Brazil Church condemns abortion of twins

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

The church should have offered her comfort, not public complaint. They had a greater responsibility toward that nine year old rape victim than toward the unborn. But virtually no regard has been shown for the life of this poor child. She was raped by one and reduced to a reproductive agent by many. Does she have no inherent value of her own that would be worth protection? Should the life inside her supersede her own? What is the value of HER life? Because essentially what the bishop is saying is that the nine year old should have died trying to carry and bear the twins to uphold life.

And to have herself opened wide for the abortionists instruments to rip and shred apart the lives within her womb…and then to have them noisely suctioned out of her womb was going to contribute to her healing…rather than to violate her body even more!!! That abortion was much more invasive than carrying twins and having a cesarean section!!!

The bishop is unqualified to second-guess the medical diagnosis.

As a result a lot of assumptions have been made based on hearsay and/or medical ignorance. A nine year old girl whose bones and organs are still developing is physically incapable to carry twins without uterine rupture, pelvic trauma, serious and lasting injury to her bones and to her spine. An eighty pound still developing body cannot sustain the stress of carrying twins without crippling damage. While tragic, this was a necessary life-saving procedure. Women are not morally obliged to carry a pregnancy that puts their lives in danger, as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy or a life-threatening illness. Is there a man that would fail to grab a weapon to defend his children if their lives were threatened? There are times when taking of a human life is permissible. This was clearly one of them.

A grave damage has been perpetrated upon the church’s prolife message. A battle that risks losing the war is counterproductive. As the saying goes the road to hell is paved with good intentions… or ignorance. There is a time to speak up and there is a time to keep silent. This should have been one of those times. The Earth moves.

You have obviosly not read this thread or the news reels well. If you had, you would realize that most of your arguments here are nonsensical.

and FYI, it is the Church’s responsibility to lead and educate and catechize the flock…irregardless of popularity polls.

 

[catharina]

I hear some Catholics…even on this forum…who don’t believe that abortion is a sin. Catholic politicians and many in the Church are afraid of being politically incorrect. That keeps the Church from properly catechizing the world. Why do you claim to be ignorant of this fact?

It’s surprising to me too that any Catholic claims ignorance of the fact that the Church stands against abortion in every instance. Are some Catholic who are citizens of the USA attempting to justify their pro-Obama (pro-abortion) sentiments?

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Mark 12:10-11 "the Jews who strictly followed the letter of the law instead of the intent asked Jesus "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days? that they might accuse him. But he said to them: “What man shall there be among you, that hath one sheep: and if the same fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not take hold on it and lift it up? How much better is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do a good deed on the sabbath days” If this Brazilian archbishop was around to hear Jesus say this would he have Christ excommunicated for not following the strict teaching and interpretation of the law? My feeling is he would have. (I know abortion is not a “good deed”, but it seems the lesser of the bad choices left to this girl.)

Jesus said follow the intent of the law, not the letter of the law. Is abortion condemned in the Catholic Church? Yes. But was it condemned because of 9 year old incestual rape victims were constantly getting abortions??? Or was it condemned because people were using it as a form of birth control after a night of giving in to fleshly lust?

Are we going to take this girls faith away after she has had her child hood innocence taken from her? If the Church doesn’t show her love, who/where will she have to go to find it?

The girl wasn’t excommunicated. And her mother needs to admit she committed the sin and seek to reconcile her beliefs with the Church. That is the purpose of excommunication. To let the offender know how serious the offense to God is, and then to be converted to the TRUTH in order to live in the TRUTH. It is not something that cannot be reconciled.
And this little girl, Heaven help her, needs to understand that the abortion committed on her children in her womb was a grave sin against God, herself and her children!!!

Why are you against her and people knowing the TRUTH simply because it may hurt? She has suffered gravely. And not just by her stepmonster!
Her soul is always better off knowing the TRUTH, which will set her free.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

There are a lot of three dollar words in your reply, and I’m just one of the great unwashed masses, so you lost me a couple of times. Not your fault, I’m just not a theologion. (As you probably have already surmised.) I’m just giving an opinion.

I see your basic premise and agree with you for the most part. But the Catholic church says abortion under certain circumstances is permitted. I.E. 1) That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them; 2) That the immediate effect be good in itself; 3)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; 4) That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.

FALSE. The Catholic Church says no such thing about abortion!!! It is intrinsically evil…never to be acceptable. No exceptions!

