Catholicism, abortion and excommunication

[Twa Cairpets]

Came across this story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37171656/ns/health-health_care/)

In an nutshell, a nun (also a hospital administrator) who sanctioned the abortion of a foetus as the only way of saving the life of a pregnant woman with pulmonary hypertension (rather than having them both die), has been excommunicated by her Archbishop.

I suspect this action would be about the worst thing that could happen to a devout cathoic. It does seem pretty distasteful, and symptomatic of the disconnect between religious leaders and the real world.

[matty_f]

Came, across this story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37171656/ns/health-health_care/)

In an nutshell, a nun (also a hospital administrator) who sanctioned the abortion of a foetus as the only way of saving the life of a pregnant woman with pulmonary hypertension (rather than having them both die), has been excommunicated by her Archbishop.

I suspect this action would be about the worst thing that could happen to a devout cathoic. It does seem pretty distasteful, and symptomatic of the disconnect between religious leaders and the real world.

While I don't agree with the Catholic Church's stance on abortion, I don't see how they can do anything other than excommunicate the nun.

They will, I presume, have taken the view that the pregnant woman who would have died, would have done so under the will of God, and therefore an act to intervene by taking another life (thus again, I suppose, going against the will of God) would be a big "no,no" for them.

If the Church doesn't act against the nun then it sets a precedent that I'm pretty sure they don't want to set.

Would be better if they relaxed their beliefs on abortion but I suppose a belief is just that, and if you believe it, you probably won't want to compromise that belief.

[Twa Cairpets]

While I don't agree with the Catholic Church's stance on abortion, I don't see how they can do anything other than excommunicate the nun.

They will, I presume, have taken the view that the pregnant woman who would have died, would have done so under the will of God, and therefore an act to intervene by taking another life (thus again, I suppose, going against the will of God) would be a big "no,no" for them.

If the Church doesn't act against the nun then it sets a precedent that I'm pretty sure they don't want to set.

Would be better if they relaxed their beliefs on abortion but I suppose a belief is just that, and if you believe it, you probably won't want to compromise that belief.

I suppose you are right Matty, but it doesnt sit well with me that: (a) they officially and dogmatically (quite literally) prefer the death of two people rather than the death of one, (b) punish a follower with excommunication as a result - again I'm guessing spiritually the worst thing you could do to a nun, and (c) leave the surviving mother is, if she is devout, wracked with guilt for the rest of her life.

Taking your argument, is there is no chance that God chose her as the vehicle of His intervention to save the mothers life?

[(((Fergus)))]

Came, across this story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37171656/ns/health-health_care/)

In an nutshell, a nun (also a hospital administrator) who sanctioned the abortion of a foetus as the only way of saving the life of a pregnant woman with pulmonary hypertension (rather than having them both die), has been excommunicated by her Archbishop.

I suspect this action would be about the worst thing that could happen to a devout cathoic. It does seem pretty distasteful, and symptomatic of the disconnect between religious leaders and the real world.

Maybe some religious leaders (I don't know the Catholic law on abortion), but in Judaism - the root of Catholicism - it is permissible to kill a foetus if it is endangering the mother's life (it is considered an act of self-defence).

This makes sense from the point of view of perpetuating life since it is easier for a grown woman to survive an illness and abortion and possibly conceive other children than it is for a foetus to survive the death of its mother.

In the case you posted, either Catholic law is unreasonable or the Archbishop has interpreted it incorrectly. Would be good to hear which if someone knows...

[Twa Cairpets]

Maybe some religious leaders (I don't know the Catholic law on abortion), but in Judaism - the root of Catholicism - it is permissible to kill a foetus if it is endangering the mother's life (it is considered an act of self-defence).

This makes sense from the point of view of perpetuating life since it is easier for a grown woman to survive an illness and abortion and possibly conceive other children than it is for a foetus to survive the death of its mother.

In the case you posted, either Catholic law is unreasonable or the Archbishop has interpreted it incorrectly. Would be good to hear which if someone knows...

The direct quote from the Archbishop includes:

"I am gravely concerned by the fact that an abortion was performed several months ago in a Catholic hospital in this diocese," Olmsted said in a statement sent to The Arizona Republic. "I am further concerned by the hospital's statement that the termination of a human life was necessary to treat the mother's underlying medical condition.

