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.
Be the first person to like this.