The Catholic Church - Ideologically Consistent, and Still Evil

[Wezil]

Well duh. If women go aborting kids who the heck are the priests supposed to molest?

Think it through Ming.

[Al B. Sure!]

Maybe the reason why murderers and rapists don't automatically get excommunicated is because the Catholic Church traditionally has had so many and supported it so fanatically?

[Ben Kenobi]

A nun in Phoenix, Arizona was excommunicated for approving a lifesaving abortion. Sister Margaret McBride's role in the sacramental life of the Catholic Church came to an abrupt end after she approved an therapeutic abortion at St. Joseph's Hospital Medical Center, Robin Marty of RH Reality Check reports. She was swiftly transferred to another job at the hospital.

The woman was 11 weeks' pregnant when she developed a life threatening case of pulmonary hypertension according to Ms. Magazine.

Life-threatening? In the opinion of the abortion doctor. The only condition that is truly lifethreatening is ectopic pregnancy at that point.

Sr. McBride's excommunication is the latest salvo in a national battle over access to reproductive health care in Catholic hospitals. Between a fifth and a third of all hospital beds in the United States are administered by the Catholic Church. Catholic hospitals provide health care services to the community at large and often receive public funding—but they are not required to offer treatments that conflict with their religious teachings.

If the hospitals are funded by Catholics then they should keep to Catholic principles. End of story.

Rev. Thomas J. Olmsted, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix wrote in a statement, ""If a Catholic formally cooperates in the procurement of an abortion, they are automatically excommunicated by that action." Note that the Catholic Church doesn't automatically excommunicate priests who sexually abuse children.

One is worse then the other. If you believe that abortion kills a child, wouldn't you say that killing a child is worse?

"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," the bishop wrote.

Which is why they didn't approve of abortion in this case. They believed that the woman's life could have been saved along with her child with proper care. The standard response to a case like this is to wait another 15 weeks if possible and then deliver the child through emergency c-section.

This wasn't even a choice between the life of the mother and the life of the fetus. An 11-week-old fetus is not viable. If the mother dies, the fetus dies with her. Evidently Bishop Olmestead would rather have seen the woman and the fetus die instead of saving the woman. How pro life.

Except that she wasn't in imminent danger of death from the hypertension.

[N]ow, a dangerous precendent seems to have been established by Olmsted's actions. Olmsted himself is extremely conservative, even by Vatican standards, and has been a strong critic of Obama. But [bioethicist Jacob Appel] claims that this is not really about Olmsted - instead, the decision is reflective of a general trend in Catholic heathcare. Competent adult women, Appel suggests, are no longer allowed to make their own decisions in Catholic hospitals, which comprise approximately 1/3 of medical services in the country.

So because Olmstead rightly concluded that the woman's life was not at risk here (she didn't die), the Church is at fault? Rather the church should be applauded for correctly assessing her and saving the life of the mom and the baby.

[Ben Kenobi]

If the stepfather is convicted, he will still be able to confess and receive the sacraments. The doctors and her mother on the other hand won't get that chance.

Don't you support all forms of abortion? Or just the ones like this case?

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, the article is a bit biased. It's the first one I found online last night, and I was lazy. Nevertheless, the basic facts are true - the RCC excommunicated a well-regarded nun for consenting to allow an abortion to save the life of the mother, when, without the abortion, neither the fetus nor the mother would have survived anyway.

A fact which the Catholic hospital and their doctors, who are a wee more qualified than this formerly well-regarded nun, disagreed.

Pulmonary hypertension is a serious complication with regards to pregnancy. However, at 11 weeks, it isn't an imminent threat as it is later on during the pregnancy. The life of the child and mother could have been spared with adequate treatment.

[Al B. Sure!]

I can't imagine the immense pain that that child's mother would experience assuming she's very religious... To have your husband rape your daughter is one thing... but to know that you will go to hell because you authorized something to save the life of your daughter... I mean, wow. For a religious person, that's got to be the worst thing possible.

And the rapist won't go to hell. Aint that an extra kick in the teeth?

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually, I'm really quite surprised by this. It was my understanding that the RCC, like us, allows abortion to save the life of the mother.

We do, but the dispute is whether the condition is in fact lifethreatening at 11 weeks. Ectopic pregnancy is the only condition where you cannot save the life of both. If you sincerely believe you cannot favour the life of the mother over the life of the child, then you must try just as hard to save the child's life.

And in an ectopic pregnancy the understanding is you don't just send the child to the clinic, you remove her from the womb of the mother intact. Abortion then isn't the cause of the death.

It's not just a matter of saying, "oh, this complication is serious, the mother might die, so we must kill the child". No, the first option must always be, is there a way to save the life of both the mother and the child? In this case the answer was yes, so it wasn't justified to kill the child.

