Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

avatar

Bus Full of Liberal Nuns Comes to Rochester

September 26th, 2012, Promulgated by Dr. K

The following advertisement just arrived in my inbox. Apparently, the wacky and uber-liberal “Nuns on the Bus” group is organizing a tour right here in the Diocese of Rochester.

Click image to see full size

Please continue to pray that Bp. Clark’s successor will arrive as quickly as possible.

Tags: , ,

|

42 Responses to “Bus Full of Liberal Nuns Comes to Rochester”

  1. avatar raymondfrice says:

    Dr. K,

    How do your comments relate to a tour of facilities that perform the corporal works of mercy???

  2. avatar Jim says:

    Ray, I believe that some of these corporal works of mercy also contain certain rights to abortion, and having Catholic hospitals and facilities pay for them. If I am wrong about this, please let me know….seriously. That is what is so controversial about this bus movement. The nuns involved are defying Vatican teachings about abortion and contraception.

  3. avatar SALLYANNE says:

    But, are you sure? I have never known a nun who would support abortion. I tend to be a “liberal” and I don’t support it, ONLY if the mother’s life is in jeopardy…the reason I support “even” “that” is because we all have the right to protect our own lives. I’m interested in knowing more about these nuns.

  4. avatar Dr. K says:

    “ONLY if the mother’s life is in jeopardy”

    Wouldn’t a parent jump in front of an oncoming car to push their child out of harm’s way?

  5. avatar Nerina says:

    Raymond,

    You seem like a reasonable and sincere guy so I’m assuming you know the reputation of the “Nuns on the bus” movement. If not, the leader of this movement, Sr. Simone Campbell was a featured speaker at the DNC (and let’s remember that the democratic party has unapologetically made abortion a primary feature of its platform). When asked point-blank, “should abortions be illegal?” she replied “That’s above my paygrade.” I’m not kidding. You can find the article at The Weekly Standard. This group has had a field day impugning Paul Ryan’s motives and his budget all while remaining conveniently silent about people like Nancy Pelosi the self-proclaimed theology expert. They seem to be the stooge of the day for the Democratic leadership giving cover for various DNC talking points.

    I’m all for the corporal works of mercy, but I believe in a both/and approach. Why are the nuns exclusively focused on “social justice” issues commonly understood as support for welfare, immigration reform, “reproductive health” (gotta’ love that euphemism) and gay marriage? Two of those issues are against our faith to begin with and they never, ever talk about the slaughter of millions of babies every year. It’s hard to buy their indignation over Paul Ryan’s budget proposals when they can’t intellectually work through the issue of abortion. “Above my paygrade.” Please!

  6. avatar Scott W. says:

    There is no situation in which it is morally acceptable to deliberately kill one person in order to save another.

  7. avatar annonymouse says:

    Scott –

    Your statement is 100% in accordance with the Church’s teaching if you insert the word “innocent” as in “deliberately kill one innocent person.” I think that is what you mean, and if so, Amen!

    But if someone is attacking my spouse, I am justified in using lethal force to stop that not-innocent attacker.

  8. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    There is new medical evidence that performing an abortion in a critical medical situation does not save the life of the mother. There is no case on record that by destroying the life of the fetus the mother lives. I know of a case where this was tried to try and treat a woman with an aggressive form of breast ccancer. The treatment did not work.

    Sallyanne: For years the mantra of many of these nuns has been for social justice while at the same time, remaining silent on abortion and at the same time promoting artificial birth control and homosexual marriage. Unfortunately, this can be said for many of the Sisters of Mercy and St. Joseph here in Rochester. I remember in the mid 1990’s there was a national petition, promoted by the dissenters, asking for more local autonomy for diocese, and a promoting a whole host of other heretetical issues. The Sisters of Mercy were involved and were compelling the students at Mercy High School to sigh it. Thankfully, this was quashed by the intervention of several brave mothers who took them to task.

  9. avatar SALLYANNE says:

    If a child of ours approached us with a knife, a sword, or a gun, and it was “certain” that we would die if we did not stand up to protect ourselves, would it be “justified” if we “killed him/her rather than letting him/her kill us? I know it’s a legal matter, but to defend ourselves, that’s justified not only by the State but by God,,, I have not researched this, so I’m putting it out there before knowing what scripture teaches us…so, if a doctor tells a woman that if she keeps the pregnancy, she will surely die and if she terminates it, she will live…what are your thoughts?

