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

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yes, but it's approved of if it's the "good guys" doing it to the "bad guys"

And restitution is made, in cash, to dad/husband.

This is true. But there's definitely one story I remember (maybe in Leviticus?) where a woman was raped by several men and was cast out. I don't remember her father being reimbursed.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

As an example of why I get so ragey over this:

Doctor who performs abortion excommunicated.

The girl was 9. She was raped. By her stepfather. The doctor, the medical team, the girl's mother - excommunicated. Her rapist? Nope.

She was spared as she is a minor.

Carrying twins, too... man.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

This is true. But there's definitely one story I remember (maybe in Leviticus?) where a woman was raped by several men and was cast out. I don't remember her father being reimbursed.

Found the cite in Deuteronomy 22, he is actually killed if she's pledged to be married, but if he rapes her and she's not pledged he is to give her father 50 shekels and marry her.

And basically if she's in town where she can be heard and doesn't scream for help, she dies. If she's in the country he has to marry her.



And you're probably thinking of Tamar

She was raped by her half-brother. So King David didn't really do shit.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Found the cite in Deuteronomy 22, he is actually killed if she's pledged to be married, but if he rapes her and she's not pledged he is to give her father 50 shekels and marry her.

And basically if she's in town where she can be heard and doesn't scream for help, she dies. If she's in the country he has to marry her.



And you're probably thinking of Tamar

She was raped by her half-brother. So King David didn't really do shit.

Nope, not thinking of Tamar, because it was before King David. I don't have a copy of the Bible at home either, so I think I'm out of luck.

The point was that rape IS discussed in the Bible as a separate entity from extramarital sex.

[SWTXBelle]

Just for clarity's sake -

Excommunication is not a punishment for a sin.

Excommunication means the person excommunicated is not in communion with the Church because of a specific action that basically screams "Hey, I'm not in communion with the church"
(see above list of actions) .
Sin and punishment, both temporal and everlasting, are a whole 'nuther issue.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Just for clarity's sake -

Excommunication is not a punishment for a sin.

Excommunication means the person excommunicated is not in communion with the Church because of a specific action that basically screams "Hey, I'm not in communion with the church"
(see above list of actions) .
Sin and punishment, both temporal and everlasting, are a whole 'nuther issue.

Thank you

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Nope, not thinking of Tamar, because it was before King David. I don't have a copy of the Bible at home either, so I think I'm out of luck.

The point was that rape IS discussed in the Bible as a separate entity from extramarital sex.

Aye it is.

Dinah perhaps? (Internet bibles ftw)

She was raped, her rapist asked his dad to arrange for them to get married (I think the Red Tent presents their relationship as love, not rape.) Since they raped Dinah, Jacob and sons said "oh sure, as long as your entire city converts, and gets circumcised." Which they do. Then while all the men are holding their junk in pain they kill all the men in the city.

They rescued Dinah. Rabbinical tradition also has interesting takes on Dinah but I'm not familiar enough with them to speak to them myself.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Just for clarity's sake -

Excommunication is not a punishment for a sin.

Excommunication means the person excommunicated is not in communion with the Church because of a specific action that basically screams "Hey, I'm not in communion with the church"
(see above list of actions) .
Sin and punishment, both temporal and everlasting, are a whole 'nuther issue.

True, although addressing the sin associated with the action above is part of re-communioning. You know I'm sure there's a word for this.

Edit: Found it. Absolution from excommunication, not to be confused with absolution from sin. And you're right it's not intended for punishment but for rehabilitation to use more secular language.

Btw, anyone curious Catholic Encyclopedia online

[AOII Angel]

Very interesting insights into the Catholic religion. I obviously wasn't raised Catholic so don't understand how all this works.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Sounds like the code of ethics allows for procedures that might put the fetus at risk. I doubt it would cover an out and out abortion.

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.

[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

[WinniBug]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

For the sake of playing devil's advocate, the church's position is that it's never ok to kill someone to save another's life. So abortion is always wrong even if it saves the life of the mother.

I can wrap my brain around the concept even though I vastly disagree with the premise.

Yep, I completely agree!

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by WinniBug

Yep, I completely agree!

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

[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.