Brazil Church condemns abortion of twins

[catharina]

I understand the Church condemns abortion (and I applaud this) but why was it necessary to excommunicate (and publicly), considering the delicacy of the situation.

The entire situation existed in a public forum:
knowledge of the rapes and the pregnancy carrying two babies.
How could any bishop turn a blind eye to the events of the aborions?

 

[Michael96]

How could any bishop turn a blind eye to the events of the aborions?

It is within his power to say that it is a matter that is is being dealt with privately with the family involved. A little discretion would not have gone amiss in this case, I think. Sadly, it demonstrates the lack of empathy that can just sometimes accompany the celebate life.

 

[catharina]

It is within his power to say that it is a matter that is is being dealt with privately with the family involved. A little discretion would not have gone amiss in this case, I think. Sadly, it demonstrates the lack of empathy that can just sometimes accompany the celebate life.

I would never accuse the bishop of lacking empathy.

To refrain from making a public statement could imply that there are exceptions to the rule - in fact there are no exceptions to this rule. I wonder too why so few people are unwilling to question the motivations of the mother/grandmother in her effort to “end” the problem. The original physicians stated that they did not expect any life-and-death problems with the pregnancy allowed to continue. Yet the mother of the little girl (who had “not noticed” that her child was the object of multiple rapes, at the ages of 6,7,8 and 9 years of age) took on the power of ‘acting in the defense’ of the child’s health.

That scenario raises legitimate questions about the mother’s UN-involvement in “protecting” this child. PS - I worked with abused children for decades.

 

[Michael96]

I would never accuse the bishop of lacking empathy.

I wonder what those involved think?

 

[Beautiful]

To publicly condemn her, but NOT the actions of the step-father smacks of a complete lack of compassion.

It just reminds people of the Church’s lack of action on the pedophile priests of the very recent past

Again – the actions of the step-father caused/initiated public awareness of the horrid situation. The difference you are seeing is that the Church alone stands to make the public aware of the sin of abortion. Man – don’t you see the world is accepting abortion? The Church does not ever condone killing life at any age.

You really can’t go back on the recent sins of pedophile priests because the Church has addressed and hopefully, successfully weeded out root causes. In addition to that our current Pope has expressed sadness and sorrow for the sins of a particular few.

Forgiveness is for all those who repent.

 

[st_lucy]

I am very much heart broken for the girl who was raped, since this is such a hard and very emotional situation. But I am shocked by all of those who are crying the Church and the Bishop should never had said anything about the abortions. Two children were violently killed and no one seems to notice that.

I know I have stated this before but I was conceived because my mother was raped. Why is are those who are saying that the girl had every right to abort her children because she was raped saying this? Do you people who feel this way, think that I should have been brutally murdered because of my mother’s rape? Because my father beat and raped my mother I should have my limbs ripped out one by one?

FrancisMarx stated that we live in a civilized world and that this child should not have gone through with this pregnancy. (paraphrased) You think this is a civilized world? A world were we who are so civilized allow children to be dismembered limb by limb until they finally die. A world were a doctor is allowed to enter a child’s room with a pair of scissors and stab him in the back of the head and then open the scissors so that child may die. IS this what you call a civilized world?

Please people lets stop letting our own feelings get in the way, two children where brutally murdered and there are those who are cheering those who planned and carried out their murder and calling it just. And when someone stands up and says it was wrong they get mad. It is wrong to kill someone because of what their father did.

 

[JamesG]

Some of the comments on the cbc website regarding this news article are just appalling. The lack of education and anti-catholic bigotry is very typical.

cbc.ca/world/story/2009/03/07/catholic-abortion.html?ref=rss

 

[Ailina]

"That scenario raises legitimate questions about the mother’s UN-involvement in “protecting” this child."

Since sexual abuse is done in secrecy, it is very hard to detect, isn’t it? Why was no one aware of pedophilic priests for all these years? Because of secrecy and cover-ups. This mother may very well not have been aware of the sexual abuse of her daughters. So why blame her for the actions of her deceitful spouse?

