excommunicated nun (mature and serious readers only)

The Roman Catholic teaching is that you cannot kill the child to save the mother (the question is sometimes, asked, is it any more right to kill the mother to save the child?), and this position is explicitly unmodified in cases where the two options are: 1: Kill the child and allow the mother to survive, or 2: Don't intervene and allow both to die. Catholic theology also has a theory of \"double effect\" wherein a pregnant woman's cancerous womb may be removed, and it is considered as if those in charge happened not to know that that operation would include abortion. My suspicion about the Roman decision is that it is not this case considered in isolation but a matter of \"You must draw a line in the sand somewhere,\" and more specifically that the heartwrenching cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother historically serve as a sort of gateway drug to abortion on demand. That's a summary of Catholic teaching; I don't know fully where the Orthodox teaching lies, and oikonomia has a very valid and real place in Orthodoxy. There was a story a few years ago where a Roman bishop annulled the first communion of someone with a severe food allergy because the priest used a gluten-free host for her first communion. In Orthodoxy the usual place would be for such a medically appropriate oikonomia that belongs to the priest: one wouldn't normally go high enough on the food chain to involve the bishop, and probably one that the bishop would be micromanaging to meddle with. But I don't know, and my prayers would be with any Orthodox nun in such a position and any heirarchs trying to act in accordance with proper church discipline.

This woman was 11 weeks pregnant. A fetus generally doesn't survive outside the womb if it is less than 22 weeks old. Even then, intense medical intervention is required. I thought we were \"pro-life\" here. Why is it more \"noble\" to allow 2 people to die, when we should be looking at who has the best chance of survival? If there was NO chance that this woman could survive the pregnancy for the 11 more weeks for the fetus to be able to be delivered and survive outside the womb, then I feel it may be a justifiable reason to save the mother's life.

I think that it would be good, if a priest wrote about this issue, since they have more authority on this issue. Also for Catholic questions, I have no idea how to anwser them. From what I have read, which is not enough, from Orthodox sources, abortion is never allowed. The reason seems to be because the church believes that life begins at conception through the Grace and Spirit of God. Many fathers quote from the Bible. One example is when John the Baptist \"lept\" in Elizabeth's womb, when she embaraced the Theotokos. They also quote David in the Pslams when he says that God \"knew\" him in his mother's womb. Elder Cleopa when a woman came to him in confession and confessed that she had had an abortion, he told her that she must refrain from taking communion for 20 years, and repent! I have never read any Orthodox father that said abortion was ok, for any reason. I could go into a lot m ore information, but that is for another post, at another time.