Well, I think the good effect of this girl getting her life back as soon as possible, with as little damage as possible is as important as the evil of the abortion of these non-viable twins. I could be wrong, but that’s my opinion. And I’m open for honest debate. Just dumb down your words for me! Thanks.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Ok. My answer is: That it is an answer. Maybe not the one you like. Maybe not the one I like. Maybe not the one the Church likes. Maybe it’s the right one, maybe it’s the wrong one. In all cases it was their answer to their particular situation, and that’s what I am trying to discuss.

I’m not trying to be a smart aleck, so I ask your grace in answering me. I am just asking questions, and trying to get answers to them. I don’t want to get anyone’s dander up, I just want to civilly discuss an uncivil topic.

Is it always wrong to kill one person to save another? If we can kill a grown adult to save the life of another grown adult, why can’t we do the same to save a child? (If indeed her life is without a doubt in danger.)

When is alright to take the life of one adult to save the life of another…unless the first adult is trying to take the life of another person…as in the case of a violent attack of the first adult onto the second adult?

And how can you compare an adult violent offender intent upon murder to an innocent, unborn, defenseless baby?

 

[catharina]

The girl wasn’t excommunicated. And her mother needs to admit she committed the sin and seek to reconcile her beliefs with the Church. That is the purpose of excommunication. To let the offender know how serious the offense to God is, and then to be converted to the TRUTH in order to live in the TRUTH. It is not something that cannot be reconciled.
And this little girl, Heaven help her, needs to understand that the abortion committed on her children in her womb was a grave sin against God, herself and her children!!!

Why are you against her and people knowing the TRUTH simply because it may hurt? She has suffered gravely. And not just by her stepmonster!
Her soul is always better off knowing the TRUTH, which will set her free.

Cherie - please scroll back to Posts 314 and 315.
Articles seem to indicate that excommunication of mother is lifted -
due to the fact that she made her decision under duress (by doctors).

Most remarkable thing to me about this thread is learning that there are any ‘regular’ Catholics outside the Political Talking-Head Few who have claimed abortion is fine.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Ok, what if she had tried to carry the twins all the way to birth but it was found out that she WAS in immenent danger of dyeing in her fourth month, then what?

That question has been answered multiple times. She could have had a cesarean section. At that point, all that was medically possible would have been done to SAVE, not destroy, the lives of the twins. And the mother’s life would not be harmed.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

In terms of pathology:

If the girl had stomach pains then she may have been experiencing a rupturing uterus. This can happen - and sometimes does to women who have had a c-section or where the uterus is incapable of stretching far enought to accommodate the foetus(es). If it occurs there is a very high death rate due to the large volume of blood loss and shock.

In addition, she may have gone into heart failure and or pther types of organ failure or compromised function due to the enlarging uterus and the space that it would take up with a mutliple pregnancy.

Speaking as a woman who has given birth 4 times, stomach aches are a common problem for pregnant women. She could have been experiencing braxton hicks contractions…which, I know from experience, can be painful.

She was checked out by doctors at the first hospital. Surely they would have found out something as serious as the above poster is talking about. They found nothing wrong, though. And there is no reason to believe she had anything “wrong” with her.
Had she had a headache, might she have a tumor? Maybe they could have justifiably performed an abortion based on that.

 

[St_Francis]

…Or…the most problematic scenario was this: a pregnant woman was diagnosed with cancer and given only weeks to live if she did not undergo chemotherapy right away. Chemo would have killed the baby, and yet if the mother succumbed to cancer, then the baby would have died, all the same. The answer was that the woman must not undergo chemo because it would kill the baby.

My questions:

1. Why is chemo forbidden here? Why do we assume that it falls under the category of “direct abortion” rather than “indirect abortion” like an ectopic removal? After all, it is not targeted at the infant…
2. If C-sections are not an option, and there are no secret avenues out of the problem that are not contained in the above formulation, then why can’t we accept that the baby will die either way and act so as to save the life of the mother? Is it only because we are waiting for a “miracle,” so-called (i.e., the hope that the doctors’ opinion on her life expectancy is wrong)?

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Sorry, I guess I am straying off-topic, but I would be interested in opening a new thread if people have thoughts on the matter…

Peace,
+AMDG+

The lady with cancer who needed chemo would have been permitted to have chemo–I do not know where you got the info that she would not.

Treatment for the condition is permitted, but directly and intentionally killing the baby is not. She would be allowed to have chemo, but not to have an abortion beforehand.

I believe this is all a semantic game. I see no difference between this case and an ectopic pregnancy. There is no doubt that the operation to remove an ectopic pregnancy is aimed at removing the child. Many, if not most, are done chemically today. There is no chance the baby will survive. There are cases of ectopic pregnancies being carried to term. But the Church recognizes that the risk to the mother’s life justifies terminating an ectopic pregnancy. Why isn’t the same true here?

