Olmsted and Abortion
I’m not going to have much to add here. I figured I’d add some speculations.
1. Abortion is typically an outpatient procedure. This isn’t South America. Catholic hospitals don’t need to create excuses for performing abortions. If a person wants to have an abortion in this country, there are facilities that will perform them, no questions asked. The fact that the person who had the abortion was inpatient and approval had to be sought by a committee should be sufficient evidence that immediate medical conditions required prompt action. “News” sources that speculate contrariwise are acting irresponsibly unless they have solid evidence. If they quote a doctor claiming such circumstances never present themselves and from that he renders judgment in a case he has not reviewed, the doctor is committing professional malfeasance.
2. Reading between the lines, the objection from the diocese seems to be the procedure chosen. In obstetrics, it isn’t unusual that an abortion will accomplish the same need as another procedure. These other procedures will result in the death of a fetus in pre-viability cases like the one being discussed. The consequences of performing other procedures instead of an abortion can be anywhere from introducing slightly greater risks to fertility and life to quite significant. Many medical professionals consider these alternative procedures to be a needless introduction of risk to the mother when the death of the child is already foreseen.
a) This is not a trivial area of Catholic moral theology. The difference between vigilantism and capital punishment aren’t trivial. Bishop Olmsted would be in very sure territory finding d&e to be intrinsically an abortion.
b) Catholic theology does not compel women to die. If the situation is as I understand it, a procedure would have been performed resulting in the death of the fetus. I do not wish to trivialize the increased risks such a procedure would have had. A Catholic ethical system is not the only one which claims the most efficient solution may not be the proper one.
3. People are going to have to get used to not evaluating every case under the principle of double effect. There are actions that by their very nature (intrinsically) are evil. People could also stop assuming that there is one and only one solution to any given problem. The real world is complex and more often than not filled with a multitude of choices with varying degrees of desirability.
4. Having said that, I could very well be wrong on some of these points. I’m quite confident that the debate as it has played out up until this point hasn’t been a very positive reflection on the Church.
Comments are closed.
I don’t understand what you’re saying. There are no possible situations in which a direct abortion is permissible, even to save the life of the mother. The situation before the excommunicated nun was very straightfoward: if a direct abortion is not performed, the mother will die.
I’m sure that public opinion isn’t in our favor, but I’m very happy to see that the Church isn’t afraid to excommunicate those who advocate for direct abortions, regardless of the circumstances, and regardless of how unpopular the Church’s position will be as a result.
@Austine Nedved: There are procedures that aren’t abortion that can be performed.
@Teresa: It is obvious you haven’t read what I wrote.
My first question is: Are you trying to adhere to the Teachings of the Catholic Church?
Second question-Or are you advocating going against the Church’s Teachings on morality as it relates to abortion and saving the mother’s life?
The principle of double-effect was introduced by Thomas Aquinas and it seems as though you are advocating something that goes against the teachings of the Catholic Church on a “Catholic blog” and that would mean that you are promoting scandal. If you are promoting something that isn’t in line with Catholic moral teaching, that would be a very bad thing to do. This is not a pick and choose religion, or a do whatever feels good to you religion. This is a religion which has followed at least 2000 years of Tradition. We must continue to adhere to those Catholic moral teachings and not depart from Catholic Tradition just because their may be an option available today which may harm the fetus directly but would save the mother’s life because of technological advances having been achieved due to our living in modern society.
But, you may be advocating for the principle of double-effect and not even realize it.
I hear that Sister Margaret McBride, who apparently is no stranger to Catholic ethical principles, concluded that the procedure she was approving was not a direct abortion.
Teresa, instead of playing the role of Inquisitor, why not add something to the discussion? Moral reasoning consists of more than scanning the index of the Catechism for the “correct” answer. It involves the application of Catholic moral principles to real world situations. Your heresy hunting only trivializes the issue.
What was the procedure?
I think this is a fair exploration of the situation, MZ. The reality is that none of us know what the procedure was that was performed. Medical ethics keep anyone not involved from knowing about it.
The million dollar question (that I don’t know the answer to) is:
Does Bishop Olmsted know exactly what procedure was performed?
If he does, then he knows whether or not it was intrinsically immoral. If he doesn’t, then it was likely a mistake for him to declare that Sr. had excommunicated herself.
You said “Catholic theology does not compel women to die. If the situation is as I understand it, a procedure would have been performed resulting in the death of the fetus. I do not wish to trivialize the increased risks such a procedure would have had. A Catholic ethical system is not the only one which claims the most efficient solution may not be the proper one.