I also wanted to comment in reference to ilovespyridon's comments: Our death-denying society is not pro-life. I don't agree with everything Alexander Schmemann says, but in [url=http://books.google.com/books?id=47ncMCfOj58C&printsec=frontcover&dq=for the life of the world&ei=WwQLTHaL-DXotJy5DA&cd=1#v=onepage&q=death&f=false]For the Life of the World[/url], chapter 6, \"Trampling Down Death by Death\", or the theme shot through the Philokalia of remembering that we are approaching death. On this point our society is in denial. Barring a quick return on the Lord's part, all of us are approaching death. We cannot choose whether we approach death, only whether we do so wisely or foolishly, in light or in darkness. Even doctors and hospitals never prevent death. They may postpone it, and the new illusions in anti-aging medicine may offer hollow hope of escaping even inevitable death through ripe old age, but not even the best hospitals can prevent death; they can at their most successful postpone this fact of life, but it is a basic philosophical error to ask medicine to free us from the reality of death. Now I am not hereby saying that people like elena86 are choosing an unacceptable position. Orthodox Judaism is misportrayed by people who interpret it as saying that a child does not possess the breath of life until first breath of air outside the womb, but it does prefer the life of the mother to that of the child. Pro-life accepts life and death as alike given by God. It says \"no\" to certain deaths: killing an unborn child, at least outside of grave circumstances, \"mercy deaths\" (to use the Nazi euphemism) for the sick and suffering, and other things. It does not say \"no\" to the death by which God conditions our ascesis, and for that matter it does not say \"no\" to choosing to be killed as a martyr or hero: the soldier who jumps onto a grenade in a foxhole so that others may live does not do what \"pro-life\" objects to in suicide. G.K. Chesterton said that courage is almost a contradiction in terms: it is a strong will to live taking the form of a willingness to die. The Fathers did not speak in terms of being pro-life, even though they knew of abortion and infanticide and other such, and opposed them in the most unambiguous terms. Their condemnation of the murder of children is in continuity with spending our lives in preparation for death, and taking up our cross and dying a little each day in preparation for when we will no longer have a decision to make and we will either trample death by death or lose our lives by trying to hold onto it. I'm a cancer survivor, and one thing I realized in chemo was that I could die without regrets if it turned out that my life would end shortly. As it turns out, I have been cancer-free for long enough that it is unlikely that I will die of cancer. But the treatment didn't prevent me from dying; it couldn't. It postponed it, and I am grateful for time to attempt good works, but twenty years ago I would have been under a medical death sentence... but I would still have been under the sovereignty of God, and his grace could have reached me just as much if my life had come to a close then. If you want an Orthodox view on life, prepare for death.

Regrettably, the politico- drama of this case is less a question of science and moreso the idea of female idealogues trumping a male dominated dictum. Rome has trouble with females making any ground shaking policy change ad hoc. The unemotive fact is that in hospitals across the country, decisions about the life of the mother are made without an ethics committee's involvement (remove the nun (God grant her mercy) from the equation and it is still an ethics committee making a hard decision in a Catholic Hospital). For a routine, yet horrible scenario on these decisions, assume the tubal pregnancy case. Herein is a situation where although there exists an animal model (transplantation of the baby rabbit from the salpinx (fallopian tube) into its mother's uterus-- studies in humans have yet to be performed). Therefore, a tubal pregnancy ends in death for both mom and baby; or removal of the baby, which even the Roman Church allows. http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57 As we BECOME Orthodox in our phronema, we begin to UNDO the flawed logic patterns we NATURALLY grew into through our Ethics classes in our Graduate, Post Grad, and Medical School curriculae. We mustn't onsistently look to Aquinas (Natural Law expositor) and Aristotle for our interpretation of these hard questions. We are no longer Roman and Protestant in our praxis. We are allowed certain tactical (medical) decisions that still fit within the broad strategeum of Christian Orthodoxy. Of much greater concern is not how Rome treats its vocationals, but how we as Orthodox handle our own ethics. What I am driving at is this: Many Orthodox children are unknowingly being aborted by Orthodox faithful. How? The use of hormonol \"Birth Control. \" Truly, the BCP (Birth Control Pill) has subtly infitrated our ranks, known formerly as the OCP (oral contraceptive pill). The import of the use of \"B\" over \"O\" in the BCP and OCP nomenclature has missed the average lady who presents to her family planning Doctor. Today, the BCP has far more progestin and less estradiol (which disinhibits implantation leading to passive abortion) than the OCP. We should make a more concerted appeal among our own ranks to clean our own house before worrying about the dust on our neighbour's medicine cabinet.

In the Orthodox church abortions are not allowed or encouraged. I know of only one exception and that is an ectopic pregnancy. In an ectopic pregnancy, a fertilized egg has implanted outside the uterus. The egg settles in the fallopian tubes. I do not think we know enough information to say whether or not the nun was just in her action or whether the Catholic Church was. Also I don't think that in the Orthodox Church saving your child's life by sacrificing your own is grounds for becoming a martyr and therefore a saint. Many other factors have to be in place as well.