  10. avatar SALLYANNE says:

    Richard, are you sure about that? Meaning, are you sure that there is “no” case where destroying the life of an unborn child saves the mother? I wonder…It just doesn’t fit with me, but I’ll do some research, for sure….if that did happen, do you, Richard, assuming that the “woman” was your wife or your daughter, …if your wife or your daughter were to surely die if they didn’t abort the child, would you promote to them to die to save the child?

  11. avatar raymondfrice says:

    Jim: I am referring to the corporal works of mercy as contained in the Catholic catechism!! No where do they mention abortion and, if they are true and moral works, conform to Catholic teachings. Abortion is outside the true corporal works of mercy!!

    What happened to the “poor” in this discussion?? Why do you find it necessary to dump on the whole local nun driven health initiative for the poor because of a few misguided fools?? If you will let me know where the facility is, run by Catholic nuns promoting abortion, I will personally go there and confront them!!

  12. avatar Giovanni says:

    Dr. K… unless you’ve walked in someone else’s shoes give them the benefit of the doubt. Richard your medical conclusion is baseless and insulting towards women who have chosen life and lost their own lives for doing so. Also, you seem to forget that under certain conditions abortion is acceptable under current church teachings (see indirect abortion… eg. the Phoenix mess where even conservative Catholics question the bishop’s actions). Many of you seem all for making abortion illegal. I dare say I would love to see less people choosing that option but I don’t think criminalization is the answer. Often times, I find that conservatives will be the first to march in a pro life rally to support the unborn… but they are also the most vocal in ending medicaid, the food stamps program, and other initiatives that help those children when they are born and often times help people to choose life. Let us also not forget the primacy of conscience.

  13. avatar Giovanni says:

    PS… Rochester welcomes you Sister’s and the good works you are doing! A big thank you to the nuns that do so much for a church that often fails to recognize their many good deeds.

  14. avatar SALLYANNE says:

    Giovanni, Raymondrice, Amen. It’s refreshing to know that some on this blog are able to take a situation and view and process it before coming to religiously based scrutiny. What ever happened to spreading the love of Jesus?

  15. avatar annonymouse says:

    If you’ll read the flyer, this isn’t the national “Nuns on the Bus” tour but rather it’s a local rendition of the “Nuns on the Bus” made up of SSJs, RSMs and SSNDs.

    What it is, sad to say, is a not-very-thinly-veiled attempt to get Louise Slaughter re-elected to Congress, her carte-blanche support of all of the Culture of Death issues notwithstanding.

    If only people were to be Roman Catholic first, in communion with the college of bishops, rather than their first identity being Democrat or Republican. These are Democrat nuns first, and Catholic nuns second. Their actions bely their beliefs.

  16. avatar annonymouse says:

    Giovanni – FYI what happened in Phoenix was clarified by our national conference of bishops. What happened there and what led to the sister’s excommunication was the commission of a direct abortion, something which our Church says is never morally permissable, and never allowable in a Catholic healthcare institution for sure. In no way, shape or form does that act fall under the definition of an “indirect abortion.”

    So, Giovanni, the USA has seen 55,000,000 unborn babies legally killed. Would you be OK substituting “illegal aliens” or “jews” or “muslims” or whatever in place of “unborn babies” in the previous sentence? Of course not. You either believe the unborn are God-created human beings with God-endowed rights and worthy of protection or you do not. And if you don’t, why give us such blather like “I’d dearly love it if fewer women resorted to that option…” That is pure BS. You have no interest in lowering the incidence of abortion for you see nothing wrong with it. If you did, you’d be working to extend the legal right to life to these little kids.

    On judgment day Our Lord is going to ask us what we did to stop the slaughter. What are we going to tell Him?

  17. avatar annonymouse says:

    SallyAnne – Jesus loves the little children. Look it up. Especially the littlest.

