Brazil Church condemns abortion of twins

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Thanks, Corki, you answered my questions. And the Bishop does, indeed, need our prayers. I think that it was extremely important for him to make the excommunication public. There are many who, obviously, were uncatechized about the Truth. It needed to be done publicly so that the Church’s teachings on abortion would be known to many who may not have known it.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Add to that. The business of the Roman Catholic Church is souls, and their salvation. It seems that the “give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s, and to God what is God’s” message is important in this situation.

It matters not what the law of the land accepts as lawful. God’s laws cannot be denied if one is to remain in good standing with Christ and His Church. Without following Christ and His laws, you are not His friend. If you are not His friend, you will not be acknowledged by Him before His Father. If there is no acknowledgement, there is no acceptance into Heaven. Without acceptance into Heaven, one finds himself in Hell.

That is the business of the Catholic Church…irregardless of man made laws or popularity.

 

[tuviskazinai]

Georgia Hunter,

I know you have had a change of heart and I am not picking on you with this thread but I just wanted to clear something up. The principal that you are referencing is the Principal of Double Effect. It cannot be applied to abortion, however. The reason is that there are four conditions that must be met. Your four are close but they don’t quite match up.

Actually, that’s what I thought when I first read Georgia Hunter’s post, but when you look at the New Advent article she cited, she’s really just quoting it verbatim – and that article makes no mention of Double Effect. Do you think there is a problem with the New Advent article’s reasoning? I’m not sure who writes that stuff, but my impression is that it’s considered pretty authoritative by people who would know.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[tuviskazinai]

Look at this thread. A number of people joined this site so they could have their say and their ‘say’ is one that promotes abortion in this case. Astounding - like vultures to a bloodbath.

I am not sure this is fair…this is a discussion forum, so why not welcome discussion? Including, and especially, from those who do not agree with us – otherwise, who will learn anything?

If many new people joined this forum, it’s probably because this case opened a lot of questions in people’s heads, and we Catholics need to be understanding of that. As I see it, those of us who agree with the bishop’s decision have a choice: we can welcome people who come here in an honest attempt to ask difficult questions and talk about issues that may be keeping them from the Church, or we can call them names and tell them to go away and leave us alone with our narrow ideas and resistance to conversation.

Here’s one of the things I liked most in Archbishop Fisichella’s explanation of why he disagreed with the Brazilian bishop’s actions: they caused scandal to the Catholic Church. Of course we should not fold to popular opinion, and the Archbishop is not saying that the abortion was acceptable; but all he was saying was that in his opinion, a little more prudence could have been used, since there was such a great opportunity for scandal. His point was that the bishop should have been pastoral as well as dogmatic – for instance, saying the abortion was wrong, but going out of his way to empathize with the family’s pain and to emphasize the proximity of their salvation if they’d only call out to Christ for help. I think that we can do this, too: we can affirm the Church’s non-negotiable teaching on abortion on this forum, while still doing so patiently and with love.

I follow the Church.
I don’t attempt to lead it or to second-guess it.
All that is asked of us is love and obedience.

But if the dissenting voices on this forum have been “second-guessing” the Church, then Archbishop Fisichella is also doing that. I just don’t think there is a single acceptable pastoral solution to a case like this, and so “second-guessing” is not the right word. Honest, open conversation is vitally necessary for us…we can follow the Church even as we ask tough questions of it, and even as we disagree sometimes with some actions of some bishops. Saying that a bishop could have been gentler, or asking honestly whether all abortions are as bad as others, is not the equivalent of rejecting the Church.

Please be kind to yourself.
Don’t let this change disturb your peace.
In everything, blessed be God.

Agreed! I think this is a very important thing to say. This may be a difficult case for some people to accept, but this alone should not disturb our peace, and our trust in God’s Church.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[Corki]

I

Here’s one of the things I liked most in Archbishop Fisichella’s explanation of why he disagreed with the Brazilian bishop’s actions: they caused scandal to the Catholic Church. Of course we should not fold to popular opinion, and the Archbishop is not saying that the abortion was acceptable; but all he was saying was that in his opinion, a little more prudence could have been used, since there was such a great opportunity for scandal. His point was that the bishop should have been pastoral as well as dogmatic – for instance, saying the abortion was wrong, but going out of his way to empathize with the family’s pain and to emphasize the proximity of their salvation if they’d only call out to Christ for help. I think that we can do this, too: we can affirm the Church’s non-negotiable teaching on abortion on this forum, while still doing so patiently and with love.

Peace,
+AMDG+

Well Archbshop Fisichella is entitled to his own opinion but it is up to the local ordinary to act. Sure, it could have been done differently.

But I am not sure I follow you about how this causes scandal. Who are you saying is committing the sin of scandal? The sin of scandal is committed when a person leads another into sin by his/her own bad actions or example. I don’t see how that applies here.

 

[Corki]

Actually, that’s what I thought when I first read Georgia Hunter’s post, but when you look at the New Advent article she cited, she’s really just quoting it verbatim – and that article makes no mention of Double Effect. Do you think there is a problem with the New Advent article’s reasoning? I’m not sure who writes that stuff, but my impression is that it’s considered pretty authoritative by people who would know.

Peace,
+AMDG+

This is curious. The NEW Catholic Encyclopedia (which is not online itself but is quoted in many different places) says:

The New Catholic Encyclopedia provides four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect:

The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect” (p. 1021).

These are the same four conditions I mentioned but phrased a little differently.