"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."

Olmsted added that if a Catholic "formally cooperates" in an abortion, he or she is automatically excommunicated.

Like you, I dont know enough about the ins-and-outs of catholicism to judge whether he was within or outwith the bounds of his guidelines, but it is important to note i think that it is dogma, not law. The law says abortion is legal, regardless of the moral stance of any given religion.

Ultimately, the decision to excommunicate is an internal matter, and only has an effect if you truly believe. I don't, and maybe therefore can't understand the impact, but if you are a nun, it would surely be a deeply cruel thing to do? You act to save a life, but are condemned to a hell you absolutely believe in are excluded from the comfort and support of the church (ie the institute you have dedicated your life to). That seems an especially amoral and indefensible thing to do.

[Dinkydoo]

The direct quote from the Archbishop includes:

"I am gravely concerned by the fact that an abortion was performed several months ago in a Catholic hospital in this diocese," Olmsted said in a statement sent to The Arizona Republic. "I am further concerned by the hospital's statement that the termination of a human life was necessary to treat the mother's underlying medical condition.

"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."

Olmsted added that if a Catholic "formally cooperates" in an abortion, he or she is automatically excommunicated.

Like you, I dont know enough about the ins-and-outs of catholicism to judge whether he was within or outwith the bounds of his guidelines, but it is important to note i think that it is dogma, not law. The law says abortion is legal, regardless of the moral stance of any given religion.

Ultimately, the decision to excommunicate is an internal matter, and only has an effect if you truly believe. I don't, and maybe therefore can't understand the impact, but if you are a nun, it would surely be a deeply cruel thing to do? You act to save a life, but are condemned to a hell you absolutely believe in are excluded from the comfort and support of the church (ie the institute you have dedicated your life to). That seems an especially amoral and indefensible thing to do.


Not the first time I've totally agreed with the above bit in bold in connection to religion.

Very sad indeed.

Belief is belief and IMO should never, ever take precedent over matters where a person's health is seriously at risk; at the same time (and obviously I completely disagree with it), I can't see anything else that the Archbishop could have done - without compromising his own beliefs.

[(((Fergus)))]

The direct quote from the Archbishop includes:

"I am gravely concerned by the fact that an abortion was performed several months ago in a Catholic hospital in this diocese," Olmsted said in a statement sent to The Arizona Republic. "I am further concerned by the hospital's statement that the termination of a human life was necessary to treat the mother's underlying medical condition.

"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."

Olmsted added that if a Catholic "formally cooperates" in an abortion, he or she is automatically excommunicated.

Like you, I dont know enough about the ins-and-outs of catholicism to judge whether he was within or outwith the bounds of his guidelines, but it is important to note i think that it is dogma, not law. The law says abortion is legal, regardless of the moral stance of any given religion.

Ultimately, the decision to excommunicate is an internal matter, and only has an effect if you truly believe. I don't, and maybe therefore can't understand the impact, but if you are a nun, it would surely be a deeply cruel thing to do? You act to save a life, but are condemned to a hell you absolutely believe in are excluded from the comfort and support of the church (ie the institute you have dedicated your life to). That seems an especially amoral and indefensible thing to do.

What's the difference between dogma and law? Is that the term for Catholic 'rules'?

Anyway, if the nun was doing what she did for the right reason (in God's eyes), and the Catholic church is mistaken in this point, then maybe she is well out of there?

[Peevemor]

What's the difference between dogma and law? Is that the term for Catholic 'rules'?

Anyway, if the nun was doing what she did for the right reason (in God's eyes), and the Catholic church is mistaken in this point, then maybe she is well out of there?

Depends if it's a police dogma.

[Twa Cairpets]

What's the difference between dogma and law? Is that the term for Catholic 'rules'? Law is what the wider society regards as the rules by which individuals in that society must abide by. The "rules" are only applicable to those within that organisation. In this case those rules are driven by dogma. As well as being excommunicated, the nun was demoted, so she has lost her job/income level etc for doing something that was entirely legal.


Anyway, if the nun was doing what she did for the right reason (in God's eyes), and the Catholic church is mistaken in this point, then maybe she is well out of there?

I agree with you. I wonder if she does though?

[Flynn]

I agree with you. I wonder if she does though?