People are going to have to get used to not evaluating every case under the principle of double effect. There are actions that by their very nature (intrinsically) are evil. People could also stop assuming that there is one and only one solution to any given problem. The real world is complex and more often than not filled with a multitude of choices with varying degrees of desirability.”
I was trying to be charitable by giving you a way to clarify your comments and to distance yourself from your advocating an anti-Catholic moral philosophy, but instead you insult me by falsely claiming I haven’t read your scandalous post. You were being narrow-minded and uncharitable instead of promoting an ethic of charity but that is par for the course in this blog.
You are right in pointing out that there are procedures that that are allowed that aren’t abortion but that isn’t exactly what you are stating here. Your words as shown above show a willingness to go outside a Catholic moral philosophy, and that you are looking for a way to justify the nun’s inappropriate actions, where she made the wrong choice in allowing the direct killing of the unborn baby-abortion. If they had used a medicine or a different procedure to treat the mother and as an unintended consequence that had killed the baby that would have been tragic but morally licit.
You are practicing consequentialism by advocating the end(abortion) to justify the means(saving the mother’s life) and that is impermissable in all circumstances if you are following Catholic Teaching.
“Formal cooperation occurs when a person freely participates in the action(s) of a principal agent, or shares in the agent’s intention, either for its own sake or as a means to some other goal. Implicit formal cooperation occurs when, even though the cooperator denies intending the object of the principal agent, the cooperating person or organization participates in the action directly and in such a way that the it could not be done without this participation. Formal cooperation in intrinsically evil actions, either explicitly or implicitly, is morally illicit.”
This is exactly what the nun did and so she deserved to be excommunicated.
The principle of nonmaleficence is defined as “first, do no harm”. The nun cooperated in the act of doing harm to the unborn baby which is illicit according to church teachings. Your giving much more than the appearance of scandal by saying that a person can easily get an abortion at another hospital. If a person either participates in formal cooperation or immediate material cooperation of an evil act-abortion-at a non-Catholic hospital rather than at a Catholic hospital that doesn’t negate that person’s culpability in cooperating with an evil act.
You are practicing consequentialism by advocating the end(abortion) to justify the means(saving the mother’s life) and that is impermissable in all circumstances if you are following Catholic Teaching.
[irony mode] Unless, of course, God commands it. Then all bets are off. Abortion is allowed with genocide. No baby is innocent, after all. [irony mode off]
Your first error is in presuming that I’m advocating on behalf of the nun. Your second error is in not recognizing John Paul II’s strong teaching on the object of acts. With JP II, a number of acts are already determined to be illicit by the first condition of PDE, they are intrinsically evil.
Teresa,
I’m usually one of the most critical of Vox Nova for several positions some of their contributors have posted, but I think you’re reading something that isn’t there.
You are practicing consequentialism by advocating the end(abortion) to justify the means(saving the mother’s life) and that is impermissible in all circumstances if you are following Catholic Teaching.
Exactly where does MZ say that? My reading of MZ is that he is pointing out that the Catholic solution to a problem is not always the easy one. Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but I don’t see any advocacy for abortion here, even to “save the life of the mother.”
Is there an analogy to the Church position with regard to treatment of ectopic pregnancy? The approved procedure is a salpingectomy: removal of the fallopian tube where the embryo is attached. This is morally permissible, but procedures which cause the direct destruction of the embryo while leaving the fallopian tube more nearly intact are not. My understanding is that the Church also permits the mother to chose no treatment, though this guarantees her own death as well as the child’s when the tube ruptures. The Wikipedia page has more info and photos.
Though this makes sense intellectually, I don’t understood it viscerally, perhaps because I have no knowledge of surgery. How does salpingectomy better preserve the embryo’s human dignity?
In the case at hand, outcomes and options seem to be the same as for ectopic pregnancy. What other procedure than D&C might have been performed, and how would that preserve human dignity? Would it have been morally permissible to perform a hysterectomy?
M.Z.,
I read your post in its entirety twice and I had the same initial questions that Teresa had, I just didn’t ask them because I knew it would be a waste of time. Evidently I was right.
Teresa asked you where you stood, and you refused to answer her. Then she was called an inquisitor and a heresy hunter. She was asked to contribute to the discussion without the information she needed, and she made the reasonable assumption that you were arguing on behalf of the permissibility of the abortion. What choice did she have? It wasn’t a presumption, because she asked you where you stood, and you dodged the question. Why do that if you were unequivocally holding to Church teaching in this matter? Indeed, why write the post at all?
She gave you a chance to make yourself clearer. You didn’t give her a chance to better understand you. The only presumption here was yours – you presumed she had not read your post. As I had — TWICE — and had the same questions, I think it is more likely that she asked her initial questions because she DID read your post all the way through. She also gave you something I had not — the benefit of the doubt as being willing to engage in reasonable dialogue. Was that presumptuous of her?
