Brazil Church condemns abortion of twins

[Apryl]

(Edited)
Now I remember why I left THE CHURCH.
Is it gods will that more than a quarter of all pregnancy end naturally?

And what would you have seen as an appropriate response?

An appropriate response from the church when they found that someone who claimed to be ‘one of them’ did something that is against one of her basic tenants?

An appropriate response of the mother when she learned her child was pregnant?

An appropriate response to the police when they heard that a child had been raped (more than once) by some one in the house?

I can see how it is outrageous that we have this situation, but the point is, the situation does exist. But because it exists, and its outrageous, does it mean that we should toss out our morals and expectations and definitions of what is right and wrong?

And how you as an individual may respond, how does that compare to what you think the church should do? Or should a church respond as an individual?

 

[Mike700]

I hadn’t seen this. Finally some sense and compassion.

americanpapist.com/labels/excommunication.html

 

[St_Francis]

I hadn’t seen this. Finally some sense and compassion.

americanpapist.com/labels/excommunication.html

What, that the national bishops’ council “lifted” the excommunication?

They are not releasing any more information which would justify the “lifting” of the excommunication. A statement like, “We have spoken to the doctors and it seems that …” so now they look weak.

First, wrt the doctors, what the Brazilian bishops said was nonsensical. The automatic excommunication falls on the procuring or performance of **1 **abortion, not many.

Second, wrt the mother of the child, all she had to do was to go to confession.

Honestly, so many bishops remind me of the worst of both the US political parties: they backtrack when what they do is noisily criticized, they don’t fight, nor do they explain themselves.

But I am heartened by the actions of some bishops all around the world, those who are speaking out, those who are promoting the excommunication of pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians, those who are taking charge of the parishes in their dioceses to assure that everything is handled correctly.

 

[Ailina]

**“However, because excommunication is incurred automatically] at the moment a direct abortion is carried out, “there was no need to declare with such urgency and publicity a fact that occurred automatically,” he said.”

That was my point exactly. Why increase the suffering of this mother and child by making it public? Many other church-related issues are dealt with privately (i.e. in the past, pedophile priests were quietly moved to other parishes with no public knowledge, the fact that the step-father was a rapist and child abuser), and so it should have been with this case.**

 

[St_Francis]

"However, because excommunication is incurred automatically] at the moment a direct abortion is carried out, “there was no need to declare with such urgency and publicity a fact that occurred automatically,” he said."

That was my point exactly. Why increase the suffering of this mother and child by making it public? Many other church-related issues are dealt with privately (i.e. in the past, pedophile priests were quietly moved to other parishes with no public knowledge, the fact that the step-father was a rapist and child abuser), and so it should have been with this case.
I believe that the reason that the excommunication was made public was that the case was public already in Brazil. The Church had gone to the court in the attempt to stop the abortion.

 

[tuviskazinai]

How can a situation represent an “arduous” or “difficult” decision? Abortion is wrong. Period. Not only is this man a bishop in the Catholic Church, he is the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life!!! How could he possibly say these things? It either makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, or he is trying to turn things around to appease those who are unwilling to even try to understand Church teaching.

The Archbishop did not say that the abortion was correct – to repeat:

He said the Catholic principle that upholds the sanctity of life is unshakeable and “abortion has always been condemned by moral law as an intrinsically evil act.”

However, because excommunication is incurred automatically at the moment a direct abortion is carried out, “there was no need to declare with such urgency and publicity a fact that occurred automatically,” he said.

Fisichella said the church can still be firm with its moral principles and at the same time reach out and show mercy toward others.

His comments, then, have to do with the way that the case was handled. You may disagree with him just as he disagrees with Archbishop Sobrinho, but isn’t it a bit of an overreaction to be completely appalled by what he’s said, as though it’s coming completely out of left field?

