Nun "Automatically Excommunicated" in Decision to Abort Fetus to Save Mother

[erika]

Nun at St. Joseph's Hospital rebuked over abortion to save woman

by Michael Clancy - May. 15, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

A Catholic nun and longtime administrator of St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix was reassigned in the wake of a decision to allow a pregnancy to be ended in order to save the life of a critically ill patient.

The decision also drew a sharp rebuke from Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, head of the Phoenix Diocese, who indicated the woman was "automatically excommunicated" because of the action.


Neither the hospital nor the bishop's office would address whether the bishop had a direct role in her demotion. He does not have control of the hospital as a business but is the voice of moral authority over any Catholic institution operating in the diocese.

The actions involving the administrator, mostly taken within the past couple of weeks, followed a last-minute, life-or-death drama in late 2009. The patient had a rare and often fatal condition in which a pregnancy can cause the death of the mother.

Sister Margaret McBride, who had been vice president of mission integration at the hospital, was on call as a member of the hospital's ethics committee when the surgery took place, hospital officials said. She was part of a group of people, including the patient and doctors, who decided upon the course of action.

The patient was not identified, and details of her case cannot be revealed under federal privacy laws.

The Catholic Church forbids abortion in all circumstances and allows the termination of a pregnancy only as a secondary effect of other treatments, such as radiation of a cancerous uterus.

The hospital defended the ethics committee's decision.

In a statement, Suzanne Pfister, a hospital vice president, said that the facility adheres to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services but that the directives do not answer all questions.

"In this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother's life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy," Pfister said.

Pfister issued the four-paragraph statement on behalf of the hospital, its parent company Catholic Healthcare West, and the Sisters of Mercy, McBride's religious order.

McBride was part of the discussion about the surgery, described as urgent. It involved a serious illness, pulmonary hypertension. The condition limits the ability of the heart and lungs to function and is made worse, possibly even fatal, by pregnancy.

In a statement issued to The Republic late Friday, the diocese confirmed that Olmsted learned of the case after the surgery.

"I am gravely concerned by the fact that an abortion was performed several months ago in a Catholic hospital in this diocese," Olmsted said. "I am further concerned by the hospital's statement that the termination of a human life was necessary to treat the mother's underlying medical condition.

"An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means."

Olmsted added that if a Catholic "formally cooperates" in an abortion, he or she is automatically excommunicated.

Excommunication forbids the person from participating in church life. Remedies are available through an appeal to the Vatican or confession.

"The Catholic Church will continue to defend life and proclaim the evil of abortion without compromise, and must act to correct even her own members if they fail in this duty," the bishop said.

It is unknown whether the bishop took action against the others who were involved in the matter, and Pfister would not answer questions about the physicians involved in the surgery.

Neither Olmsted nor his spokesman at the Phoenix Diocese would answer additional questions.

Although Olmsted does not have direct control of the hospital, his authority as bishop over Catholic institutions is substantial. For one thing, religious orders work in the Valley at his invitation.

In an e-mail, Pfister said McBride has been transferred "to another position in the hospital to focus on a number of new strategic initiatives."

According to the medical directives that the hospital follows, abortion is defined as the directly intended termination of pregnancy, and it is not permitted under any circumstances - even to save the life of the mother.

On the other hand, a second directive says that "operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted . . . even if they will result in the death of the unborn child."

A letter sent Monday from Catholic Healthcare West, signed by Sister Judith Carle, board chairwoman, and President and CEO Lloyd Dean, asks Olmsted to provide further clarification about the directives. Agreeing that in a healthy mother, pregnancy is "not a pathology," it says this case was different. The pregnancy, the letter says, carried a nearly certain risk of death for the mother.

"If there had been a way to save the pregnancy and still prevent the death of the mother, we would have done it," the letter says. "We are convinced there was not."

James J. Walter, professor of bioethics at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, a Catholic university, said that is a tough argument to make. He said a pregnancy may be terminated only in limited, indirect circumstances, such as uterine cancer, in which the cancer treatment takes the life of the fetus.

Catholic teaching, he said, is that a pregnancy cannot be terminated as a means to an end of saving the life of a mother who is suffering from a different condition.

Asked if the church position prefers the mother and child to die, rather than sparing the life of one of them, Walters said the hope is that both would survive.

Not all faith groups see things the same way. The Jewish tradition, the Mormon Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are among the groups that frown on abortion on demand but permit it when the life of the mother is at stake or if the mother is impregnated by rape or incest.

McBride declined to be interviewed. She was the highest-ranking member of the Sisters of Mercy at the hospital, which the order founded in 1895.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/15/20100515phoenix-catholic-nun-abortion.html#ixzz0o0KDJDOd

[erika]

Statements from the Diocese and the hospital:

+++++++++++++


Statement from the Diocese of Phoenix

"The Most Rev. Thomas J. Olmsted, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix, released the following statement today (Friday) in response to the acknowledgement by officials at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center to the media that an unborn child was killed several months ago at St. Joseph's through a direct abortion:

"I am gravely concerned by the fact that an abortion was performed several months ago in a Catholic hospital in this Diocese. I am further concerned by the hospital's statement that the termination of a human life was necessary to treat the mother's underlying medical condition.