Having said that, I could very well be wrong on some of these points. I’m quite confident that the debate as it has played out up until this point hasn’t been a very positive reflection on the Church
I struggle with whether to comment on these cases because on the one hand, I doubt I have any particular wisdom that is not currently accounted for in the current debate.
On the other hand, the debate is dominated by those with even less wisdom, so my contribution may be a net positive.
Kyle,
Where did you hear that? Can you post a link to her response or her defense of her decision?
I thought that this forum was a venue for contributions that are principally of a reflective or speculative nature, and that such contributions are not necessarily personal affirmations or denials of a particular proposition. They are suggestive observations that invite discussion. I have observed that some of the commentators here aggressively insist that every contribution that is not a mechanical recitation of the Official Position is heretical. What is this incapacity to engaging an idea without turning that engagement into an Inquisition?
Kevin said:
“She was asked to contribute to the discussion without the information she needed, and she made the reasonable assumption that you were arguing on behalf of the permissibility of the abortion. What choice did she have?”
I missed the part where Teresa was asked to contribute. Where was that?
Mr. Z. informed us, at the beginning of his post, that his numbered points were speculations. No just or rational person assumes that a speculation is an affirmation or a denial of any proposition. Philosophical therapy starts at home.
Teresa,
I read about it here: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/05/excommunicating-intentions.
Rockliff –
issed the part where Teresa was asked to contribute. Where was that?
Mark Gordon says:
May 24, 2010 at 8:04 am
Teresa, instead of playing the role of Inquisitor, why not add something to the discussion?
No just or rational person assumes that a speculation is an affirmation or a denial of any proposition.
It would be just as fair to say that no just or rational person would characterize fair questions that would shed light on the meaning of the post and the intentions of the poster — questions that were dodged, hasten to add — as an “Inquistion”.
Inquisitors who try to force conclusions out of someone, after indicating a prejudgment of that conclusion, are not looking to “shed light” upon the meaning of the post, but they do shed light on their own intentions. A bad anathema always rebounds on the one who makes it.
“My goals” for various points.
1) I was attempting to understand the circumstance, putting it in a light most sympathetic to those who felt medical necessity was present. I had seen writings basically suggesting this was a gratuitous and unnecessary act. By doing this, I thought I would show with the greatest clarity where the disagreement existed.
2) I attempted to show the best arguments from each side for what they would argue in similar situations. (a) confirmed that the bishop’s argument was reasonable and not out of left field. (b) attempted to put to bed an argument from the left that there is no concern for mothers and an argument from the right that the only choices are abortion and sitting on our hands.
3) I restated JP II’s argument for intrinsically evil acts. As outlined in Veritatis Splendor (or was EV?), proportionalism is wrong as a sole moral theology. For the left, this means they need to stop trying to address the argument of abortion in medical necessity by addressing the futility of attempting to save the fetus. In other cases, the right needs to abandon proportionalism. This is still a very misunderstood part of JP II’s teaching. The concluding remarks were a little condemnation of the simplifying tendencies we have that allow easier arguments but throw truth out the window.
4) I was attempting some modesty. While I have some knowledge of the challenges in obstetrics, I am by no means an expert in the area. I also am not a specialist on the finer points of moral theology. For example, I have heard the salpingectomy/salpingotomy argument many times, and yet I know there are respectable people that maintain both are licit. When Nicaragua implemented their abortion law, Pope Benedict expressed concerns that the legislation not impede against legitimate treatments for pregnant women. At some point, we have to cede to experts.
* I really had no interest in making a political argument. I don’t support abortion. I don’t believe the folks addressing this question support abortion. I’m doubtful that a popular forum is the best place for addressing these questions due to the expertise needed. It is convenient to demonize the competing argument, but it gets us no closer to truth and justice, which should be our goals.
Bishop Olmsted possesses a doctorate in Canon Law and has the authority, more knowledge than the laity on this matter in evaluating whether the nun authorized a direct abortion or an indirect abortion. His evaluation of her claim and rejection of her claim is as relevant as her claim.
Inquisitors who try to force conclusions out of someone, after indicating a prejudgment of that conclusion, are not looking to “shed light” upon the meaning of the post, but they do shed light on their own intentions. A bad anathema always rebounds on the one who makes it.
Uncharitableness and judgementalism goes both ways. To those who do not hesitate to assume the worst of Teresa: What does that say about you?
