Moral Triangle Methodology Analysis Model
By James T. Bretzke, S.J., S.T.D.
Professor of Moral Theology, Boston College School of Theology & Ministry
Web-site: https://www2.bc.edu/james-bretzke/BretzkeWebIndex.htm
The Cases Not Heard: Moral Triangle Analysis of the Phoenix “Abortion” Controversy
Power Point Presentation Link
https://www2.bc.edu/james-bretzke/PhoenixCaseNotHeardMoralTriangle.ppsx
Background Bibliography: See Phoenix 2009-2010 “Abortion” Case to Save Life of the Mother section in my
Bioethics Bibliography:
https://www2.bc.edu/james-bretzke/BioethicsBibliography.pdf
Key Bibliography Referenced in this Presentation
Cavanaugh, Thomas A. “Double Effect Reasoning, Craniotomy, and Vital Conflicts: A Case of Contemporary
Catholic Casuistry.” National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly (Autumn 2011): 453-463.
First critiques the reasoning of Germain Grisez and of Martin Rhonheimer, O.D. to save the life of the
mother when it is not possible to save the fetus, and then dismisses efforts of bioethicians such as M.
Therese Lysaught who use this reasoning analogously to support the pregnancy termination decision of the
St. Joseph’s Hospital ethics board in Phoenix. Invoking Pope John Paul II’s notion of “moral martyrdom”
found in Veritatis splendor Cavanaugh concludes that the Phoenix case would be a good exemplar of “the
position that there are certain acts from which one ought to refrain, regardless of the outcomes” and that
“[m]oral martyrs witness to justice, its ubiquitous reach, and its absolute demands” (p. 463).
Lysaught, M. Therese. “Moral Analysis of Procedure at Phoenix Hospital.” Origins 40/33 (27 January 2011): 537549.
Analysis of the Phoenix case done at the request of Catholic Healthcare West, the parent institution of St.
Joseph’s Hospital. Bishop Olmsted acknowledged its receipt but ultimately decided that it was incorrect.
MaGill, Gerard. “Quaestio Disputata. Threat of Imminent Death in Pregnancy: A Role for Double-Effect
Reasoning.” Theological Studies 72 (December 2011): 848-878.
Reviews the facts of the Phoenix case and the particular arguments pro and con for allowing for the
termination of the pregnancy to save the life of the mother, and then argues the principle of the double
effect clarifies that “causing the death of the fetus” while avoiding a direct physical on it constitutes an
indirect and unintended side effect justified in traditional Catholic bioethical reasoning. Numerous
footnotes present virtually all of the responsible relevant literature on the case to date.
O’Rourke, Kevin, O.P. “Complications: A Catholic Hospital, a Pregnant Mother, and a Questionable
Excommunication.” America (2-9August 2010): 15-16. Also found on the America Web site (posted 2
August 2010): http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12399
Rhonheimer, Martin, O.D. Vital Conflicts in Medical Ethics: A Virtue Approach to Craniotomy and Tubal
Pregnancies. Edited by William F. Murphy, Jr. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Press of
America, 2009.
A study originally commissioned by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2000 and which was
ordered published (first in German) “so that the theses it contains could be discussed by specialists.” While
Rhonheimer does not follow what he considers to be a “weighing of goods” approach to moral analysis
(which he identifies as the theory of proportionalism condemned in Veritatis splendor) he does take issue
with traditionalistic arguments that in his view are now “obsolete,” “outdated,” and ultimately misconstrue
the correct meaning of discerning the distinction between “direct” and “indirect” in terms of abortion.