The problem is that when you use a term such as *termination of pregnancy, *which is so broad, you lose the details. “Terminating” a ectopic pregnancy by surgery is directed toward treatment of the mother’s condition. “Terminating” a pregnancy by killing the unborn baby is a completely different matter, because the intent is different: one is an action taken to treat the mother, the other to kill the child.

 

[St_Francis]

I find it difficult to believe that there are bishops in favor of backing off on this. All they had to do was to make it clear that all the people had to do was to repent of what they had done (I think that with this type of case it might have to be with the bishop) in confession. Church law is clear on this matter: those who cooperate in abortion (by procuring or performing) are excommunicated automatically.

I just hope that the actions of the mother were mischaracterized and that she really did believe her child’s life was in danger, which would seem to mitigate her culpability.

But the lack of discipline in the Church has caused so many problems, and now when we see bishops showing some backbone and then being stabbed in the back by those who should be doing the exact same thing is sad.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

I find it difficult to believe that there are bishops in favor of backing off on this. All they had to do was to make it clear that all the people had to do was to repent of what they had done (I think that with this type of case it might have to be with the bishop) in confession. Church law is clear on this matter: those who cooperate in abortion (by procuring or performing) are excommunicated automatically.

I just hope that the actions of the mother were mischaracterized and that she really did believe her child’s life was in danger, which would seem to mitigate her culpability.

But the lack of discipline in the Church has caused so many problems, and now when we see bishops showing some backbone and then being stabbed in the back by those who should be doing the exact same thing is sad.

My thoughts EXACTLY!!!

I fear it is the sign of the times.

 

[catharina]

I find it difficult to believe that there are bishops in favor of backing off on this. All they had to do was to make it clear that all the people had to do was to repent of what they had done (I think that with this type of case it might have to be with the bishop) in confession. Church law is clear on this matter: those who cooperate in abortion (by procuring or performing) are excommunicated automatically.

I just hope that the actions of the mother were mischaracterized and that she really did believe her child’s life was in danger, which would seem to mitigate her culpability.

But the lack of discipline in the Church has caused so many problems, and now when we see bishops showing some backbone and then being stabbed in the back by those who should be doing the exact same thing is sad.

My guess is that PLENTY of people inserted themselves into her life and “helped” her shop around by scaring her to death. Who? The child’s aunties? The neighbors? Could have been anyone and everyone.

Look at this thread. A number of people joined this site so they could have their say and their ‘say’ is one that promotes abortion in this case. Astounding - like vultures to a bloodbath. So, my viewpoint is unchanged, that is,

I follow the Church.
I don’t attempt to lead it or to second-guess it.
All that is asked of us is love and obedience.

Please be kind to yourself.
Don’t let this change disturb your peace.
In everything, blessed be God.

 

[fix]

Ectopic pregnancies are not always treated by tubal ligation anymore. If detected early they are treated by injecting a drug that kills the baby. If that doesn’t work, or if the baby is too big, then they use surgery.

Yes, but that does not answer as to whether that is morally licit or not. If the intent is to kill the baby, it certainly is evil.

 

[Apryl]

What really gets to me is how much we are forgetting what was DONE to that little girl.

Be real: how many of you, if your home was broken into, would pick up a gun to shoot the intruder, but would put that gun into the hand of your child before you pull the trigger?

That’s pretty much what these parents did with their child when they made HER have an abortion.

There is nothing to take that nightmare away from that child, and you can never shield her from the hurt that she is bound to feel for the rest of her life. Nothing.

And for what? Because Mommy was embarrased that she had been sleeping with a man who could sleep with her own daughter? Was it because ‘society’ didn’t want to know that a nine year old could conceive, and give birth?

Who benefitted? It sure wasn’t the 9 year old who has to know, for the rest of her life, that she was involved in the murder of her children.

Who on these boards could say that they would be proud they killed their kid(s)?

 

[Corki]

Following is from secular source but it seems likely to be accurate:

france24.com/en/20090314-bishops-admit-mistake-annul-excommunication-abortion-row-minor-rape-brazil

**"AFP - **Brazilian bishops have said the excommunication of the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old girl who had an abortion after being raped was wrong and would not be applied.

The National Conference of Bishops of Brazil (CNBB) decided Thursday that the child’s mother acted “under pressure from the doctors” who said the girl, pregnant with twins, would die if she carried the babies to term.

The body’s secretary-general, Dimas Lara Barbosa, told reporters the mother therefore could not be excommunicated. “We must take the circumstances into consideration,” he said.

As for the doctors, there was no clear case that they should be expelled from the church either, he said contrary to the position taken by archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, who last week announced the excommunications.