Why is it that on this blog the liberals and dissenters get all the benefit of the doubt, but anyone who asks a question to clarify a poster’s intent regarding their position in relation to Church teaching gets called an Inquisitor, a heresy hunter, an anathema hurler. It seems to me that there is some projection going on here, where dissent is considered de facto orthodoxy and orthodoxy is derided as fundamentalism.
in utrisque caritatem
hmmmm,
And then again, in James O’Donnell’s words about Saint Augustine on Christian Doctrine: “This theory unites faith with love, for faith is the one valid source of knowledge for fallen men, and love is the only acceptable moral response to that faith”
And then Augustine himself on exegesis (although of scripture, but I am certain he would hold the same of dogma)
:”Whoever thinks he understands divine scripture or any part of it, but whose interpretation does not build up the twofold love of God and neighbor, has not really understood it.” (1.36.40)
Seems to me, everyone on this so far has been in the wrong. I really could care less about the supposed heresies involved (and before you label the charge at me, yes, I am a heretic…sectarian in its finest catholic vision for the Church.)
My question is who is comforting this family in an AWFUL position? Why do we assume this was a 1) willful decision and 2) done with no remorse?
Kevin says:
To those who do not hesitate to assume the worst of Teresa: What does that say about you?
It is not necessary to “assume” anything about Teresa’s fairness or good will when Teresa’s immediate response to Mr. Z.’s speculative propositions is the following:
“…it seems as though you are advocating something that goes against the teachings of the Catholic Church on a “Catholic blog” and that would mean that you are promoting scandal. If you are promoting something that isn’t in line with Catholic moral teaching, that would be a very bad thing to do. This is not a pick and choose religion, or a do whatever feels good to you religion.”
The tenor of that comment is unmistakable.
The argument here is not whether or not abortion is intrinsically evil. It is.
The argument is over whether or not the procedure performed is an abortion.
Pope Pius XII explicitly allowed operations to save a mother’s life even if they unintentionally resulted in the foreseen death of the baby:
The moral theology here is to identify the moral object, which would appear to be the removal of the baby. This is a per se licit moral object (done naturally at birth and commonly in caesarean section).
The seriousness of the mothers condition is reported here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072
God Bless
Kevin,
Teresa’s contributions here began thusly:
My first question is: Are you trying to adhere to the Teachings of the Catholic Church?
Second question-Or are you advocating going against the Church’s Teachings on morality as it relates to abortion and saving the mother’s life?
Sorry, but those are inquisitorial questions. Rather than dealing with the issue at hand, incuding the application of magisterial teaching, Teresa demanded to know first whether M.Z. was intending heresy.
Here’s the view of an Opus Dei priest and moral theologian. Opus Dei priests are not generally considered to be wacky liberal left-wing pro-abortionists.
In “Vital Conflicts in Medical Ethics: A Virtue Approach to Craniotomy and Tubal Pregnancies” by Opus Dei Martin Rhonheimer, a study drafted for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and according to the author, published with the encouragement of its then prefect, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, a case is made that in cases where the baby will die whatever we do, medical intervention to save the mother’s life is not killing.
As the reviewer sums up Rhonheimer’s position:
http://ncbcenter.metapress.com/link.asp?id=a60kju4483682rn4
(Scroll down to page 202 in the pdf file)
God Bless
Is there a reason not to give the bishop the benefit of the doubt? We do not know what he knows about the situation. That, however, does not mean that we should be branded “liberals” for asking questions. When this word is deployed it becomes manifest that we are faced with politics and not theology.
Though with Ronheimer the link is problematic. At least in regards to his thoughts on the use of condoms as licit in preventing HIV – which derives directly from his understanding of the moral object noted in the book linked, he has been asked to refrain from publicly teaching this position. I don’t know if it extends to the other issues discussed in the book.
I really wish there was some way we could all wake up tomorrow and forget we were committed to any political party or side.
Mark,
Those were not inquisitorial questions but rather questions asked in the hopes of ascertaining where M.Z. was coming from with his post. I guess questions aren’t allowed on this blog and are frowned upon on here when looking for clarification on a person’s position on a particular post. I might as well make assumptions like Karlson does since that seems to be acceptable on this blog.
“It’s just a question” reminds me of this:
Of course, this “it’s just a question” is a typical tactic of people who are trying to trap people, and it is usually rather easy to see when that is the case by the words around the question. I’m quite familiar with Fundamentalists doing it all the time. No one really believes it is “just a question” however.
@Teresa,
Or just remark that someone’s opinion is “telling.”
Traditional Jewish Talmudic law considers a tereifah (someone with one of 18 specific defects which cause death within 12 months) to be as good as dead legally speaking and therefore one cannot be found guilty of killing a tereifah (Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 78a, Makkos 7a3).
This would appear to apply in cases where it is not possible to save one life no matter what we do.
Jewish law requires giving priority to the mother’s life, in respect of the family as a whole.
