<p>I’m Presbyterian, H Catholic. Married in '76. We had to go to 6 short evening sessions with various couples who were volunteer counselors. Very unstructured. The session on Natural Family Planning was very short. They asked if we both wanted children… yes, we did… asked if we had any ideas about when… we pointed out that we were both still in school and thought that 3 or 4 years was the very soonest, and that I had already started on birth control pills. The husband and wife looked at each other, murmered something about that sounding reasonable, but here is the booklet anyway. We had some wine and cheese and talked about football.
If my furniture wasn’t entombed in plastic due to a remodel I would dig out the booklet that Father M gave us. I’m pretty sure it said (in print) that if the non-Catholic parent was much stronger in faith (especially if that was the mother) then it was better for the kids to be brought up in a Protestant church than no church.</p>
<p>Yeah, they didn’t breathe a <em>word</em> to me about Natural Family Planning… I was just handed a booklet along with all the other packets of information they’d given us. (I was a little disappointed at the time; I’d put on my feminist game face and was ready for a throwdown!)</p>
<p>As a cradle Catholic, now lapsed, I’m enjoying the discussions of my former religion. We all know that Catholics oppose abortion. This is not the place to debate that. But could someone clarify what is going on in this case?</p>
<p>[Nun</a> Excommunicated For Allowing Abortion : NPR](<a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072]Nun”>Nun Excommunicated For Allowing Abortion : NPR)</p>
<p>Let’s assume the facts are as in this article: a woman came to a Catholic hospital, 11 weeks pregnant and gravely ill. The doctors said if she continued the pregnancy, she would die (and, obviously, so would the fetus). The hospital decided to perform an abortion on the woman. The bishop of the diocese later said that the hospital should not have done the abortion, and a nun who was on the ethical committee that approved the procedure was excommunicated.</p>
<p>Is it really the position of the Catholic Church that this woman should not get an abortion? </p>
<p>How about ectopic pregnancies? The normal treatment for an ectopic pregnancy (where a fetus implants outside the uterus, life-threatening for the pregnant woman) is removal of the fetus. Is this also forbidden by Catholic doctrine?</p>
<p>I’m not looking for arguments here about what the Catholic Church should say about these situations. People who want to argue about that can argue elsewhere. I just want to know what the Church does officially say.</p>
<p>
<a href=“http://compassionandchoices.org/documents/Ethical%20and%20Religious%20Directives.pdf[/url]”>http://compassionandchoices.org/documents/Ethical%20and%20Religious%20Directives.pdf</a></p>
<p>I’m Jewish but I know how to Google. According to the NPR article, this is the Church document used by the
hospital ethics committee to decide upon what to do in this situation. Later, a Church official (in Phoenix) declared it was applied wrongly and excommunicated the nun in charge of the hospital’s ethics committee.</p>
<p>Hope I got that right, folks.</p>
<p>From that paper p3t posted, in case you don’t want to sift:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that’s what I was taught in RCIA, as well. I was taught that according to canon law, that excommunication should not have taken place.</p>
<p>
Actually I pulled the paper out of the NPR article mentioned by Cardinal Fang in Post #163 by sweeping the title within that article. I just don’t want anyone to think I researched it independently to throw into the dicussion. </p>
<p>Thanks aibarr for finding a relevant passage. It’s a long – and interesting! – document.</p>
