Pope canonises woman who died to save her unborn baby

[eddm]

see this

Makes me feel sick.

Message withdrawn

For something to be seen as a 'miracle' it is investigated very thoroughly by the Church, witnesses are interviewed etc. The miracle must be proven.

Twinkie - the Church is not saying that an unborn baby's life is more precious than it's mothers, it is saying that all life is precious. Why are so many of you having difficulty with this? Again, can I ask if you would feel differently if this woman had sacrificed her life for her baby, if that baby had already been born? Would you give your life up for one of your children? Hard question to ask, but sometimes you know you have put yourself in danger to save your child, it could be that you have run in front of traffic to drag your child off the road, you don't think of the consequences at the time, you don't think that your other children might be denied a mother if you were to be run over. You act out of motherly instinct. I really don't see the difference here. Her instinct as a mother was so overwhelming that she would have done anything to save her child, just like the mother who performed that emergency caesarean. It is very sad that she died. But I think what the Church is acknowledging is that she gave her life to save another.

What about these people who put themselves in danger all the time, firemen/women, soldiers, are they being selfish every time they risk their lives to save another? They must know that in some situations they might not come out alive, but they do it anyway, and if they do die then they are labelled heroes. Canonisation I think, is the Church's way of labelling that person a hero. And I don't think we can have too many heroes around!

that last post rhuby was great, really made me think about it in a different light, think about the selfless people who have chilren and families yet continue to put their lives at risks in different professions.

your post before last though has raised a few questions for me. its nice quoting the church and what the bible says and churchyfied rules - but in practice we know this isnt so. we know that the vatican is a highly organised highly political machine. the abhorant riches it has whilst people starve - my mums argument to this has always been that the church is looking after priceless treasures to give the joy of them to the world for people to see. frnakly if you save one life - one life. then selling all that stuff to be locked away for no one ever to see, is ok with me. the church preaches the sanctity of life whilst at the same time enforcing out of date doctorine which is killing people everyday. you will say that peole make their own decisions, but in the developing world where the church has a great following - the idea is the follow.

again with the HIV/AIDS 3rd world ? all the world issue. yes, if you follow church doctorine then maybe these issues wouldnt exist, however thats not the real world - it an ideal situation maybe - but reality is far from different. so in the countries where women ae seen as 2nd and 3rd class citizens - and i betcha they dont screw around as a whole - why not advocate condoms? people are suffering children are dying everyday becuase they are hanging on to the words of a church which is killing them.

i dont understand the church and the condoms issue. i understand the sanctity of life - can see their point on abortion and the morning after pill, even the coil where fertilization can take place. but not the condom. if sperm were allowed to flow free then certainly my family would be in a poverty we would never be able to escape, children cost money. there isnt a housing association or council house in this area that could house a family with 8 or 9 kids or more. we may well be homeless. in reality it is just not practicable. and with that many kids i would be no sort of a mother, probably have attempted suicide and probably not be married.

ner ner

"For something to be seen as a 'miracle' it is investigated very thoroughly by the Church, witnesses are interviewed etc. The miracle must be proven."

"how come in this pope's reign he's canonised more people than all the other pope's put together (over 480 I believe)"

Are these 2 statements really compatible?

I didn't make the 1st statement!!! I don't know how many people the Pope has canonised, but 'tis true that they must have performed at least 2 miracles that must be proven somehow. I remember seeing a documentary all about it, the criteria is pretty strict. They obviously have a full-time Saint Team looking into it all. They are much more wary about Apparitions btw.

Can I just say that I agree with everything Custy said? BUT The Church believes that the morals and beliefs of this 'real world' are false. They do not believe in sex before marriage, or masturbation, or contraception, which does put them at odds with the rest of the world. Having said that though, they do have an important message to preach, one about love, sanctity of marriage and fidelity. You can criticise them of their views, but they do need to be listened to as there are not so many organisations now that will be bold enough to say that casual sex is wrong, and that children should be taught about love, not just about sex.

I can see where you are coming from with regards to the Hierarchy of the Church, there are changes that can/should be made. But this digresses from the point of whether or not this woman should have been canonised, and what message that sends out to the rest of us. Instead of arguing about this topic, people are diverting to just dissing the whole of the Church. Maybe it's because I iz right? Eh Custy?

ner ner

Oops, sorry, I did make the 1st statement, but I didn't make the 2nd one!