"An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means.

"Every Catholic institution is obliged to defend human life at all its stages; from conception to natural death. This obligation is also placed upon every Catholic individual. If a Catholic formally cooperates in the procurement of an abortion, they are automatically excommunicated by that action. The Catholic Church will continue to defend life and proclaim the evil of abortion without compromise, and must act to correct even her own members if they fail in this duty.

"We always must remember that when a difficult medical situation involves a pregnant woman, there are two patients in need of treatment and care; not merely one. The unborn child's life is just as sacred as the mother's life, and neither life can be preferred over the other. A woman is rightly called 'mother' upon the moment of conception and throughout her entire pregnancy is considered to be 'with child.'

"The direct killing of an unborn child is always immoral, no matter the circumstances, and it cannot be permitted in any institution that claims to be authentically Catholic.

"As our late Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, solemnly taught in his encyclical 'The Gospel of Life,' a 'direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being' (The Gospel of Life #62).

"The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare Institutions (ERDs) are very clear on this issue: 'Catholic health care ministry witnesses to the sanctity of life from the moment of conception until death. The Church's defense of life encompasses the unborn and the care of women and their children during and after pregnancy.' (ERD, Part Four, Introduction) The ERDs further state that 'Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion. ... Catholic health care institutions are not to provide abortion services, even based upon the principle of material cooperation. In this context, Catholic health care institutions need to be concerned about the danger of scandal in any association with abortion providers.'" (ERD 45)

"Bishop Olmsted, by virtue of his office, is the authoritative voice on faith and morals in the Diocese of Phoenix. This includes every official Catholic institution of the Diocese."

St. Joseph's statement:

"At St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, our highly-skilled clinical professionals face life and death decisions every day. Those decisions are guided by our values of dignity, justice and respect, and the belief that all life is sacred.

"We have always adhered to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services as we carry out our healing ministry and we continue to abide by them. As the preamble to the Directives notes, 'While providing standards and guidance, the Directives do not cover in detail all the complex issues that confront Catholic health care today.'

"In those instances where the Directives do not explicitly address a clinical situation - such as when a pregnancy threatens a woman's life - an Ethics Committee is convened to help our caregivers and their patients make the most life-affirming decision.

"In this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother's life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy. This decision was made after consultation with the patient, her family, her physicians, and in consultation with the Ethics Committee, of which Sr. Margaret McBride is a member."

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2010/05/14/20100514stjoseph0515bishop.html#ixzz0o0c8mbsF

++++++++++++++

The article refers to the decision as "a last-minute, life-or-death drama". I'm sorry, but where is an 11 week old fetus supposed to gestate if the mother is dead?

[Computer Magic]

The article refers to the decision as "a last-minute, life-or-death drama". I'm sorry, but where is an 11 week old fetus supposed to gestate if the mother is dead? Exactly!! So it is best for both to die? I'm really starting to wonder about the Catholic diocese.

[Christy]

I can't read all that :blush What was her condition? Only a few (preeclampsia and ectopic pregnancy are the only 2 I know of, but I don't doubt there are others) are fixed by terminating a pregnancy, and even my pro life to the nth degree husband agrees (as far as I've heard him say :lookaroun ) that in those cases it is acceptable.

Flip side, did you all hear the story about the nurses who refused to participate in an abortion and were suspended... they said it wasn't medically necessary, they were right :goofy They got their jobs back and an apology.

[BeeJay]

I can't read all that :blush What was her condition? Only a few (preeclampsia and ectopic pregnancy are the only 2 I know of, but I don't doubt there are others) are fixed by terminating a pregnancy, and even my pro life to the nth degree husband agrees (as far as I've heard him say :lookaroun ) that in those cases it is acceptable.


"McBride was part of the discussion about the surgery, described as urgent. It involved a serious illness, pulmonary hypertension. The condition limits the ability of the heart and lungs to function and is made worse, possibly even fatal, by pregnancy."

[BeeJay]

A couple of things bother me about this:

1.) The way the story reads, it sounds like the local bishop is heavily involved in the assignment of hospital staff and the review of medical procedures. Even if it is a Catholic hospital, it seems like there should be some clear separation between the church and the medical staff.

2.)

"James J. Walter, professor of bioethics at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, a Catholic university, said that is a tough argument to make. He said a pregnancy may be terminated only in limited, indirect circumstances, such as uterine cancer, in which the cancer treatment takes the life of the fetus.

Catholic teaching, he said, is that a pregnancy cannot be terminated as a means to an end of saving the life of a mother who is suffering from a different condition.

Asked if the church position prefers the mother and child to die, rather than sparing the life of one of them, Walters said the hope is that both would survive."

That last paragraph isn't really an answer to the serious moral question of what happens to a mother and her baby if a pregnancy threatens her life...more like avoiding the question.

I don't want to criticize anyone for being against abortion, but sometimes living in the real world is messy and requires tough calls. I don't see how having a code that says "No abortions ever, and if God wants the mother to live, we just believe He'll save her" helps anything. That just sounds like avoiding responsibility.

Just reading the story and the responses so far reinforces the stereotype of clueless church leaders who sit in their gilded towers living in a fake world of absolutes, and then their practitioners (like Andy) out there making tough moral choices in the real world.