Reasoning given: mother acted under grave duress.

Hmmm. If the doctors, etc. live in the diocese where Archbishop Sobrinho is ordnary, I don’t think the Conference of Bishops can override him. Bishops conferences don’t work that way. If someone disagrees with an excommunication it is appealed to the Rota, not to the local bishop’s conference. We saw this locally with the Nebraska excommunications for dissident groups (which were upheld).

Barbosa said only doctors who “systematically” conduct abortions are thrown out of the Roman Catholic Chuch

There is something very wrong here. First of all the penalty of latea sententiae is not reserved only to doctors who “systematically” conduct abortions. Per canon 1398 “a person who procures **a **successful abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication.”

and canon 1329 says " Accomplices who are not named in a law or precept incur a latae sententiae penalty attached to a delict if without their assistance the delict would not have been committed, and the penalty is of such a nature that it can affect them; otherwise, they can be punished by ferendae sententiae penalties."

So this seems to cover the doctors specifically even if this is the first abortion they committed.

Secondly, excommunication isn’t being thrown out of the Catholic Church. Either this spokesperson is really weak in his understanding of Chuch law or there was a serious error of translation.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Hmmm. If the doctors, etc. live in the diocese where Archbishop Sobrinho is ordnary, I don’t think the Conference of Bishops can override him. Bishops conferences don’t work that way. If someone disagrees with an excommunication it is appealed to the Rota, not to the local bishop’s conference. We saw this locally with the Nebraska excommunications for dissident groups (which were upheld).

There is something very wrong here. First of all the penalty of latea sententiae is not reserved only to doctors who “systematically” conduct abortions. Per canon 1398 “a person who procures **a **successful abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication.”

and canon 1329 says " Accomplices who are not named in a law or precept incur a latae sententiae penalty attached to a delict if without their assistance the delict would not have been committed, and the penalty is of such a nature that it can affect them; otherwise, they can be punished by ferendae sententiae penalties."

So this seems to cover the doctors specifically even if this is the first abortion they committed.

Secondly, excommunication isn’t being thrown out of the Catholic Church. Either this spokesperson is really weak in his understanding of Chuch law or there was a serious error of translation.

Thank you so much for this post. Can you point me to where I can find out the information in the case of this story?

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

I guess my question is, does the excommunication of all parties involved (excluding the 9 year old victim, of course) proclaimed by the local bishop stand?

I hope so.

 

[Corki]

I see your basic premise and agree with you for the most part. But the Catholic church says abortion under certain circumstances is permitted. I.E. 1) That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them; 2) That the immediate effect be good in itself; 3)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; 4) That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.

Georgia Hunter,

I know you have had a change of heart and I am not picking on you with this thread but I just wanted to clear something up. The principal that you are referencing is the Principal of Double Effect. It cannot be applied to abortion, however. The reason is that there are four conditions that must be met. Your four are close but they don’t quite match up.

Your number 2) “That the immediate effect be good in itself” should really be directed at the action not the effect.

Classical formulations of the principle of double effect require that four conditions be met if the action in question is to be morally permissible: first**, that the action contemplated be in itself either morally good or morally indifferent**; second, that the bad result not be directly intended; third, that the good result not be a direct causal result of the bad result; and fourth, that the good result be “proportionate to” the bad result.

Abortion would never make it past the first condition - to be a morally good action or morally indifferent (neutral).

This is why chemo treatment for cancer that also causes the death of an unborn child is permissable since the chemo is itself morally good. Abortion is not itself morally good.

This is also why there is such seeming inconsistency between allowing a fallopian tube to be removed but not allowing the use of methotrexate. Surgery to remove a damaged or blocked tube is morally good or neutral. Administering a drug whose primary purpose is to kill an embryo is not morally good or neutral even if the end effect is good.

The principal of double effect is not doctrine but if one choses to apply it, all four conditions must be met - 3 out of 4 won’t make it.

In this specific case, the girl in Brazil, since it does not seem that she was in any urgent danger, the most moral course of action would have simply been to wait a month. According to a Google seach, the age of infant viability (defined as a 50% chance of survival) is about 24 weeks; possible but improbably survival is as young as 20 weeks. She was already in her fourth month. Getting to at least 20 weeks and then inducing or having a C-section if the girl’s life was at risk would have met all the conditions to be a moral act, even if the babies had a very small chance of survival.