God Bless
In a thread over on dotCommonweal named What is “Abortion,” Anyway, Cathleen Kaveny gives a link to Germain Grisez’s answer to Is Abortion Always the Wrongful Killing of a Human Person? in The Way of the Lord Jesus. No less a pro-life advocate than Robert George is in agreement with Grisez, although he has quarrels with Prof. Kaveny (and me, since I am the fellow dotCommonweal bloggers he refers to).
I would urge all those who believe Bishop Olmsted was unquestionable correct to read Grisez and also the piece by Michael Liccione in First Things that Kyle refers to above. The entire thread on dotCommonweal is worth reading, as well.
Jimmy Akin of The National Catholic Register says, ” It is also why I dealt above with the fact that the child was almost certainly killed by suction-aspiration or dilation and curettage, both of which tear the child into tiny bits and are thus unambiguously the direct killing of an innocent individual, with no dispute possible, even hypothetically.” However, if Grisez’s understanding of direct and indirect are correct, and there is reason to doubt that a craniotomy is direct killing, then it seems to me there is reason to doubt that a suction abortion is direct killing.
It seems to me that analysis of abortion based on object, intention, and circumstances packs a lot into “object” that is not necessarily warranted. If you define “object” as purely a physical action, the soldier who throws himself on an exploding grenade to save his buddies and the soldier who throws himself on a grenade to commit suicide would both be committing actions in which the object was identical. And yet who would claim that the soldier sacrificing his life to save others is doing something evil, or the soldier committing suicide is doing something good?
At the same time, it seems if we use the reason for the physical act, we lose sight of the fact that crushing the skull of an infant necessarily results in the infant’s death. The physical act may be the matter of the object to the form of the reason. But matter is important.
Teresa -
Two cents from an outsider here.
You said both:
“Those were not inquisitorial questions but rather questions asked in the hopes of ascertaining where M.Z. was coming from with his post. I guess questions aren’t allowed on this blog and are frowned upon on here when looking for clarification on a person’s position on a particular post.”
and:
“My first question is: Are you trying to adhere to the Teachings of the Catholic Church?
Second question-Or are you advocating going against the Church’s Teachings on morality as it relates to abortion and saving the mother’s life?”
Yes, those are questions looking for clarification. But they are looking for clarification in terms of whether or not the poster is “trying to adhere to the Teachings of the Catholic Church” or “advocating going against the Church’s Teachings,” and THAT sort of “looking for clarification” is inquisitorial virtually by definition. At least be honest about the nature of the “clarification” you’re seeking and don’t recoil when it’s called out.
Jerms et al.,
I think this whole Teresa discussion is a little silly. M.Z. had a post with involved and subtle points that left certain premises and principles unspoken, including where he stood on the Church’s teaching on abortion. I myself was uncertain about where M.Z. was coming from, and I was glad to see M.Z.’s 1:09pm comment above that gave further explanation.
So who cares if Teresa was “inquisitorial” about asking M.Z. for clarification on where he stood on the Church’s teaching on abortion? I’m reminded of the big angel discussion, where it was revealed that Vox Nova poster Mr. Iafrate did not believe in the Church’s teaching on angels. I bring the angel discussion up, not to fault Mr. Iafrate (we’ve respectfully discussed the topic between us at length), but to point out that it is often useful to know the first principles on which a person is basing his argument. A misunderstanding of premises leads to a misunderstanding in the resulting discussion.
Thales, your common sense is refreshingly uncommon among the commenters of this blog. Those who referred to Teresa’s questions, the legitimacy of which you defended better than I did, as inquisitorial, tipped their hands with regard to their own attitudes toward Church orthodoxy with the psychologically revealing use of that word as a pejorative. This discussion has further cemented the impression that this blog has been giving me, fairly consistently, since I was first exposed to it, as a sterile echo chamber of liberalism and dissent where orthodoxy has to be hidden in the closet. Here, if you believe strongly in Church teaching in areas beyond the narrow confines the Social Gospel (or leftist interpretations thereof) you can only fit in if you follow the maxim Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Here charity is only excercised in one direction and the benefit of the doubt is extended exclusively toward dissent and against Church dogma and tradition, never the other way around. There is certainly an odor of inquistion in its atmosphere, but it is wafting most strongly from those who are most keen to point it out. If that seems like an uncharitable assessment of this blog, all I can say is – Give A Little, Get A Little. Give Very Little, Get Very Little Indeed!
including where he stood on the Church’s teaching on abortion
Thales,
I think there is a question about what the Church’s teaching on abortion is. Before this controversy, I would have said that if a pregnancy will kill the mother, the Church would require that the mother and the child perish rather than allowing the mother to be saved. Now I am not at all sure. Read Germain Grisez.
