Talk:Gianna Beretta Molla

The "Criticism" section needs to be sourced. Who are these feminists? Catholic feminists? If not how can non-Catholics' opinions on a canonization be of any relevance? Rabbet 03:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Criticism" section has been accordingly re-worded and sourced. And yes, those are mostly Catholic feminists, to my knowledge. Lunamaria 17:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There is still a problem with the criticism section. The first source, although apparently an antipapal one, does cite from a well-known pro-abortion spokesman, Frances Kissling. But Ms. Kissling has argued for abortion in many venues over many years, does her bringing Gianna Molla into the picture really belong in this article? It perhaps would be better placed in the Frances Kissling article. In any event, it is not accurate to call Ms. Kissling a "Catholic Feminist" as her position supporting abortion is at odds with Catholic beliefs. The second "source" is to a page of "ATHEIST FOUNDATION OF AUSTRALIA INC". Is it relevant that an association of atheists takes issue with the heroic self-sacrifice of a mother? Is this a widespread concern? The cited document says "some people have rightly criticized..." But this statement itself is unsourced. Although the criticism seems beside the point, if it were to be accurate it should be something like "Voula Papasm writing for the Atheist Foundation of Australia has suggested .." But the remainder of the statement is ungrammatical, almost incomprehensible, and besides carries a strong pov. Why is the prolife view "fanatic"? Ms. Papas's page is not a knowledgable critque of St. Gianna, or even of the Catholic position. She includes a purported quote from Martin Luther, which she then considers to define the Catholic view of women. Nevertheless, the current criticism section does not accurately reflect Ms. Papas's article, she does not suggest that any "people" think "the embryo/foetus has more value ...", she instead says that St. Gianna's choice (to save her child) "suggests that the embryo/foetus has more value..." The noteworthiness of these criticisms might better be summed up by saying "Feminist and atheist writers have taken issue with St. Gianna's self-sacrifice on the grounds that it placed too great a value on the life of her child." Rabbet 03:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the criticism section because it doesn't add anything of value to what is supposed to be a page of information on Saint Gianna. Having a section that references writers who criticize Gianna's choice to give her life for her baby (and in turn, criticize the Church for honoring her sacrifice) would be the equivalent of including remarks critical of the Flight 93 passengers who sacrificed themselves on September 11th. We've already established that the Catholic Church would not have mandated that Gianna take the course of action she took; it was her own free choice. 66.106.6.179 19:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have the whole Litany of Saint Gianna copy/pasted into the article? A simple link to it could be enough, since it makes the page unnecessarily long and hard to read. Not to mention that it could be easily seen as propaganda. Lunamaria 18:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed:

== Lifestyle ==
She participated in daily eucharistic adoration, for an hour each day, with her husband.

Melaen 01:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I have put back the statement that the Catholic Church would have allowed Molla to have a hysterectomy. I believe this is correct. If a pregnant woman is in serious danger because of a disease of the uterus she is allowed to have the uterus removed although a hysterectomy will result in the death of the fetus. Here is a passage from the USCCB's Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services:

"Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child." KaB 13:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A statement from the U.S. Catholic Bishops, who do not have jurisdiction over the laity in Italy, is not applicable here. She was an Italian woman in the 1960s. The statement is by United States bishops decades later. No such statement was made at the time by bishops in her own country. Moreover, this does not have enough ecclesiological weight to consider it a movement of the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church. When such statements come from ecumenical conferences or the Holy See or from the pope's mouth himself, then this may be considered more of a moral absolute. But even if the pope were to make such a stance, such statements are not retroactive to the 1960s. Neutral point of view is to leave the commentary out, because it is just that: commentary. The moral licitness of historectomies is for another page.El Clarque 8:05, 1 December 2006

Firstly, I am sure you understand that this has nothing at all to do with the morality of hysterectomies. If the Catholic Church would have allowed a hysterectomy in Molla's circumstances that leads to a different understanding of her decision. She did not decide the way she did because her Church taught that it would be a sin to decide otherwise. She may have privately thought that or she may have decided the way she did for some other reason. Either way, I think it changes our understanding of Molla and should be included for that reason and that reason only.

The USCCB were giving their understanding of the morality of the Catholic Church. They certainly did not mean to make a rule that would only apply to American women. I agree it would be much better to have some statement on the subject that was made at the time. Church rules may have changed since then. However, I think the burden of proof is on someone who thinks the Church would forbid something rather than on someone who thinks it would allow it. If you know of any bishop that said at the time, or for that matter any bishop who has said since then, that a hysterectomy would not be allowed I would be glad if you would tell us.KaB 10:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a passage from the old Catholic Encyclopedia article on abortion:

However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother's life, is applied to her organism (though the child's death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely:

That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;

That the immediate effect be good in itself;

That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it - a procedure never allowed;

That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.

All four conditions may be verified in treating or operating on a woman with child. The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaustion is taken to save its life; the immediate effect intended, the mother's life, is good - no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother - the saving of the mother's life is in itself as good as the saving of the child's life.

And here is a quote from Pius XII: "...Deliberately, we have always used the expression "direct attempt on the life of an innocent person", "direct killing". Because if, for example, the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have an accessory consequence, in no way desired nor intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful ..."

The principle of double effect, as explained in the Catholic Encyclopedia article, has been an important part of Catholic ethics since the Middle Ages and it seems that it was applied to circumstances such as Molla's at least from the early years of the last century. Molla was an educated woman who took her religion very seriously. She must have been aware of the teaching of the Church on the subject. I think knowledge of that teaching is important if we are to understand Molla's decision. KaB 19:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Material

Please don't delete material added by other editors. Instead, research, write and include material of your own. Thank you.

Ivain 00:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)