She can still have a relationship with God. She has just had the middleman cut out for her. Did Jesus not say you don't have to go to church to praise the Lord (or words to that effect)?

How many priests have been excommunicated for fiddling with choir boys?

[Twa Cairpets]

She can still have a relationship with God. She has just had the middleman cut out for her. Did Jesus not say you don't have to go to church to praise the Lord (or words to that effect)?

How many priests have been excommunicated for fiddling with choir boys?

Im sure she can, but if she has been brought up in the Catholic faith, and quite literally indoctrinated in the catholic view of the world (which being a nun one would think is a fair assumption), one would be concerned whether she has the critical thinking faculties to say "stuff 'em, I was right".

I hope she does for her sake.

You last point is absolutely spot on, and amply demonstrates the hypocrisy within the management of the church.

[--------]

The direct quote from the Archbishop includes:

"I am gravely concerned by the fact that an abortion was performed several months ago in a Catholic hospital in this diocese," Olmsted said in a statement sent to The Arizona Republic. "I am further concerned by the hospital's statement that the termination of a human life was necessary to treat the mother's underlying medical condition.

"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."

Olmsted added that if a Catholic "formally cooperates" in an abortion, he or she is automatically excommunicated.

Like you, I dont know enough about the ins-and-outs of catholicism to judge whether he was within or outwith the bounds of his guidelines, but it is important to note i think that it is dogma, not law. The law says abortion is legal, regardless of the moral stance of any given religion.

Ultimately, the decision to excommunicate is an internal matter, and only has an effect if you truly believe. I don't, and maybe therefore can't understand the impact, but if you are a nun, it would surely be a deeply cruel thing to do? You act to save a life, but are condemned to a hell you absolutely believe in are excluded from the comfort and support of the church (ie the institute you have dedicated your life to). That seems an especially amoral and indefensible thing to do.


Not sure if I want to come into this, TC, being a Protestant heretic and all, but anyway...

I'm aware that my attitude and beliefs regarding abortion will be different from those of yourself and many others. All I would say about that is that I firmly believe we should respect and value human life wherever we find it and that the termination of a human life is a very serious matter indeed. However, life isn't always that simple, and this case seems to have been one where black-and-white dogma has been no help at all to anyone.

I assume from Olmsted's statement that both Margaret McBride and the female patient have been formally excluded from the worship of the church, and will remain so until Olmsted and his church courts decide otherwise.

This means that among other issues, the woman whose life was in danger, and who will now be trying to cope with the ending of her pregnancy and possibly continuing hospital treatment for a life-threatening condition, has been deprived of any pastoral or spiritual support while she does so.

Personally, I can't see how that can be considered Christian in any real sense of the word.

And the way in which Margaret McBride has been treated will have made it very clear that anyone stepping over the line drawn by Olmsted should be ready for trouble; I doubt that anyone at St Joseph's will be taking any chances in the way they counsel their patients for a very long time.

It seems to me that the patient and her family had really only two options open to them - either they did nothing, and allow God to work, or they took the decision to terminate the pregnancy in order to save the mother's life. I'm absolutely sure that since the hospital was St Joseph's, a Catholic institution, and they a Catholic family, they would have thought hard and long about this and only come to the decision they did after much heart-searching and a great deal of pain. Pain, btw, made much, much worse by the attitude of Mr Olmsted and his minions.

To have done nothing might well be seen as the way of the faithful and a sure guarantee of sainthood; however, there were other children who needed their mother's care, a husband who could hardly be expected to sentence his wife to death, and a hospital whose job is to save human life rather than end it. And maybe the poor woman didn't want to die right then and there....

This whole business stinks of Phariseeism and legalism. Life isn't neat and tidy, black and white. I find our present practice of abortion repugnant, but as a man now leaving middle age, I'm never going to be intimately or personally affected by it, and I wouldn't presume to judge or condemn any woman who felt that it was the only way open to her out of a difficult or threatening life-situation.

This is NOT what I would understand or accept as "Christian ethics" - far from it. The patient and her family (and her medical advisers) found themselves in a dreadful situation in which (as far as I can see) no dogmatically neat-and-tidy "right" course of action was open to them.

Instead of offering support and understanding, Olmsted has condemned them as killers and thrown them out of the church. WWJD?