Also, the bishop didn’t excommunicate the nun. He said she was excommunicated latae sententiae. This is also very much an open question.
It may not be important whether Teresa was inquisitorial. What is important is whether she was right is describing the teachings of the Church. I would say her certainty about these very complex issues is unwarranted.
I think one of the more controversial aspects of Grisez’s argument, especially given his understanding of the moral object, is his assertion that craniotomy can be licit. Of course if the physical act has no bearing then the judgment that one is merely “changing the dimensions of the skull” makes sense. But does it from the baby’s perspective. The whole here:
At least in times past, however, and perhaps even today in places where modern medical equipment and skills are unavailable, certain life-saving operations meeting the four conditions would fall among procedures classified by the classical moralists as “direct” killing, since the procedures in question straightaway would lead to the baby’s death. This is the case, for example, if the four conditions are met during the delivery of a baby whose head is too large. Unless the physician does a craniotomy (an operation in which instruments are used to empty and crush the head of the child so that it can be removed from the birth canal), both mother and child eventually will die; but the operation can be performed and the mother saved. With respect to physical causality, craniotomy immediately destroys the baby, and only in this way saves the mother. Thus, not only classical moralists but the magisterium regarded it as “direct” killing: a bad means to a good end.83
“However, assuming the four conditions are met, the baby’s death need not be included in the proposal adopted in choosing to do a craniotomy.84 The proposal can be simply to alter the child’s physical dimensions and remove him or her, because, as a physical object, this body cannot remain where it is without ending in both the baby’s and the mother’s deaths. To understand this proposal, it helps to notice that the baby’s death contributes nothing to the objective sought; indeed, the procedure is exactly the same if the baby has already died. In adopting this proposal, the baby’s death need only be accepted as a side effect. Therefore, according to the analysis of action employed in this book, even craniotomy (and, a fortiori, other operations meeting the four stated conditions) need not be direct killing, and so, provided the death of the baby is not intended (which is possible but unnecessary), any operation in a situation meeting the four conditions could be morally acceptable.85″
My comment was only to note that sometimes, Vox Nova posters/commenters (who are Catholic/Christian) have, “unconventional” premises(for lack of a better term), even about the Catholic faith, and that these presmises are not immediately apparent to other Catholic/Christian commenters. The discussions about the morality of the Iraq War are another good example – some here on Vox Nova have held the premise that military training, in and of itself, is dehumanizing and thus immoral. Discussions on the morality of the Iraq War can turn into confused talking-past-each-other if that premise is not known to the discussion participants.
Now, I’m not denouncing these premises; I’m just pointing out that at times, there are “unconventional” premises which should be clarified in order to have a fruitful discussion. Like I said, I’m glad M.Z. had his comment which clarified where he was coming from.
About this particular abortion story: I really don’t know all the facts, so I can’t comment on it besides deferring to the bishop, who knows more about the woman’s health situation and the exact procedure used than I do.
David, I think that the word “abortion” probably is inexact, as it too broadly covers all deaths of an unborn child. (Would the often-analyzed licit termination of the ectopic pregnacy be covered by the term “abortion”?) In my limited knowledge, I’ve always thought that the Church teaches that the direct ending of an unborn child’s life is immoral. Based on the excommunication latae sententiae, I assume that the bishop believes this occurred in this case.
Phillip said:
I don’t think that is true. Surely one can crush a skull, at least to some extent, to facilitate removal from the birth canal, without necessarily resulting in the death ? Brain operations modify skull geometry by cutting it open.
It seems to me that is the basis of Grisez’s argument – a distinction between modifying the skull geometry and an intent to cause death.
My understanding is that the magisterium did not condemn craniotomy; Denzinger says it just said it could not be safely taught in the 19th century.
Canon Laywer Ed Peters and other canonists have a very strong case for the removal of latae sententiae excommunications from the Latin code of cannon law; they do not exist in the Eastern Catholic code of cannon law which always requires canonical trial before excommunication, which would seem to be required by natural justice and due process.
God Bless
Teresa apparently thinks Bishop Olmsted’s doctorate in canon law makes him a better judge of this case than trained doctors and medical ethicists. Apparently canon law can be applied to everything, the way fundamentalists use the Old Testament, and certain Muslims use the Q’uran.
In this case, to paraphrase Dickens, then canon law is an ass.
While we are on the topic of Teresa’s “inquisitorial” questions…
The Inquisitrix said:
(1) “Are you trying to adhere to the Teachings of the Catholic Church?”
It is a good thing to try to adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church, and Teresa suspects that Mr. Z. is not trying. Bad Mr. Z.