This really bothers me.

[erika]

I can't read all that :blush What was her condition? Only a few (preeclampsia and ectopic pregnancy are the only 2 I know of, but I don't doubt there are others) are fixed by terminating a pregnancy, and even my pro life to the nth degree husband agrees (as far as I've heard him say :lookaroun ) that in those cases it is acceptable.




To add to what BJ quoted-



In a statement, Suzanne Pfister, a hospital vice president, said that the facility adheres to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services but that the directives do not answer all questions.

"In this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother's life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy," Pfister said.


"I am gravely concerned by the fact that an abortion was performed several months ago in a Catholic hospital in this diocese," Olmsted said. "I am further concerned by the hospital's statement that the termination of a human life was necessary to treat the mother's underlying medical condition.

"An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means."


A letter sent Monday from Catholic Healthcare West, signed by Sister Judith Carle, board chairwoman, and President and CEO Lloyd Dean, asks Olmsted to provide further clarification about the directives. Agreeing that in a healthy mother, pregnancy is "not a pathology," it says this case was different. The pregnancy, the letter says, carried a nearly certain risk of death for the mother.

"If there had been a way to save the pregnancy and still prevent the death of the mother, we would have done it," the letter says. "We are convinced there was not."

[Christy]

Unless the bishop is a doctor and knows the condition and what it required for treatment, I don't see where he can say what should've happened or not.

As was stated, a dead mom AND baby is hardly a great end result. And we can hope all we want for something, but when reality is sitting right there in front of the people who know best (the medical staff) but that doesn't often end well.

[figmentmom]

Unless the bishop is a doctor and knows the condition and what it required for treatment, I don't see where he can say what should've happened or not.

As was stated, a dead mom AND baby is hardly a great end result. And we can hope all we want for something, but when reality is sitting right there in front of the people who know best (the medical staff) but that doesn't often end well.

Exactly, and well-said.

[erika]

Agreed- and if the hospital had allowed them to die when it was possible to save one of them, then what? IMO that raises some serious issues.

And I am sorry, but what is wrong with Bishop Olmstead? I can't even for a second believe that letting BOTH of them die would have been the right thing to do. This whole situation is just so cold. Where's the compassion?

[erika]

More information is out- 4 other children who would have been left motherless.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072&sc=fb&cc=fp

[BeeJay]

More information is out- 4 other children who would have been left motherless.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072&sc=fb&cc=fp

But according to the Rev. Thomas Doyle, a canon lawyer, the bishop "clearly had other alternatives than to declare her excommunicated." Doyle says Olmsted could have looked at the situation, realized that the nun faced an agonizing choice and shown her some mercy. He adds that this case highlights a "gross inequity" in how the church chooses to handle scandal.

"In the case of priests who are credibly accused and known to be guilty of sexually abusing children, they are in a sense let off the hook," Doyle says.

Doyle says no pedophile priests have been excommunicated. When priests have been caught, he says, their bishops have protected them, and it has taken years or decades to defrock them, if ever.

"Yet in this instance we have a sister who was trying to save the life of a woman, and what happens to her? The bishop swoops down [and] declares her excommunicated before he even looks at all the facts of the case," Doyle says.

----

Preach it brother...er, lawyer!

[erika]

http://www.catholicsun.org/2010/phxdio-stjoes/Q-AND-A-ST-JOSEPH-HOSPITAL-FINAL.pdf

[BeeJay]

What can be done when a pregnant woman’s life is in danger?

The underlying condition should be treated. Her life is not in danger from her child, it is in danger from an actual pathology or illness. That illness should be treated and managed with due regard for the child’s health as well. We must always remember that in a situation like this we are dealing with two patients.
----

Everytime I read some explanation from church authorities on this, I come away more convinced that these people are just willfully obtuse. Clearly there are cases where pregnancy itself IS the main complication to a woman's health. To deny that just demonstrates a lack of capability of honestly addressing the issue. Jesus Christ (no pun intended), but if you can't expect religious leaders to at least be HONEST about the issues, then what fucking good are they? These people seem worse than useless; they seem downright dangerous to me.

Sorry for the language, also. I just can't get over how perfectly the dipshits running this diocese seem to fall right into their stereotypical villain roles here. It's like they're not even trying to come off as reasonable.

Give me someone who genuinely wrestles with faith and morality over someone who blindly follows a dogma any day of the week.

[Christy]

What can be done when a pregnant woman’s life is in danger?

The underlying condition should be treated. Her life is not in danger from her child, it is in danger from an actual pathology or illness. That illness should be treated and managed with due regard for the child’s health as well. We must always remember that in a situation like this we are dealing with two patients.
----

Everytime I read some explanation from church authorities on this, I come away more convinced that these people are just willfully obtuse. Clearly there are cases where pregnancy itself IS the main complication to a woman's health. To deny that just demonstrates a lack of capability of honestly addressing the issue. Jesus Christ (no pun intended), but if you can't expect religious leaders to at least be HONEST about the issues, then what fucking good are they? These people seem worse than useless; they seem downright dangerous to me.

Sorry for the language, also. I just can't get over how perfectly the dipshits running this diocese seem to fall right into their stereotypical villain roles here. It's like they're not even trying to come off as reasonable.