I don’t think anyone is saying - “let the girl go to term” even if she is in danger. There were definate serious risks of doing that for a girl so young. But it is jumping to the opposite extreme to rush to end the babies lives to prevent possible complications for the girl.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Georgia Hunter,

I know you have had a change of heart and I am not picking on you with this thread but I just wanted to clear something up. The principal that you are referencing is the Principal of Double Effect. It cannot be applied to abortion, however. The reason is that there are four conditions that must be met. Your four are close but they don’t quite match up.

Your number 2) “That the immediate effect be good in itself” should really be directed at the action not the effect.

Abortion would never make it past the first condition - to be a morally good action or morally indifferent (neutral).

This is why chemo treatment for cancer that also causes the death of an unborn child is permissable since the chemo is itself morally good. Abortion is not itself morally good.

This is also why there is such seeming inconsistency between allowing a fallopian tube to be removed but not allowing the use of methotrexate. Surgery to remove a damaged or blocked tube is morally good or neutral. Administering a drug whose primary purpose is to kill an embryo is not morally good or neutral even if the end effect is good.

The principal of double effect is not doctrine but if one choses to apply it, all four conditions must be met - 3 out of 4 won’t make it.

In this specific case, the girl in Brazil, since it does not seem that she was in any urgent danger, the most moral course of action would have simply been to wait a month. According to a Google seach, the age of infant viability (defined as a 50% chance of survival) is about 24 weeks; possible but improbably survival is as young as 20 weeks. She was already in her fourth month. Getting to at least 20 weeks and then inducing or having a C-section if the girl’s life was at risk would have met all the conditions to be a moral act, even if the babies had a very small chance of survival.

I don’t think anyone is saying - “let the girl go to term” even if she is in danger. There were definate serious risks of doing that for a girl so young. But it is jumping to the opposite extreme to rush to end the babies lives to prevent possible complications for the girl.

Georgia, I meant to say earlier that I am glad that you are in the Truth, and not fighting against it. So many fight against it. It is difficult to recognize sometimes those who are honestly seeking out the truth rather than fighting against it. It is truly pleasing to meet with you. I have been in your shoes, on the wrong end of the Truth, just honestly looking for the Truth. My questions seemed to be fighting against it, and I was reprimanded. I hope you forgive the personal attacks. I am truly glad that you are here. I look forward to conversing with you on other threads. May Christ bless you with His Truth and Knowledge.

Corki, I agree with everything you have said in the above post.

 

[Corki]

Thank you so much for this post. Can you point me to where I can find out the information in the case of this story?

I am not sure which part of my post you are looking for more information about.

The story I quoted was linked in Catarina’s post, #314 in this thread.

If you google canon 1398 you will get lots of commentary but I took my quote from the Vatican’s website copy of the Code of Canon Law.

As for the jurisdiction of the local conference, I was refering to recent cases such as the appeal by Call to Action following thier excommunication in the diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska. They didn’t go to the USCCB but to the Apostolic Signatura. (Sorry, I said Rota in my previous post ). There is more in canon law about this - who can lift excomminications:

Can. 1355 §1. Provided that the penalty has not been reserved to the Apostolic See, the following can remit an imposed or declared penalty established by law:

1/ the ordinary who initiated the trial to impose or declare a penalty or who personally or through another imposed or declared it by decree;

2/ the ordinary of the place where the offender is present, after the ordinary mentioned under n. 1 has been consulted unless this is impossible because of extraordinary circumstances.

§2. If the penalty has not been reserved to the Apostolic See, an ordinary can remit a latae sententiae penalty established by law but not yet declared for his subjects and those who are present in his territory or who committed the offense there; any bishop can also do this in the act of sacramental confession.

Can. 1356 §1. The following can remit a ferendae sententiae or latae sententiae penalty established by a precept not issued by the Apostolic See:

1/ the ordinary of the place where the offender is present;

2/ if the penalty has been imposed or declared, the ordinary who initiated the trial to impose or declare the penalty or who personally or through another imposed or declared it by decree.

§2. The author of the precept must be consulted before remission is made unless this is impossible because of extraordinary circumstances.

It doesn’t mention anything about the bishop’s conference being able to lift an excommunication. Canon 455, in fact, talks about the authority of the conferences. They can make general decrees, not specific ones, and even for the general decree to be binding it has to be consented to by “each and every bishop.” At best, the conference members could give reasons why the excommincation should be lifted by the ordinary or that could be used in an appeal. The mother’s duress has already been mentioned. The girl herself was under the age of 16 so she can’t be excommunicated anyway.

The bishop here is between a rock and a hard place really. This kind of excommincation is automatic and so he didn’t need to make a public statement. That public statement is what caused all the furor. On the other hand, he likely felt that this could be used as a loophole for more abortions if he did not speak out. And I believe the girl’s situation was already public before the Bishop got involved. He needs our prayers.