The New Advent article which Georgia linked was not speaking specifically about direct abortion in the passage quoted. It was talking about medical treatment that has the unintended consequence of causing an abortion. Maybe that’s why the definition is different. Other than that, I don’t know why there’s a difference.

 

[tuviskazinai]

Well Archbshop Fisichella is entitled to his own opinion but it is up to the local ordinary to act. Sure, it could have been done differently.

But I am not sure I follow you about how this causes scandal. Who are you saying is committing the sin of scandal? The sin of scandal is committed when a person leads another into sin by his/her own bad actions or example. I don’t see how that applies here.

I was using Archbishop Fisichella’s own word for it, I think – or else perhaps that of a bishop who issued a similar statement over here in France. (I’d post it, but I can’t find the link to that article anymore…and I think it was in French.) As I understand the reasoning, this could be interpreted as “scandalous” if one thought the bishop’s example was uncharitable enough to cause people to lose their faith in the Church. Or perhaps he just meant “scandal” in the more conventional sense of bringing bad publicity on our heads…?

Oh, and I agree completely about the issue being the responsibility, ultimately, of the local ordinary…but I am glad for the opportunity to hear other opinions, too.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[tuviskazinai]

These are the same four conditions I mentioned but phrased a little differently.

The New Advent article which Georgia linked was not speaking specifically about direct abortion in the passage quoted. It was talking about medical treatment that has the unintended consequence of causing an abortion. Maybe that’s why the definition is different. Other than that, I don’t know why there’s a difference.

Ah, interesting! You may be right…

 

[Corki]

I was using Archbishop Fisichella’s own word for it, I think – or else perhaps that of a bishop who issued a similar statement over here in France. (I’d post it, but I can’t find the link to that article anymore…and I think it was in French.) As I understand the reasoning, this could be interpreted as “scandalous” if one thought the bishop’s example was uncharitable enough to cause people to lose their faith in the Church. Or perhaps he just meant “scandal” in the more conventional sense of bringing bad publicity on our heads…?

Oh, and I agree completely about the issue being the responsibility, ultimately, of the local ordinary…but I am glad for the opportunity to hear other opinions, too.

Peace,
+AMDG+

I agree too. I think reading other opinions flushes out the theology for me.

However, I am troubled by this trend of Bishops second-guessing the legitimate actions of brother Bishops. Some even second guess the Pope. It would be one thing if a Bishop said, “If it were me, I would have approached the situation differently …” but to call out other Bishops as wrong just seems mean spirited.

 

[Amolibri]

Need we be reminded of the harm done to innocent children because of “avoiding scandal”???

 

[St_Francis]

Yes, but that does not answer as to whether that is morally licit or not. If the intent is to kill the baby, it certainly is evil.

No, because the action itself can *only *be directed toward killing the unborn child. I imagine that they are doing this instead of removing the tube, correct? They are killing the baby by sending chemicals to kill him or her, right? And so this is killing the baby rather than treating the problem.

 

[catharina]

That’s pretty much what these parents did with their child when they made HER have an abortion.

I can’t imagine forgetting that this was done to the little girl.
I hope no one can forget it.

 

[TMC]

Archbishop Fisichella:

Fisichella said that because of the Brazilian girl’s young age and her “precarious state of health her life was in serious danger” by continuing the pregnancy.

“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.”

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.

He told the young girl in his written article: "We are on your side. We feel your suffering and we would like to do everything that would help you restore the dignity that you have been deprived of and the love that you will still need.

“There are others who deserve excommunication and our forgiveness, not those who have allowed you to live and who will help you regain hope and trust despite the presence of evil and the wickedness of many people,” he said.

ncronline.org/news/vatican/church-credibility-harmed-hasty-excommunication

 

[St_Francis]

Archbishop Fisichella:

ncronline.org/news/vatican/church-credibility-harmed-hasty-excommunication

Reading the comments and the Bishop as quoted in the article, it seems that the article did not make it clear that the child was not excommunicated. The NCR is notoriously liberal and seems bent on putting the worst possible spin on the Church rather than trying to educate anyone about Catholic teaching.

 

[TMC]

Reading the comments and the Bishop as quoted in the article, it seems that the article did not make it clear that the child was not excommunicated. The NCR is notoriously liberal and seems bent on putting the worst possible spin on the Church rather than trying to educate anyone about Catholic teaching.

Regardless of what you may think of NCR, Archbishop Fisichella’s comments speak for themselves.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

What was not understood or spoken in the Bishop’s statement is what is the loudest and most important of these points.

1. The child’s life was not in danger…and should it have become dangerous, she could have had a cesarean section…and all that was possible could have been done to save the lives of the babies…rather than seek to destroy the lives of the twins.
2. That everyone understood that excommunication was automatic. Even catechized people in many instances have no idea of this, so it needed to be spoken from the mountain top.

For speaking any words against the Bishop,

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with Thee. Blessed art Thou among women, and blessed is the Fruit of Thy womb…Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

 

[St_Francis]

Regardless of what you may think of NCR, Archbishop Fisichella’s comments speak for themselves.

The article quoted and paraphrased his 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.”
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.”

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.

 

[7speed]

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

7speed

 

[fix]

No, because the action itself can *only *be directed toward killing the unborn child. I imagine that they are doing this instead of removing the tube, correct? They are killing the baby by sending chemicals to kill him or her, right? And so this is killing the baby rather than treating the problem.

I agree with you. My only point to the other poster was that is that simply because some “medical” procedure is widely performed does not mean it is licit. Also, there are some moralists that claim it is licit.

 

[St_Francis]

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

7speed

It is God’s will that we not kill people. What is it about unborn children that makes it all right to kill them?