Give me someone who genuinely wrestles with faith and morality over someone who blindly follows a dogma any day of the week.

I will say that I thought long and hard about this, and it's interesting to me that I think any parent would take a bullet for any one of their children, and I wonder, if I had to face a situation like that, would I abort because I could die? Take away any chance for that child? To me, they are my kids from the second I know they are on the way (which is like, immediately :lookaroun ) so I don't know.

I"m glad it's something I never had to think about in reality, although the idea of it had me in tears :blush, and I pray to God I never do face something like that.

[BeeJay]

I will say that I thought long and hard about this, and it's interesting to me that I think any parent would take a bullet for any one of their children, and I wonder, if I had to face a situation like that, would I abort because I could die? Take away any chance for that child? To me, they are my kids from the second I know they are on the way (which is like, immediately :lookaroun ) so I don't know.

I"m glad it's something I never had to think about in reality, although the idea of it had me in tears :blush, and I pray to God I never do face something like that.

I could never criticize a woman for choosing to go through with a pregnancy that might kill her...but I also can't criticize one for making the opposite decision, especially one with kids waiting for her at home. I've never explicitly thought of myself as "pro-choice" but I guess in situations like this, I'm absolutely in favor of the mother having the choice.

And I'm MORE than happy to criticize pencil-pushing church spokesmen and high-collared bishops who want to stand in judgment of people who are actually in the moral arena. :D

[Christy]

The other thing, BJ, is I think that the reason such a hard line is drawn is because once you try to let a little moral gray area in, it gets stretched and stretched and stretched, til people word it as protecting the "health" of the mother, which we get the old mental health/pain and suffering to go with that. (and where try to justify late term abortions, which, holy crap, I can't even type without smoke coming out of my ears... aborting a viable baby. Lovely.)

Ok, I'm not coming into these threads anymore, I will not sleep tonight now :rotfl

[BeeJay]

Another thing that really bothers me is that this nun will probably jump through whatever hoops of "restitution" they tell her she has to, in order to save her soul and get back in the church's good graces. IMO they don't have dick to tell this woman about morality, but if she's spent her life in the church, she's probably going to see it differently.

[BeeJay]

The other thing, BJ, is I think that the reason such a hard line is drawn is because once you try to let a little moral gray area in, it gets stretched and stretched and stretched, til people word it as protecting the "health" of the mother, which we get the old mental health/pain and suffering to go with that. (and where try to justify late term abortions, which, holy crap, I can't even type without smoke coming out of my ears... aborting a viable baby. Lovely.)

Ok, I'm not coming into these threads anymore, I will not sleep tonight now :rotfl

I know exactly what you're saying. That's why this is not an easy question for me. :0/

I just think a case by case approach makes more sense than "one size fits all."

[erika]

I know exactly what you're saying. That's why this is not an easy question for me. :0/

I just think a case by case approach makes more sense than "one size fits all."

I agree.

And Christy, it would be agonizing for me as well. But leaving my kids behind, I think would be worse.

[maggiegrace1]

As someone who had to make this decision for myself two years ago..I think the nun did what is best.

I got pregnant..and was having the same kinds of symptoms severe pre eclampsia Hellp syndrome as I did with Maggie..lots of protein in urine,extreme high blood pressure..and would have had the baby if the Dr. would not have let me know that because of the severe symptoms I was having so early compared to the way I had them for Maggie..that if I continued with the pregnancy that I would probably lose my own life and almost certain the baby also.

The fact that I would have to terminate a child was the worst thing I have ever been through...but you know..the moment he said that I would almost certainly die if I continued with the pregnancy I knew I would have to terminate...for Maggie.

How could I let the child I fought for years to have..who I almost died for and who I almost lost many many times while pregnant with her and after she was born go without a mother?..I could not..she needed me..I needed to be here for her.

So, while I am pro life..there are instances where I feel that termination is needed and should be done..and while I had a hard time dealing wit it during and after for a long time..I know that I made the right choice..every time I hear Mommy I love you from My Maggie..:)

Just my thoughts..:D

[BeeJay]

What really got me going on this tonight wasn't just the hard line on abortion the church takes (although that bugs me); it's more what I see as the LACK OF HONESTY about the position in that PDF Erika linked to that really pisses me off.

Saying that "Her life is not in danger from her child, it is in danger from an actual pathology or illness" when the pathology or illness in question is directly affected by pregnancy is just sophistry. It's a cute high school debating team word trick to avoid facing up to the real situation.

Basically, if you take that position on its face, then a situation like Dana's would result in the following logic:

Woman: "My pregnancy is causing dangerously elevated blood pressure that could prove fatal. What should I do?"

Priest: "Lower your blood pressure."

Woman: :blink

Any smartass could come up with an answer like that...but if you read what was written in that PDF, that's the exact logic being used. I guess I just expect more out of people who claim a direct connection to God. I expect SERIOUSNESS.

[maggiegrace1]

When I was pregnant with Maggie..they wanted to try and get me to at least 30 weeks...he went to go check and see what my protein levels were...he came right back and said we had to take her right then or I could die as the levels were 6000 and should have been under 600...by having Maggie..I would be perfectly fine..Maggie was killing me..and in turn if I would not have had her then we both could have died.