People here are saying that the step-father is automatically excommunicated by the abuse he committed. That is a bunch of baloney, because to follow that line of reasoning, the mother also automatically ex-communicated herself through her own actions as well, in which case there was no need for a public comment by the archbishop stating that he ex-communicated her.

The fact is, sexual assault of minor children is every bit as devastating as the abortions that came about because of it. Yet that sexual assault of a SIX YEAR OLD CHILD appears to be of little consequence. It is this kind of attitude that allows this kind of horror to be inflicted upon children in the first place.

I stand by my comments that the archbishop could have shown some compassion and mercy in this horrific case, yet did not. He behaved very much like the pharisees that Jesus was always condemning.

Btw, many saints of the past were known for criticizing the clergy of their day. To err is human, even if you are a leader of the Church!

 

[chosen_people]

This case is personally interesting because Jewish Halachic law would reach an opposite position from that of the Catholic Church. Under Jewish law the living breathing nine year old mother would not have to give her life in addition to being the victim of rape. The cessation of the pregnancy due to the danger to the mother would be allowed.

 

[st_lucy]

"That scenario raises legitimate questions about the mother’s UN-involvement in “protecting” this child."

Since sexual abuse is done in secrecy, it is very hard to detect, isn’t it? Why was no one aware of pedophilic priests for all these years? Because of secrecy and cover-ups. This mother may very well not have been aware of the sexual abuse of her daughters. So why blame her for the actions of her deceitful spouse?

People here are saying that the step-father is automatically excommunicated by the abuse he committed. That is a bunch of baloney, because to follow that line of reasoning, the mother also automatically ex-communicated herself through her own actions as well, in which case there was no need for a public comment by the archbishop stating that he ex-communicated her.

The fact is, sexual assault of minor children is every bit as devastating as the abortions that came about because of it. Yet that sexual assault of a SIX YEAR OLD CHILD appears to be of little consequence. It is this kind of attitude that allows this kind of horror to be inflicted upon children in the first place.

I stand by my comments that the archbishop could have shown some compassion and mercy in this horrific case, yet did not. He behaved very much like the pharisees that Jesus was always condemning.

Btw, many saints of the past were known for criticizing the clergy of their day. To err is human, even if you are a leader of the Church!

You are right that the mother and all involved with abortion were already excommunicated, but the Bishop did the right thing by speaking up. Abortion and their advocates have a way of making it look good. If the Bishop didn’t speak up many unknowing Catholics might have thought that this actions was okay to do. And there for abortion is okay in this sort of case. As is the case in so many Catholics voice their opinion about how it was okay for this abortion to happen.

The Bishop was being a good Shepard by stating what he did.

 

[st_lucy]

This case is personally interesting because Jewish Halachic law would reach an opposite position from that of the Catholic Church. Under Jewish law the living breathing nine year old mother would not have to give her life in addition to being the victim of rape. The cessation of the pregnancy due to the danger to the mother would be allowed.

The babies were living and if given a chance they sure would have been breathing. Abortion is not getting rid of a dead non-living being it is the getting rid of a living human.

 

[TMC]

My understanding is that the Church allows for the removal of ectopic pregnancies, why isn’t this the same situation? How would it serve those babies to have all three die? If they can save the girl, that seems like the right thing to do, and similar to the what is done with ectopic pregnancies all the time.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

My understanding is that the Church allows for the removal of ectopic pregnancies, why isn’t this the same situation? How would it serve those babies to have all three die? If they can save the girl, that seems like the right thing to do, and similar to the what is done with ectopic pregnancies all the time.

Medically, the similarities are superficial. The term “ectopic” means “out of place.” The baby is growing outside the uterus, where it has no chance of reaching term - or even viability - and the pregnancy is certain to be fatal for the mother well before viability.

Removing ectopic pregnancies is an act to save the mother from clear and present danger. It is comparable to, say, the early caesarian of a child where the mother is in imminent danger, even where the probability of survival for the baby is minimal.

Much has been made of the risk for the mother in this case, and the risks were very real. But her children were murdered when no risk had materialized, as evidenced by the findings of the doctors at the first hospital.