  18. avatar Bernie says:

    “Often times, I find that conservatives will be the first to march in a pro life rally to support the unborn… but they are also the most vocal in ending medicaid, the food stamps program, and other initiatives that help those children when they are born and often times help people to choose life.”

    The 2 problems I find with a statement like that is that it seems to equate the abortion issue with social service issues. And, if I’m correct, the Church teaches us that abortion is a non-negotiable issue whereas HOW we provide social services is a matter of debate. That we should take care of the poor and disadvantaged is a also a non-negotiable from a Christian perspective. But, HOW to accomplish it is subject to reasonable discussion. Abortion simply is not subject to discussion -the child dies, no matter the reason or how it is accomplished. That is morally wrong -always. You will enlist more marchers opposing abortion simply because there is no alternative Catholic position whereas there can be several different positions on how to provide social services.

    The nuns on the bus -and the Catholic bishops- entered the fray over the Ryan budget proposal claiming, if adopted, that it would hurt the poor and disadvantaged. That’s all well and good, but the opposing argument said it would not hurt the poor and disadvantaged and insists that keeping things as they are WOULD eventually hurt those the nuns and bishops are most concerned for. It’s debatable.

    Here is an example of what I mean: A person collecting severance pay and benefits (full pay and health benefits -let’s say 6 months worth) is now eligible to collect full unemployment, as anyone who just lost his job and is now without any income or benefits. Eliminating that situation would constitute a cut-back in providing unemployment benefits, would it not? Would that be moral or immoral? Most of the time when cut-backs are being advocated it is things like that that are being rethought. Maybe we just can’t afford to be that generous any longer and still maintain the system for future generations. Isn’t a trimmed, more carefully worked out medicaid better than no medicaid?

  19. avatar SALLYANNE says:

    Annonymouse…I know Jesus does love the little children, and as I said earlier, I am totally against abortion and would support it ONLY in very rare situations if the mother’s life is at stake…and I said ONLY…

  20. avatar Thinkling says:

    Just a quick reminder about the phrase “abortion to save the life of the mother”.

    There ain’t no such animal. An abortion is by definition targeted toward the baby. Its desired action is the death of a baby. The action itself is not directed toward the mother.

    One may under some circumstances perform a medical procedure on the mother which has the anticipated consequence of the death of her baby, but the death cannot the intent and design of the procedure. An example might be where the only way to save the woman’s life is to have a hysterectomy. So long as some technical details fall into place (see double effect), this might be permissable. But in such a case, it is not an abortion. There are always alternatives to abortion which treat the mother, even if the death of the baby can be anticipated.

    The phrase is the opposite of a tautology. It has to refer to nothing logically. But by its mere stating, it can be confusing. My book club once came across the statement “either the Church will allow women’s ordination someday, or She won’t”. The other folks carried on about how the statement was so wrong, but it was they who were wrong. The statement is trivially true (of course one, or the other, will happen). But the mere statement of it can bring deep confusion to the reader, and be downright misleading. I have no doubt that Old Scratch convinced someone back when to use this phrase, knowing the confusion (and later outright hijacking of language) which would ensue.

  21. avatar JLo says:

    Sallyanne, you keep coming back to mother over child in the abortion “question”. There is no question in it!! Bottom line is that WE don’t get to decide who lives and who dies and when! That’s God’s call. All abortions which are not spontaneous constitute the murder of a person! What don’t you understand about that that?!!!

    +JMJ

  22. avatar SALLYANNE says:

    I stand corrected….Thank you…

  23. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    Sallyane,

    I got this from the Population Research Institute. For you evaluation.

    Is Abortion Ever “Necessary?” The Evidence Says “No!”

    by Elizabeth Crnkovich

    New studies show that those who argue that abortion is sometimes necessary to “save the life of the mother,” and that it lowers maternal mortality are flat out wrong. Abortion does not improve maternal health.

    Let’s start with a brilliant recent study carried out by Elard Koch of Chile. Prof. Koch looked at maternal mortality rates in Chile before and after abortion was made illegal in 1989. He found that maternal mortality rates continued to decline at the same rate even after the law was changed, suggesting that the availability of abortion had no effect on falling maternal mortality rates.