None of the catholic stuff makes sense to me concerning things like this.

[Christy]

I tried and failed I think to post something to the effect of... a lot of this is only questions we face because of modern medicine, not necessarily the church :lookaroun

So I don't know :lol

*edit: and Dana I thought of you every single time I was reading and responding to this thread. :hugs

[erika]

:hugs Dana, I would have done the same thing.

What bothers me is that the baby would have died regardless. They're saying "sacrificing one to save the other" but that's a misleading spin on things. I'm trying to imagine this poor husband and 4 kids burying a woman who could have been saved, in addition to, not instead of, losing the baby.

I bet if you told most people "Hey, did you hear that story about the religious leader who got involved medically and said it was better to allow a woman to die than to deviate from literal interpretation of religious law?" their minds would immediately go to Middle East fanaticism.

[maggiegrace1]

I tried and failed I think to post something to the effect of... a lot of this is only questions we face because of modern medicine, not necessarily the church :lookaroun

So I don't know :lol

*edit: and Dana I thought of you every single time I was reading and responding to this thread. :hugs
Thank you :hugs.....and I usually do not even attempt to get involved on anything dealing with religion and stuff that usually causes controversy..:D..because there are so many different things to consider when dealing with things like this..but I was reading and had to post my thoughts..:)

:hugs Dana, I would have done the same thing.

What bothers me is that the baby would have died regardless. They're saying "sacrificing one to save the other" but that's a misleading spin on things. I'm trying to imagine this poor husband and 4 kids burying a woman who could have been saved, in addition to, not instead of, losing the baby.

I bet if you told most people "Hey, did you hear that story about the religious leader who got involved medically and said it was better to allow a woman to die than to deviate from literal interpretation of religious law?" their minds would immediately go to Middle East fanaticism.

Thank you..and it was something that I had to do..in my mind there was no other choice..

That bothers me also...to leave a husband and other children because of a religious reason when the mother could be saved and stay with her family makes no sense...especially considering the baby would not survive regardless..:shrug

[Computer Magic]

As someone who had to make this decision for myself two years ago..I think the nun did what is best.

I got pregnant..and was having the same kinds of symptoms severe pre eclampsia Hellp syndrome as I did with Maggie..lots of protein in urine,extreme high blood pressure..and would have had the baby if the Dr. would not have let me know that because of the severe symptoms I was having so early compared to the way I had them for Maggie..that if I continued with the pregnancy that I would probably lose my own life and almost certain the baby also.

The fact that I would have to terminate a child was the worst thing I have ever been through...but you know..the moment he said that I would almost certainly die if I continued with the pregnancy I knew I would have to terminate...for Maggie.

How could I let the child I fought for years to have..who I almost died for and who I almost lost many many times while pregnant with her and after she was born go without a mother?..I could not..she needed me..I needed to be here for her.

So, while I am pro life..there are instances where I feel that termination is needed and should be done..and while I had a hard time dealing wit it during and after for a long time..I know that I made the right choice..every time I hear Mommy I love you from My Maggie..:)

Just my thoughts..:DWOW Dana, I think you should send this to Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted. Such a moving story that explains the situation so well. Thanks for sharing, it really brought tears to my eyes reading. Especially the part of Mommy I love you from Maggie. No child should be without their parent if at all preventable.

[maggiegrace1]

WOW Dana, I think you should send this to Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted. Such a moving story that explains the situation so well. Thanks for sharing, it really brought tears to my eyes reading. Especially the part of Mommy I love you from Maggie. No child should be without their parent if at all preventable.

Aw..Thank you!

I feel very strongly about this..and I had the worst time when I was dealing with this..but I did what I needed to do..for my daughter and would do it again..(not that it will ever hapen again I promise..)..to let a family lose a mother..along with the fact that they are losing another child regardless.. because the religon of their choice feels it is wrong..when you can save the mother..just makes no sense what so ever to me.

[figmentmom]

I tried and failed I think to post something to the effect of... a lot of this is only questions we face because of modern medicine, not necessarily the church :lookaroun

So I don't know :lol

*edit: and Dana I thought of you every single time I was reading and responding to this thread. :hugs

So did I, Dana. :hugs You did what HAD to be done - for you, for Maggie, and for Drew.

You make a good point, Christy, when you say that these issues have risen precisely because modern medicine has evolved so well. (If you ask me, medicine is evolving a whole lot faster than some of the Church's REACTIONS to expanded medical knowledge.)

[Christy]

I wouldn't look for it to change :lol If a life is a life, then nothing medicine does or says is going to change that. I think we have a hard time grasping that their point is not that baby OR mother is more important, but equally important, so say, again, someone told you to choose between yourself and your child who is walking and breathing outside your body, that is where it stands. Nobody is forced to remain catholic, and abortion is still legal, and I don't see that changing either, I guess where we're left is you can decide what you want, but the church has the right to decide what it wants. :shrug I don't see that the church should bend because the world does, is that how God works? (not saying the church is God, I hope you understand, but that being of the world and being of God's will are two TOTALLY different things very often)

But anyway if you want to fight the church on abortion, I would expect to walk away just frustrated :lol I have been doing some looking around and even going back so far as the late 1800's this has been their stand, when medicine offered little hope medically or surgically to extend the life anybody in a crisis pregnancy.

