A
Apryl
Guest
Kewl… but that’s just about the same reaction I would have had to any one saying ‘Who said that having a cold wouldn’t kill those people?’
- Status
T
tuviskazinai
Guest
Sorry, I’m a little late on responding to this…I mostly agree with St Francis about his excommunication clarifications, but I do understand one or two things a bit differently.
First of all, I will be honest: I believe that the excommunication was the right choice, but I too was a bit upset when the archbishop said something like “as bad as the rape was, the abortion was worse,” simply on the grounds that taking a life is worse than rape. While that may be technically true, I agree with you, Aliina, that it fails to take into account the relative emotional states of the father and of the mother, and risks making the Church seem simply interested in dogma and lacking in compassion.
But even though the suggestion that abortion is somehow “worse” than rape seems to have been used to explain why abortion is excommunicable, that way of looking at things is, I think, misleading. I’m not the best person to give a primer on excommunication, but as I understand it (and I’m definitely simplifying – feel free to correct me if I’ve got this wrong!), there are two kinds of excommunication: latae sententiae and ferendae sententiae. With ferendae sentatiae, the Pope declares that a very particular occasion has separated someone from the sacraments (e.g., when Lefebvre ordained bishops without the Pope’s approval – it was such a specific case that an extra-ordinary “legal” decision of some sort was necessary from the Vatican). Latae sententiae, on the other hand, contains a category of sins – including abortion, killing a priest, etc. – that at some point in time the Vatican formally announced would always, no matter what, incur automatic excommunication. This does not mean that they are the only sins that separate us from the Sacraments. Any mortal sin does that, most assuredly including child rape. It’s just that for one reason or another only a sampling of those cases officially made it on record as being punishable under latae sententiae…probably because at the time, there was more confusion about their status (and even today, how many people think abortion is ok?) than about the status of other “no-brainer” mortal sins (like child rape).
So when the archbishop in Brazil “pronounced” the excommunication, what he was really doing was saying, “Look – it’s obvious that the child rapist has committed a mortal sin, and of course there is no one who is ever going to defend what he did. And no, of course he can’t come and receive Communion as innocently as a lamb. But that’s not the whole story, and as someone charged with Catholic moral education, I need to wade into the more difficult aspects of the case…I need to be very clear that although this is a sad situation, abortion even under these circumstances is still wrong and still incurs automatic excommunication.”
At least, that’s my understanding of it. Do you guys have a different understanding? I can agree that the case wasn’t handled very well – but it’s just, as always, a case of the Church not being very good at PR. (That’s what we’re here for, I guess! To defend our Mother the Church.) But accusing the Church of not caring about a child rapist simply because its excommunication tradition is a bit byzantine seems to me to be going a bit far…
Peace,
+AMDG+
C
catharina
Guest
Reports seem to indicate that the mother looked for an “opinion” that suited her.
Other reports state that the handicapped (14 yr-old) sister was also a victim.
Only because I worked with abused children, usually girls, for 30 to 40 yrs, I’ll say what hasn’t been said yet: where has the mother been for so many yrs? Considering what happened on ‘her watch’ including the rapes of a small child as a 6 yr-old, 7 yr-old, 8 yr-old and 9 yr-old, it’s very late to consider the mother capable of making any wise and caring choices about her children. A pregnancy could have been supported and handled in a way that did not re-victimize the 9 yr-old girl. Instead, the decision was pursued by a mother who seems to have abandoned ship (home) years ago.
It’s really difficult for me to work up much sympathy for this mother in this situation.
Sympathy for her children? Yes, absolutely.
Sympathy for the Church? Yes, absolutely.
This is one moral absolute (No abortion) that allows for no quick fixes.
The mother wanted a quick fix. That’s in the best interest of nobody.
M
Middleman
Guest
Yes, I agree with this post. This isn’t your typical abortion case done for convenience like millions of others, so that mother can go on her merry way without bothering to be pregnant. This case is one of the most extreme of ones, where even pro-life persons such as myself understand that this abortion may have been necessary, and that the excommunication may have be unfair. It’s not a black and white case by any means, and I doubt that these doctors and mother would be likely to murder you are me.
C
catharina
Guest
There can be no acceptance of any abortion by a pro-life person. That’s the way it is.
A moral absolute is absolute, no black-white-grey.
No abortion can said to be necessary.
A significant horror attached to the sin of abortion is that the victim(s) cannot fight back. It’s likely that you (and most adults) would fight back. An action designed to kill the defenseless is horrific.
M
Middleman
Guest
So says you…
C
catharina
Guest
So says the Church -
and therefore, so says I.
Y
Yellow_Belle
Guest
Still, an admission that you were wrong and an apology would have been ok, too.Kewl… but that’s just about the same reaction I would have had to any one saying ‘Who said that having a cold wouldn’t kill those people?’
D
Dandelion_Wine
Guest
I first read about this today at cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/03/11/brazil.rape.abortion/index.html . Two things jumped out at me.
A standing ovation for a murderer.:nope:
Talk about lunacy.
S
St_Francis
Guest
It totally is a black and white case: abortion is *always wrong. *There are no circumstances under which it is somehow less wrong.
The abortion was not at all necessary, not medically, not for reasons of compassion. The intentional killing of two innocent babies was wrong, no matter what the circumstances under which they were conceived.
As I said before, they could easily have watched over the child-mother and performed a C-section if her life became endangered.
The ex-communications are there precisely because of the fact that abortion “seems ambiguous” to many because of the many many lies told about it and the general anti-life state of society. The understanding that abortion is *always and everywhere *mortally sinful, not that abortion is wrong unless… … … And the excommunication applies *even if it is not proclaimed, *–anyone who procures or performs an abortion *is currently *excommunicated, even tho it has not been announced publically.
