the point that the message of Christ was all about reconciliation and redemption - not calling down hellfire and brimstone on someone who was faced with a terrible choice and followed the guidance as she understood it.
I believe he should have discussed the matter with her, determined the intention and established the medical necessity, and then confirmed her action or admonished her if he was convinced that she had made a wrong call. I hope this matter is reviewed by the Papal Nuncio to the US and the excommunication is lifted by the Secretariat for the Religeous of the Vatican Curia.

Problem here is the treatment was the abortion. It wouldn't have been a side effect like the removal of fallopian tubes as MysticCat mentioned above. So the intent was to abort the child to save the mother's life. See also 9 year old rape-victim.

And I'd compare Excommunicati Vidanti with the shunning that occurs in some Amish or Jehovah's Witness groups as well.

However when you say something's simple and you break out the Latin, most people's brains just give up

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

As someone on another site I was reading pointed out:

How exactly does the Church justify the "just war" theory while arguing that you cannot commit evil to do good when it comes to abortion?






Problem here is the treatment was the abortion. It wouldn't have been a side effect like the removal of fallopian tubes as MysticCat mentioned above. So the intent was to abort the child to save the mother's life. See also 9 year old rape-victim.

And I'd compare Excommunicati Vidanti with the shunning that occurs in some Amish or Jehovah's Witness groups as well.

However when you say something's simple and you break out the Latin, most people's brains just give up

Yeah, but that logic is BS, too. The fallopian tube is not what is hurting the mother in an ectopic pregnancy, it is the fetus. Treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is just a well accepted termination of pregnancy for protection of the life of the mother. Many times now days, we don't even have to do surgery to treat ectopics but give methotrexate to terminate the pregnancy. It's all semantics.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Yeah, but that logic is BS, too. The fallopian tube is not what is hurting the mother in an ectopic pregnancy, it is the fetus. Treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is just a well accepted termination of pregnancy for protection of the life of the mother. Many times now days, we don't even have to do surgery to treat ectopics but give methotrexate to terminate the pregnancy. It's all semantics.

Unless you're at a Catholic hospital I suppose. It is all playing the word games, but you're enacting a treatment - surgical - that happens to terminate the pregnancy vs terminating the pregnancy directly.

Semantics? yes. But it fits their world view.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Unless you're at a Catholic hospital I suppose. It is all playing the word games, but you're enacting a treatment - surgical - that happens to terminate the pregnancy vs terminating the pregnancy directly.

Semantics? yes. But it fits their world view.

So the fact that the fetus is in the wrong place and that organ is removed means that mother gets to live. Yay for her! I wonder if they'd performed a hysterectomy on the women in the OP if this would be okay too?

I guess I still don't see the difference. In an ectopic pregnancy, the intent is still to terminate the pregnancy. The end result is it saves the mother's life. In the case we are discussing currently, the intent was to terminate the pregnancy. The end result is to save the mother's life. How are these different in any way? In both cases, the fetus is not viable to term. In both cases, terminating the pregnancy will save the life of the mother. In both cases, the pregnancy is terminated surgically. I think the church has just found a way to keep people happy since ectopics happen fairly commonly. Wouldn't want to stand by and let thousands of women die every year because we can't kill a nonviable fetus to save the life of a mother.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Unless you're at a Catholic hospital I suppose. It is all playing the word games, but you're enacting a treatment - surgical - that happens to terminate the pregnancy vs terminating the pregnancy directly.

Semantics? yes. But it fits their world view.

Right. It goes to the intent. In this case, it's semantics that reflect a philosophy that goes back at least to Thomas Aquinas.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I am however pondering the concept of Just War which the church supports and how it relates.

Dekeguy may know more, but I think it's the principle of double effect on a large scale, though I know there are specific considerations for whether a war is "just" or not.

Sometimes war is necessary to protect the innocent, defend freedom or fight evil. WWII makes a great example. One does not wage a just war with the intent of killing others, although that clearly will be an inevitable result. The intent is defending freedom/the innocent/"good."