[erika]

But it does sound like a technicality when they allow things that would cause the child to die (ie uterine cancer treatment) as long as it wasn't an actual abortion itself. Sort of like, if you charge an officer with a weapon and he shoots you, it's not the same as suicide. To me, it is.


My girlfriend had a tubal pregnancy. I guess that would fall under the same category, then. That to me is outrageous.


But according to the Rev. Thomas Doyle, a canon lawyer, the bishop "clearly had other alternatives than to declare her excommunicated." Doyle says Olmsted could have looked at the situation, realized that the nun faced an agonizing choice and shown her some mercy. He adds that this case highlights a "gross inequity" in how the church chooses to handle scandal.

"In the case of priests who are credibly accused and known to be guilty of sexually abusing children, they are in a sense let off the hook," Doyle says.

Doyle says no pedophile priests have been excommunicated. When priests have been caught, he says, their bishops have protected them, and it has taken years or decades to defrock them, if ever.

"Yet in this instance we have a sister who was trying to save the life of a woman, and what happens to her? The bishop swoops down [and] declares her excommunicated before he even looks at all the facts of the case," Doyle says.

And it pisses me off that this nun does what she does to save a life and is excommunicated, whereas the article states that none of the people found guilty of raping children has been excommunicated. But again, the church can do what it wants. I made my decision not to baptize my kids there because of the fact I can't agree with this diocese and this is just one more thing. God forbid my daughter ends up in this woman's shoes someday, I would hope she would terminate. Right or wrong, that's just how I feel. :shrug

[Christy]

No, I think an ectopic is considered to be not a viable pregnancy by any person. I believe that's what I read. Even Andy agrees with that one :goofy

Right, as far as I can tell, direct killing of a viable fetus is what they oppose. As far as I can tell, I don't see that changing, but listen, I'm not here to try to talk you all into agreeing or whatever. There are thousands of churches everywhere who all teach something different, if you feel strongly the need to be part of an organized religion, pick the one that fits. :shrug

[erika]

:lol I'm not "yelling" at you, Christy, believe me. I'm mad at the Bishop, not at you.

I do want to know how they consider a fetus is viable if the mother is not :shrug
The fetus cannot grow in a fallopian tube... the fetus cannot grow in a dead body :shrug Same thing to me, I guess.

[erika]

The canon lawyer quoted above is definitely more in line with the sorts of priests I grew up with. That's the religion I know. I just feel like there is no compassion with the Bishop. It's supposedly the same religion but it's so foreign to me.

[Christy]

No I get it :lol

As strongly as I feel about abortion, it's more aimed at the planned parenthood abortion mills than situations like this. Of the millions of abortions that have happened over the years, how often is this the reason why? We do not need a clinic on every corner, federal funding, and 100% secret access for teenagers to save lives of mothers who are truly in a life or death situation. Abortion is a business, and what pisses me off is the people who say we must keep it safe and legal to save the women, omg!!! :circles when in reality people are getting rich off of our stupidity and/or indifference... in the name of "freedom of choice". As I said, it's never going to be illegal to do this, and I honestly do not agree with this nun's excommunication, I think more a good talking to would've been in order :lookaroun, but I do agree that a catholic hospital has the right to say no abortions, sorry, take it down the street (I understand this woman was supposed to be too sick to move) so this is more like a one in a billion situation.

It's tough, but we all have free will, and the "right" to choose is still there, so again... :dunno

:lol

[erika]

No I get it :lol

As strongly as I feel about abortion, it's more aimed at the planned parenthood abortion mills than situations like this. Of the millions of abortions that have happened over the years, how often is this the reason why? We do not need a clinic on every corner, federal funding, and 100% secret access for teenagers to save lives of mothers who are truly in a life or death situation. Abortion is a business, and what pisses me off is the people who say we must keep it safe and legal to save the women, omg!!! :circles when in reality people are getting rich off of our stupidity and/or indifference... in the name of "freedom of choice". As I said, it's never going to be illegal to do this, and I honestly do not agree with this nun's excommunication, I think more a good talking to would've been in order :lookaroun, but I do agree that a catholic hospital has the right to say no abortions, sorry, take it down the street (I understand this woman was supposed to be too sick to move) so this is more like a one in a billion situation.

It's tough, but we all have free will, and the "right" to choose is still there, so again... :dunno

:lol

True, that.

[BeeJay]

but I do agree that a catholic hospital has the right to say no abortions, sorry, take it down the street

Voice in BJ's head: Hey, let's start a fight with Christy!

BJ: OK, sounds good. :lookaroun

This is where I start having an issue with it, I guess. I'm fine with saying the church can say and do what it wants to the extent it remains a church, but when you start building and operating hospitals...it just gets stickier to me. Especially if someone lives in a small town and there isn't another hospital or clinic down the street...or within 50 or even 100 miles. I know that isn't this case.

I don't have a pithy, perfect answer here. I really do believe in religious freedom, but I don't think that has to be guaranteed and absolute when you start running businesses or public services. On the other hand, I know that if you push the Catholics on stuff like this, their response is just to shut down and go home (like they supposedly shut down their adoption services in D.C. when gay marriage was legalized). I don't think the world would be a better place without Catholic hospitals, so I don't want to see that happen.