You may act to save the mother, where there is manifest risk, even if there is a high risk to the baby as a side effect. You cannot, under any circumstances, make a direct attack on the life of the baby because of what might happened, but is not yet manifested.

I’ve had to bury a newborn son who did not survive, and who put his mother at risk. In this case, the course of events was natural, and only medical support, not intervention, was necessary. I can tell you first hand that risks to mothers and babies during pregnancies are, first and foremost, things from which we should pray to be delivered.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[chosen_people]

The babies were living and if given a chance they sure would have been breathing. Abortion is not getting rid of a dead non-living being it is the getting rid of a living human.

Well actually in this case not doing the procedure would have led to the death of a nine year old rape victim. Of course if the pregnancy killed her before the fetuses were viable, then all three would not be alive.

 

[FrancesMarx]

I strongly applaud everyone involved in this condemnation! Those twins had every right to live! I don’t care if the girl was 6! Those twins still had a right to live!

Wow , Wow Wow Wow.

 

[st_lucy]

Well actually in this case not doing the procedure would have led to the death of a nine year old rape victim. Of course if the pregnancy killed her before the fetuses were viable, then all three would not be alive.

The fact is we don’t know if the pregnancy would have killed her. With all of the technology we have today, the children could have been delivered early or the girl could have been watched very closely until their was actual evidence that she was in danger of death.

 

[kage_ar]

Okay, so to make a public example of a woman and mother who is probably already in a great deal of anguish because of a situation she did not cause (betrayal by her spouse, the horrific and shocking pregnancy of her daughter) serves what purpose??? To publicly condemn her, but NOT the actions of the step-father smacks of a complete lack of compassion. Do you really think Jesus would have acted like the archbishop has done?

Has it occurred to the archbishop that the mother may also not be thinking clearly, given the circumstances? Where is the justice and mercy here?

As someone who has had a ringside seat while a very public excommunication took place just up the road from where I sit, I can assure you, excommunication is not something that just happens out of the blue to an unsuspecting person.

The Pastor and Bishop have attempted to counsel those involved in private, they have given warning that without repentance, as of a certain date, excommunication will take place. It is a process where every effort is made to extend mercy to the unrepentant sinner so the sin can be resolved in private. The mercy is still there, waiting for the person in sin to go to Confession and repent.

This is a Biblical process that comes straight from the New Testament.

 

[tuviskazinai]

Removing ectopic pregnancies is an act to save the mother from clear and present danger. It is comparable to, say, the early caesarian of a child where the mother is in imminent danger, even where the probability of survival for the baby is minimal.

Ok, so even if the child could not carry her babies to term, abortion seems not to have been the only option.

So, following that line of thought, this is not a challenge, it is just a question: can a girl or a woman have a cesarean at any age? Assuming the girl had not had these abortions inflicted upon her and that it had sooner or later become clear that she wouldn’t be able to carry the children to term, does anyone have the scientific knowledge of what her options would have been? Would a C-section also have placed her in any danger? What about a forced pregnancy?

I am not saying that the morality of the bishop’s decision depends upon the answers to these questions…I am just curious, so as to understand the whole scope of this tragic situation.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[chosen_people]

The fact is we don’t know if the pregnancy would have killed her. With all of the technology we have today, the children could have been delivered early or the girl could have been watched very closely until their was actual evidence that she was in danger of death.

Let’s not change the facts. She had a life threatening pregnancy.It is your right to argue that it is moral, in those circumstances, that a nine year old mother, a rape victim, should die or at least be put at serious risk of death to protect two fetuses not yet viable outside of her. The girl’s doctors happened not to agree with your position and so she is still alive today.

 

[st_lucy]

Let’s not change the facts. She had a life threatening pregnancy.It is your right to argue that it is moral, in those circumstances, that a nine year old mother, a rape victim, should die or at least be put at serious risk of death to protect two fetuses not yet viable outside of her. The girl’s doctors happened not to agree with your position and so she is still alive today.

THe fact is that the child’s first doctors didn’t think that the pregnancy was a threat to her life. So the child’s mother didn’t like that answer she went out looking for a doctor who would be more on her level. So it is not me who is changing facts it is those who are looking for the easy way out.