Brazil Church condemns abortion of twins

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Truth is, the Church doesn’t care about the girl or the twins she was carrying. Their interest, like other anti-choicers, is in controlling people. They don’t care about the welfare of the pregnant woman or that of the potential child in her womb.

In the Church’s eyes, women are simply broodmares to birth future Catholics.

Once a woman gives birth or dies, they all wash their hands of her. Hell I should know, I used to be active in the “pro-life” movement.

Stories like this just reinforce why I left.

“You’re not going crazy, you’re going sane in a crazy world!” -The Tick

Why were you active in the prolife movement and then changed? And what has made you believe that women are simply broodmares in the Catholic Church’s eyes?
Something must have hurt you very much…and I am sorry for that. But what someone did to you was not anything that the Church did to you. The Church has the utmost respect and upholds the utmost dignity of women…all women. That does not give them a free reign to sin…especially murder…simply to take care of an emotional problem.
If you would care to discuss your own bitterness and reasons for it, maybe we could better understand where you are coming from…and discuss this.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

I see it ridiculous.The clergy is a safe haven for Child Molesters and now they finds it should be OK for a 9 year old girl to give birth.
I feel bad for being a Catholic. I wish I had no connections with the church.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7930380.stm

The Church is not a safe haven for child molesters. Where is it stated that the Church representatives called the stepfather of that 9 year old victim and offered him refuge from the laws?
Use common sense. Simply because the Church stands strong against the tearing apart and murdering 2 innocent babies, you throw all of these horrendous accusations against the church. That makes no sense.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Bravo! The Bishop has done exactly the right thing in publicizing these excommunications.

That even some Catholics here are disturbed by the excommunications demonstrates how desperately good catechesis is needed.
**
It is never justified to directly and deliberately take the life of an innocent human being. Period.**

Direct abortion is a grave and intrinsic evil which can never be permitted, even under the most extreme circumstances. If we don’t believe in human rights under extreme circumstances, we don’t believe in them at all.

The Church has stood firmly and defended the truth in this case, as evidenced by the vicious reaction of the world. The world hates the truth, just as they hated Jesus Christ - the Truth Incarnate.

Let us pray for the same strength in upholding the Truth for our own Bishops here in the rest of the world.

 

[Valke2]

The Catholic Church teaches that abortion may not be performed under any circumstances. Just as Jesus did not change His teachings so many of His disciples would not leave when He taught about the Eucharist, so will the Church stand firm in the truth - even if some believers don’t like it and leave. For them do we pray.

I’m pretty sure that Jesus had a few things to say about mercy and forgiveness as well. I would think that this situation would call for mercy and forgiveness for the family who had to make a decision that we all pray none of us will ever be faced with. Instead the bishop chose excommunication of the family. He chose to add to their pain.

 

[chosen_people]

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

All you are saying is that you should imperil the mother as much as possible to prefer the potential viability of the fetus. If a “judgment is to be made” to chose between the mother or the child, on what basis do you think that decision should be made? If given in that situation you act to save the mother, than it is clear that you will let the fetus die. By the way, these “judgments” happen all the time, for instance, a mother discovers that she has cancer. If she does not start to receive immediate treatment she will die. If she begins immediate treatment she is likely to be cured. However, the chemotherapy would cause the death of the fetus and the doctors say she must immediately terminate the pregnancy and start treatment.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

To me a 9 year old should be playing hide and seek.

No one here is disputing that fact. But through no fault of the child, she was repeatedly raped by an evil man. And through no fault of her own, she became pregnant with twins. That does not mean that it is alright to horrendously murder the twins. They were just as innocent…and have suffered tremendous pain and death. Where do you find that the right to life and the value of life for the mother is astronimically more than that of the unborn babies?

The 9 year old could still play hide and seek. The twins that were mutilated and murdered will never have that opportunity.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Babies, I hope we are living in a civilized world and Children are not supposed to give birth here no matter what. And I am happy that Human law is above Catholic law as it turned out to be in Brazil.

See another example
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7913981.stm

If somebody speaks out against discrimination, the church pins them on to the Cross.
Church needs to be everybody’s church to be truly Catholic. That includes Gay,Lesbian,Moderate,Liberal etc.