[Twa Cairpets]

Not sure if I want to come into this, TC, being a Protestant heretic and all, but anyway...

I'm aware that my attitude and beliefs regarding abortion will be different from those of yourself and many others. All I would say about that is that I firmly believe we should respect and value human life wherever we find it and that the termination of a human life is a very serious matter indeed. However, life isn't always that simple, and this case seems to have been one where black-and-white dogma has been no help at all to anyone.

I assume from Olmsted's statement that both Margaret McBride and the female patient have been formally excluded from the worship of the church, and will remain so until Olmsted and his church courts decide otherwise.

This means that among other issues, the woman whose life was in danger, and who will now be trying to cope with the ending of her pregnancy and possibly continuing hospital treatment for a life-threatening condition, has been deprived of any pastoral or spiritual support while she does so.

Personally, I can't see how that can be considered Christian in any real sense of the word.

And the way in which Margaret McBride has been treated will have made it very clear that anyone stepping over the line drawn by Olmsted should be ready for trouble; I doubt that anyone at St Joseph's will be taking any chances in the way they counsel their patients for a very long time.

It seems to me that the patient and her family had really only two options open to them - either they did nothing, and allow God to work, or they took the decision to terminate the pregnancy in order to save the mother's life. I'm absolutely sure that since the hospital was St Joseph's, a Catholic institution, and they a Catholic family, they would have thought hard and long about this and only come to the decision they did after much heart-searching and a great deal of pain. Pain, btw, made much, much worse by the attitude of Mr Olmsted and his minions.

To have done nothing might well be seen as the way of the faithful and a sure guarantee of sainthood; however, there were other children who needed their mother's care, a husband who could hardly be expected to sentence his wife to death, and a hospital whose job is to save human life rather than end it. And maybe the poor woman didn't want to die right then and there....

This whole business stinks of Phariseeism and legalism. Life isn't neat and tidy, black and white. I find our present practice of abortion repugnant, but as a man now leaving middle age, I'm never going to be intimately or personally affected by it, and I wouldn't presume to judge or condemn any woman who felt that it was the only way open to her out of a difficult or threatening life-situation.

This is NOT what I would understand or accept as "Christian ethics" - far from it. The patient and her family (and her medical advisers) found themselves in a dreadful situation in which (as far as I can see) no dogmatically neat-and-tidy "right" course of action was open to them.

Instead of offering support and understanding, Olmsted has condemned them as killers and thrown them out of the church. WWJD?

Thats a very well constructed and considered post Doddie.

My initial post wasnt designed to trigger another abortion debate, but more to consider the moral rights, wrongs and stances of the figures involved.

Your point of "black and white" is particularly well made. I think lots of things are black and white - some aspects of life and living either "just are" or "just aren't". Things you can measure and test and observe are areas where an objective, view can be made. Its not appropriate to apply such an absolutist view to matters of morality, even (or maybe especially) if the claim for there veracity comes from the Divine.

From a secular view, the death of one rather than two is preferable, if no less tragic. The archbishop appears to have condemned at least three people.

[--------]

Thats a very well contstructed and considered post Doddie.

My initial post wasnt designed to trigger another abortion debate, but more to consider the moral rights, wrongs and stances of the figures involved.

Your point of "black and white" is particularly well made. I think lots of things are black and white - some aspects of life and living either "just are" or "just aren't". Things you can measure and test and observe are areas where an objective, view can be made. Its not appropriate to apply such an absolutist view to matters of morality, even (or maybe especially) if the claim for there veracity comes from the Divine.

From a secular view, the death of one rather than two is preferable, if no less tragic. The archbishop appears to have condemned at least three people.


Like the Law of Gravity? :devil:

I think people like Olmsted have a problem with the fact that while Jesus himself was very clear about right and wrong, he wasn't nearly so decisive about what he thought people should do about it.

I can't see what this poor family could have done that would have satisfied Olmsted, short of refusing to terminate the pregnancy and taking a huge risk of ending the mother's life.

(As I said, the fact that this was a Catholic hospital suggests very strongly to me that the risk to her life was very real and very immediate; otherwise a termination wouldn't have been considered. Not with Olmsted looming over them to condemn them.)