    The reason that maternal mortality rates continued to fall included better sanitation, better medical facilities, and especially higher levels of education among women. Chile currently has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world even as abortion remains illegal. Koch concluded that there is no causal relation between the availability of abortion and maternal mortality. We conclude from his study that, contrary to what abortion advocates claim, legalizing abortion will in no way improve maternal health.

    Another prominent claim of the abortion lobby is that abortion is often necessary to save the life of the mother. They point to instances where the mother has cancer and refuses chemotherapy on the grounds that it may harm their unborn child. They advise abortion in such circumstances lest the mother die from lack of treatment.

    But a recent study of cancer treatment during pregnancy concluded that it is a mistake to delay chemotherapy on the grounds that the unborn child may be harmed in some way. According to the study, “the placenta functions as a filter and protects the fetus against the toxic influence of chemotherapy.” Not only does the unborn child escape any physical harm from the poisons flooding its mother’s body, it does not suffer any neurological damage either. Children whose mothers underwent chemotherapy while they were in utero showed no signs of mental deficiency when tested throughout childhood and early adulthood.

    Finally, we now have the newly announced Dublin Declaration on Maternal Health. The Symposium for Maternal Health, held in Dublin this past weekend, concluded that abortion in no way assists in the health of the mother. In the words of the Declaration:

    As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.

    We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.

    We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.

    In sum, the latest and best research shows that those who argue for the legalization of abortion on the grounds that “safe abortion” is necessary to lower maternal mortality rates and to improve maternal health in general are simply wrong.

    And isn’t it ironic that those abortion-minded groups who claim to be interested in maternal health are in the business of destroying maternity? After all, an abortion not only takes the life of an unborn child, it also denies a woman her motherhood.

    God bless

  24. avatar DanielKane says:

    The only time and circumstance that allows one to take a human life is if that human life is an “unjust aggressor”. No matter where that life is – be it the uterus, street or battlefield; that is the criteria – unjust aggressor. In the case of abortion, it is incumbent on the one procuring it to demonstrate that the child is an unjust aggressor since we should all agree that the child is not a tumor, growth or parasite.

    Most often, the claim of the “life of the mother” exception blames the child as the proximate cause of injury or death when in reality it is a diseased heart, kidneys, defective uterus, placenta or malignancy. A pregnancy may (and often does)exacerbate disease states, but the child, lacking the ability to form an intent to be “unjust” can never be considered to be an unjust aggressor. A couple’s decision to enjoy the rights of marriage may have been imprudent (even gravely so) but the child was not party to that imprudence, the child is the expected end of the sexual encounter.

    It seems clear that abortion is not a treatment for any disease although an abortion may make treatment simpler. Sacred Scripture teaches that one may never to evil hoping for a good end (Romans)and abortion has always been understood to be not only evil, but intrinsically so. Being understood to be an intrinsic evil, there is no circumstance that can make it good or morally neutral.

  25. avatar raymondfrice says:

    Giovanni:

    There is an Italian physician/saint who gave her life for her child. She is
    Gianna Beretta Molla and she died in 1962 and was canonized in 2004. I believe that 2 of her sons concelebrated at the canonization Mass.

    Just thought you would like to know!! Peace.

  26. avatar JLo says:

    DanielKane: awesome piece; a keeper for a solid explanation. Thank you.
    Raymondrice: if I remember correctly, the child she would not abort was also present at the canonization.
    Indeed, pace e bene. +JMJ

  27. avatar SALLYANNE says:

    She surely was a special person! Beautiful!

  28. avatar SALLYANNE says:

    And a true Christian!! I think a situation like this is up to the person. If she had aborted the child, just say, I don’t think God would have condemned her. There is so much more to take into consideration, for example, had she been the mother of two pre-school aged children and her husband was not around, she’d have to weigh the consequences regarding her children. However, she truly is a Saint!

  29. avatar JLo says:

    Sallyanne, you keep stretching to embrace abortion. You just really seem to need to excuse it somehow, some way, to find a case where it’s okay. I have some questions for you to consider while you do your deliberation:

    Do you not know that Satan always masks sin in what looks like a nice thing, even a greater good just exactly as you are reaching for in justifying an abortion because one may have other young children?

    In such a case, do you not think that perhaps God’s plan is that those children you example should be raised by another, or do you think man has a right to arrange everything to his liking?