The article (which seems pretty biased, to be fair) states that this bishop is conservative by Vatican standards. I expect that this will be "overturned," assuming such a thing is possible.

No, it won't be, because the facts agree with the bishop.

[Ben Kenobi]

I can't imagine the immense pain that that child's mother would experience assuming she's very religious... To have your husband rape your daughter is one thing... but to know that you will go to hell because you authorized something to save the life of your daughter... I mean, wow. For a religious person, that's got to be the worst thing possible.

I'd wager she's nonplussed about it. She feels her authority is more important. To approve of abortion means she made that decision a long time ago. I'd frankly be surprised if she were remorseful at all for the death of her grandchild.

She can always repent and the excommunication will be lifted.

[Asher]

I'd wager she's nonplussed about it.

Damn, you are scum.

[Ben Kenobi]

What's scummy is citing Ms Magazine as an authority wrt the Catholic bioethical position. You'd be better and have a more balanced, and fair, by citing them and Kreeft.

But the article doesn't really care. It's not about 'fairness' but everything about propaganda. Hence my highlighted selections.

I find that argument that 'competent adult women should be able to make choices' rather hilarious. As if they'd let a competent adult male make a decision regarding the life or death of his child.

[duke o' york]

If the hospitals are funded by Catholics then they should keep to Catholic principles. End of story.

So will Rome continue to pay their salaries as doctors when they are struck off for breaking the Hippocratic oath and allowing the woman and her foetus to die when they could have saved a life?

Economics has nothing to do with this. The hospital could have saved a life, or it could have stood by and watched two people die. What would Jesus have done?

[Ben Kenobi]

So will Rome continue to pay their salaries as doctors when they are struck off for breaking the Hippocratic oath and allowing the woman and her foetus to die when they could have saved a life?

The Catholic doctors disagreed with the nun and the woman.

If a doctor procures an abortion, he breaks both his own oath and those of the Catholic church, the codes are one and the same.

Economics has nothing to do with this. The hospital could have saved a life, or it could have stood by and watched two people die. What would Jesus have done?

The issue here isn't whether they could have saved one life. Could they have saved two? That's the real question.

[Ming]

Life-threatening? In the opinion of the abortion doctor. The only condition that is truly lifethreatening is ectopic pregnancy at that point.

Gee... your uneducated medical "opinion" is better than the doctor treating the patient? Even the ethics committee of the CATHOLIC hospital agreed it was the right choice. But you think you know more than doctors... at least they were familiar with the specifics of the case... are you DR MORON.

If the hospitals are funded by Catholics then they should keep to Catholic principles. End of story.

If they receive ANY public funding, then they should follow the laws of the land.

One is worse then the other. If you believe that abortion kills a child, wouldn't you say that killing a child is worse?

In the MEDICAL opinion of the doctor, the child would have died with the mother. As is the case with the other example I provided. So in their MEDICAL OPINION AS DOCTORS, the child was not going to survive either way.

The RCC position... Your child is going to die... so you must die as well, even though you can be saved and the child can't. That is simply murder!

Which is why they didn't approve of abortion in this case. They believed that the woman's life could have been saved along with her child with proper care. The standard response to a case like this is to wait another 15 weeks if possible and then deliver the child through emergency c-section.

A Bishop who has no more medical training than a dead rat excummunicated the nun. The Ethics Committee of the CATHOLIC HOSPITAL agreed it needed to be done after REVIEWING THE MEDICAL FACTS that the doctor provided!

Except that she wasn't in imminent danger of death from the hypertension.

And you know this how? Do you have her medical history and charts? Are you a medical doctor or do you just copy and paste stuff from pro life websites?

So because Olmstead rightly concluded that the woman's life was not at risk here (she didn't die)

Without the abortion, she probably would have died... and the baby too. So you are claiming that the only way it is really life threatining is if the patient actually dies. A little late to save the mother using your logic.

the Church is at fault? Rather the church should be applauded for correctly assessing her and saving the life of the mom and the baby.

Only yours and the Bishop's uneducated medical opinion assume that both could have been saved.
The doctor and ethics committee disagree. They acted to save the life of the mother, because the baby wasn't going to make it either way.

And again... DR "I DON"T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT MEDICINE EXCEPT WHAT I READ ON BIASED PRO LIFE WEB SITES AND WHAT THE RCC CRAMS DOWN MY THROAT"... what about the story from Sao Paulo.

[Al B. Sure!]

What would Jesus have done?

Probably some sort of miracle

[Ming]

Jesus to the Mother of the girl in Sao Paulo... you will go to hell because you saved your daughters life by allowing an abortion where the babies would have died anyway.

Jesus to the Stepfather who raped the 9 year old... confess your sins and be welcome in heaven.

You gotta love the RCC.