Brazil Church condemns abortion of twins

  • Thread starter Thread starter browser1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ailina said:
Well, actually, the Church has NOT been vocal enough concerning the issue of child abuse, to judge by the way it protected the few pedophile priests in it’s ranks for so many years. That is my point. The Church ALSO needs to be as vocal about child abuse, including sex abuse, as it is about abortion, and it has not been. Children who suffer such abuse are permanently damaged, and carry that damage forward to the next generation.

This issue of a raped child’s mother being publicly condemned for the abortion, but not the man that perfomed such brutal actions that led to this point, is what people are mainly protesting. The Church should have been as public in it’s condemnation of him as it is of the mother, because his actions also have also caused permanent damage to that child. THAT has been my point all along.
Click to expand...
You really need to start another thread about bashing Catholicism based on the “supposed” lack of action concerning child molesters. And while you are there, try remembering that all other denominations of all religions and no religions at all are very guilty of the exact same sin. And while you are at it, the public school system is extremely guilty of the same sin.
This thread is about abortion and excommunication. You keep getting caught up in something totally irrelevant to this thread.

The fact that the laws that the man broke…and the obvious immoral actions of this man…was enough to let him know that he was standing outside of the Church’s Sacraments. However…as has been pointed out numerous times on this thread…the grandmother and doctor’s responsible for the abortion needed to be told. This is not something that they obviously knew…nor did many other people. It was the Bishop’s responsibility to Catechise all who could hear, that there would be no doubt.
 
Jesus_N_Cherie said:
You really need to start another thread about bashing Catholicism based on the “supposed” lack of action concerning child molesters. And while you are there, try remembering that all other denominations of all religions and no religions at all are very guilty of the exact same sin. And while you are at it, the public school system is extremely guilty of the same sin.
This thread is about abortion and excommunication. You keep getting caught up in something totally irrelevant to this thread.

The fact that the laws that the man broke…and the obvious immoral actions of this man…was enough to let him know that he was standing outside of the Church’s Sacraments. However…as has been pointed out numerous times on this thread…the grandmother and doctor’s responsible for the abortion needed to be told. This is not something that they obviously knew…nor did many other people. It was the Bishop’s responsibility to Catechise all who could hear, that there would be no doubt.
Click to expand...
The two issues are intertwined in this case, which is why I am disturbed. I am not Catholic Church bashing, but have to wonder at why the abuse that is at the root of this problem is NOT addressed by the Church. It is not “totally irrelevant to this thread”, but very much a part of it.

Maybe that man didn’t know he was standing outside of the Church’s Sacraments because of the abuse that has gone on within the Church, abuse that was hushed up and the priests shuffled off to another parish. You cannot deny that happened. So maybe this man thought what he was doing was acceptable because the Church has only acted upon this very recently, after realizing that the truth about pedophiles in it’s ranks can no longer be suppressed.

What makes you think the mother did not know that abortion was a sin? That is no surprise to anyone who has been listening to the Church for the past millenium. It is always in the news. I AM glad that the Church is standing against abortion, because very few others certainly are. But I also think it needs to be much more vocal than it has been about child abuse.
 
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.

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.
 
It seems the basic problem is that many fail to see abortion for the grave evil that it is. That does not excuse other sins, but it does expalin why so many just don’t get it.
 
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?
 
In teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the teaching of Sacred Scripture. The Apostle Paul emphatically states: “Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10)…
Click to expand...
If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; *per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person…
*
When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the “poorest of the poor” on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal…
Click to expand...
Veritatis splendor
 
In this context, appropriate allowance is made both for* God’s mercy towards the sinner who converts and for the understanding of human weakness. *Such understanding never means compromising and falsifying the standard of good and evil in order to adapt it to particular circumstances. It is quite human for the sinner to acknowledge his weakness and to ask mercy for his failings; what is unacceptable is the attitude of one who makes his own weakness the criterion of the truth about the good, so that he can feel self-justified, without even the need to have recourse to God and his mercy. An attitude of this sort corrupts the morality of society as a whole, since it encourages doubt about the objectivity of the moral law in general and a rejection of the absoluteness of moral prohibitions regarding specific human acts, and it ends up by confusing all judgments about values.
Click to expand...
Instead, we should take to heart the message of the Gospel parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (cf. Lk 18:9-14). The tax collector might possibly have had some justification for the sins he committed, such as to diminish his responsibility. But his prayer does not dwell on such justifications, but rather on his own unworthiness before God’s infinite holiness: "God, be merciful to me a sinner! " (*Lk *18:13). The Pharisee, on the other hand, is self-justified, finding some excuse for each of his failings. Here we encounter two different attitudes of the moral conscience of man in every age. The tax collector represents a “repentant” conscience, fully aware of the frailty of its own nature and seeing in its own failings, whatever their subjective justifications, a confirmation of its need for redemption. The Pharisee represents a “self-satisfied” conscience, under the illusion that it is able to observe the law without the help of grace and convinced that it does not need mercy…
Click to expand...
 