I see your point, but I am a bit concerned that you don’t see how for some women, abortion is an arduous and difficult decision – especially when a woman is deciding on behalf of her raped nine-year-old daughter. Not all women who abort are soulless, sadistic, ignorant, wicked, and all the other cliches.

Some people say, “Sobrinho’s comments make no sense,” many people on this forum attack them, saying that the bishops are wise and that we need to understand the truth behind what they are saying – but then the same people who defend Sobrinho jump on Archbishiop Fisichella, and are like, “This guy’s completely nuts!” That just seems a bit off to me…I absolutely support your right to question Fisichella’s reasoning, but I think the tone of your comments leans towards the holier-than-thou direction…no?

Even if one agrees that the excommunication had to be announced, maybe one can also learn (yes, precisely from the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life) that some abortions are arduous and difficult even though they’re wrong…? Since it would be silly to classify bishops into right and wrong, into those we agree with and those we have nothing to learn from.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[Apryl]

"However, because excommunication is incurred automatically] at the moment a direct abortion is carried out, “there was no need to declare with such urgency and publicity a fact that occurred automatically,” he said."

That was my point exactly. Why increase the suffering of this mother and child by making it public? Many other church-related issues are dealt with privately (i.e. in the past, pedophile priests were quietly moved to other parishes with no public knowledge, the fact that the step-father was a rapist and child abuser), and so it should have been with this case.

I’m not clear: why should it have been handled privately? Or, rather, why should they NOT have made a public declaration?

I am so glad that we ARE hearing this story. There are hundreds of children, mostly girls, who are suffering on a daily basis, but nothing is said. At least now, we, who are not even in the same country, can be aware and react accordingly.

But, I still want to know (this is a very earnest question) why would you support not making this public?

 

[Yellow_Belle]

That would require some combination of guilt and remorse. Otherwise it would be fake, and I don’t make it a habit of doing ‘fake’.

You made a statement. I responded to it. If you don’t like that I made that statement, that’s fine, and that happens. I asked a question (questions are not statements) of another poster in an attempt to gather some detail about this case. You, on the other hand, made an assumption about me that was unwarranted. If you cannot admit to that error and offer a simple apology, that is for your conscience.

I still haven’t heard why you think any one needs to prove that this pregnancy WASN’T unsafe. When discussing any matter, it is always a good idea to have regard to the facts. I attempted to gather facts. Why do you have a problem with that**?**

 

[St_Francis]

The Archbishop did not say that the abortion was correct – to repeat:

His comments, then, have to do with the way that the case was handled. You may disagree with him just as he disagrees with Archbishop Sobrinho, but isn’t it a bit of an overreaction to be completely appalled by what he’s said, as though it’s coming completely out of left field?

I see your point, but I am a bit concerned that you don’t see how for some women, abortion is an arduous and difficult decision – especially when a woman is deciding on behalf of her raped nine-year-old daughter. Not all women who abort are soulless, sadistic, ignorant, wicked, and all the other cliches.

I did not say all that, did I? And I don’t appreciate your putting words into my mouth.

The bishop’s statements are reported thus: “How should one act in these cases?” he asked, underlining that the girl’s case represented an “arduous decision for doctors and moral law itself.”

Doctors deserve respect for the difficult decisions they must often grapple with, he said, adding that no one nonchalantly makes life-and-death decisions and to even suggest it “is unjust and offensive.”

This reflects way too much acceptance of how society views these most defenseless members. This ought not to have been a difficult decision, because the one option ought never have been considered. There ought not to have been a decision to make.

Society’s acceptance of abortion has created the difficulty. We do not have these problems when it comes to other situations, for example, no one ever thinks it’s a difficult decision when someone is in danger from a gunman with a human shield, do they? No, there is no “decision” to make: they simply accept and operate in the parameters with which they are faced.

And so it should have been in this case, and so the *Head of the Pontifical Academy of Life *should have said.