I look forward to a priest indeed responding to the general subject, if not every single question raised here. I have no knowledge of how the Roman Catholic Church operates but I do have the impression they are very legalistic so unfortunately the excommunication does not surprise me. As far as how should/would a devout Orthodox proceed in grave circumstances as these I would think that it truly depends on their spiritual level and whether they'd seek counsel from a spiritual father. We do believe in Miracles. Therefore I'd imagine that fasting and prayers would be prescribed to all family members and the mother encouraged to leave her life in the Hands of God. At the same time, I do not believe that a mother in very critical condition who would proceed with the terrible decision of an abortion would be excommunicated. However I am sure they'd be a period of repentance and abstinence from Holy Communion. On the other hand, it could be that a Spiritual Father discerns that in her illness she is in even greater need of the Christ's Holy Body and Blood and be encouraged to mourn but do participate regularly in the Holy Eucharist. Abortion \"on a whim\" - for an unplanned pregnancy would carry a much different process I'd imagine. However, how can it be that only the mother would be help liable in any of these scenarios? I very much believe that God is not fooled. Should a girl find herself in the terrible situation of pregnant & abandoned, I am sure that God is not counting her responsibility only.... The sin of an abortion at whim I am sure would very firmly lay on the hands of the man who did not stand there beside her and his child. No sin is greater than God's Mercy. At the same time, we are not to \"play\" around with God.(\"empaizw\") It is good to understand the gravity of our decisions each time and proceed prayerfully. Sometimes it can be argued, there is such a thing of too heavy a Cross. I do know of a great woman of blessed memory, who indeed died while giving birth. It was her 4th child, who did not get enough oxygen during delivery and has had many problems since. Her husband that day became a widower, and the caretaker of 3 children plus the special needs baby. In my eyes, the whole family are martyrs, accepting their cross and continuing life close to God. I would pray and hope that I would have the same strength. We do not get to choose our cross in life. We do need it though to make it towards our salvation. As for the nun and would she be allowed to join the Orthodox Church, this is an interesting question. I am uncomfortable with the idea of joining the Orthodox Church only because I have \"nowhere else to go\". I would think it should be because she can firmly confess the Symbol of our Faith. That is to say, recognized our Holy Church as the one Church of Christ. Given that an Orthodox person has to go through a period of testing and being a novice before joining a Monastery, I would doubt a nun could just \"move over\". Perhaps though she could convert and become a novice so that she is attached to a community? I have no knowledge of how this would work. For example, I am somewhat surprised that when a priest of a different church converts to Orthodoxy, they are often allowed to join the clergy ranks. I would hope there has been serious Orthodox Theological and pastoral training before this happens. Since some of our jurisdictions proceed in these matters differently, I am sure the recent common council of all the Bishops of our Orthodox Churches here in America will be soon addressing these. God keep us. We may complain about our own Cross, but look at what decisions others face!...

Greetings
I can only give my point of view and do not speak for the whole church.
Old Testament and New Testament Scripture, the Teachings of the Apostles and later Church Fathers, and Canon Law all concur that abortion is a sin as serious as murder, and is therefore prohibited under all circumstances.
The Church affirms that life begins at the moment of conception, and once this new life has begun in a woman, even in cases of rape or incest, she can no longer think solely of herself. Her life and the life of the baby are in the hands of the Lord. While rape and incest are grievous sins, the Church does not permit one sin to be resolved by allowing for an even greater sin to follow.
Yet, as with any sin once committed, the Church provides forgiveness and reconciliation for those who recognize abortion as a grave sin and confess it in a spirit of repentance.
I have given prayers for mothers who aborted and sincerely repented and I find these prayers are very effective for reconciliation.
As for the nun, possibly she should look at the Orthodox Church and the "way of the heart" rather than a restrictive legalistic one.

The thing is, we dont know what kind of "medical problem" the woman had. We dont even know if the mother's life or the baby' life was truly under menace.