Rhubarb, I agree that the church is made of people, and people are falable. However there are well documented cases of priests who were accused of paedophilia who were simply moved to a new parish where they abused again. The church knew of their 'predelection' and effectivly hid them from the consequence (secular and church) of their actions. And in that they Church was responsible, as distinct from the erring priest as a man.

Rhubabrb - I know you didn't make the second statement, should have made that clear. Was just posting it to show the number. If it's 2 documented miracles per saint that makes 960 miracles - must be a very busy Miracles Assurance Team

I think Rhubarb has said it all.

also why is a woman losing a bit of amniotic fluid and then going on to have a fine baby a miracle? it is quite common to have a bit of a leak, which then stops, or even if not the fluid replaces itself. it is a bit like a bleed in early pregnancy going on to a healthy full-term baby - happens all the time.

perhaps that is it - threshold of miracles keeps getting lower, everyone gets canonised. bit like here - increasingly easy a-levels = millions more university degrees. BSc in Golf Studies, anyone?!

Just a matter of interest and not my opinion

The pope is coming to Switzerland in 3 weeks time for a youth festival. To coincide with this visit a letter signed by more than 40 Catholic priests and lay people was sent to the pope on his birthday stating that he should retire like a bishop 75.
Also that they believe that women priests into be allowed within the Catholic church.
And that the Catholic Church basically needs to modernise

article in German
article in English

i iz sure it iz becuase u iz right

how do you know they lowered the miricle threshold pph? maybe your making it more simple than it was. i think the pope will have been fully briefed by his crack team of miricle investigators and made a thorough decision.

as for peadophiles the church handles these cases very badly and there is no justification.

the point remains that this woman at issue in this thread did a good thing and well done to his old codgelyness for recognising that.

what an unfortunate name that bishop hasin your article papillon

I agree that the church handles paedophiles badly. I made that point because the point had been made that by holding out for high standards the church was standing in opposition to the rising tide of bad things in secular society, one listied being pedophilia. I felt that they could make a better stand against it by rooting it out of the church and not practicing cover ups.

I'm afraid to say that i believe that the choice of who to canonise is as political as the election of the pope...very. canonising this woman is imho a political statement about the role the church wants modern day woman to play: that of wife and mother...viewing the ultimate acheivement that a woman can attain as sacrificing her life for her unborn child.

Shall we just get the facts on Gianna Molla so people can make their own minds up about this?

[Gianna combined a demanding professional career as a doctor in general practice with being a wife and mother to three children. Two months into her fourth pregnancy she was diagnosed with cancer of the womb and advised to have a hysterectomy to remove her womb.

This would have ended the life of her unborn child. As this was not the intentional outcome, only an inescapable side-effect of the life saving operation she so urgently needed, the hysterectomy would have been acceptable in terms of Catholic ethical teaching.

Despite this, Gianna chose to undergo limited surgery that she hoped would remove the cancer without harming her unborn child. The surgery was successful in terms of preserving the life of the unborn child but it failed to cure the cancer. Only one week after giving birth to a healthy baby girl, Gianna died on the 28th April 1962.

Like Kelly, Blessed Gianna hoped that she would not die and leave her child motherless. However, both Kelly and Blessed Gianna clearly valued life to such an extent that they were prepared to give their children the opportunity to experience and enjoy life just as they had.

During Gianna's beatification ceremony in St. Peter's Square, a young woman in her thirties knelt before the Holy Father for a special blessing. She was the daughter for whom Gianna had given her own life.]

And this is about the process of Canonisation:
[To prove the authenticity of a miraculous event means going through the process of meticulous scientific and theological examination, Monsignor Di Ruberto said in an interview with the Italian magazine 30 Giorni.

"For the beatification of a servant of God who is not a martyr, the Church requires a miracle; for canonization, including that of a martyr, it requires another," he explained. "Only the presumed miracles attributed to the intercession of a servant of God or of a blessed 'post mortem' can be the object of verification."

A miracle is an "event that goes beyond the forces of nature, which is realized by God outside of what is normal in the whole of created nature by the intercession of a servant of God or a blessed," Monsignor Di Ruberto said.

Moreover, the process of establishing "heroic virtues, through all the work of collecting testimonials and documentaries as proofs" and of "theological assessments" until arriving at "moral certainty and the formulation of a judgment," even if well-founded, serious and precise, is not exempt from possible errors, he said.

"We can make mistakes, deceive ourselves," said the undersecretary. "Miracles, instead, can only be realized by God, and God does not deceive."]