You do realize that your views puts you outside of the Catholic Faith, right? All of the things you listed are about emotions. Hitler’s emotions led him to believe that he had to annhilate the Jewish race. Why are the emotions of Hitler condemned while those wanting to kill unborn babies not?

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

News papers for one, televised news for the other. - Let me recommend the documentary “Deliver Us From Evil” to you. It’s the story of one of the worse pedophile priests the Church covered up for. The movie inlcudes the video footage of John Cardinal Mahoney’s (Los Angeles) deposition in the case. With your own eyes and ears you can witness the Cardinal say that he was aware of Father Oliver O’Grady’s tendencies, but they thought he was “only” molesting girls and that it was “natural curiosity”; had they known he was also molesting boys, it would have been taken more seriously.

In the news today, there has been a triple digit million dollar settlement from the Los Angeles Archdiocese to make up for the failures of the Cardinal and the Archdiocese. It has admitted…confessed…it’s failure and wrongdoings.

And what you don’t seem to understand is that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles…and a few others in the USA…along with some bishops, cardinals and priests who have used the authority of the Church do not make up the Church. These were men within the Church…not unlike men outside of the Church who do the same evil.
They do not represent the Church correctly. The Truth of the Roman Catholic Faith is not difficult to find. And it never condones such evil behavior.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Because pro-life also includes the life of the nine year old child.

No one is ripping her apart. Yes, the 9 year old’s life is vitally important. No one is denying that. But in today’s medical world, the lives of all three could have been protected and saved.

To rip to shreds the lives of two innocent babies on the chance that the pregnancy might in the future cause problems for the mother…especially when they could have done an immediate cesarian section if problems occurred in the pregnancy…was totally, unarguably evil.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

So the Lord God used an immoral. illegal and patently evil act to promote His plan?

Not the God I worship

So let me get this right. You believe that God ought to be ruled by our totally fallible emotions? And if He doesn’t follow and abide by our emotional laws, He is wrong?

What god do you worship?

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

What about self-defense?

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

How can you compare someone who is being maliciously and violently attacked on purpose to a woman who is pregnant and doesn’t want the baby?

A person who fits the first example above does have the right to defend himself or others from a malicious attack.
An unborn child does not fit into the example of a malicious, violent offender.

Your are totally taking the right to defend one’s life out of context. It makes you wrong.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Or is it possible that life is a bit more random?

No, there is NOTHING random about life. God knows us from before we are in the womb. He is the creator of all life. And He is not some distant, uninvolved God. He is living. If He were to stop giving each person His undivided attention, each person would cease to exist. He sustains all life. There is nothing random.

Oldcelt, you are infinitely more important and valuable to Him than that. I shall pray that you come to realize it.

 

[St_Francis]

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.

Your example does not exist. This lie has been spread by abotion supporters for so long that it seems to be a situation which exists, but it doesn’t. And it certainly did not in this particular case, where the child was so far along in her pregnancy.

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?

I will assume that you are not talking about this particular case and asking in general.

First of all, pro-life doctors tell us that there is no condition in which a pregnancy has to kill a mother. here is what former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop says:

Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my thirty-six years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life. When a woman is pregnant, her obstetrician takes on the care of two patients—the mother-to-be and the unborn baby. If, toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, he will take the child by inducing labor or performing a Caesarian section. His intention is still to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby will be premature … The baby is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger. (C. Everett Koop, M. D., as told to **** Bohrer, in “Moody Monthly,” May, 1980.)

Now, there are times when the mother presents with a condition which must be taken care of and that the taking care of will kill the baby as a side-effect, for example: cancer, where the radiation treatment would probably result in the death of the baby. In these cases, the death of the baby is *not intended, *they do not act with the idea of killing the baby. In these cases, treatment may occur, even tho the side-effect will quite probably be the death fo the baby. So, if a woman had cancer and was pregnant, she could receive the treatment. But what she could *not *do is have an abortion before the treatment.

The Church has always taught that abortion is always and everywhere *wrong. *That’s just all there is to it. There is *no *excuse possible for directly and intentionally killing an unborn child any more than there is to kill a baby after he is born.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

I, also, wonder at the injustice of excommunicating these people, yet the perpetrator gets off with a slap on the wrist. I also don’t understand why murder of an unborn child demands excommunication, yet murder of a born person doesn’t. That seems illogical to me.