Here we have a grandmother who hired someone to kill her grandchildren, and you are saying that we ought to show her compassion?
C
catharina
Guest
One more thing.
I hope you understand that your post removes you from the position of “pro-life” and places you firmly among all the people who claim to be pro-choice. Your very words (such as “this abortion [as] necessary”) repudiate any pro-life support.
S
st_lucy
Guest
Well lets look at what absolute mean:
As Christians we should believe in an Absolute Truth, others wise we tend to fall into relativism, which is very dangerous. But from the look of some these post I think we are already there.
Abortion is absolutely wrong and that is an absolute truth, there is no gray there.
A
Ailina
Guest
**
I DO have compassion for that mother, who no doubt has to deal with the tremendous guilt of what has occurred. This case is horrific on so many levels. I’m not saying that the abortions were okay, but that I take exception to the singling out of the mother but not calling the step-father to task for the terrible abuse he subjected those kids to in the first place. The Church is judging the mother but not the perpetrator of the crime. I find that extremely offensive. She gets singled out and he does not. That is just so sick.**
I very much disagree with you on these points. As somebody who WAS sexually abused as a child, I can tell you a lot can go on under peoples noses and those people would not have a clue. That is why sexual abuse of children is so easy, even in this so called enlightened society we live in.
I DO have compassion for that mother, who no doubt has to deal with the tremendous guilt of what has occurred. This case is horrific on so many levels. I’m not saying that the abortions were okay, but that I take exception to the singling out of the mother but not calling the step-father to task for the terrible abuse he subjected those kids to in the first place. The Church is judging the mother but not the perpetrator of the crime. I find that extremely offensive. She gets singled out and he does not. That is just so sick.**
C
chosen_people
Guest
Case: Your daughter, a minor, is raped. She becomes pregnant. She will die if the pregnancy is not terminated. According to many of the posters, her parents should let her die rather than terminate the pregnancy. Or am I missing something?
S
St_Francis
Guest
Yes, you are missing a couple of things.
First of all, if she is capable of becoming pregnant at that age, her body has already moved towards being able to carry a child. She would not be like a skinny pre-pubescent 9yo.
Secondly, what about the pregnancy will kill her? If her life is endangered because of the size of the babies, she can have a c-section.
Thirdly, *any intentional killing of a innocent human being is wrong. *The fact that the human in question is not yet born does not change that fact. Had the little girl’s pregnancy not been discovered until after the babies had been born, would it have been all right to kill them then?
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
I’d suggest that you are oversimplifying, rather than missing something.
The flat statements “she will die if the pregnancy is not terminated” and “her parents should let her die” are the problem. Is there a risk she will die? Then monitor the situation closely for emerging dangers. Is a specific danger emerging that is fatal if left to eventuate? Then act to suppress it.
No one is saying let the girl die. Saying the Church holds that position is a distortion frequently used by anti-Catholics. The morally licit course is to act to deal with dangers in a manner that seeks to preserve the life of the child mother. If these steps place the unborn child at risk, as a side effect, then a judgment is to be made. However, in no case is a direct attack on the unborn child morally licit, simply because the pregnancy is “risky” or “dangerous.”
Generalizing these situations is an easy thing to do to undermine the moral teaching that a direct attack on the unborn child is not licit. What to do in a specific case is a matter to be determined through reference to the specifics of the case. No one claims it’s an easy call. But to kill the unborn child to make all the problems go away is to murder an innocent. However, an act whose primary purpose is to save the life of the mother, when it is specifically in peril, is licit even if the unintended side effect is to place the survival of the baby in serious jeopardy. There is no “the mother MUST die so the baby can live” teaching of the Church, as sometimes is stated or implied.
Rape is a horrible thing, no question. When a pregnancy arises from the rape, many questions arise. One that cannot be ignored is, “What is the culpability of the conceived baby in the situation?” Frequently, it is, and the Church is castigated for refusing to go along.
Blessings,
Gerry
J
Jesus_N_Cherie
Guest
Thank you so much for your wonderful way of speaking the truth. I could never have explained it so well. It is obvious that the Holy Spirit was working through you in the quoted post. God bless you for your openess to Him.
I understand and empathize with those who believe things should be claimed right or wrong according to their emotions. But that is not the way to do it in truth. All victims should be taken care of with love and sympathy…mostly spiritually.
I pray that the doctors, hospital and mother of the young 9 year old victim of 2 horrendous crimes (the continuos rape by the stepfather, and the abortion) will be converted totally to Christ and His laws…despite their emotions.
I pray for the true conversion and healing of the 9 year old.
J
Jesus_N_Cherie
Guest
How can you claim to hope so and still think you are in good standing with the Roman Catholic Church. We are not a cafeteria Faith. You have to believe and follow the dogmas and teachings, or you are outside of good standing. I shall pray for your conversion.
The truth is not based on emotions. If it was, Christ would never have died on the Cross, and martyr’s would have never been martyred. Even if something hurts, we must always abide in the Truth and Obedience to the Truth.
Emotions play no part in it.
Emotions are to be sympathized with…make no mistake. Those in pain are to be loved. But sin is never to be condoned simply because the Truth is heartbreaking. Imagine the pain of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the foot of the Cross?
C
chosen_people
Guest
A viable baby breathing outside of the mother is a human being. The mother having given birth would either be alive or dead. Your example does not derive from mine.
I am asking to presume that continuing the pregnancy will lead to the death of the mother (not that the mother can undergo a c-section and both she and her children survive). In the case where the pregnancy if not terminated will lead to the death of the mother, is it permissable to terminate the pregnancy?
L
Lorik
Guest
Yes, b/c if the mother dies the baby will die as well. That is a no win situation for the baby.
- Status