Some people say, “Sobrinho’s comments make no sense,” many people on this forum attack them, saying that the bishops are wise and that we need to understand the truth behind what they are saying – but then the same people who defend Sobrinho jump on Archbishiop Fisichella, and are like, “This guy’s completely nuts!” That just seems a bit off to me…I absolutely support your right to question Fisichella’s reasoning, but I think the tone of your comments leans towards the holier-than-thou direction…no?

I do not think that I am being holier than thou, why do you think that?

The people who defended the abortion in this thread were flat out wrong. Others explained that the abortion *despite *the circumstances. Others said that not excommunicating the rapist was wrong, others explained why that didn’t happen.

The fact that *another *bishop turned around and criticized Bishop Sobrinho for doing the right thing is indeed crazy.

Even if one agrees that the excommunication had to be announced, maybe one can also learn (yes, precisely from the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life) that some abortions are arduous and difficult even though they’re wrong…? Since it would be silly to classify bishops into right and wrong, into those we agree with and those we have nothing to learn from.

Peace,
+AMDG+

Why can’t we classify bishops into those we can learn from and those we would do well to avoid?

I have struggled with Church teachings–that is what we are supposed to do when we do not understand a teaching. I returned to the Church many years ago after having not been raised Catholic so I had a lot to learn. I do not think it is too much to expect that bishops would support Church teaching and not stab the Church in the back.

 

[Corki]

I believe that the reason that the excommunication was made public was that the case was public already in Brazil. The Church had gone to the court in the attempt to stop the abortion.

That’s the way I see it too. To have said nothing once the abortion was complete, when the Bishops had been very vocal in trying to stop it, might have been interpreted as giving in.

 

[tuviskazinai]

I did not say all that, did I? And I don’t appreciate your putting words into my mouth.

The bishop’s statements are reported thus: “How should one act in these cases?” he asked, underlining that the girl’s case represented an “arduous decision for doctors and moral law itself.”

This reflects way too much acceptance of how society views these most defenseless members. This ought not to have been a difficult decision, because the one option ought never have been considered. There ought not to have been a decision to make.

Society’s acceptance of abortion has created the difficulty. We do not have these problems when it comes to other situations, for example, no one ever thinks it’s a difficult decision when someone is in danger from a gunman with a human shield, do they? No, there is no “decision” to make: they simply accept and operate in the parameters with which they are faced.

Sincere apologies if I’ve put words in your mouth. It’s just that you expressed doubt as to how a decision to have an abortion can be “arduous” or “difficult,” and so I don’t see how else you can regard someone who decides to have one than as ignorant or morally lax, in some way or another. True, the words I used may have been a little strong – sorry!

When you say that the Archbishop’s words represent “society’s” views – a “society” which by and large seems to believe the abortion should have been allowed, which the Archbishop doesn’t – I think you may be ignoring the pro-life thrust of his message. But the main point I disagree with is your sentence, “This ought not to have been a difficult decision.” I agree with you that it would have been nice for it not to have been a difficult decision, but that’s just not how society operates. For many people abortion is a legitimate moral choice when not to abort could claim the life of a 9-year-old rape victim. Again, I am not saying that I believe it would be a moral choice, and neither is the Archbishop – what the Archbishop is effectively saying is that people’s resorting to abortion is a problem which he believes is better solved by setting a loving, compassionate example than by pretending that the question should somehow be obvious to a grief-stricken mother trying to restore her daughter’s innocence.

I don’t think your gunman analogy is apt. Come on, there are serious arguments for abortion – we have to admit that. When a human being is little more than a cluster of cells incapable of thought, emotion, or sensation, we are simply not playing in the same intellectual ballpark as a mature adult – or a nine-year-old girl. I simply cannot accept calling one half of the women in the US (the number who have had abortions) murderers. They are dangerously, tragically misled, and we need to do all we can to educate them, yes…but failing to see that in many cases their resort to abortion is a cry for help rather than a sign of spiritual coldness is probably not going to help.

I may be addressing a general trend in conservative Catholicism rather than you specifically…I certainly wouldn’t presume to know your individual opinions!

