This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Nun Excommunicated For Allowing Abortion

Nun Excommunicated For Allowing Abortion - Comments

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 1 by God fearing Atheist

Do these people have a secret death wish for their cult?

Yet again, the RCC is shown as evil in the media. Good.

Thu, 20 May 2010 13:31:12 UTC | #471673

Stella's Avatar Comment 2 by Stella

Catholic Church, I excommunicate YOU!

Thu, 20 May 2010 13:40:15 UTC | #471678

Rich Wiltshir's Avatar Comment 3 by Rich Wiltshir

How does someone 'rise' to a position of authority in the organisation without having the strength of character to make a tough call.    He's not only a deluded bigot; he's a wimp.

Let's hope that Margaret McBride finds a responsibily institution in which to make a reasoned contribution to society.... or is she still convinced of the dogmas?

Thu, 20 May 2010 13:58:47 UTC | #471685

black wolf's Avatar Comment 4 by black wolf

"The official church position would mandate that the correct solution would be to let both the mother and the child die. I think in the practical situation that would be a very hard choice to make."- Lisa Sowle, Catholic theologian

Ah, no. In "the practical situation" deciding between one or two deaths is not a hard choice to make at all, especially when the dying part isn't even a human being yet. But of course you can also circumvent reason and consequently find yourself overtaxed by the situation. That's kind of what reality denial causes. Sophisticated theology, 'nuff said.

"She consented in the murder of an unborn child," says the Rev. John Ehrich

No she didn't. The word murder has a meaning in law, and this isn't it.

"There are some situations where the mother may in fact die along with her child. But — and this is the Catholic perspective — you can't do evil to bring about good. The end does not justify the means."

Is your brain online? The end, being saving a woman's life, very well justifies any means apart from killing two people (under your own definition of people). Which is precisely what you had preferred, you sick moron. Oh, I get it. You don't really count the woman among 'people', do you? Yeah, I see your point, thanks.

"Ehrich agrees that sexual abuse can't be tolerated. But he says neither can McBride's actions.

"She said, 'Yes, you can kill that unborn child.' That's a heinous act. And I'm not going to make a distinction between what's worse. They're both abhorrent," Ehrich says."

So, they're both equally abhorrent, which is why you excommunicate the latter (which in this case also means an effective employment ban) and cover up for the former. Love your sense of making a logical argument. But then again, you're the one wearing the idiot hat, so really she should have seen it coming when she went to work.

Thu, 20 May 2010 14:01:37 UTC | #471686

Disbelief's Avatar Comment 5 by Disbelief

This is one of those situations where the "moral guidance" provided by religion breaks down in the face of a real situation.

The church is absolutely right to excommunicate her, she went against their principals.

The question this nun needs to ask herself is "Is catholocism really for me?", she obviously has a different set of views to the church. I'll bet she thinks child rape is a more serious crime than embarassing the church too.

Thu, 20 May 2010 14:39:01 UTC | #471693

foundationist's Avatar Comment 6 by foundationist

I don't remember where I came across it, but a very wise person once said

"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

Thu, 20 May 2010 14:43:05 UTC | #471694

Chris Roberts's Avatar Comment 7 by Chris Roberts

So it is OK to leave her previous children without a mother?

Surely it woul dhave been better for their god to make sure that catholics only have healthy children, then they will never be tempted to go down this most difficult of paths.

I predict however, that the rate of complication in pregnancy for catholics will be the same as for any other religious group, so their god does not provide them with special treatment.

So why should they provide him with special treatment?

And while I'm ranting (because I don't like abortion, I'm lucky that my wife and I have never been in a position where we have to choose one) can anyone show me where, explicitly, it says in the bible "though shalt not have an abortion or attempt to end a pregnancy"?

Note with interest that it is OK to kill the babies of gods enemies when they are still in the womb though.

Thu, 20 May 2010 15:04:20 UTC | #471697

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 8 by SaganTheCat

than you catholic church for being so clear in your values. there are still some out there who need reminding

Thu, 20 May 2010 15:09:00 UTC | #471699

Merco's Avatar Comment 9 by Merco

"They were in quite a dilemma," says Lisa Sowle Cahill, who teaches Catholic theology at Boston College. "There was no good way out of it. The official church position would mandate that the correct solution would be to let both the mother and the child die. I think in the practical situation that would be a very hard choice to make."