I've always believed that my function a Christian pastor is to give the best counsel I can according to the best of my understanding; to do so in humility and love; and to allow the folks then to make their own decision according to their best understanding, regardless of whether I agree with them or not; and to be there for them afterward, not judging, not condemning and not just waiting to tell them, "I told you so."

As far as I know, that's how Christ treats me.

[Allant1981]

Why would a nun want to be put in that position in the first place, yes by all means care for people but she must have known that maybe at some point in her career that she may end up dealing with this type of situation and would know how the church would react

[Dinkydoo]

Not sure if I want to come into this, TC, being a Protestant heretic and all, but anyway...

I'm aware that my attitude and beliefs regarding abortion will be different from those of yourself and many others. All I would say about that is that I firmly believe we should respect and value human life wherever we find it and that the termination of a human life is a very serious matter indeed. However, life isn't always that simple, and this case seems to have been one where black-and-white dogma has been no help at all to anyone.

I assume from Olmsted's statement that both Margaret McBride and the female patient have been formally excluded from the worship of the church, and will remain so until Olmsted and his church courts decide otherwise.

This means that among other issues, the woman whose life was in danger, and who will now be trying to cope with the ending of her pregnancy and possibly continuing hospital treatment for a life-threatening condition, has been deprived of any pastoral or spiritual support while she does so.

Personally, I can't see how that can be considered Christian in any real sense of the word.

And the way in which Margaret McBride has been treated will have made it very clear that anyone stepping over the line drawn by Olmsted should be ready for trouble; I doubt that anyone at St Joseph's will be taking any chances in the way they counsel their patients for a very long time.

It seems to me that the patient and her family had really only two options open to them - either they did nothing, and allow God to work, or they took the decision to terminate the pregnancy in order to save the mother's life. I'm absolutely sure that since the hospital was St Joseph's, a Catholic institution, and they a Catholic family, they would have thought hard and long about this and only come to the decision they did after much heart-searching and a great deal of pain. Pain, btw, made much, much worse by the attitude of Mr Olmsted and his minions.

To have done nothing might well be seen as the way of the faithful and a sure guarantee of sainthood; however, there were other children who needed their mother's care, a husband who could hardly be expected to sentence his wife to death, and a hospital whose job is to save human life rather than end it. And maybe the poor woman didn't want to die right then and there....

This whole business stinks of Phariseeism and legalism. Life isn't neat and tidy, black and white. I find our present practice of abortion repugnant, but as a man now leaving middle age, I'm never going to be intimately or personally affected by it, and I wouldn't presume to judge or condemn any woman who felt that it was the only way open to her out of a difficult or threatening life-situation.

This is NOT what I would understand or accept as "Christian ethics" - far from it. The patient and her family (and her medical advisers) found themselves in a dreadful situation in which (as far as I can see) no dogmatically neat-and-tidy "right" course of action was open to them.

Instead of offering support and understanding, Olmsted has condemned them as killers and thrown them out of the church. WWJD?


Excellent post :top marks

Your point around life not being "black and white" is so expertly put that it actually fills me with hope and belief. Belief that people who firmly believe in a religion can use thier beliefs in conjunction with 'common sense' to assess real-life situations and come to a reasonable conclusion.

Not that I didn't think this was possible before just that I only seem to 'see it' now and again - and of late it's sadly become more and more infrequent.

[--------]

Excellent post :top marks

Your point around life not being "black and white" is so expertly put that it actually fills me with hope and belief. Belief that people who firmly believe in a religion can use thier beliefs in conjunction with 'common sense' to assess real-life situations and come to a reasonable conclusion.

Not that I didn't think this was possible before just that I only seem to 'see it' now and again - and of late it's sadly become more and more infrequent.


Thank you.

I know a lot of Christians (and adherents of other faiths, too) who manage to combine firm belief with compassion and common sense. Unfortunately, people getting on with their lives (and with other people) quietly and uncontroversially don't usually make the headlines. Nor do they often rise to be Chief Honcho in their organisation - that's usually the preserve of people like Olmsted.

[BEEJ]

I'm aware that my attitude and beliefs regarding abortion will be different from those of yourself and many others. All I would say about that is that I firmly believe we should respect and value human life wherever we find it and that the termination of a human life is a very serious matter indeed. However, life isn't always that simple, and this case seems to have been one where black-and-white dogma has been no help at all to anyone.
:agree: Completely agree.