I do not think that I am being holier than thou, why do you think that?

I was referring to statements like: “Not only is this man a bishop in the Catholic Church, he is the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life!!!” As though you know his job, and Catholic moral theology, better than he does.

I don’t mean to read too much into a single sentence…yikes, if everyone read that much into some of the things I’ve written…! It was just a thought.

The fact that *another *bishop turned around and criticized Bishop Sobrinho for doing the right thing is indeed crazy.

Again, my interpretation is that he criticized him for doing the right thing in the wrong way. In my view, there’s a difference.

Why can’t we classify bishops into those we can learn from and those we would do well to avoid?

I have struggled with Church teachings–that is what we are supposed to do when we do not understand a teaching. I returned to the Church many years ago after having not been raised Catholic so I had a lot to learn. I do not think it is too much to expect that bishops would support Church teaching and not stab the Church in the back.

But while the immorality of abortion is a Church teaching, that’s not what this case is about. No one’s disputing the immorality of abortion. It’s about being a good pastor and ways of effectively teaching the right thing to do. So to accuse the Archbishop of betraying Church teaching is totally unfair.

As for accusing him of stabbing the Church in the back just because he had a difference of opinion – I don’t think that’s fair, either. Especially since he had a very good reason for speaking up (defending the charitable intentions of the Church – “suffer the children to come unto me”). If Archbishop Sobrinho had said that there was no reason to announce the excommunication publicly, and then Archbishop Fisichella had said, “Ah, but no, we must be clear about the excommunication,” I have the feeling that many people here who are calling Fisichella a back-stabber would be hanging laurel wreaths on his head, saying “At last, a fine, orthodox Bishop who is unafraid to speak the truth.” Perhaps you yourself wouldn’t…but I have the feeling that many would. And I think that would be hypocritical.

I applaud your honest struggles…that’s excellent. But separating bishops into those we listen to and those we should avoid? On what grounds would you be able to make such distinctions? And what right do you have to do that?

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[Ailina]

"That’s the way I see it too. To have said nothing once the abortion was complete, when the Bishops had been very vocal in trying to stop it, might have been interpreted as giving in."

But for the Church to say NOTHING about excommunicating the perpetrator of the crime (the step-dad) is also perceived to speak volumes about this case, that being that child and sex abuse is not worthy of public excommunication and condemnation. That is the way I see it, and many others. That archbishop is perceived as kicking someone (the mom) when she’s down. No mercy. No compassion. Just hard-hearted judgement that leaves people, Catholic or not, with a bad taste in their mouths.

 

[St_Francis]

Part One

Sincere apologies if I’ve put words in your mouth. It’s just that you expressed doubt as to how a decision to have an abortion can be “arduous” or “difficult,” and so I don’t see how else you can regard someone who decides to have one than as ignorant or morally lax, in some way or another. True, the words I used may have been a little strong – sorry!

No, what I was objecting to was the bishop’s putting it in that way rather than saying something like, This is a difficult and arduous *situation… *perhaps adding, it is understandable about someone could be *tempted… * See what I mean?

Believe me, I have been around long enough to know how we have all been thoroughly lied to by those in favor of abortion and I do not think bad things about those involved unless I suspect there might be more there (like doctors can no longer really fool themselves…)

When you say that the Archbishop’s words represent “society’s” views – a “society” which by and large seems to believe the abortion should have been allowed, which the Archbishop doesn’t – I think you may be ignoring the pro-life thrust of his message. But the main point I disagree with is your sentence, “This ought not to have been a difficult decision.” I agree with you that it would have been nice for it not to have been a difficult decision, but that’s just not how society operates. For many people abortion is a legitimate moral choice when not to abort could claim the life of a 9-year-old rape victim. Again, I am not saying that I believe it would be a moral choice, and neither is the Archbishop – what the Archbishop is effectively saying is that people’s resorting to abortion is a problem which he believes is better solved by setting a loving, compassionate example than by pretending that the question should somehow be obvious to a grief-stricken mother trying to restore her daughter’s innocence.