(2) “Or are you advocating going against the Church’s Teachings…”
It is a bad thing to advocate going against the Church’s teachings, and Teresa suspects that Mr. Z. is advocating. Bad Mr. Z.
(3) “…it seems as though you are advocating something that goes against the teachings of the Catholic Church on a “Catholic blog” and that would mean that you are promoting scandal.”
It is a bad thing to promote scandal, and Teresa suspects that Mr. Z. is promoting. Bad Mr. Z.
(4) “If you are promoting something that isn’t in line with Catholic moral teaching, that would be a very bad thing to do.”
It is a bad thing to promote something that is not in line with Catholic moral teaching, and Teresa suspects that Mr. Z. is again promoting. Bad Mr. Z.
(5) “This is not a pick and choose religion, or a do whatever feels good to you religion.”
It is a bad thing to pick and choose religion, and Teresa suspects that Mr. Z. is picking and choosing. Bad Mr. Z.
Now, in order to achieve some “clarification” on where Teresa stands, I have studied some of her other writings on the subjects of (1) adhering to Catholic teachings, (2) advocating going against Catholic teachings, (3) promoting scandal, (4) promoting things not aligned with Catholic moral teaching, and (5) picking and choosing.
The following clarifications are from a Vox Nova discussion called Coercion and Torture, wherein Teresa clarified her position on torture, and clarified that it is not the Catholic position.
Teresa said: January 20, 2010 at 5:56 pm:
(1) “I let my heart and soul dictate what is right, not any news channel or Church.”
Not adhering to Catholic teachings? Advocating going against Catholic teachings? Bad Teresa.
(2) “Sometimes the Church can be wrong on issues.”
Promoting scandal? Promoting something that is not in line with Catholic moral teaching? Bad Teresa.
(3) “The Catholic Church has abandoned me and that is why I am looking into the Marionite Church.”
Picking and choosing? Bad Teresa.
Now that we have achieved clarity, please summon the Inquisitor, and please show this lady the instruments of torture, now.
Of course if the physical act has no bearing then the judgment that one is merely “changing the dimensions of the skull” makes sense. But does it from the baby’s perspective.
Phillip,
I think particularly interesting is Grisez’s point that there is no intent to kill the baby in the case of the craniotomy, since exactly the same procedure would be used to extract a baby that was already dead.
When using the principle of double effect, it seems to me particularly important not to see things from all perspectives. For example, in the classic cases of removing the cancerous uterus of a pregnant woman or removing part of the fallopian tube involved in an ectopic pregnancy, the viewpoint of the baby is that it is being killed.
Would there be a moral difference if the fetus had been taken by C-section instead of D&E or D&C? (perhaps this has already been discussed, if so, I missed it). As some have said, it is hard to argue that the death of the fetus was not intended if a procedure was used which basically dismembered it. I can see a couple of possible mitigating factors if C-section had been used; for one, the violence of D&E would be avoided. For another, there is the possibility (albeit very remote with the availability of ultrasound) that the gestational age had been underestimated, enough that the fetus would have a chance, however small, of survival.
In my limited knowledge, I’ve always thought that the Church teaches that the direct ending of an unborn child’s life is immoral. Based on the excommunication latae sententiae, I assume that the bishop believes this occurred in this case.
Thales,
It all hinges on the interpretation of direct and indirect, and I believe that is not a simple matter.
Chris,
Brain surgeries do modify the skull by cutting them open, not by crushing. Crushing of the skill typically causes brain damage if not death. Still a significant harm.
David,
Crushing the skull of a dead baby results in reduced head circumference. Doing so in a living baby results in decreased head circumference, and probably brain damage if not death. While one may not want to look at the perspective from different sides, we still have to look at what is being done.
Grisez takes a specific view of the moral object. One which Ronheimer sees somewhat differently and which Stephen Long sees very differently. Perhaps this is an area for the Magisterium to pronounce on.
The thing is, that at 11 weeks it was likely a D & C or suction curretage that was done. That is that the baby was likely dismembered and not merely had a change in head size. I suspect even Grisez would find that direct killing.
Melody,
I think the morality of C-section would certainly be clearer, but I suspect that such operations could themselves pose a real threat to a seriously ill mother.
God Bless
I’m coming late to this debate, and I don’t have a worked-out position. It seems to me that the crux of the issue is what constitutes the object of the act i.e. what you are doing, the chosen behavior. Where it gets complicated is how to define “intention”. As Anscombe pointed out, a Cartesian approach that says, as a mental construct, that “I did not intend this” simply won’t cut it.
But how do you define the object? A man having sex with a woman could entail the virtous union of a married couple or a horrendously evil rape. A waterboader might be torturing somebody for information (evil) or training somebody to resist torture (licit). In each case, the object is very different, although on the surface it looks the same.