GeorgiaHunter said:
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?
Click to expand...
Feelings are irrelevant to this matter.

**“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. There may be legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not… with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” - Pope Benedict XVI **

I have no doubt that the Church could have scooped her up, along with her family, and placed them in a setting (away from home and notoriety) and provided a much easier life and MEDICAL care to sustain the pregnancy and serious counseling to help the family recover from this trial - but the girl’s mother sought otherwise. Finding doctors who would support the pregnancy did not satisfy the mother who went on to locate other doctors who would provide abortion.

There’s no doubt that the family is in dire need of prayer and counseling especially the little girl who has been so objectified and the 14 yr-old handicapped sister who was also the victim of repeated rapes by the step-father. That the mother took on her own moral authority and ordered up abortion is another sign of her inability to parent well…
 
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.

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.
 
GeorgiaHunter said:
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.

Enormous error on your part.
The Catholic Church NEVER allows abortion.

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.

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.
In regard to Church teaching, you are most definitely wrong.

And I’m open for honest debate. Just dumb down your words for me! Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the use of the oversized bold red letters; I might have missed it otherwise. If I’m wrong (I grant that I might be) so is New Advent where I got that info from. Sorry.

So what you (and the Catholic Church) are saying is: Too bad for this little girl and how screwed up her life will become and too bad for the damage that will happen to her mentally and physically for the rest of her life, there is a law and we must follow it no matter the consequences and no questions asked; is that the gist of your stance?
 
GeorgiaHunter said:
Thanks for the use of the oversized bold red letters; I might have missed it otherwise. If I’m wrong (I grant that I might be) so is New Advent where I got that info from. Sorry.

So what you (and the Catholic Church) are saying is: Too bad for this little girl and how screwed up her life will become and too bad for the damage that will happen to her mentally and physically for the rest of her life, there is a law and we must follow it no matter the consequences and no questions asked; is that the gist of your stance?
Click to expand...
Are you saying that abortion is a solution to this and now that girl whose child has been killed will live happily ever after? My Jesus!

Mary, pray for us
 
So you are syaing this girls life would be better if she did not abort?
 
GeorgiaHunter said:
Thanks for the use of the oversized bold red letters; I might have missed it otherwise. If I’m wrong (I grant that I might be) so is New Advent where I got that info from. Sorry.

So what you (and the Catholic Church) are saying is: Too bad for this little girl and how screwed up her life will become and too bad for the damage that will happen to her mentally and physically for the rest of her life, there is a law and we must follow it no matter the consequences and no questions asked; is that the gist of your stance?
Click to expand...
Hard to believe that you quoted New Advent accurately since I can’t believe that site siad that abortion is EVER justified. New Advent is fairly reputable. Perhaps you mis-read their statement? Or varied it?

Having worked with abused children (including sexually abused children) for close to forty years - as I stated in an earlier post - you’d have to be deluded to think I (or the Church) would ever say ‘too bad for this little girl’ as in “Who cares? So what?” That you imagine abortion provides a “happy ending” for the trauma that will mark her life for ages is fantasy. She is still in the care of a mother who allowed years of sexual abuse to TWO of her daughters. Think the child is in good and competent hands? !!!
 
GeorgiaHunter said:
Thanks for the use of the oversized bold red letters; I might have missed it otherwise. If I’m wrong (I grant that I might be) so is New Advent where I got that info from. Sorry.
Click to expand...
Please provide the quote from the New Advent site. Thank you.
 
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.)
 
GeorgiaHunter said:
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.)
Click to expand...
It was never established that her life was in danger!
Even the abortionists thought her life might be in danger someday. Not now though.

The deliberate killing of the defenseless child in the womb is ALWAYS wrong.
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top