The classes I enjoyed most during seminary were ethics courses. We would debate particular questions about morality addressing issues of good and evil, right and wrong, justice and injustice.
Rarely was a definitive conclusion reached; no one had sole possession of the truth; and the philosophical question was always hypothetical.
This latter point was particularly noteworthy because it allowed us the luxury of debating our sense of morality without having to actually make a difficult decision.
Sister of Mercy Margaret McBride, a Catholic nun and administrator at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, was not so fortunate.
Unlike seminary, she was held accountable for her moral position.
Last November, a 27-year-old woman was admitted to St. Joseph's Hospital. She was 11 weeks pregnant with her fifth child, and she was gravely ill. Doctors informed her that if she continued with the pregnancy, her risk of mortality was "close to 100 percent."
The patient was reportedly too ill to be moved to the operating room, let alone another hospital, agreed to an abortion. Herein lies the moral dilemma: She was at a Catholic hospital.
According to Catholic teachings, abortion under any circumstances is wrong. Therefore, the official church position would mandate the correct solution would be to let mother and child die.
However, the hospital felt the pregnancy could be terminated because of Directive 47 in the U.S. Catholic Church ethical guidelines for health care providers, allowing in some cases procedures that could kill the fetus to save the mother.
Based on this directive, McBride, who was also the diocese liaison, gave her approval for the procedure. The mother lived, but McBride was excommunicated.
According to the diocese, McBride was excommunicated because she "held a position of authority at the hospital and was frequently consulted on ethical matters. She gave her consent that the abortion was a morally good and allowable act according to church teaching. Furthermore, she admitted this directly to Bishop (Thomas) Olmsted. Since she gave her consent and encouraged an abortion she automatically excommunicated herself from the church."
As a non-Catholic seated from my armchair perspective the punishment for McBride seems excessive. I understand she violated Catholic teachings, but was there something between doing nothing and excommunication that could have been handed down instead?
I also understand Catholic teachings view McBride's action as consenting in the death of an unborn child. Moreover, one cannot do evil to bring about good -- the end cannot justify the means.
But a strict adherence to Catholic teachings, where one allows the mother and child to die, hardly seems practical, especially when presented with that scenario in the moment.
Though I risk stating the obvious, there is a moral inconsistency in the treatment of McBride. If the decision to excommunicate her was based on violation of strict Catholic teachings, it was far more public and punitive than anything done to the priests, who were allowed to molest children, in some cases, for decades.
The misogynistic double standard is painfully glaring.
One individual makes a difficult decision that is far more complex than searching for the right answer in an ethical handbook and is kicked out of the church. But those who knowingly abused their authority and trust with the most vulnerable members of their community in many cases were allowed to continue their ministry, and none received the punishment handed down to McBride.
The Catholic abuse scandal continues to be a global phenomenon that also provided a cover-up that went well beyond the local parishes involved.
But moral inconsistency is hardly the exclusive domain of Catholicism, it is common to all who participate in reality. Moreover, it seems the decision to excommunicate McBride was correct based on the teachings of the church.
Some would argue McBride was guilty of an infraction equally as abhorrent as the abusive priest. But doesn't one's heart and intent count for something?
Unfortunately for McBride and her diocese, this was not a hypothetical to be debated in seminary or a philosophy course. It was a rare moment when one's beliefs were put to the test in the heat of a crisis.
But like my memorable ethical debates, while there is a truth in this matter to be realized by each individual, "the" truth, which is so desperately sought, remains just beyond the reach and comprehension of everyone concerned.
Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist. He is the author of Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War. E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or visit his Web site byronspeaks.com.
Follow Byron Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/byronspeaks
Canon Lawyer: Sister's Excommunication 'Null and Void'
"In a Letter to the Editor of The (London) Tablet, Ladislas Orsy, S.J., professor of canon law at Georgetown University has weighed in on the excommunication of Sister Margaret Mary McBride, and has declared it, based on canon law, "null and void."..."
Childbirth is the most dangerous activity a womon can engage in. This womon was 27 years old and was dying from her 5th ordained child.
Very similar to the pogroms of the middle ages, which no one likes to hear about.
As a non-Catholic you would see this as a double standard. The reality is that strict adherence to Catholic theology is more an attack on science based decision making than beliefs or morality. Insisting that faith based decisions once reserved to the Church exclusively not be science based, they are intentionally confusing everyone by blurring the differences between likely consequences and absolute belief.
This is not at all the same kind of problem as cowardice exhibited by Church leaders in dealing with the embarrassment of pedophile priests and not a double standard. It is something much worse.
Destroy little boys and get transferred. Hopefully to Vatican City with a full pension.