Her daughter’s innocence will never be restored. The mother has to face up to the fact that she allowed a man into her home who raped her two daughters for three years…

However, had the Church done it’s job of *teaching, *then maybe for this woman the answer would have been obvious, and *certainly *the answer should have been obvious to the doctors, who were under no such emotional stress.

I don’t think your gunman analogy is apt. Come on, there are serious arguments for abortion – we have to admit that.

No, there are NO serious arguments for abortion. The Church has always taught that abortion is always and everywhere that abortion is an intrinsic evil.

When a human being is little more than a cluster of cells incapable of thought, emotion, or sensation, we are simply not playing in the same intellectual ballpark as a mature adult – or a nine-year-old girl.

Here is a picture of your “cluster of cells” at 18 weeks:

http://health.state.ga.us/wrtk/images/n18weeks.jpg

You do not understand the Church’s position on this, since you say that because of the physical status of the child he or she is somehow less worthy than someone who is already born. The unborn child is from the moment of conception as human and as worthy as any other human of protection against being killed.

I don’t think that you have thought this through, because your way of thinking leads to believing that it is all right to kill people who are unconscious!

I simply cannot accept calling one half of the women in the US (the number who have had abortions) murderers. They are dangerously, tragically misled, and we need to do all we can to educate them, yes…but failing to see that in many cases their resort to abortion is a cry for help rather than a sign of spiritual coldness is probably not going to help.

I totally agree with you that everyone in this society has been misled, and that we should do all that we can to educate them.

I may be addressing a general trend in conservative Catholicism rather than you specifically…I certainly wouldn’t presume to know your individual opinions!

I appreciate this comment, but I would say that maybe in the future you should not extrapolate from people’s comments about their entire set of views. Nothing I said would indicate that I thought the things you assigned to me wrt to the mothers…

I was referring to statements like: “Not only is this man a bishop in the Catholic Church, he is the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life!!!” As though you know his job, and Catholic moral theology, better than he does.

I can read. So when I read about what the Church teaches, and what someone, even a bishop, says, I can tell if they match up or if they don’t.

I was once as ignorant of Catholic teaching as anyone, and that time was not so long ago that I cannot tell when something is coming out wrong, too.

But while the immorality of abortion is a Church teaching, that’s not what this case is about. No one’s disputing the immorality of abortion. It’s about being a good pastor and ways of effectively teaching the right thing to do. So to accuse the Archbishop of betraying Church teaching is totally unfair.

Yes, and he should have made things more clear rather than fuzzing them up.

 

[St_Francis]

Part Two

As for accusing him of stabbing the Church in the back just because he had a difference of opinion – I don’t think that’s fair, either. Especially since he had a very good reason for speaking up (defending the charitable intentions of the Church – “suffer the children to come unto me”).

I think that basically un-doing what a colleague has done is back-stabbing. And that’s what this bishop did.

If a lawyer goes and negotiates one thing in favor of his client, and his partner goes and negotiates a deal that is not so good, don’t you think the first lawyer would have a right to be annoyed?

If Archbishop Sobrinho had said that there was no reason to announce the excommunication publicly, and then Archbishop Fisichella had said, “Ah, but no, we must be clear about the excommunication,” I have the feeling that many people here who are calling Fisichella a back-stabber would be hanging laurel wreaths on his head, saying “At last, a fine, orthodox Bishop who is unafraid to speak the truth.” Perhaps you yourself wouldn’t…but I have the feeling that many would. And I think that would be hypocritical.

Considering what I have seen of the bishops, I seriously doubt that anyone would have criticized him for not saying anything.

I applaud your honest struggles…that’s excellent. But separating bishops into those we listen to and those we should avoid? On what grounds would you be able to make such distinctions? And what right do you have to do that?

