Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bishop Says Nun is Automatically Excommunicated ... [rubberstamping abortion]
LifeSiteNews.com -- your Life, Family and Culture Outpost ^ | May 18, 2010 | By Peter J. Smith

Posted on 05/18/2010 9:52:44 AM PDT by topher

Monday May 17, 2010


Bishop Says Nun is Automatically Excommunicated for Rubberstamping Hospital Abortion

By Peter J. Smith

PHOENIX, Arizona, May 17, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Bishop of Phoenix has announced that a Catholic nun and administrator of St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix has automatically excommunicated herself by approving an abortion on a woman who was 11-weeks pregnant, and whose life hospital officials allege they were trying to save.

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted said the excommunications apply to all involved, and lambasted the hospital’s defense of their decision by comparing the ill woman’s unborn child to a disease that needed to be removed.

The Arizona Republic reports that in late 2009, Sister Margaret McBride, then vice president of mission integration at St. Joseph’s, joined the hospital’s ethics committee in determining that doctors and the hospital would be morally justified in performing a direct abortion in the first trimester, because they felt that the mother’s life was at risk.

The woman, whose identity is anonymous, was reportedly seriously ill with pulmonary hypertension.

The hospital has two directives relating to abortion, as reported by the Republic. The first says that physicians cannot perform direct abortions under any circumstances, including for such reasons as to save the life of the mother.

A second directive adds, however, 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." This directive is based on the Catholic philosophical principle of double effect, which says that if the treatment sought addresses the direct causes of the woman’s health condition (such as radiation treatment for cancer), but never intends to kill the unborn child (even though that may happen as a secondary, but unintended, effect of the lifesaving treatment), then it is morally licit.

Hospital officials claimed that they were following the second directive by aborting the baby.

But Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted said in a statement provided to the Republic that he was “gravely concerned by the fact that an abortion was performed several months ago in a Catholic hospital in this diocese,” and furthermore said he was appalled by the hospital’s twisted reasoning that justified the direct abortion by reducing the unborn child to a disease.

“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," the prelate said.

Olmsted made clear that McBride and all Catholics who had “formal cooperation” in the woman’s abortion of her child, were automatically excommunicated from the Church.

"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," Olmsted declared.

McBride has since been demoted from her position, and transferred by the hospital to another area of administration.

Catholic Healthcare West, which oversees St. Joseph’s hospital, sent a letter to Olmsted Monday defending McBride’s and the hospital’s actions.

"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."

However, Dr. Paul A. Byrne, Director of Neonatology and Pediatrics at St. Charles Mercy Hospital in Toledo, Ohio, disputes the claim that an abortion is ever a procedure necessary to save the life of the mother, or carries less risk than birth.

In an interview with LifeSiteNews, Dr. Byrne said, “I don’t know of any [situation where abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother].

“I know that a lot of people talk about these things, but I don’t know of any. The principle always is preserve and protect the life of the mother and the baby.”

Byrne has the distinction of being a pioneer in the field of neonatology, beginning his work in the field in 1963 and becoming a board-certified neonatologist in 1975. He invented one of the first oxygen masks for babies, an incubator monitor, and a blood-pressure tester for premature babies, which he and a colleague adapted from the finger blood pressure checkers used for astronauts.

Byrne emphasized that he was not commentating on what the woman’s particular treatment should have been under the circumstances, given that she is not his patient.

“But given just pulmonary hypertension, the answer is no” to abortion, said Byrne.

Byrne emphasized that the unborn child at 11 weeks gestation would have a negligible impact on the woman’s cardiovascular system. He said that pregnancy in the first and second trimesters would not expose a woman with even severe pulmonary hypertension – which puts stress on the heart and the longs – to any serious danger.

A pregnant mother’s cardiovascular system does have “major increases,” but they only happen “in the last three months of pregnancy,” Byrne explained.

The point of fetal viability is estimated at anywhere between 21 - 24 weeks, he indicated, at which point a baby can artificially be delivered and have a good shot at surviving. In the meantime the mother’s pulmonary hypertension could be treated, even by such simple things as eliminating salt from her diet, exercising, or losing weight.