And Custy - surely you must accept that the Pope sees Jesus every day and is immortal? He never goes to the toilet, he doesn't need sleep and whatever comes out of his mouth turns to gold. What kind of a Catholic are you if you can't accept this simple truth????? HEATHEN!

I'm a catholic but this saint will bring more trouble that blessings!!!!

Have not had a chance to read the full thread (and surely I missed some interesting last postings) but I just wanted to say that as a catholic I found this canonisation terrible, I guess that Giana being a doctor was able (and definitively more prepared than some of us) to make an informed choice and decided to save the baby rather than her, she died in the process as many other women who took a decision that time proved was not a good one (i.e. a home birth that didn't went as planned or an elective cesarean that may have gone grong).

What I find terrible about this canonisation is that her "example" is and will continue to be pushed to many women who can't make an informed decision. The political right in a city I used to live in, used Giana's case as an argument to force the very catholic population to support the withdrawal of the women's right to abortion when the pregnancy was product of rape. I found it discusting but many abiding catholics decided to support the case because that was the right thing to do, nobody mention though who was going to help the mother with the costs of giving birth to and raising that child.

However, I never met a priest who openly supported that campaign, men were not particularly interested but I met a huge amount of WOMEN coworkers, FEMALE students, and MOTHERS who actively supported the point. Many times I believe that the main supporters of machism are not the Church, the system, or education but ourselves, the women...

Forgot to say, the campaign was not successful (ThankfullY) but many people continues pushing Gianna's example after all these years.

I think Chandra's post says it all in terms of the political nature of this canonisation and the really evil ends it is being used by the church for...I find it incredibly sad.

And Chandra, I agree that we as women are often our own worst enemies...but this is what happens to any group that is subjugated for centuries, they lose sight of what liberation means and collude with those in power to keep themselves enslaved...i know these are strong words and will make a lot of people laugh because they feel that women have won the battle...but just like many many groups of people (not least most ordinary working men of the world) we are conned into thinking that we have freedom when we are so far from that concept that it is frightening...the church is only one of groups holding on to power whose interest is to keep things that way, but for me, it is one of the saddest as it is in direct contrast to what the church claims to stand for, and what jesus originally preached....love.

Sophable, Chandra's post actually says it was the POLITICAL right who seized on gianna and the Church was not supportive of the campaign.

The Catholic Church is incredibly broad and there are plenty of wonderful priests, nuns etc. who do not agree with the current agenda.

i know, but that doesn't change my view that it is a political canonisation...i totally agree with your second point btw, but unfortunately they are struggling with a hierarchy that is really bad news at the moment imo

The Church opposes abortion, with or without any Canonisations, they oppose abortion, it's as simple as that. You might not agree with it, you might see abortion as the woman's choice etc. But I have to say that as founder of a webpage that gives women all the info they need to know about abortions, I get many emails from young girls who have been persuaded to have an abortion by partners and families for their own selfish reasons, not because it is in the best interests of the girl involved. They have felt under pressure and go ahead with the abortion only to bitterly regret it later on in life.

Yes, I'm sure there are other women out there who think that it is the best thing they have ever done. But the Church sees all life as sacred - and not just the Catholic Church either. But if you read the story of Gianna, the Church says: "This would have ended the life of her unborn child. As this was not the intentional outcome, only an inescapable side-effect of the life saving operation she so urgently needed, the hysterectomy would have been acceptable in terms of Catholic ethical teaching." They would not have condemned her if she decided to go ahead with the hysterectomy.

This woman was not a simple-minded peasant girl pounced upon by the hierachy of the Church, she was a professional working mum - the stereotype many people say the Church frowns upon. Yet they still decided to Canonise her for what she did, to put her child's life before her own.

I think too many people are reading too much into this and twisting it around just to launch an attack on the Church. This isn't an issue about abortion, or women in the Church, it's about a mother putting her daughter's life before her own. And I think it was very poignant that her daughter received a special blessing from the Pope. Perhaps we should ask her if she thought her mother was selfish, or being held up as a 'wrong example'.

Maria Luisa is right, in fact I know some priests which would have found the campaign reproachable. But there are so many fanatics out there (being of ANY religion) who would make a rather partial reading of an issue.

Sophable, the catholic church as ANY other religion have good and bad things, nobody can assume that this or any other religion is evil because some points of view which are for sure not shared by the whole community. All religions are different, which doesn't mean they are better or worse, just DIFFERENT

never said that the church was evil but what the vatican is doing