This whole business stinks of Phariseeism and legalism. Life isn't neat and tidy, black and white. I find our present practice of abortion repugnant, but as a man now leaving middle age, I'm never going to be intimately or personally affected by it, and I wouldn't presume to judge or condemn any woman who felt that it was the only way open to her out of a difficult or threatening life-situation.
Like you, I would put myself as anti-abortion. However, I believe abortion can be justified in cases of rape and in cases like this one where the mother's life is at risk.

The God I believe in would not condone Olmsted's behaviour in this instance.

[The Harp Awakes]

Came across this story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37171656/ns/health-health_care/)

In an nutshell, a nun (also a hospital administrator) who sanctioned the abortion of a foetus as the only way of saving the life of a pregnant woman with pulmonary hypertension (rather than having them both die), has been excommunicated by her Archbishop.

I suspect this action would be about the worst thing that could happen to a devout cathoic. It does seem pretty distasteful, and symptomatic of the disconnect between religious leaders and the real world.

The problem is that the 'real worlds' approach to abortion is as distasteful to many ordinary people, as the situation discribed above will be to most.

I think that there are many in the Catholic Church (including bishops and priests) who would welcome a liberalisation in the Church's approach to abortion but I can understand the problem the Church face. The legalised system in the Western World whereby a pregnant mother can terminate a life just because it doesn't suit her to have that child is to many, as abhorrent as the situation described with the nun above.

If the Church was to back down in its approach to abortion, what effect will this have in the 'real life' situation - likely more liberisation. I think that is why the Church stand their ground and although as a Catholic I don't agree with it, I can understand their position.

[Bad Martini]

Not sure if I want to come into this, TC, being a Protestant heretic and all, but anyway...

I'm aware that my attitude and beliefs regarding abortion will be different from those of yourself and many others. All I would say about that is that I firmly believe we should respect and value human life wherever we find it and that the termination of a human life is a very serious matter indeed. However, life isn't always that simple, and this case seems to have been one where black-and-white dogma has been no help at all to anyone.

I assume from Olmsted's statement that both Margaret McBride and the female patient have been formally excluded from the worship of the church, and will remain so until Olmsted and his church courts decide otherwise.

This means that among other issues, the woman whose life was in danger, and who will now be trying to cope with the ending of her pregnancy and possibly continuing hospital treatment for a life-threatening condition, has been deprived of any pastoral or spiritual support while she does so.

Personally, I can't see how that can be considered Christian in any real sense of the word.

And the way in which Margaret McBride has been treated will have made it very clear that anyone stepping over the line drawn by Olmsted should be ready for trouble; I doubt that anyone at St Joseph's will be taking any chances in the way they counsel their patients for a very long time.

It seems to me that the patient and her family had really only two options open to them - either they did nothing, and allow God to work, or they took the decision to terminate the pregnancy in order to save the mother's life. I'm absolutely sure that since the hospital was St Joseph's, a Catholic institution, and they a Catholic family, they would have thought hard and long about this and only come to the decision they did after much heart-searching and a great deal of pain. Pain, btw, made much, much worse by the attitude of Mr Olmsted and his minions.

To have done nothing might well be seen as the way of the faithful and a sure guarantee of sainthood; however, there were other children who needed their mother's care, a husband who could hardly be expected to sentence his wife to death, and a hospital whose job is to save human life rather than end it. And maybe the poor woman didn't want to die right then and there....

This whole business stinks of Phariseeism and legalism. Life isn't neat and tidy, black and white. I find our present practice of abortion repugnant, but as a man now leaving middle age, I'm never going to be intimately or personally affected by it, and I wouldn't presume to judge or condemn any woman who felt that it was the only way open to her out of a difficult or threatening life-situation.

This is NOT what I would understand or accept as "Christian ethics" - far from it. The patient and her family (and her medical advisers) found themselves in a dreadful situation in which (as far as I can see) no dogmatically neat-and-tidy "right" course of action was open to them.

Instead of offering support and understanding, Olmsted has condemned them as killers and thrown them out of the church. WWJD?

All valid points in the context of the outside (non Roman Catholic) viewing of this situation which by default, will always be at cross-purposes to the RC view which is very black and white, no middle ground and no concern other than the matters and views prescribed and doctrines given to Moses on yon Mountain a good few years ago.