    Have you never learned that the end never justifies the means, no matter how righteous you (YOU, not God, YOU) paint the end game?

    Have you never learned that you may not do evil to advance good?

    Finally, have you never learned that we must trust the Church’s wisdom before our own? And please do note that by Church I don’t mean some nun or priest you know or even a bishop who thinks it okay to deviate from Church teaching here or there.

    Please come to grips with the true nature of abortion and join the ranks of all who will fight it at all costs because in other than spontaneous abortion, abortion is the murder of a person, an innocent, defenseless person at that; and contrary to your touchy feely opinion that “I don’t think God would have condemned her”, the Church thinks otherwise.

    May God be praised and you blessed in all you do, Sallyanne.

    +JMJ

  30. avatar SALLYANNE says:

    JLo,

    I’ll get back to you. Thanks for your questions. I’d like to ask you a question, no sarcasm intended. Would you die to save your unborn child? Do you think you would just accept it if you had the choice to live if you aborted your child? I’ll think about what you said and answer..Peace

  31. avatar Scott W. says:

    Technically, it is not a requirement that you give up your life to save the baby. What simply and unambiguously is true however is that it is never permissible to deliberately kill the baby.

  32. avatar Scott W. says:

    Let me rephrase that so I am not misconstrued. When people try to carve out a life-of-the-mother exception to abortion, they are (perhaps not intentionally) setting up a false dilemma in which “either I deliberately kill the baby so I live, or I suffer pain and death but the baby lives.” No one is forced into such a choice. Just because abortion is not an option, that doesn’t mean we must be content to sit on our hands and do nothing. The rule is quite simple: doctors must act with the purpose of saving both mother and child. Now some of the solutions might involve risk to one or the other. And one can even licitly distribute that risk in favor of one or the other. At no point can deliberately kill one for the sake of the other.

  33. avatar SALLYANNE says:

    So what you are saying, Scott, I think, is that the baby is the innocent victim if aborted because the child has no choice but the mother can choose if she lives or if the baby lives, so deliberatly aborting the baby is considered murder?

  34. avatar SALLYANNE says:

    JLO,

    I have some thoughts about your questions and want to really think about what I want to say…

  35. avatar Scott W. says:

    Sallyanne, that is what I am saying. To put it this way, imagine a doctor giving a consultation on an ectopic pregnancy.

    Unacceptable: “Well, Mrs. Brown, the baby is causing major life-threatening symptoms, so we will administer drugs to destroy the baby and you will live.”

    Acceptable: “Well, Mrs. Brown, the baby is causing major life-threatening symptoms, so we will treat those symptoms as best we can, let the baby develop to minimum viability (which has been getting earlier and earlier these days), and then deliver the baby surgically. It’s a long shot for the baby’s survival, but it doesn’t involve deliberately killing him.”

  36. avatar SALLYANNE says:

    JlO,

    Sallyanne, you keep stretching to embrace abortion. You just really seem to need to excuse it somehow, some way, to find a case where it’s okay. I have some questions for you to consider while you do your deliberation:

    Although it seems that I need to excuse abortion to find a case where it’s OK, that’s not the case. I think all of us who have certain beliefs first seek to prove those beliefs before they discover whether or not they are wrong. I have done some research and now I believe differently. I happen to agree with you. I was wrong. You were right. Thank you. :))

    Do you not know that Satan always masks sin in what looks like a nice thing, even a greater good just exactly as you are reaching for in justifying an abortion because one may have other young children?

    I do know that Satan masks sin in what looks like a nice thing. I also believe that Satan can lead a devout Christian to stir up dissention among people. He’s tricky. I’m referring to that long video… I’ll not name the author…Some things in that video, namely the movie with the last confession and a few others. Very dark…and very unsettling. This might sound like an accusation…however, it’s just my observation. I believe that it’s perfectly OK to disagree with what Bishop Clark is doing in the diocese but to purposely mock him that way, yes, by that I mean the JibJab cartoons, regardless of whether or not some of you in Cleansing Fire needed a little humor is an example of justifying behavior that I believe would not please God. The cartoons, even though mocking in my opinion are followed by darker segments of old movies involving guns and last confessions. It was chilling.