“It’s not going to be any extra stress on the mother that she can’t stand,” said Byrne. “Eventually you get to where the baby gets big enough that the baby can live outside the uterus and you don’t have to do an abortion.”

“I am only aware of good things happening by doing that. I am not aware of anything bad happening to the mother because the baby was allowed to live.”

“The only reason to kill the baby at 11 weeks is because it is smaller,” which makes the abortion easier to perform, he said, not because the mother’s life is in immediate danger.

“I’ve done this work just about as long as neonatology has existed,” said Byrne. “The key is we must protect and preserve life, and we have to do that from conception to the natural end.”


To contact Catholic Healthcare West:

Catholic Healthcare West
185 Berry Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94107

Phone: (415) 438-5500

Click here to contact CHW electronically.

To contact Bishop Thomas Olmsted:

Diocese of Phoenix
400 East Monroe Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2336
Phone: 602-354-2000
Fax: 602-354-2427
Email:

URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10051712.html


Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.


TOPICS: Catholic
KEYWORDS: abortion; catholic; hospital; medicalethics; prolife; unbornbaby
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last
The reason why the abortion could not be done is simple:

The article states that treatments such as chemotherapy are allowed to save the mother's life (but may result in the death of the unborn). However, an unborn cannot be directly killed, i.e., aborted "as a means of saving the mother's life".

This is the key point of the article: that a baby cannot be aborted directly, but that the Catholic Hospital can provide medical treatment (such as chemo) which will save the mother's life. This might indirectly end the unborn's life, but the point is to try to save one life.

What the bishop said was very wrong was to kill the baby with the hope that it will somehow help the mother's life (which may or may not help depending on the medical condition).

1 posted on 05/18/2010 9:52:44 AM PDT by topher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: topher
From the article:

Hospital officials claimed that they were following the second directive by aborting the baby.

This is only true in a pig's eye.

An medical doctor further down in the article refutes the above statement saying that an unborn child at 11 weeks has minimal impact on the cardiovascular system of the mother...

This is Dr. Byne who refutes the cliams of the Catholic Hospital in Phoenix...

2 posted on 05/18/2010 9:56:39 AM PDT by topher (Let us return to old-fashioned morality - morality that has stood the test of time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

Good Job - Bishop Olmsted. This IS a big deal.

So many destructive (and un-Catholic things) are rationalized away by clergy and lay people with emotional, politically expedient, socially-safe - and specious arguments. Time to draw a line.


3 posted on 05/18/2010 9:57:07 AM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

Sounds like the Jack Bauer approach. Refreshing.


4 posted on 05/18/2010 9:58:18 AM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: topher


The ex-sister.
5 posted on 05/18/2010 10:02:51 AM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

Bravo to the bishop for doing his job! Would to God that all bishops were as faithful.
From a philosophical perspective, Natural Law, as a principle, is not concerned with secondary affects. It looks at an action in keeping with moral absolutes.
Some see this as a weakness of Natural Law, but whatever moral or ethical standard that you choose, you should be consistent.


6 posted on 05/18/2010 10:03:35 AM PDT by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

I am very suspicious that the hospital didn’t offer any comparison as to the health risks to the mother in having an abortion procedure performed on her versus carrying the baby to term. There also was no explanation offered as to what health risk carrying the baby to term with respect to her heart condition whatsoever.

And let me add this: Those who wish to criticize the Catholic Church’s position that the baby’s life is preferred over the mother’s should bear in mind that this policy is long-standing.

If one does not wish to abide this policy, it is quite simple: LEAVE THE CHURCH or expect to be expelled. Don’t try to force the church to abide your lifestyle choices. Free association and all that.


7 posted on 05/18/2010 10:04:14 AM PDT by walford (http://the-big-pic.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus

She’s still a sister. She’s a sister who is an excommunicated Catholic, and needs to formally repent in the presence of Bishop Olmstead.


8 posted on 05/18/2010 10:10:46 AM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: topher
Hospital officials claimed that they were following the second directive by aborting the baby

but in doing this, they totally disregarded the first directive--no abortions... so glad this is found to be unacceptable... can you imagine this slippery slope?

9 posted on 05/18/2010 10:11:37 AM PDT by latina4dubya ( self-proclaimed tequila snob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: walford
Those who wish to criticize the Catholic Church’s position that the baby’s life is preferred over the mother’s

There really is no such policy.