<p>returning for a moment to an earlier topic, I did want to thank aibarr and pipmom for their sweet words of support. Honestly, the Catholic Church is far from the only institution in this world that holds what I consider to be extremely inaccurate views about trans people, and their views themselves don’t particularly bother me – since I’m not Catholic myself – so long as representatives of the Church don’t obsess about the subject and go out of their way to say vile and horrible things and use their influence to hurt trans people in general. Which, for the most part, they do far less than people associated with some other denominations. Notwithstanding the Pope’s rather hyperbolic speech (to put it mildly) last December 23, in which he “warned that gender theory blurred the distinction between male and female and thus could lead to the ‘self-destruction’ of the human race,” creating as much danger as the destruction of the rain forests. (See article at [BBC</a> NEWS | Europe | Pope attacks blurring of gender](<a href=“http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7796663.stm]BBC”>BBC NEWS | Europe | Pope attacks blurring of gender)). I had no idea that people like me were quite so influential!</p>
<p>If I were Catholic, like aibarr’s friend (I assume he is), and were younger or had any interest in marrying again, I suppose the fact that the Church would view me as ineligible for marriage – to anyone – probably would bother me. (Reform Judaism, by contrast, is comparatively accepting these days.) I wonder if your friend has seen this article, which sets forth what is apparently the Church’s official position:</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.tgcrossroads.org/news/archive.asp?aid=599]OpenDNS[/url”>Vatican Says Sex Change Operation Does Not Change a Person's Gender | Vatican | Religion / Spirituality | Transgender Crossroads]OpenDNS[/url</a>]</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, if I were so inclined, I would respond to the boldfaced paragraph by saying that I’ve <em>always</em> been female in soul and “personality,” and would agree that surgery – as important as it was in my life, and in confirming my identity – didn’t change that. Of course, I know that isn’t what is meant by that passage.</p>
<p>I would probably also latch onto the paragraph that seems to suggest that in some cases such surgery can, in fact, be “morally acceptable,” and argue that in fact surgery (as part of transition in general) <em>does</em> effect a “cure” in the overwhelming majority of cases. The following paragraph is wrong – completely inaccurate as a representation of fact and of the results of existing studies. And, knowing as I do the identity of the self-appointed expert who was the source of the erroneous information, almost certainly a deliberate lie.</p>
<p>As I understand the document p3t posted, directly causing an abortion (as I believe was done in the case of the gravely ill pregnant woman) is prohibited, because the intention of the abortion would be to abort. However, some treatment that had a side of effect of being dangerous or even lethal to a fetus-- for example, chemotherapy-- would not be prohibited, because the chemotherapy (say) would be intended to treat the cancer, not to kill the fetus, even though as a sad side effect it would kill the fetus.</p>
<p>As I understand the document, if my hypothetical daughter-in-law arrived at a Catholic hospital with an ectopic pregnancy causing hemorrhaging in the abdomen, the doctors would be able to treat the bleeding, but not give her an abortion. Though I guess the fetus would probably die and then they’d be able to operate.</p>
<p>But I’d welcome more information from Catholics or others with knowledge of what Catholic hospitals actually do in such cases.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s exactly the document that my friend quotes, and your response is precisely what he says. He just believes that the church leadership hasn’t really come to realize what he knows to be true.</p>
<p>(He’s a truly inspirational guy… working on his doctorate in psychology right now, has meticulously documented his transition, has written a bunch of journal articles and has done a bunch of research on LGBT psychology… I’ll PM you his Wikipedia entry. Also, I can’t believe that one of my friends has a Wikipedia entry…!!! Just found it via a Google search!)</p>
<p>Also, I can’t believe that one of my friends has a Wikipedia entry…!!! Just found it via a Google search!)</p>
<p>One of my * daughters* has a friend with a wikipedia entry.
Actually I haven’t looked to see if I know any more- but that could be a new thread!
People i noes on wikipedia.