Well, if a bishop proclaims Christ’s teachings, which is his job, then I listen to him. If a bishop do not proclaim Christ’s teachings, which he is supposed to do, then I don’t listen to him. I do not see how anyone could dispute my right to do that.

I didn’t say that no one should ever listen to the bishop-- I didn’t even say that I would not ever listen to him-- I just criticized what he said and did in this one case.

 

[St_Francis]

"That’s the way I see it too. To have said nothing once the abortion was complete, when the Bishops had been very vocal in trying to stop it, might have been interpreted as giving in."

But for the Church to say NOTHING about excommunicating the perpetrator of the crime (the step-dad) is also perceived to speak volumes about this case, that being that child and sex abuse is not worthy of public excommunication and condemnation. That is the way I see it, and many others. That archbishop is perceived as kicking someone (the mom) when she’s down. No mercy. No compassion. Just hard-hearted judgement that leaves people, Catholic or not, with a bad taste in their mouths.

The bishop did condemn the crime the man committed, and has been pointed out in this thread already, the crime is illegal and there is no controversy that the crime is anything other than horrific as there is with abortion, it does not have an automatic excommunication. If the bishop did not make all this clear, he probably should have when he made his statement.

Perhaps the main problem is that the Church has not been doing this *enough, *rather than that it was done in this case.

 

[tuviskazinai]

Part One

No, there are NO serious arguments for abortion. The Church has always taught that abortion is always and everywhere that abortion is an intrinsic evil.

You do not understand the Church’s position on this, since you say that because of the physical status of the child he or she is somehow less worthy than someone who is already born. The unborn child is from the moment of conception as human and as worthy as any other human of protection against being killed.

I don’t think that you have thought this through, because your way of thinking leads to believing that it is all right to kill people who are unconscious!

Just for the record, I understand the Church’s position perfectly well. I am not saying that I believe a fetus is less worthy than someone who is already born; all I am saying is that there are enough superficial differences between abortion and murder of an adult that it’s easy to see where someone with a solid moral foundation and a high degree of intelligence could nevertheless go wrong. And I believe that there are serious arguments for the legality of abortion. Oh, not serious enough, in my opinion; but I at least respect the intellectual coherence of a couple (not all) pro-choice arguments, even if at the same time I strenuously disagree with them.

Incidentally, this is a strain of many pro-life attitudes that has always rubbed me the wrong way: that in order for us to take the moral high ground, our opponents have not only to be wrong, but to be staggeringly, stupefyingly wrong.

But, as always, I digress.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[tuviskazinai]

Well, if a bishop proclaims Christ’s teachings, which is his job, then I listen to him. If a bishop do not proclaim Christ’s teachings, which he is supposed to do, then I don’t listen to him. I do not see how anyone could dispute my right to do that.

I didn’t say that no one should ever listen to the bishop-- I didn’t even say that I would not ever listen to him-- I just criticized what he said and did in this one case.

Fair enough.

But as I know you’re aware, Christ’s teachings aren’t limited to the abortion issue. The ultimate reason that abortion is wrong is because it is a sin against love – which is at the center of all of Christ’s teachings. I think that the Archbishop was simply saying that, yes, the abortion was wrong, but also that his colleague should have proclaimed that in a more loving way. Love is not just about setting rules; it also entails forgiveness, and not just a begrudging forgiveness that you can eke out of a priest if you manage to drag your poor excommunicated soul to a Confessional, but a fount of forgiveness that bursts forth like a geyser – like the father who forgave his prodigal son before the boy had even gotten a chance to open his mouth. God did more than send a message, teach a lesson – He sent Himself. That’s the reality that I see represented in the Archbishop’s suggestion that the excommunication could have been handled better – the desire to descend into this family’s suffering and purify it from within – and that’s why I appreciate so much what he said.

