Talk:Excommunication of Margaret McBride

Untitled

I redirected article on Margaret McBride to this page and merged the content, as this seems to be a person notable for one event. BloodGrapefruit2 (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed original research

"It is fundamental Catholic moral theology that one cannot intentionally commit an evil act even if the result will be good -- that is, the end never justifies the means. On the other hand, it is also possible that an action which is morally neutral in itself and which is intended to achieve a good may also have an unintended consequence that is not good (this is called the principle of "double effect".) Had the doctors prescribed treatment, such as medication or radiation, which might also accidentally result in the death of unborn child, Catholic moral teaching would not find that an immoral act. However, since Catholic moral teaching holds that directly and intentionally killing an unborn child is always a profoundly evil act (rather than a morally good or neutral one), one may not directly and intentionally kill an unborn child even if the ultimate goal is to save the life of the mother. Because the Catholic Church considers abortions so gravely wrong, the Code of Canon Law (Canon 1398) states "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication" -- that is, the excommunication proceeds automatically by the very nature of the person's actions." Fine to reinsert if commentary on this case refers to these interpretations. Fences&Windows 13:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep or merge?

I think this subject will not meet the criteria laid out in WP:EVENT for having a whole article, it's a news furore of the past 10 days that seems unlikely to last. I would suggest that a shortened version be merged into Catholicism and abortion, which will give this incidents its due weight. Fences&Windows 14:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• I respectfully disagree here, but I suggest giving the issue a month or so and revisiting. I think a case can be made that it already qualifies for an article, but since there is at least a reasonable chance that it will become a matter of ongoing controversy, maybe we can avoid that debate by holding off for a bit BloodGrapefruit2 (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I forgot to add that I am not champing at the bit to merge this - you're right that we should wait. Fences&Windows 11:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC copied from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board

The article touches on an organization of pro-abortion Catholics named Catholics for Choice. This organization is not endorsed by the Catholic Church, the citation for this non-endorsement was the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops' statement on the matter. There is some feeling that this source is inadequate. Is it? - Haymaker (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No, there is "some feeling" that the inclusion of the statement is original synthesis of published material that advances a position not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The source you've provided is perfectly adequate for the statement that the RCC doesn't endorse Catholics for Choice, but since no editor has claimed that they do, that's just a bit irrelevant. Your source is from years earlier and thus comments neither on the excommunication nor on Catholics for Choice's statement about the excommunication. All its inclusion does is advance the position that real Catholics agree with the excommunication. I'm sure you didn't mean to misrepresent my comments and pretend that the issue was completely different - perhaps you'd have been back in a little bit to edit your own comment - but I'll save you the trouble.

Also, lol "pro-abortion." That's sure to make you look like a neutral commenter on this issue. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It takes one, as they say, to know one. Describing the position in favor of a thing as "pro" is certainly more neutral than your openly contemptuous, mocking reaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.151.56 (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Please, try to keep a civil tone. I do not understand the nature of your objection. You complained that the statement should have a source and I provided one. Are you unsatisfied with the source?

I asked for a source that connected the lack of endorsement to their statement on the excommunication and asked you to read WP:SYN. Have you read it yet? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have indeed read SYN. The statement about the organization alleges no relation to the events. Why would the source have to contain such a connection? - Haymaker (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion of the statement is what implies it's related to the events, when in fact no reliable source says it is. Hope that helps! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Who says inclusion implies that it is related to the events? That article is full of descriptions which are not related to the events. - Haymaker (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"Who says inclusion implies that it is related to the events?" Er, because articles aren't haphazard collections of information? If you think there are other instances of original synthesis in the article, by all means, take care of them. But unless you can find a source linking the lack of endorsement to the statement about the excommunication, it's synthesis that advances a position not in the sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There isn't any specific link between the two but the article is full of worthwhile descriptors not directly related event that you have neglected to delete. Why in the very first line we inform the reader that Ms. McBride is from Ireland. Surely you can see no connection between her birth place and the event. - Haymaker (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't. But IrishCentral, presumably (?) a reliable source, has seen fit to mention it, unlike the fact you'd like to insert. Although perhaps you're arguing that, even though it's mentioned in reliable sources, it implies a position not in the sources and should be removed? Perhaps you're suggesting that it implies Irish people are more likely to risk excommunication in order to save lives? Or that the American RCC is prejudiced against Irish people? If you really think it's problematic, be bold! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

So just so I'm clear, if a fact has been mentioned in a source covering the story, though relation may not stated or implied, it can be included in the article? - Haymaker (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think reading the official policy on the subject will do more for you than any explanation I can give. Frankly, I'm not going to waste my time any more. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The USCCB was not commenting on the Margaret McBride excommunication controversy, so the connection to them in the article is a synthesis and should be removed. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Is you objection that the source does not support that statement, or that you think the statement is out of place? - Haymaker (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not think there is any need to say negative things about the organization Catholics for Choice when quoting them, if those negative things are not in the context of the article topic, the excommunication of McBride. I see the clause ("an independent organization not endorsed by the Catholic Church") as an attempt to piss in the organization's punch bowl, to weaken the impact of their statement. If the Catholic Church or USCCB make a statement about the Catholics for Choice reaction to the excommunication, then you have something. Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand it is assumed that articles are not advertisements or endorsements of any particular group. You may feel that this is an attempt to pollute their agenda, but it does apply and so what if it does? I disagree with the positions in lots of articles that present two or more completing postions, and "pro-choice" (which could easily be seen as "pro-death") is a position. I am not required to agree, but people should be able to show those without rancor.

Okay, if I'm parsing your comment right...you're saying that naming a group as "pro-choice" in an article is indicative of bias since some people think "pro-choicers" want to murder babies? Well, er, not all people think that "pro-choicers" want to murder babies, and it's the label that such people have chosen for themselves, so we can't really do better in terms of neutrality. (Or rather, "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are the consensus terms, although one might suggest "anti-abortion" and whatnot.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with keeping this citation as long as the somewhat accusatory-sounding "an independent organization not endorsed by the Catholic Church" is shortened to "an independent group" or "a lay group" (as it has been currently). It is useful to know what connections this group has to the Church. Shii (tock) 01:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of events in lede

The lede paragraph currently reads, The excommunication of Margaret McBride occurred following the sanctioning by the Religious Sister in November 2009 of an abortion at a Roman Catholic hospital in Phoenix, Arizona. Her decision and her subsequent excommunication aroused controversy in the areas of medical ethics and Catholic theology. However, this gives an unclear picture of what actually happened. Because her excommunication was automatic, it happened at the moment she made her decision to sanction the abortion. "Following" and "subsequent" make it sound like this occurred later in time; possibly arising from a mistaken notion that the bishop imposed the censure himself. He did not, he merely determined that it had already happened. I hope we can tighten up the wording to reflect the reality of events. Elizium23 (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)