Quite a dilemma alright. On the one hand, an abortion was distinctly the valid and moral decision to make. On the other hand, they suspected that both the Easter Bunny and Yahweh would sooner have her die than have an abortion.

Why is she even a religious person if she wants to make moral decisions? I've made the comparison before; it would be like me becoming a vegetarian and insisting on my right to eat meat. Or joining the KKK and insisting on equal rights for all races.

There are so many things I want to pick apart in the article, but I know other commentors are doing a better job with that than I can.

Thu, 20 May 2010 15:18:24 UTC | #471700

Rosbif's Avatar Comment 10 by Rosbif

<blockquote>"There was no good way out of it. The official church position would mandate that the correct solution would be to let both the mother and the child die. I think in the practical situation that would be a very hard choice to make."</blockquote>

This simply means that her inate human morals were stronger than her indoctrinated catholic immorals.

Now if she can just avoid moving here spiritual subscription to another dogma she's one step towards reality.

Thu, 20 May 2010 15:19:04 UTC | #471701

Rikitiki13's Avatar Comment 11 by Rikitiki13

Rev. John Ehrich, the medical ethics director for the Diocese of Phoenix: But — and this is the Catholic perspective — you can't do evil to bring about good. The end does not justify the means.

Oh, really?  Umm...wasn't that exactly what you folks did with the inquisition?  And with corporal punishment in your schools, and the litany of abuse in Irish (and other) orphanages?  And the list goes on...

Yeah...right.  Time for you folks to verbally re-define things again so it sounds different from reality -- c'mon, Catholics, all together now: move those goal posts (yet again).

Thu, 20 May 2010 15:37:29 UTC | #471705

TIKI AL's Avatar Comment 12 by TIKI AL

The Bishop's decision is even more ridiculous than his hat.

Thu, 20 May 2010 15:49:50 UTC | #471710

besleybean's Avatar Comment 13 by besleybean

She wouldn't have been the 1st pregnant nun and nor will she be the last.

Historically some such children were killed at birth and the bodies hidden.  I would guess others were left, adopted etc...

The other aspect is thsat sometimes nuns are raped, or at least pestered by priests.

Thu, 20 May 2010 15:51:32 UTC | #471712

crookedshoes's Avatar Comment 14 by crookedshoes

A few random things: 1). @ TIKI Al -- my friend you are mistaken; there is NOTHING more ridiculous than the Bishop's hat. It is pythonesque. 2). @ everyone here (so far)... the comments under the article are worth reading... lots of sentiments shared between here ahd there. 3). I want HUMAN beings like this nun to staff hospitals. She clearly made the right call despite her brainwashing and that, I think is utterly remarkable. How about some real recognition and support for her? I am sure she is in an anxiety ridden state. Hey, sister, you did good.
4). I am a member of a church that would love to have her enlist... We welcome clear thinkers in the pastafarnian faith. She really wouldn't have to change much about her day except to insert FSM into her routine. AND there is always room for FSM. 5). I am going to go murder a ham and cheese sandwich for lunch. I think I am going to start using murder as a verb in all sorts of inappropriate places. Then , maybe the Bishop's "logic" will start to make sense...
6). Thus ends my rant. Murder a nice day, everyone!!!!!!

Thu, 20 May 2010 16:05:42 UTC | #471721

knutsondc's Avatar Comment 15 by knutsondc

It's difficult for me to distinguish the abortion here from an act of self-defense which, I'd guess, Catholic theologians would not condemn.  Even assuming, only for the sake of argument, that the embryo or fetus is entitled to the same protection as a person and that an abortion thus is always a homicide, it doesn't follow that it's also always murder.

If the only way for me to prevent another person from killing me is to kill that person, the law in every jurisdiction I've ever heard of (as well as most systems of ethics and morals) would allow me to kill the person posing the threat.  If I'm privileged to kill to protect myself, no one else should be faulted for helping me do it.  Why should an abortion be any different?

Thu, 20 May 2010 16:07:59 UTC | #471722

at3p's Avatar Comment 16 by at3p

The nun should quit, maybe she would realize that excommunication is meaningless.

Thu, 20 May 2010 16:33:50 UTC | #471737

Philoctetes                                        's Avatar Comment 17 by Philoctetes

Excommunication for aborting a foetus (or potential person). Sideways career move or even promotion for raping an actual little person. Top job for covering it all  up.