Maybe because "the" truth does not exist in reality. People can sit around all day long and pontificate their virtues and morals believing they now have the world under control. But life is full of the complex and messy and nuanced, diversity of beliefs and peoples. Absolutes can not and do not work in a society without ignoring and abusing these facts and the people they affect.
The CChurch has itself in quite the bind here. Denying the humanity and agency of the female is no longer an option or the sanctified privilege of the male hierarchy yet, they have fixed it so there is no room for reality left and as a result we get cases as the above and the 9 yr old rape victim in Brazil. Because this is where absolutes lead...into the insane, barbaric and utterly criminal.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/142292.php (Brazilian case)
http://www.archive.org/details/when_abortion_was_illegal (self-explanatory)
This is what we get for believing fairy tales are fact
You know, if you're going to have a policy, at least have the guts to enforce it! The RCC can't even bring itself to stand up for it's own idiotic policy. If she could automatically excommunicate herself then she can automatically reverse it, too!
While I do have a system of faith that strengthens and sustains me, it does not call upon me to defy reason. Knowingly letting the mother die would have been tantamount to murder, more so than ending the growth cycle of a collection of immature cells. To those who that idea offends, I give you this: at 11 weeks, the fetus could not survive on its own. Not to mention the thousands of children around the world who meet their end from abuse, neglect, starvation, and disease. All of those deaths are tragic, but where is the same fervor to save them? If the ki//ing of others (adults) would save those kids, would it be justified? Who says which life is more important? That is a personal matter to decide, not any religion's.
and this isn't just christian, or even catholic. There is a wide spectrum to be offered.
I find the questions difficult to answer with certitude. What I don't find acceptable is assertions based on mere religious dogma. Not because I think they are automatically wrong, but because I find the structure backing them up totally lacking in convincing me. That doesn't mean their ultimate conclusion might not be the correct answer, but the need a better argument to make their case.
Ultimately, i think there is a middle ground the devout are unwilling to recognize as acceptable. But until they find an argument that is truly rational/secular. I don't need scripture quotes. I need rational arguments. And too many only have the former to offer, and you fail miserably if that is all you have at hand to defend your arguments.
What????? There is no moral dilemma here. Call it what it is - CHW - Catholic homicide of women.
To consider the notion of requiring a woman to die because she is physically incapable of carrying a pregnancy to term is what is immoral, not the other way around. In fact, if I lived there I would be demanding the state investigate all deaths of women relating to pregnancy and birth for the last 30 years at that hospital. I would expect the state to put that hospital on strict notice that if they further endangered any woman's life because they refuse to give proper medical care for whatever reason would be grounds for criminal proceedings. I would further request that the state remove the church from hospital and staff management as well as all medical decisions.
We don't need hospitals killing women because they are unable to carry a fetus to term. That is wholly unconscionable.
Fanned and Fav'd.
No one needs a book of fiction to tell what's right from wrong.
It's high time women step away from religious institutions that treat them like nothing more than baby incubators.
I greatly appreciated this article.
I don't like abortion (as a general option) - I just *don't* like the idea that society/people can and should be allowed to "do away with the unwanted," (in this case, unwanted children/elective procedures). It's not even a "religious" irk with me so much as a psychological twitch. But, you know, there are common-sense things like this case -- The life of a woman (*undebateably* human) is in danger. Physicians *must* be allowed to save the life of a woman who's life is in danger.
I am pro-choice because I am pro-life. Because the life of the mother is just as valueable, and usually more valuable than that of the fetus/child. I want to prevent abortion when possible, but not by making it illegal, and certainly not by hurting women.
Welcome to the pro-choice movement.
I feel sorry for the sister involved. At least I left the church on my own, kind of a 'mental abortion' of the catholic religion.
I mean, and i'm being just hypothetical because probably in this case it was not possible, what happens if the doctors choose to let the mother die but keep her body running until the child gets to 28 weeks and can be born?
Something like this http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/03/AR2005080300224.html
My point is NOT to let the mother die, but rather to ask who can decide whose life is worth saving and whose life is not?
As to your question of who can decide - that would be the woman whose body it is.
Wrong. It is not a 'child' at 11 weeks gestation it is barely a fetus. Anti-choicers love to ignore facts for sensationalism but, unfortunately for them, medical science proves otherwise.
The link you provided is a tragic story of a woman who died of CANCER, her fetus did not kill her. And it was the mother's wish to complete the pregnancy according to her actions while well and by the word of her husband...in the above story the woman agreed to the termination. Two very different cases.
>> "...who can decide whose life is worth saving and whose life is not? "
Well, in the unique case of pregnancy..the one who can talk would be a good place to start. What you have tried to do is give equal weight and rights to the potential while denying and violating the rights of the reality...it is beyond despicable.
For you to reach your conclusion, don't you have to read not only that graph out of context, but the entire piece?
Peace and blessings,
Byron