And then there are the gray areas. If you use condoms to prevent aids, are you using artificial contraception or are you defending against infection? I would argue the latter; others would disagree. And in this particular case, are you deliberately killing a child or are you removing it to save the mother’s life? Again, I would lean toward the latter.
Where I have qualms is wiith the point that nobody “intended” the death of the infant. This gets into some dangerous ground, the problem noted by Anscombe. Take one of her favorite examples – the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One could argue that the bombers did not “intend” any deaths, but that is not the point – the object of the act was to unambiguously kill non-combatants.
Morning’s Minion,
I suggest it would be helpful to look into the distinction between proximate intent and remote intent.
Proximate Intent is the “why” of what we choose to do. It is part of the specification of the moral object as an act of the will.
Remote Intent is what we are trying to achieve in the long run. The “end” which doesn’t justify the means.
Conflating proximate intent with remote intent is the source of considerable confusion in defining the moral object.
It seems clear that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki intended the deaths of innocents.
God Bless
Crushing the skull of a dead baby results in reduced head circumference. Doing so in a living baby results in decreased head circumference, and probably brain damage if not death. While one may not want to look at the perspective from different sides, we still have to look at what is being done.
Phillip,
Grisez is discussing craniotomy, in which the skull of the baby is punctured and the brains removed so the skull may be collapsed. It is very similar to partial birth abortion. It means certain death for the baby, and Grisez would not possibly be unaware of that. Yet he does not consider it direct killing.
My point about perspective is that if you are applying the principle of double effect, you are dealing with a case of a good and intended result coupled with a bad and unintended result. If you see only from the perspective of the bad and unintended result (say, the baby being removed in the case of an ectopic pregnancy), you are not applying the principle. Of course I would agree that you have to take fully into account what is really happening (both effects) as a result of the action that has a double effect.
It seems very clear to me that Grisez does not define direct to mean something like “hands on.” Consequently — if I understand him correctly — he would maintain that a craniotomy is not direct killing, but in most circumstances he would almost certainly define administering or taking the abortifacient drug RU-486 (Mifepristone) as direct killing, even though no one touches the embryo. So it seems clear to me that “direct” does not mean “hands on.”
I think it is important to note that — while I have read nothing of Grisez except the text I linked to — it seems clear that his interpretations of direct and indirect action are not “workarounds” that he developed to permit abortion in certain difficult cases. They are (I take him to say) interpretations that he applies throughout his work on moral theology, which is extensive.
I agree with David Nickol’s assesement as to what Grisez means by “hands on”. It would seem that Grisez is taking into account one’s intention with regard to what procedure would be classified as the direct killing of the embryo, and what is considered an indirect abortion. It would also seem that he takes into account the gravity of the mother’s condition.
I searched all over the internet and did not find one definitive statement by the Church that either condemned or approved of a craniotomy. Since there is no clear moral imperative or teaching by the Church condemning the procedure, the craniotomy, I believe it would be charitable to look at a mother whose life is in danger and try and understand her plight because of the gravity of the situation.
Fr. Basil Cole states this regarding this issue:
“This debate, of course, also needs some kind of clarification and resolution from the Congregation of Doctrine and Faith, which may take years.”
I agree with Teresa that craniotomy is not defined one way or another(as was artifical hydration until a few years ago.) The default position as noted above is the the Church has advised against this.
I will say Grisez is a faithful Catholic and is trying to teach from a faithful perspective. He is trying to integrate the Churches traditional approach to morality with the influence of a modern philosophical approach – particularly Kant. Thus the emphasis on reason and he minimization of the physical. (I have actually read a bit of Grisez for my course on moral philosophy. Also some Ronheimer and Long. Though I have not read extensively in any.)
I have read some of Grisez’s thought on direct and indirect action. Part of which leads him to conclude that the death penalty is direct killing and always illicit. His position on craniotomy is also an extension on this. It is also quite controversial if one has followed the debate – though again that does not mean Grisez is wrong. This is why I stated above that he Magisterium, as with artificial hydration, needs to speak. When it does, and if it is contrary to what Grisez has posited, I’m sure he’ll assent to Church teaching.
My ultimate point is we don’t know the procedure used. Craniotomy is a distraction At eleven weeks it wouldn’t be used. D&C or suction would. And from my reading of Grisez, he would, even from a Kantian perspective, see that as direct killing.
If the Congregation of Doctrine and Faith actually had many members who were mothers, I wonder how long it would take them to pronounce on the morality of saving a mother’s life ?
God Bless
If the Congregation of Doctrine and Faith actually had many members who were mothers . . .
Or if they had wives.