;)</p>
<p><a href=“As%20an%20aside,%20I%20don’t%20actually%20remember%20signing%20anything%20saying%20that%20our%20kids%20would%20be%20raised%20Catholic.%20Maybe%20it%20was%20part%20of%20the%20test%20we%20filled%20out,%20and%20since%20I%20also%20adamantly%20felt%20that%20the%20kids%20should%20be%20raised%20Catholic,%20they%20decided%20it%20was%20a%20non-issue…%20I’m%20not%20sure,%20though…”>I</a>*</p>
<p>If you were married in the last 20 years, it was your H that would have signed. Many decades ago, the nonCatholic had to sign, but in more recent decades, it was the Catholic that had to sign.</p>
<p>*Let’s assume the facts are as in this article: a woman came to a Catholic hospital, 11 weeks pregnant and gravely ill. The doctors said if she continued the pregnancy, she would die (and, obviously, so would the fetus). The hospital decided to perform an abortion on the woman. The bishop of the diocese later said that the hospital should not have done the abortion, and a nun who was on the ethical committee that approved the procedure was excommunicated.</p>
<p>Is it really the position of the Catholic Church that this woman should not get an abortion? *</p>
<p>First of all, you’re talking about a strawman argument. IF a woman is pregnant and ill, you give her treatment - whatever that treatment is chemo, radiation, etc). There’s no need to kill the fetus. If the baby survives the treatment, then fine. IF it doesn’t, it doesn’t. The fact that the Church has thousands of hospitals has proved this when other didn’t first believe it. Others thought, “oh, the woman is sick, abort the baby.” The Church has shown that abortion isn’t necessary. You treat the woman and if the baby lives, it lives, if it doesn’t, it doesn’t…let God decide. And, in many cases, the baby lives and is fine.</p>
<p>* How about ectopic pregnancies? The normal treatment for an ectopic pregnancy (where a fetus implants outside the uterus, life-threatening for the pregnant woman) is removal of the fetus. Is this also forbidden by Catholic doctrine?*</p>
<p>During an ectopic pregnancy, the Church’s position is that the fallopian tube or that part of the fallopian tube is removed because the expanding tube is life-threatening to the mother at that point. The fetus is in the fallopian tube, and will likely die, but it’s not a direct kill. The primary intent is NOT to kill the fetus…it’s to remove the fallopian tube that has become dangerous to the mother.</p>
<p>The Church’s position is that you can’t directly kill a fetus, and your primary intent cannot be to kill the fetus. Your intent can be to remove something that is diseased…such as a cancerous uterus that happens to have a fetus inside. You’re removing a cancerous uterus because it is diseased, your primary intent is not abortion.</p>
<p>Some might think it’s a difference without a distinction…but there is a difference.</p>
<p>I think the church has tightened up quite a bit regarding marriage.
When I got married in '82, the priest who ran our pre-nup class brought in a Nurse Midwife to discuss… Birth control. Horrors! Real Birth control not NFP.</p>
<p>My brother got married in '79 after a one month engagement - they had been dating for 3 years. He had no trouble getting a priest to come to her church on such short notice -they waived the pre-nup. Something that is unheard of around here now.
My younger brother was married civilly because she was pregnant and they had a 2-3 month engagement and a priest would not do it. They had no trouble a few weeks after the civil standing before the altar in the church though and receiving the sacrament of marriage.</p>
<p>m2ck - I whole heartedly agree with your post #172.
This case, however is troubling. The woman had pulmonary hypertension (not to be confused with high blood pressure). This is a very serious disease with a high mortality rate without pregnancy. Apparantly she already had 4 kids and I can’t imagine why she allowed herself to become pregnant. Anyway - this is a disease where the pregnancy will kill the mother - not that the treatment will harm the fetus. She was already 11 weeks pregnant and they felt she would not survive until the fetus was viable - at least 23 weeks (at the low end).