    In such a case, do you not think that perhaps God’s plan is that those children you example should be raised by another, or do you think man has a right to arrange everything to his liking?

    I think God’s plan is that the unborn child should not be aborted under any circumstance. If the fetus dies during a necessary medical procedure and the purpose intended was not to end the life of the child, that is a different matter. No, I don’t think man has a right to arrange everything to his liking, not at all.

    Have you never learned that the end never justifies the means, no matter how righteous you (YOU, not God, YOU) paint the end game?

    This phrase, originating from Niccolo Machiavelli’s book “The Prince”, is interpreted by some to mean doing anything whatsoever that is required to get the result you want, regardless of the methods used. It does not matter whether these methods are legal or illegal, fair or foul, kind or cruel, truth or lies, democratic or dictatorial, good or evil.

    I agree with you. The end never justifies the means, no matter how righteous the end game is painted.

    Have you never learned that you may not do evil to advance good?

    Yes, I have learned that I may not do evil to advance good, and that includes abortion. Let me say, that no matter how I have thought in the past, I would never have an abortion. Even though I had the wrong thoughts, that in way ever meant that I would do it. Again, those videos…I think they are a prime example to your question.

    Finally, have you never learned that we must trust the Church’s wisdom before our own? And please do note that by Church I don’t mean some nun or priest you know or even a bishop who thinks it okay to deviate from Church teaching here or there.

    Yes, I have learned that we must trust the Church’s wisdom before our own…however, in some cases, I’m still not quite convinced. I’m looking at it though. I think organized religion “can” get things wrong…and by saying that, I really don’t think I’m making God angry at me…not by wondering and debating…I believe God is God and the Church is the Church…I don’t believe that the Church is God, but I do respect the Church. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything it teaches…

    Please come to grips with the true nature of abortion and join the ranks of all who will fight it at all costs because in other than spontaneous abortion, abortion is the murder of a person, an innocent, defenseless person at that; and contrary to your touchy feely opinion that “I don’t think God would have condemned her”, the Church thinks otherwise. May God be praised and you blessed in all you do, Sallyanne.

    You have helped to change my mind on the abortion issue. Thank you JLO and Cleansing Fire…Peace

  37. avatar SALLYANNE says:

    To respond to Scott W.

    Your Post:
    Sallyanne, that is what I am saying. To put it this way, imagine a doctor giving a consultation on an ectopic pregnancy.

    Unacceptable: “Well, Mrs. Brown, the baby is causing major life-threatening symptoms, so we will administer drugs to destroy the baby and you will live.”

    Acceptable: “Well, Mrs. Brown, the baby is causing major life-threatening symptoms, so we will treat those symptoms as best we can, let the baby develop to minimum viability (which has been getting earlier and earlier these days), and then deliver the baby surgically. It’s a long shot for the baby’s survival, but it doesn’t involve deliberately killing him.”

    Scott, I don’t believe an ectopic pregnancy could produce a baby….most are in the Fallopian tubes, and they would burst as the baby developed to even a month…both the baby and the mother would die. It’s a very serious emergency…so I don’t think you can actually “abort” an ectopic pregnancy, I’m pretty sure I read that the doctor has to remove the fallopian tube, and right away….below is the Wikipedia definition (think I misspelled that)

    An ectopic pregnancy, or eccysis, is a complication of pregnancy in which the embryo implants outside the uterine cavity.[1] With rare exceptions, ectopic pregnancies are not viable. Furthermore, they are dangerous for the mother, since internal haemorrhage is a life-threatening complication. Most ectopic pregnancies occur in the Fallopian tube (so-called tubal pregnancies), but implantation can also occur in the cervix, ovaries, and abdomen. An ectopic pregnancy is a potential medical emergency, and, if not treated properly, can lead to death.

  38. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    The incidence of ectopic pregnancy is on the rise. Since there are many more unmarried people having sex, more so with multiple partners, the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases is also on the rise. These diseases, often silent in women, they do not have symptoms, cause scarring in the fallopian tubes. Once that happens, the human embryo cannot travel to the uterus.