I'm just not comforted by the "if you don't want to be a Catholic, you don't have to be" line, if we're talking about people who are depending on medical services and they walk through the front door of a hospital without even giving a thought to religion. Maybe there should be some form anytime you check into a religious hospital stating the religious principles behind it and outlining the services they will not perform.

This post wasn't organized very clearly. Oh well. :lol

[Christy]

Brief rundown of what a catholic hospital will probably not do:

1) Abortions
2) vasectomies
3) Tubal ligations (and any other permanent means to contraception)

:goofy

You are right, without catholic hospitals everybody would pretty much be screwed, and as I said, this was like a one in a BILLION incident, what are the odds of it coming up again? So slim... if she had been rushed to somewhere not catholic, we wouldn't have ever heard of her or this nun or anything.

[BeeJay]

One thought I had after typing that last post is the only reason Catholic doctrines come in for so much criticism from outsiders (like me) is because Catholicism probably makes more of an effort than any other denomination to get out and contribute to society...through hospitals, soup kitchens, adoption services, etc. As a result, their doctrines have more relevance to people who normally wouldn't care what they teach.

I was raised in a Pentecostal church, and it seemed like the attitude was always "Yeah, feeding and healing people is nice and all, but what really matters is getting them to come to church. Feeding people without saving their souls is really a waste of time."

That always seemed like a sketchy way to emulate Jesus to me, but the result was they never really made much effort to get out into the community. And so nobody who wasn't Pentecostal really gave a crap what they believed, because they pretty much walled themselves off and made their beliefs irrelevant to anyone outside the church.

Even if this bishop sounds like a useless, cynical bureaucrat to me, the fact is I wouldn't give a rat's ass what he said if the Catholics weren't out there doing work that affects people outside their own walls. That seems a lot more religious than unlocking the church doors a few times a week.

[Christy]

One thought I had after typing that last post is the only reason Catholic doctrines come in for so much criticism from outsiders (like me) is because Catholicism probably makes more of an effort than any other denomination to get out and contribute to society...through hospitals, soup kitchens, adoption services, etc. As a result, their doctrines have more relevance to people who normally wouldn't care what they teach.

I was raised in a Pentecostal church, and it seemed like the attitude was always "Yeah, feeding and healing people is nice and all, but what really matters is getting them to come to church. Feeding people without saving their souls is really a waste of time."

That always seemed like a sketchy way to emulate Jesus to me, but the result was they never really made much effort to get out into the community. And so nobody who wasn't Pentecostal really gave a crap what they believed, because they pretty much walled themselves off and made their beliefs irrelevant to anyone outside the church.

Even if this bishop sounds like a useless, cynical bureaucrat to me, the fact is I wouldn't give a rat's ass what he said if the Catholics weren't out there doing work that affects people outside their own walls. That seems a lot more religious than unlocking the church doors a few times a week.

I guess I don't follow where you are taking this :blush :lol To me, it seems, the fact that the catholic charities are doing so much good in the world means just that, but the church can still teach what it teaches, I don't see where that comes into play?

Catholic hospitals do great things, just because this one time something happened that pissed a bunch of people off does not take away from the millions of good things they do every day that don't get a headline or a thread. You can't tell them they have to allow abortions... because you think they should? :dunno

Like I said, don't hold your breath waiting for the church to change teaching on abortion, and for that matter, birth control.

[erika]

This particular hospital has a great reputation and has done a lot of good.

I was curious to know, legally, what hot water they'd be in if things had turned out differently. If you have a woman dying, and you can save her, but refuse, does anything else come of that? :shrug It seems to me the hospital was probably doomed to get in trouble no matter which direction they took this, but maybe not.

[Christy]

Yes! I had thought of that also, are hospitals required to treat anybody regardless of what they need? I've heard patients refusing treatments for religious reasons, not so sure it can work the other way :lol

I guess, I don't know... their only option would've been attempting to transport her, but if she died in transit, who knows. Andy was very skeptical about this being a life saving, down to the wire, do or die procedure :lookaroun

[BeeJay]

I guess I don't follow where you are taking this :blush :lol

My point was basically they could save themselves a lot of criticism if they sat on their asses. It was just an acknowledgement that they are out there trying.

I don't take back any of my criticisms, but I was just saying that I realize the only reason their abortion teachings even matter is because they put themselves in the position of helping sick and pregnant women in the first place. If they didn't do shit, nobody would care what they taught.

I don't know if I'm being clear, but it was intended as a compliment. :lol

[Christy]

My point was basically they could save themselves a lot of criticism if they sat on their asses. It was just an acknowledgement that they are out there trying.

I don't take back any of my criticisms, but I was just saying that I realize the only reason their abortion teachings even matter is because they put themselves in the position of helping sick and pregnant women in the first place. If they didn't do shit, nobody would care what they taught.

I don't know if I'm being clear, but it was intended as a compliment. :lol

Oh, gotcha :lol That makes sense, yes.

[TheQueen]

May 26, 2010
Sister Margaret’s Choice
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

We finally have a case where the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy is responding forcefully and speedily to allegations of wrongdoing.