Can someone quote chapter and verse where that occurs in the bible? If they can perhaps the bible should be added to a banned books list.

How is it that apparently rational people buy into this ordure? Is there any hope for the species if this is the dominant (in terms of numbers) thinking? (I use the word "thinking" in a very loose sense)

Updated: Thu, 20 May 2010 17:50:24 UTC | #471765

Brampton's Avatar Comment 18 by Brampton

Sister Margaret (Ms McBride?) probably doesn't realize it yet, but for making the correct decision in a very difficult situation she has been rewarded with her freedom.

Thu, 20 May 2010 17:54:29 UTC | #471771

JC Samuelson's Avatar Comment 19 by JC Samuelson

I'm of a few minds here...

On the one hand, I'm disgusted by the sanctimonious behavior of the bishop. 

On the other hand, I'm encouraged that someone in the RCC has the moral cajones to do the right thing.

On the other other hand, why is it news every time the archaic and meaningless idea of 'excommunication' comes up? It's astonishing to me that anyone takes it seriously anymore.

Thu, 20 May 2010 19:17:09 UTC | #471798

cheesedoff17's Avatar Comment 20 by cheesedoff17

Dogma is dogma and that's what we do. We don't care if mothers of five or ten kids die. We have been in this game for a long time now, so long that any innate morals some of us might have had have long since withered. We are old and crippled by faith. That's why we simply can't feel a thing  for other people children and why we make such excellent paedophiles.  We can't feel anything. We are dead to the real world. We don't understand other people period. We live in the 2,000 year old box where theology reigns.

Thu, 20 May 2010 19:58:01 UTC | #471810

Mr DArcy's Avatar Comment 21 by Mr DArcy

Just a little question about the internal communications systems used by the RCC. Did the bishop have to refer the matter to Rome for consideration, or was he empowered to expel the lady from the church.  I might be ignorant but ISTM that the RCC's non-employees, (its bishops, etc), are quick enough to act in a case like this , but rather slower when it comes to clergy with naughty dangly bits and young people.

On the bright side: the mother was saved and was expelled from the church!

Downside: She apparently can creep her way back in to the RCC by uttering 50,000 Hail Marys and doing a funny walk with a free mason whilst imbibing holy wine and eating crackers.

The RCC seems unaware that most abortions are natural, which means that God intended them. God is the biggest abortionist of all. Why don't they expel Him from their church. Doh! I forgot what's God got to do with the RCC?

Thu, 20 May 2010 20:54:45 UTC | #471823

Scott_Cunning's Avatar Comment 22 by Scott_Cunning

Comment 15 by knutsondc
If the only way for me to prevent another person from killing me is to kill that person, the law in every jurisdiction I've ever heard of (as well as most systems of ethics and morals) would allow me to kill the person posing the threat. If I'm privileged to kill to protect myself, no one else should be faulted for helping me do it. Why should an abortion be any different?

While I completely agree that abortions should be conducted in order to save the mother's life, I don't know that your analogy holds up.  I think likening this to self-defense would be like saying you're justified in killing someone who approaches you with an extremely virulent disease.

Thu, 20 May 2010 21:16:34 UTC | #471826

lackofgravitas's Avatar Comment 23 by lackofgravitas

Another spectacular own goal for the RCC.  Don't they realise they're doing our work for us?  I'd recommend reading the comments below the full article, some very angry soon-to-be-ex-catholics on there.

Sister Margaret made the right choice (let's face it, it's a no-brainer) and I congratulate her on using her own faculties rather than relying on dogma.

I'm still not getting the 'canon lawyer' thing.  If you were a criminal, your lawyer would advise you to be quiet (or STFU!) But no, the man in the silly hat had to make a point.  Well done Rev Ehrich, you've probably done more for our cause then the international bus campaigns.  

Somewhere in the Vatican, there's a man in a silly hat who has the job of PR director for the RCC.  At this moment, he's probably realising the inportance and meaning of.....   *facepalm*

LoG

Thu, 20 May 2010 22:36:27 UTC | #471844

sara g's Avatar Comment 24 by sara g

He thinks the scandal is that this live-saving abortion occured.  He does not see the scandal that would have happened if it had been refused and the woman had died.  Just like when they miss the offense of abusing children, and are upset about how those children offend the church.  They seem to believe they are doing damage control by doing more damage, both to their victims and their own filthy reputation.