The teaching is actually very simple: you can't deliberately intend to kill an innocent person, even to save the life of another. Babies are innocent people, therefore (etc.).

It is sometimes morally permissible to take some act intended to save the mother's life, even if that act inadvertently causes the child's death. It is never permissible to deliberately, intentionally kill the child (or the mother) for any reason.

10 posted on 05/18/2010 10:13:44 AM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: topher

What about an ectopic pregnancy?


11 posted on 05/18/2010 10:17:21 AM PDT by DallasDeb (USAFA '06 Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DallasDeb
Father Peter West once spoke about what the Catholic church teaches on this.

You cannot directly kill the unborn.

But the unborn will grow and burst the fallopian tube, possibly killing both the mother and baby.

What can be done (which according to Father Peter West was approved by the Roman Catholic Church) was that the Fallopian tube is removed.

The baby dies a "form of a natural death". The baby does not continue to "theathen the life of the mother by growing.

Incidently, it was quite commonly known that a major cause of ecotopic pregnancy was because of a prior abortion -- the surgical "scraping" within the womb would do damage to the fallopian tubes/uterus.

12 posted on 05/18/2010 10:21:09 AM PDT by topher (Let us return to old-fashioned morality - morality that has stood the test of time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus
Another doesn't look like a nun ex-nun.

If I ran into her on the street, how would I know she was a Roman Catholic nun?

If she wore a cross, then maybe I might think she might be a nun...

13 posted on 05/18/2010 10:23:42 AM PDT by topher (Let us return to old-fashioned morality - morality that has stood the test of time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DallasDeb
When I heard Father Peter West speak, he was speaking as a Pastoral Associate for Priests for Life.

I meant to mention that in the previous post, and it was as a part of question/answer session on abortion/pro-life that he gave at St Michael's Catholic Church in Gaineville, Georgia...

14 posted on 05/18/2010 10:25:35 AM PDT by topher (Let us return to old-fashioned morality - morality that has stood the test of time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: topher
Margaret McBride will probably become a hero and a communicant at the Chuch of the Infinite Loophole.
15 posted on 05/18/2010 10:28:36 AM PDT by Mobties (Everything I needed to know about Islam I learned on 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

Well done, good and faithful servant! Now, if we can get the bishops of Pelosi, Reid, Kerry and the Kennedy family to follow suit!


16 posted on 05/18/2010 10:29:12 AM PDT by pgyanke (You have no "rights" that require an involuntary burden on another person. Period. - MrB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DallasDeb; topher
What about an ectopic pregnancy?

As Topher alluded to, it's called the principle of double effect. Basically it goes like this: you cannot do an intrinsically evil act to achieve a good end, but you can do an acceptable act in order to achieve that good, minimizing the chances of a bad side effect, but if that bad side effect happens, then it is acceptable.

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, you are not aborting the baby, you are removing the inflamed and swollen fallopian tube that might burst, which would, in all likelihood kill both mother and baby if not removed. Unfortunately, there is a baby inside of that fallopian tube. Currently, technology does not exist that will allow that baby to survive the removal of the fallopian tube, but we can pray that medical science will find a way to allow that to happen in the future.

In other words, you are treating the mother and, with technology the way it is, the chances are extreme that the baby will not survive.

If medical science was funded in a true pro-life fashion, they would be working on a technique to allow the baby to somehow survive. But I doubt that medical science is even looking in that direction.

17 posted on 05/18/2010 10:35:26 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: topher

Why does he not excommunicate the “Devout Catholic” Politicians that approve of abortions?


18 posted on 05/18/2010 10:35:38 AM PDT by sniper63 (I am the leader of the TEA Party, I, myself am the leader of me, myself for I am the TEA Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sniper63

Because he is not their bishop.


19 posted on 05/18/2010 10:36:29 AM PDT by pgyanke (You have no "rights" that require an involuntary burden on another person. Period. - MrB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
If medical science was funded in a true pro-life fashion, they would be working on a technique to allow the baby to somehow survive. But I doubt that medical science is even looking in that direction.

**************************

Exactly right. That's the problem.

20 posted on 05/18/2010 10:38:26 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson