Posted on 12/13/2005 7:49:21 AM PST by Rutles4Ever
A mother who found out she had cancer after becoming pregnant sacrificed her life for her unborn baby by refusing an abortion and chemotherapy, a British newspaper reported.
Devout Catholic Bernadette Mimura, known as Milai, shunned the potentially life-saving treatment because doctors told her it would kill the child, the Northern Echo regional daily reported Friday.
The 37-year-old, a native of the Philippines who lived near Stockton-on-Tees in northeast England with her British partner, Adam Taylor, survived long enough to see the birth of their son, Nathan.
But soon after seeing him baptized, she was transferred to a hospice and died about a week later.
"Being a Catholic, for her abortion was out of the question," Mr. Taylor told the newspaper. "It was a tough decision, but the decision was we could not give up on Nathan."
The boy, now 4 months old, was premature but was born fit and healthy.
Father Alan Sheridan, who performed the baptism, told Britain's domestic Press Association news agency: "Bernadette said the most important thing was the birth of her baby and she would not do anything to harm him.
"Having an abortion was never a consideration. I know she talked it over with Adam and because she was a Catholic, there was no way she would have done it.
"She had to judge which life was more important and she just prayed there would be a cure for cancer." Father Sheridan is spearheading an appeal to raise $6,490 to repatriate Mrs. Mimura's body to the Philippines for burial. Money left over will help her other three children from a first marriage.
The priest said he hoped the Manila government would help with a grant to fly the three youngsters from Britain for the ceremony.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Adultery does not provide an excuse for remarriage.
We have become such a pessimissitic society.
And once again, the pessimism was fully justified here.
We are talking the Catholic church here, right? Because adultery on the part of one spouse, and the requisite anullment which can be had on those grounds, certainly DOES open the way for a marriage by the other spouse, the "injured" party.
No, I never wrote the word.
But since you bring it up, can we draw intelligent conclusions from the following facts?
1) She was living with a man not her husband and had a child by him. 2) Even once she embarked upon a course of action that had a high likelihood of leading to death she didn't renounce her sinful living arrangements, a necessity to making peace with the Lord whome she was offending.
Some of us are old fashioned in our appraoch to living the faith, and think living publicly in a scandalous arrangement requires public renouncement of such an arrangement as evidence of the true fruits of repentance.
BTW, the Pharisee's sin was to praise himself for being so much better than the Publican, rather than praising God for making him righteous and saving him from sin. Where have I done that here?
The Pharisee was not judgemental, but proud. "Judge just judgement" says the Lord.
Yes we are.
Because adultery on the part of one spouse, and the requisite anullment which can be had on those grounds, certainly DOES open the way for a marriage by the other spouse, the "injured" party.
Among Episcopalians and assorted other heretics, that is true. Among Catholics, there is never any reason to justify divorce and remarriage. To remarry after divorce, even for the innocent party to the divorce, is to committ adultery.
CANON VlI.-If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent)
Dude take the log out of your eye before you point out the splinter in others.
There ARE avenues to anullment that exist within canon law. From my own personal experience, my parents' marriage was anulled by my mother and she subsequently married in a church ceremony to another man.
In this particular case as well, owing to the fact that the first husband was Japanese and likely not Catholic (since we are making so many other suppositions), a decree of nullity could be granted on those grounds alone, regardless of adultery or anything else.
Thanks for the ping Bruck. We've discussed this scenario in our house. Since murder isn't an option, we'd continue with the pregnancy, and leave the rest in God's hands.
The Lord gives and the Lord takes away.
BS
Mr Pious holier than though
My kindly Catholic German teacher from Freiburg im Breisgau, whose father was imprisoned for anti-Nazi activity, was a victim of this.
No, it could not. You simply don't understand canon law.
What log? I've never fornicated, raped, used birth control, committed adultery, etc.
You too.
Me too. People placed in such unenviable positions certainly deserve our prayers.
Thanks for your thoughts on this subject, btw.
Presuming the first husband was not Catholic, and further presuming that the marriage was not celebrated before a priest, there would be no need for a Declaration of Nullity because they would not be considered duly married in the eyes of the church.
I don't know if it's up to each diocese or what, or whether you are reading very old Canon law (the Council of Trent that you cite is 16th century, and there have been a multitude of changes since then, like it or not).
There is most certainly a procedure for what is commonly called an anullment, officially called a Declaration of Nullity. The grounds basically are described as that there was no "real" marriage in the first place, and it has been variously defined according to each case.
It's not always granted, but it is most certainly granted at present more often than it was granted in the 16th century.
As a sinful catholic who detests divorce but detests the killing of a child more than anything I don't think that I can pass judgment on her marital status, however I can praise her for her commitment to life without pointing out where she had fallen, oh and by the way there is no more grave sin than to take the innocent life of a child. Your statements strike me like you are a person who has religion but no faith
I certainly feel other should be held to live up to the standard of not committing major sexual sins. And that those who glory in failing at that, or who feel they are no big deal and shouldn't be held as major failings should be held reprobated.
As a sinful catholic who detests divorce but detests the killing of a child more than anything I don't think that I can pass judgment on her marital status, however I can praise her for her commitment to life without pointing out where she had fallen
I'm not going to stand idly by and watch a public sinner posited as a role model for us to emulate. Like I said, Hitler was kind to little German children and dogs. Everyone does good things, even the worst of humanity. Lets not canonize a sinner for one good deed. Our heroes, the Saints, find total perfection in Christ. St. Matthew 5.48. And that includes public fruits of repentance for public sins.
These are several wild assumptions without evidence. OTOH, it is a matter of public record that she was divorced and living with another man without benefit of marriage.
I don't know if it's up to each diocese or what, or whether you are reading very old Canon law (the Council of Trent that you cite is 16th century, and there have been a multitude of changes since then, like it or not).
The citation is a matter of Catholic Dogma. It is part of the faith, and is perfectly clear in the Gospels.
And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery." (St. Mark 10.11-12)
The grounds basically are described as that there was no "real" marriage in the first place, and it has been variously defined according to each case.
Adultery is not one of the grounds.
Adultery is not one of the grounds in and of itself, but it could be extrapolated from the adultery, and by working backward, that it represents the invalidity of the marriage. That is the rationale that nullified my own parents' marriage, so I do know it does happen in some dioceses.
""Partner" is the new "Ms"--a word used to not convey the marital status (or the gender/sexuality) of the people designated. It's another step that started with the stripping of people's ethnicities in news reports. We may not like it, but it's the code that news is being written in, and if we are to understand the news we need to learn the code."
I totally agree with your explanation.
Then that would be YOUR choice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.