Nun Excommunicated After Saving Mother's Life With Abortion

PS, unfortunately, the facts in this case are not living up to what you are insisting.

The bishop said this:

"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.

"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."

Is there some gray area here which I'm missing? You keep refusing to address this.

THEN you should address why the Philippines, Nicaragua and Chile, among others, not only refuse to allow an abortion to save a woman's life, they also refuse to allow any treatments which might endanger the fetus, even if those treatments are to save a woman's life. This has the backing of the Catholic Church which refuses to lessen these restrictions under any circumstances. I have been saying this since my first post on this subject, which someone unfortunately felt the need to delete. I'm still awaiting an answer.

This is REALITY. THIS IS THE LAW IN THESE COUNTRIES. Bishop Olmsted has also made his position quite clear in the quote above. He wouldn't have said this, "the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child" if it didn't have some basis in Catholic law.

These are the facts of this case:
1. The woman had pulmonary hypertension.
2. She had "right heart failure."
3. Her chances of mortality was "close to 100%".
4. She was 11 weeks pregnant.
5. She had an abortion to save her life.
6. A nun was excommunicated for her role.

Please tell me what you think is missing from this story? Why do you keep insisting that we don't know all of the facts?

I'm also trying to figure out at what point the woman enters into the equation. So far, she doesn't appear to matter at all. You also failed to answer at what point you would try to defend yourself if your chances of getting killed was anything less than 100%.

And the Bishop, RL, is no more infallible than you or I are, nor does the Catholic Church teach anyone that he is. The Catholic Church doesn't even proclaim that the Pope is infallible except where matters of Church doctrine are concerned. The Bishop, the Pope and every other Roman Catholic are subject to the same human condition that everyone else is. They are capable of making mistakes, exercising poor judgment, committing sinful acts and all the rest of it. Catholics allow that the Bishop may be in error in this instance, which is why the directors at St. Joseph's have asked for clarification regarding his proclamation and would likely appeal his conclusion to higher authority within the structure of the Church. They maintain they acted within the canon of the Church, vigorously I might add, as does Sister McBride. Why is it that you are so willing to accept at face value the words of the Bishop and so quickly overlook and dismiss the words of not only myself, but those of the board of directors at St Joseph's Hospital which include at least one other member of the order to which Sister McBride belonged? Is it because you wish to believe that the Church is such a bad or evil institution? Is it because it will further an agenda to harm religion in general?

The Catholic hospital did what was necessary, with the consent of the ethics panel at the hospital, to save the woman's life, did they not? The board of directors at the hospital, which includes another Sister of Mercy as well as other Catholics, has not only defended their actions as correct in medical terms, but also correct under the canon of the Catholic Church. They have sought clarification from the Bishop regarding his conclusion which could result in either a rescinding of the excommunication by the Bishop himself or, more likely, be the first step in appealing the conclusion of the Bishop to higher authority within the Catholic Church. I fail to see what, exactly, the problem seems to be here apart from the disagreement that some have regarding the fundamental right to life of a human life still within the womb that the Catholic Church holds as true and others do not.

The problem isn't that the woman was denied her right to life, because she wasn't. The problem isn't that a Catholic hospital failed to provide the necessary treatment to preserve her life, because they did. The problem isn't because the Catholic Church canon doesn't allow for the termination of a pregnancy which threatens the life of the mother, because it does.

I'm not exactly sure what the problem here is RL, but it seems to be that you and others are saying something about the Catholic Church which can't be substantiated given the existing canon of the Church. I've been more than willing to point out where the Bishop may have been in error, as has the leadership at the hospital where the lady was treated with the necessary medical procedure to preserve her life, citing the existing canon of the Catholic Church. Why you wish to overlook this and inform me that I am incorrect regarding the canon of a Church of which I, and not you, are a member, is truly beyond my ability to understand. It is almost as though you seek the Bishop to be correct so that your disdain for the Church can find justification.

Regarding the laws of other countries, the people of the nation are the ones who have control over the laws, not the Catholic Church. I can see where the Catholic Church would support any law where life in the womb was placed in parity with life outside of it, which is to say that all human life is equal in value, but the Catholic Church recognizes that the life of the mother should not be discounted nor directly imperiled by the canon of the Church and has incorporated into that canon language which is consistent with that concept. Certainly the Church would frown on terminating the life of a viable child in the womb in any circumstance, but if the child in the womb has not reached the age of viability and the life of the mother will also be sacrificed unless the pregnancy is terminated, the canon of the Church does allow for the termination of that pregnancy so long as the procedure does not have the sole immediate effect of terminating the pregnancy.