It seems to me that it was somewhat planned. Anyways, without knowing the true facts, its difficult to tell. Because anyways, every pregnancy is delicate and dangerous in so many ways! So was she suffering? Was her arrival to the hospital a matter of emergency or not? If she really was in an emergency case, then the foetus would have been the first one to be in danger, ergo, to have health problems and the mother would have had a natural abortion case.

Mother had health problems? You have to be more specific, because pregnancy diabetes, hemorroids and insomnia are all as well health problems.

"The only time the Orthodox Church will reluctantly acquiesce to abortion is when the preponderance of medical opinion determines that unless the embryo or fetus is aborted, the mother will die." - Rev. Dr. Stanley S. Harakas (from http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/controversialissues) 

 

 

I remember reading of this case and it was indeed tragic. Personally, I  do not agree with abortion on demand, but in an extreme case where it can be demonstrated that the mother's life is in bona fide danger, I though abortion should be considered..  The decision, however is between a woman and her doctor. It's not for outsiders to say. Maybe some won't agree with me, but that is my view. Lord willing most people will never have to face such a terrible situation.

I thought it was the view of both the Orthodox and the Catholic Church that the one time abortion is permitted is when giving birth would cause the mother to die? If I'm right, I'm a little surprised at this whole situation.

I believe your right Nick. I have read that if the mothers life is in danger and if she has other children that depend on her, the baby may be aborted. Forgive me if I am wrong.

The thing to remember, as Fr. Andrew Damick pointed out in a podcast of his, is while there may be no kind of legal guilt for this abortion, there is still a deep wound made on the soul that needs to be healed.

someone asked earlier why no responses from women. I am a woman. Here is my take on this. I am Orthodox but my anti  abortion position predates that. Now, the excellent point was raised as to exactly what kind of health problem we are talking about. allegedly the mother's death was pretty certain, and that would take the baby out with her. Two deaths instead of one is not good. Let's look at abortion in two ways. Triage and euthanasia. 

Triage nowdays is who gets seen first. Originally, it was three categories in a primitive (1800s) military field hospital. category one, the person will survive without treatment. Such gets no treatment. category two, the person will die even with treatment. Such gets no treatment. category three, the person will survive if treated. Such gets treated. (the others might get pain remediation if enough is available.) the point is, limited resources, meds, personnel, etc. etc. A clear cut case of the mother's life at stake would fit this. The kid won't survive if she dies, and is too young to be treated. she will die, taking the kid with her, if not "treated." so abort. 

euthanasia is another stickler, as an issue it began on the battlefield and should have stayed there. "death with dignity" is prideful nonsense. Plato I think it was phrased it well, something like, "my friend is horribly wounded and suffering and begging me to kill him, if I do not kill him I am a bad friend, but if I kill him I am a murderer." no answer was offered for the dilemma. 

means of abortion that cause pain to the infant should never be done - salting out is a nonstarter. use of some drug to cause contractions and expulsion and perhaps quick squash after expulsion if very small would be kinder. RC allegedly okays removal of a fallopian tube in which is an ectopic pregnancy, but not removal of the embryo because in the former case the purpose is removal of the fallopian tube and the child's death is incidental, while in the latter case the child's death is intended. This is hypocritical nonsense. No fallopian tube removal would be done in an ectopic pregnancy except to stop the problem of a growing wrongly placed embryo aka fetus so it IS an abortion. 

The infant should be baptized at some point during the procedure, at that size the difference between sprinking, pouring and immersion is negligible. 

The issue is not, "when does human life start?" The issue is, "when is it okay to kill a human being?"

I would recommend in the case of such a woman as described, first prayer, Holy Unction, and see if things change. Try IV injection of Holy Water while you're at it. If they don't within the time needed, then maybe go ahead with the abortion. The use of dilation and suction though more risky to the womb lining, is probably a quicker death for the infant hence kinder, than dilation and curettage, which cuts it up alive in bits.

any woman who has an abortion for any reason should be sterilized. End of problem.