Thu, 20 May 2010 23:37:18 UTC | #471862

Net's Avatar Comment 25 by Net

Poor old  Sister Margaret McBride.  If only she'd been a man.  They'd probably just have transferred her to another hospital.  You know, like they just relocate a pedophile.

Thu, 20 May 2010 23:40:49 UTC | #471866

ANTIcarrot's Avatar Comment 26 by ANTIcarrot

The relevent rules: http://www.usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml#partfour (Because most news sources are pathologically incapable of supplying origonal source material.)

And yes, while #47 might be seen as a gray area, #45 makes it clear it was nothing of the sort. Her 'catholic duty' was clear here.

Let's hope it's a wake up call to the dozy woman. You joined a cult ran by stupid evil men! It's the direct descendent of the outfit that used to torture people to death in the coloseium so as to entertain the public! They are not nice people!

PS: And god isn't real either!

Fri, 21 May 2010 00:43:05 UTC | #471880

Alternative Carpark's Avatar Comment 27 by Alternative Carpark

Who will rid me of this meddlesome nun!

Why is it that anti-abortionists do not seem to care about children who have actually been born?

I suppose it is quicker and cheaper to fight for the rights of 3-month old foetuses and ... blatocysts than it is to ensure that a post-natal child is clothed, fed and nurtured.

Hundreds of millions of children are living in abject poverty as we speak. Millions die needlessly and horribly each year.

The hypocrisy of these people is astounding.

Abortion, particularly when done for trivial reasons, is an unfortunate practice, but until we live in an age where EVERY child on the planet is given a chance in life, these mofos need to get their priorites right, or STFU!

Fri, 21 May 2010 01:32:37 UTC | #471886

Alyson Miers's Avatar Comment 28 by Alyson Miers

"In the case of priests who are credibly accused and known to be guilty of sexually abusing children, they are in a sense let off the hook," Doyle says.

Rev. Doyle, lay off those qualifiers. There is no "in a sense" about it. Kiddie-raping priests are absolutely let off the hook. The church hierarchy enables them.

Bishop Olmsted and Rev. Ehrich, meanwhile, apparently think the only acceptable way for a fetus to die is by taking its mother with it. Oh, and especially if it leaves four older siblings without their mom.

I'm also touched by the name of Sr. McBride's order. She actually behaved like a Sister of Mercy. So of course she had to be punished.

http://alysonmiers.wordpress.com/

Fri, 21 May 2010 01:33:29 UTC | #471887

Agrajag's Avatar Comment 29 by Agrajag

Comment 4 by black wolf

<blockquote>In "the practical situation" deciding between one or two deaths is not a hard choice to make at all, especially when the dying part isn't even a human being yet.</blockquote>

In this particular case, it doesn't matter whether or not you believe the pre-term embryo/fetus is a "human being", because it is doomed. But speaking about the not-yet-born as if they are uniformly unworthy of any consideration ignores the continuum of embryonic development. A fertilized egg or a ball of cells hardly causes any fuss when it is aborted (heck, god does it all the time). When the embryo has a heartbeat visible on ultrasound it's harder to dismiss; my wife and I lost a couple of progeny at this stage (thank you, lord), and we didn't feel like we had sloughed off a couple of skin cells I can tell you. Then you get to the "quickening" and you see the elbows and the heels moving and it's pretty exciting. The next "landmark" would probably be the time past which the fetus could survive outside the mother, not that this would be a good time to be born. When I hear people talking about "about-to-be-born" children as if they are less human than the "just-recently-born", I think I'm hearing people who are not reasonable; as if they think exposure to the air confers "person-hood". This is as foolish as thinking that a "soul" is inserted anywhere along the way.

I think the sister did the exact right thing in this case, and it's a pleasure to see that the great majority of the comments on the NPR web site agree with me. It's also pleasing to me to be the "Steve" who submitted this. :-) And, FWIW, I have two healthy, happy (and skeptical) children.

Steve

Fri, 21 May 2010 02:51:23 UTC | #471902

Carl Sai Baba's Avatar Comment 30 by Carl Sai Baba

It seems like the whole point of the catholic church is to have an authoritarian system.  The pope talks to god, and issues dictations based on that.

It is completely illogical to be a catholic and also argue against the judgments handed down.  If you want to use your own brain to evaluate things, then catholicism is not for you.

Fri, 21 May 2010 06:28:38 UTC | #471946