The question becomes - do you treat her until she dies (and the fetus), treat her until she “almost” dies, treat her now. She was already gravely ill and could have been close to death anyway - the article does not make that clear.</p>
<p>A question for DonnaL-what is the status of your birth certificate? Does it get changed as a result of the surgery to reflect the proper gender? (And you are welcome for my sweet words of support)</p>
<p>The reason I ask about the birth certificate is that is the way the Church decides what to put on the Baptismal record. If you came to the Church as an adult convert and got baptized, the Church would record your gender on the Baptismal certificate as the birth certificate indicates. </p>
<p>As we know, from time to time, the Church has gotten itself into a tad bit of trouble when it decides to teach science and medicine instead of faith. The whole Galileo thing, you know. While I understand the position it currently takes on this subject- I do hold out hope that as the science and medicine become more incontrovertible, the Church can change its position on this one. Probably not in my lifetime, however.</p>
<p>I don’t know the details of the woman’s health. Would she be healthy enough to go thru a 3 month abortion? Going through an abortion isn’t a piece of cake, either. There are many medications that a pregnant woman with pulmonary hypertension can be given. Such as: Methylxanthines, Beta-agonists, Corticosteroids, etc.</p>
<p>When I had to have a pregnancy induced, I was given the same drug that is used during partial-birth abortions. I had to sign all these papers because it is a dangerous drug - especially to the heart - and they had to have this injection next to me the entire time to immediately counter this drug if necessary. The fact that I, a healthy woman, was being given a dangerous drug strongly suggests that such a drug shouldn’t be given to someone who isn’t healthy. That’s why the argument that partial-birth abortion is necessary to save the life of a mother is so not true…you don’t give that drug to a woman who is so seriously sick.</p>
<p>From the Mayo clinic:
We don’t know exact the details of her medical condition but the article indicated she was in “grave” condition and the right side of her heart had failed.
Perhaps she was already in ICU and close to complete heart failure. A pregnancy exacerbates this condition tremendously.<br>
My impression from that article is that the decision to abort was not based on the medication she needed in order to live. Perhaps she already had been treated with the best drugs available but the pregnancy was causing too much of a strain on her heart.</p>
<p>Again, I agree that giving medication to save the life of a mother is not a reason to abort - but once that is tried and the pregnancy is CAUSING the mother’s condition to deteriorate toward an untimely demise - IMO the ethical choice is the end the pregnancy.</p>
<p>But Catholicism does not permit that. It’s a very tough teaching and I don’t know what I would do in that situation, but I do know that Church teaching prohibits it.</p>
<p>My firstborn is dating a young Catholic man. I fervently hope they don’t get married. First, I dislike him intensely. Second, he is pretty religious and wants to raise the kids Catholic. My D is deeply religious, has considered and still considers attending seminary. I think that marriage would be in for a lot of conflict.</p>
<p>jonri - well, yes. The Catholic Church tends to operate in black and white. This is why hospitals have ethics committees and when the patient is religious they have that religion represented. It is not always black and white - sometimes there is a gray area.</p>
<p>Medically you are faced with a situation where if the fetus does not die first the woman will die taking the fetus with her. In cases like these - it’s not a matter of “maybe” it is a matter of “when”.
IMO - in very grave and sad cases like these the Catholic church tends to rely more on miracles (hope for) than medical science.<br>
I wondered why the woman was not transferred to another hospital - often this is the case but perhaps her condition was too grave to warrant a transfer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t intend for this to be a hypothetical. The article (here it is again)
[Nun</a> Excommunicated For Allowing Abortion : NPR](<a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072]Nun”>Nun Excommunicated For Allowing Abortion : NPR)
said that a real pregnant woman was admitted to St. Joseph’s hospital, a Catholic hospital in Phoenix, with grave heart problems. Her doctors determined that if she remained pregnant, she would die. It wasn’t a matter of drugs in this case; the pregnancy was exacerbating her health condition and making her mortally ill. Sister Margaret McBride, a hospital administrator, approved an abortion for this very ill woman. Later, Bishop Thomas Olmsted excommunicated Sister Margaret McBride.</p>
<p>These were real people, in a horrible situation. I’m trying to understand what the position of the Catholic Church is in this real situation. As far as I understand it, the position is, in this particular very rare but awful situation, the abortion is impermissible.</p>
<p>I’m glad to have it confirmed that women with ectopic pregnancies can be treated, even though, sadly, their fetuses will die as a side effect.</p>
<p>JustAMom- one of the articles I read said that the woman was so sick she couldn’t be moved to another hospital.</p>