    This is why I have issues with Planned Parenthood. They dispence with birth control, often to teens, many times without parental approval. These unfortunate people then go about having sex, thinking nothing will happen. When they become infected, they take an antiobiotic, the infection goes away, and they think all is well. But the incicence of permanent blockage of the fallopian tubes is 10% with each infection. And when they try having children, many years after the infection, and learn they cannot have children, they are clueless as to how this happened.

    I wish our priests and religious ed teachers would learn about birth control and then teach.

  39. avatar DanielKane says:

    Two points – it is an error for a Christian to judge the morality of an act by its consequences. An evil act does not become good because of a seemingly favorable consequence. While I do not concede that an abortion is a treatment for any disease, even if it were, it would still be gravely evil in that the child is not the disease.

    One can not “presume” the mercy of God because the presumed good “intention” of saving the mother” in the anticipation of an evil act because that compounds the evil suggesting that God is neutral on abortion in certain circumstances – and God does not seem neutral on abortion.

    Secondly, circumstances such as this fall under the principal of double effect. One can remove the diseased tube or uterus even if it houses a fetal person who will die. The act – removing a uterus or an ectopic tube addresses a diseased organ and such organs when diseased are commonly removed. The good result – the life of the mother is from the removal of the diseased organ, not the abortion. This is true even though predictably (and regrettably in the present time)the removal of the organ causes the demise of the child.

    If one were to simply remove the child – an abortion – most often done in a brutal an inhumane manner, killing the child as a means to an end (life of the mother) is gravely sinful.

    To be clear, there is no moral prohibition for any treatment that a mother might receive (even treatment that endangers the child or will likely kill the child)to cure her disease and save her life. She is not obligated to place her life over that of the child – at least not in Catholic morality. St. Gianna (mentioned earlier) DID NOT have to forgo more aggressive treatment. She heroically chose to do so and in doing so displayed heroic virtue. Heroic virtue is not obligatory nor common, but avoiding evil is. Abortion – a direct assault on the child – is not a treatment for disease. Anything else, even if it leads to the foreseeable yet unintended death of the child is an acceptable course of action; weighing the innumerable variables in play.

  40. avatar SALLYANNE says:

    Exactly, DanielKane…you said it better than I did..

  41. avatar Scott W. says:

    There are cases where children survived ectopic pregnancy, even long-lasting ones. Also, we have to be VERY careful with the “I am removing a diseased organ, not killing a baby” approach. If the doctor is like, “Well, it’s your lucky day. The fetus is in the fallopian tube, so I can just clip that out, and if there happened to be a child in there, well that’s just double-effect” then we are in trouble because this doesn’t describe the reality at all–it’s just verbal gymnastics. Rather, every chosen act by a doctor has to be a saving act of both child and mother, even if highly risky and unlikely survival for the child.

  42. avatar DanielKane says:

    The principal of the double effect, in my experience, is always a bitter pill to swallow because for the most part, it involves pregnancy, grave disease and death. I would disagree that every act of a physician has to be a “saving act towards the mother and child” because sometimes it is licitly not the case. We know that chemo and radiation (licit treatments for cancer) is at least harmful to a developing child.

    Yet, no act may directly assault the child. We hope and pray for the best but our intellect is generally accurate when we remove a diseased tube or uterus, the child within it is doomed typically because of immaturity. There are innumerable variables in every case. Direct abortion is always and in every case, wrong. But treating a disease is a good or at least morally neutral act.

    If your intention (joy at or desire of the death of the child)actually occurs – and I doubt it does because these cases are beyond tragic – then you are correct, the corrupt intention of one or more of the actors corrupts the good act likely to the point of sin. It is not unlike (in a less grave circumstance) for me to be “good” to my wife with the hope of manipulating her for my gain later. My bad intention corrupts whatever good I may do.

    For a woman to forgo a lifesaving treatment for the sake of the child (and in many real-world cases both die) it is a display of heroic virtue. No one is called to and few are capable of this level of virtue. When this is displayed as well, it is tragic and very sad because some one dies prematurely, unexpectedly and in an “out of order”fashion. Sure, we all have hope in the Resurrection but even Our Lady was heartbroken on Good Friday and she knew full well what was in store in three days.


-Return to main page-