Even if you think I’m going overboard, I still don’t see what it was in the Archbishop’s announcement that contradicted Church teaching, to the extent that you feel comfortable brushing him aside. Is it only this idea that he stabbed his colleague in the back? Frankly, if it was love for the Church’s people that compelled him to say this (and it’s not like he chewed the guy out for hours…let’s be realistic – if anything, he was slightly critical), then I’m glad he did. The argument that bishops shouldn’t contradict each other has shaky foundations. What is the worry? That people will think ill of the Church? As though they didn’t already after Sobrinho’s performance – and as though we should be worried, as defenders of Bishop Sobrinho denied, about our “public image”??

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[Corki]

"That’s the way I see it too. To have said nothing once the abortion was complete, when the Bishops had been very vocal in trying to stop it, might have been interpreted as giving in."

But for the Church to say NOTHING about excommunicating the perpetrator of the crime (the step-dad) is also perceived to speak volumes about this case, that being that child and sex abuse is not worthy of public excommunication and condemnation. That is the way I see it, and many others. That archbishop is perceived as kicking someone (the mom) when she’s down. No mercy. No compassion. Just hard-hearted judgement that leaves people, Catholic or not, with a bad taste in their mouths.

So, you would rather the Bishop just make up a law so that he could excommunicate the rapist? The Bishop doesn’t get to decide about which crimes are corrected by excommunication. And he DID publically give the rapist public condemnation. He didn’t even get to decide about the excommunication for those doctors. They incurred *automatic *excommunication which he then publically announced.

The fact that the Archbishop is perceived as being hard-hearted; with no mercy or compassion is not a reason for him to lie or to make statements that aren’t truth. You hit the nail right on the head. The Archbishop is having his heart judged, not by those who know anything about the Church, but by those who want to find another way to make the Church look bad in the press and the court of public opinion.

 

[St_Francis]

Fair enough.

But as I know you’re aware, Christ’s teachings aren’t limited to the abortion issue. The ultimate reason that abortion is wrong is because it is a sin against love – which is at the center of all of Christ’s teachings. I think that the Archbishop was simply saying that, yes, the abortion was wrong, but also that his colleague should have proclaimed that in a more loving way. Love is not just about setting rules; it also entails forgiveness, and not just a begrudging forgiveness that you can eke out of a priest if you manage to drag your poor excommunicated soul to a Confessional, but a fount of forgiveness that bursts forth like a geyser – like the father who forgave his prodigal son before the boy had even gotten a chance to open his mouth. God did more than send a message, teach a lesson – He sent Himself. That’s the reality that I see represented in the Archbishop’s suggestion that the excommunication could have been handled better – the desire to descend into this family’s suffering and purify it from within – and that’s why I appreciate so much what he said.

Even if you think I’m going overboard, I still don’t see what it was in the Archbishop’s announcement that contradicted Church teaching, to the extent that you feel comfortable brushing him aside. Is it only this idea that he stabbed his colleague in the back? Frankly, if it was love for the Church’s people that compelled him to say this (and it’s not like he chewed the guy out for hours…let’s be realistic – if anything, he was slightly critical), then I’m glad he did. The argument that bishops shouldn’t contradict each other has shaky foundations. What is the worry? That people will think ill of the Church? As though they didn’t already after Sobrinho’s performance – and as though we should be worried, as defenders of Bishop Sobrinho denied, about our “public image”??

Peace,
+AMDG+

I think that we just see the situation differently, perhaps we are coming at it from two different points?

 

[Ailina]

"So, you would rather the Bishop just make up a law so that he could excommunicate the rapist?"

I have to wonder why the sexual abuse of small children is not considered worthy of public excommunication, particularly since this is what led to the child getting pregnant in the first place. If this kind of behavior isn’t considered morally repugnant enough, I have to question why not? It should be, and I have every right to question the Church on it.

What do you figure Christ would say to a man who would repeatedly rape a child over several years? Would he remain silent? I think not. So why is the Church silent, in that excommunication is not mentioned regarding the originator of this entire tragic event?