But the target isn’t a pedophile priest. Rather, it’s a nun who helped save a woman’s life. Doctors describe her as saintly.

The excommunication of Sister Margaret McBride in Phoenix underscores all that to me feels morally obtuse about the church hierarchy. I hope that a public outcry can rectify this travesty.

Sister Margaret was a senior administrator of St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix. A 27-year-old mother of four arrived late last year, in her third month of pregnancy. According to local news reports and accounts from the hospital and some of its staff members, the mother suffered from a serious complication called pulmonary hypertension. That created a high probability that the strain of continuing pregnancy would kill her.

“In this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother’s life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy,” the hospital said in a statement. “This decision was made after consultation with the patient, her family, her physicians, and in consultation with the Ethics Committee.”

Sister Margaret was a member of that committee. She declined to discuss the episode with me, but the bishop of Phoenix, Thomas Olmstead, ruled that Sister Margaret was “automatically excommunicated” because she assented to an abortion.

“The mother’s life cannot be preferred over the child’s,” the bishop’s communication office elaborated in a statement.

Let us just note that the Roman Catholic hierarchy suspended priests who abused children and in some cases defrocked them but did not normally excommunicate them, so they remained able to take the sacrament.

Since the excommunication, Sister Margaret has left her post as vice president and is no longer listed as one of the hospital executives on its Web site. The hospital told me that she had resigned “at the bishop’s request” but is still working elsewhere at the hospital.

I heard about Sister Margaret from an acquaintance who is a doctor at the hospital. After what happened to Sister Margaret, he doesn’t dare be named, but he sent an e-mail to his friends lamenting the excommunication of “a saintly nun”:

“She is a kind, soft-spoken, humble, caring, spiritual woman whose spot in Heaven was reserved years ago,” he said in the e-mail message. “The idea that she could be ex-communicated after decades of service to the Church and humanity literally makes me nauseated.”

“True Christians, like Sister Margaret, understand that real life is full of difficult moral decisions and pray that they make the right decision in the context of Christ’s teachings. Only a group of detached, pampered men in gilded robes on a balcony high above the rest of us could deny these dilemmas.”

A statement from the bishop’s office did not dispute that the mother’s life was in danger — although it did note that no doctor’s prediction is 100 percent certain. The implication is that the church would have preferred for the hospital to let nature take its course.

The Roman Catholic hierarchy is entitled to its views. But the episode reinforces perceptions of church leaders as rigid, dogmatic, out of touch — and very suspicious of independent-minded American nuns.

Sister Margaret made a difficult judgment in an emergency, saved a life and then was punished and humiliated by a lightning bolt from a bishop who spent 16 years living in Rome and who has devoted far less time to serving the downtrodden than Sister Margaret. Compare their two biographies, and Sister Margaret’s looks much more like Jesus’s than the bishop’s does.

“Everyone I know considers Sister Margaret to be the moral conscience of the hospital,” Dr. John Garvie, chief of gastroenterology at St. Joseph’s Hospital, wrote in a letter to the editor to The Arizona Republic. “She works tirelessly and selflessly as the living example and champion of compassionate, appropriate care for the sick and dying.”

Dr. Garvie later told me in an e-mail message that “saintly” was the right word for Sister Margaret and added: “Sister was the ‘living embodiment of God’ in our building. She always made sure we understood that we’re here to help the less fortunate. We really have no one to take her place.”

I’ve written several times about the gulf between Roman Catholic leaders at the top and the nuns, priests and laity who often live the Sermon on the Mount at the grass roots. They represent the great soul of the church, which isn’t about vestments but selflessness.

When a hierarchy of mostly aging men pounce on and excommunicate a revered nun who was merely trying to save a mother’s life, the church seems to me almost as out of touch as it was in the cruel and debauched days of the Borgias in the Renaissance.

•

I invite you to visit my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.

[BeeJay]

The excommunication of Sister Margaret McBride in Phoenix underscores all that to me feels morally obtuse about the church hierarchy.

"True Christians, like Sister Margaret, understand that real life is full of difficult moral decisions and pray that they make the right decision in the context of Christ's teachings. Only a group of detached, pampered men in gilded robes on a balcony high above the rest of us could deny these dilemmas."

Sister Margaret made a difficult judgment in an emergency, saved a life and then was punished and humiliated by a lightning bolt from a bishop who spent 16 years living in Rome and who has devoted far less time to serving the downtrodden than Sister Margaret. Compare their two biographies, and Sister Margaret's looks much more like Jesus's than the bishop's does.

Damn. Those sentences seem to echo exactly what I've been saying.

Obviously this writer and his sources have a POV, but that image they paint of the bishop is exactly what I had pictured. He doesn't sound like a wicked man...just someone who's spent his entire career high above it all, living in an institutionally-created bubble, safely cloistered away from any difficult questions and reassured by everyone around him that there are always neat, tidy answers to every situation because that's what The Church ® long ago concluded. "Morally obtuse" is a great phrase.

[TheQueen]

"Morally obtuse" is a great phrase.

That phrase could describe the lot of 'em. Their theories work great in a vacuum, but not in real life. That's just my honest opinion.