The perpetrator is not getting off with a simple slap on the wrist. The laws of the land will deal with this crime. And this man is in mortal danger…I pray he will go to confession. He should spend the rest of his life in a 6x6 cell without any comforts or visitors except a priest.

Those who were excommunicated simply need to follow what the Church demands, and then they are able to be back within the flock.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

The term aggressor could be taken to include anyone who threatens your life. This is an extraordinary case and one that I pray we never hear of again. However, from what I have read regarding this case, the carrying of these babies could have caused this child’s death.

I’ll admit I would have a very hard time telling a 9 year old she had to die in defense of life.

You haven’t even read what specialists have said if you are of the opinion that her life was in danger.

 

[St_Francis]

All you are saying is that you should imperil the mother as much as possible to prefer the potential viability of the fetus. If a “judgment is to be made” to chose between the mother or the child, on what basis do you think that decision should be made? If given in that situation you act to save the mother, than it is clear that you will let the fetus die. By the way, these “judgments” happen all the time, for instance, a mother discovers that she has cancer. If she does not start to receive immediate treatment she will die. If she begins immediate treatment she is likely to be cured. However, the chemotherapy would cause the death of the fetus and the doctors say she must immediately terminate the pregnancy and start treatment.

I wrote my response to you above before I saw this post of yours, but I hope that it also answers your questions here.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

But do we not apply preventive or treatment measures to help ensure that these circumstances do not result in death?

Prevenative and treatment measures could have been applied to ensure that the carrying of these twins would not result in damage or death to the 9 year old. There is no reason to believe that in today’s medical world, the pregnancy and/or delivery by cesarean section would have caused damage or death to the 9 year old.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

I feel as if these Bishops are making a huge public relations mistake, and committing an injustice, in a case that is extreme, thus making the Church look stupid, sexist and unfair. Meanwhile, they are still debating whether to give communion to Catholic politicians who openly support liberal abortion in more normal cases. Why, Nancy Pelosi recently received an audience with the Holy Father!

These doctors made a medical judgment that the pregnancy would be damaging to the child, who had already been grossly violated. The case is an extreme one. But these Bishops had to go and punish those trying to protect the child, and let the horrible man who put her in danger in the first place go with 3 Hail Marys and and Our Father.

Jesus was never interested in public relations. And He is GOD!!!
When it comes to matters of moral issues, public relations and political polls mean absolutely nothing!!!

I pray that the Bishops in America and the world over stand up and follow the example of the Bishop in Brazil. We need to do what is most important for the souls of this world…not what is politically comfortable.
We need to stand up for the TRUTH.

 

[Apryl]

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.

I’m back… What would make this case ‘NECESSARY’?

I’m not hearing any one with anything other than the mindset that nine is just too young to be a mother, but forgetting that at nine, and MENSTRUATING, the body is ready, even if we aren’t ready to deal with it.

What would make this abortion ‘necessary’? Do you have ANY reason, other than ‘I’ve never heard of’, or ‘I didn’t think it was possible’, to account for the idea that this child would have had ANY difficulty with the pregnancy?

ANY?

I am not taking this out on you, and I’m sorry if it is coming across that way… but I keep hearing this ‘the child was in danger’ and ‘having the babies would have killed her’, and I can’t, for the life of me, wrap my mind around that, since I have NEVER in my LIFE heard of any one dying because they were too young to bear a child.

Let’s face it: women die in child birth every day, even in these modern times. Pregnancy can be very difficult. But just because she’s nine doesn’t make this abortion ok. Just because she’s nine doesn’t excuse what was done to her. And BECAUSE she is nine, it is in MY uninformed, emotional assessment that she will be scarred for life.

Any one got ANYthing to counter that?

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

So the Lord God created this child to be raped and exploited?

No, that is not what God created this child for. You act as if you believe that what was done to her is the extent of her entire life. This is wrong. God did not want evil to occur. Evil occurred with original sin. And we have free will to decide what choices we will make. The child rapist stepfather decided to hurt that baby girl.
That does not mean that God was not in control. He does not intefere with free will. Maybe the girl getting pregnant was God’s way of bringing his crimes to light. For sure, the abortion of the twins will do nothing good for the original victim…who is the rape victim.