In February of this year, I wrote a blog about a courageous mother by the name of Catherine Kent. You may recall that the doctors had told her that she was going to miscarry her baby and they gave her tablets that would bring on the miscarriage. Fortunately, she did not take the pills, and a month later, she was told that indeed her baby was very much alive.
Well, on June 27, Catherine Kent introduced Leona-Lee to the world, and Leona-Lee is a lovely little girl. Catherine recounted her story again for the newspapers in Britain and said, “I was told by the nurse that I could either take two pills which would speed up the miscarriage process, or be put under general anesthetic to have the baby removed, or let nature take its course.”
Clearly, Catherine made the correct decision. But there was another time when she was told the same thing, and at that time in Catherine’s life, according to her partner Kevin Gary, she chose to have the baby removed. And Mr. Gary said, “Now we wonder if it could have been alive too.”
This story prompted a bit of discussion between an American Life League staff member and me regarding the actual morality of having the body of a miscarried child ripped to pieces in his mother’s womb or chemically assaulted in order to force a miscarriage to occur prematurely.
What benefit could there possibly be to such an action? How could such an action be justified, even if it was merely a pill used to force the inevitable?
As someone who can never leave a question alone without seeking an in-depth response, I encountered in my search a remarkable article that I wholeheartedly recommend to anyone in the pro-life movement who has ever wondered why we should reach out to parents who have suffered the agony of miscarriage. The article is by Andrew Sodergren and is entitled “Hope for Healing: Miscarriage and the Dignity of the Human Body.”
A couple of excerpts should suffice to inspire you to read every word of this remarkable testimony to the love of God and the hope He brings, even in a time of serious loss:
During a miscarriage, the mother intuitively knows that a unique member of her family with whom she had an intimate bond has died. Thus, in order for healing to take place, mothers must be encouraged to mourn the loss of this unique, irreplaceable child.
And
A major source of healing for the parents of a miscarried child is to formally say good-bye to their little one through a public ritual such as a funeral and/or burial.
The funeral gives parents the means to set aside the general societal perception of and response to a baby’s death as a “nonevent.” It also recognizes a person (the baby) as having lived and shared in a love relationship rather than the general societal definition of a dead baby as a “nonperson”…. Focusing our attention on the death (event) and the baby’s life (person) through a funeral ceremony is now recognized as therapeutic and helpful in most cases (Troyer, 1987, p. 154).
Holding a funeral, then, can be a tremendous source of healing for mothers who miscarry. Recall the words from Canon Law above: “Through ecclesiastical funeral rites the Church asks spiritual assistance for the departed, honors their bodies, and at the same time brings the solace of hope to the living…” (Can. 1176, §2, p. 425, emphasis added). Stirtzinger et al. (1999) likewise state,
Rituals and rites that identify the loss and initiate the process of grief can provide powerful therapeutic experiences. Anthropologists note that all cultures have made uses of rituals to acknowledge and accept a major life event such as the death of someone loved. The absence of rituals and rites for miscarriage loss denies women the opportunity to mourn within the comfort and support of others (p. 236).
While these quotations clearly testify to the value of mourning the child lost in miscarriage via a funeral/burial, the last alludes to the fact that this opportunity is rarely extended to the affected mothers. Others have written similarly:
From my perspective, every family whose baby dies should be offered a funeral or memorial service. Often, nothing is offered or there may be only a minimal service (Cunningham, 1997, p. 491).
This is indeed the sad reality for far too many of those parents who experience such a loss. It is as though nobody wants to think about the actual humanity of the miscarried baby or realize that that baby is also a member of the family, someone who will be missed.
So, as we celebrate the blessing of Catherine Kent’s decision, we must think about what might have been. The very idea that a miscarriage could have occurred and would have been forced rather than permitting nature to take its course is, I think, a prevalent practice today and one that should give us pause. And obviously in Catherine’s case, it would have meant the untimely death of Leona-Lee.
As pro-life Americans, we mourn with those parents who miscarry a member of their family — a human being whose irreplaceable value is beyond description.
It is my hope that each of us will reflect on this and on the brother or sister Leona-Lee will never know and perhaps will never hear about.
It is no accident that God permits nature to act in such a way that the parents of a miscarried child can at least name their baby, bury their baby and have closure because of their decision to wait and see. For, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
The bodies of the dead must be treated with respect and charity, in faith and hope of the Resurrection. The burial of the dead is a corporal work of mercy; it honors the children of God, who are temples of the Holy Spirit.