However, and here's the rub unless my own understanding is somewhat off...the purpose and use of ex-communication is not meant to be a permanent "punishment" nor meant to be used as a beating stick into order. As an RC, I read this not so long ago so as to understand my own position on the matter and to be clear, according to the stuff I have read, the purpose of the ex-communication is to ensure the ex-communicated is aware what they have done is beyond a grave/mortal sin and is indeed, worthy of SUSPENSION (as opposed to PERMANENT explusion) from the RC Church.

The point is to make the ex-communicated realise they have done wrong. Whether we agree/disagree or don't care that's how it's MEANT to be used as an instrument. Again, based on my limited understanding as a non-learned punter here and one who has no time or need or desire to become learned :devil: .... it's entirely reversible.

It's supposedly reversible as and when said punter accepts they have done wrong (in the eyes of God anyway) and accepts that IF they were following his word to the letter, they must repent. Thus, breaking into the purpose, spirit and use of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation, saying they are sorry (and if so meaning it, they so be it) and thus, moving on.

Again, the most crucial point here is this;
Unless I am mistaken and misinformed, there are no sins that cannot be forgiven and nullified whilst a punter is in a state of (any kind of mortal/grave sin) IF they confess, apologise to almighty God and pledge to attempt NOT to do it again. A good confession, as far as I know, heals all.

Jesus Christ died, according to the books and teachings so as to allow others to die worthily. Every man/woman is born a sinner as we are human.....to err is human etc. Thus, I am missing the point in this whereby the Nun and the woman (who by the way CAN go to mass, DO remain an RC as the sacrament of Christening is complete irreversible, are still COUNTED in the official figures and size of the church ( think, might be wrong) but won't receive penetention and access to the sacraments until such time as the ex-comm is lifted.

Might be wrong though...Doddie, if anyone roond these parts knows aboot how right this is, Im suspecting it'll be you :devil:

Err, ENDOF (I Think) :greengrin

[Bad Martini]

It's rarely the ENDOF on these matters thus, here be more food for thought:

Can a Believer Commit the Unforgivable Sin (which, again, based on my readings and understanding is the ONLY sin that cannot be forgiven and allowing thee into the Kingdom of God):

No. ENDOF??? Probably...

Why...

A believer cannot commit the unforgivable sin. How can someone who has been born again (John 3:7), made a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), and received eternal life (John 10:27-28) actually commit the unforgivable sin? He cannot. Jesus Himself said that we have eternal life, not conditional life: "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand" (John 10:27-28). Besides, it says in 2 Cor. 5:17 that the Christian is a new creation in Christ. We are different, no longer slaves to the old nature (Rom. 6:14). We are regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

There is no biblical support for a believer committing this sin. It just hasn't happened. Also, if you are worried that you may have committed the sin and can't be forgiven, then don't be concerned. If you are worrying about it, then you haven't committed it. If you are worried about it, then that is a sign that you have not committed it. If you had, you wouldn't be concerned


I stole the above from the Internet which was probably also invented by God (or Leonard Kleinrock as opposed to Tim Berners-Lee who is most often credited with inventing the good Web) but the point remains thus;

Unless one is truly evil (and in which case, one would not give a toss what God or his representatives think) one CAN be forgiven for everything.

And uber/super finally, the only unforgivable sin is evil itself, perpretated knowingly and unconditionally and most importantly, DELIBERATELY, by those who, by their nature WANT to go against God...goes beyond breaking commandments, goes beyond being really, really, really, really bad (even hunisim) and indeed, goes beyond Aethesim which is most likely counted as being undecided and not actively and vehenemently evil.

Now, my heid is sair from all this heavy thinking BUTTTT, I suspect, if the nun and the woman in question are indeed looking to seek one-ness with the Almighty, there is no one on Earth who can stop this. By the very teaching of the scriptures, it doth say that there is only one unforgivable sin and I very much doubt the woman and the nun fall into the category of promoting evil against the Holy Spirit.

ENDOF (Akin to the use of "Amen" in prayer) which by the way learned ones, is Hebrew. I don't know the Hebrew for "ENDOF" but if someone can tell me, a chocolate watch could bestow you from on high :agree: :greengrin