Brazil Church condemns abortion of twins

[St_Francis]

From Wikipedia, but it does correlate to everything else I have read on the topic from vaious sources.

According to the Catholic Church, excommunication, in the sense of a formal proceeding, is not a penalty, but rather a **formal proclamation of a pre-existing condition **in a more or less prominent member of the Catholic Church. When such a person commits acts that in themselves separate him from the communion of the faithful, particularly when by word, deed, or example he or she “spreads division and confusion among the Faithful”, it is necessary for the Church to clarify the situation by means of a formal announcement, which informs the laity that this is not a person to follow, and notifies the clergy that the person, by their own willful acts, has separated from the Church and is no longer to receive the sacraments, with the exception of Reconciliation. The decree may also indicate the mode of Reconciliation required for re-entry into the Church, specifying whether the local bishop may administer the process or it is reserved to the Pope. Excommunication is never a merely “vindictive penalty” (designed solely to punish), but is always used as a “medicinal penalty” intended to pressure the person into changing their behaviour or statements, repent and return to full communion.
…
In the Roman Catholic Church formal excommunication is normally resolved by a statement of repentance, profession of the Creed (if the offense involved heresy), or a renewal of obedience (if that was a relevant part of the offending act) by the excommunicant; the declaration of the reconciliation itself, by a priest or bishop empowered to do this; and then the reception of the sacrament of Reconciliation. In many cases, this whole process takes place within the privacy of the confessional and during the same act of confession
…
**excommunicated Catholics are still under obligation to attend Mass, **even though they are barred from receiving the Eucharist or even taking active part in the liturgy (reading, bringing the offerings, etc.).[2] Indeed, the excommunicant is encouraged to retain some relationship with the Church, as the goal is to encourage them to repent and return to active participation in its life
…
Only in cases where a person’s excommunicable offense is very public and likely to confuse people is a person’s excommunicated status even announced, and that usually by a simple statement from a church official.

 

[sandie75]

Medically speaking, just because one 9 year old sucessfully gave birth, doesn’t mean that any 9 year old could. It is well known that giving birth before you are physically developed (which doesn’t occur until your teens) can leads to serious medical problems and sometimes death. Go online and read about all the young girls in Africa and the Middle East who suffer a lifetime of pain, isolation and infection due to fistulas formed during childbirth because their bodies were not big enough to carry and deliver a full term baby.

My understanding is that this girl was very small, and these babies likely would have not survived anyway, so the moral thing to do was proceed with the abortion as soon as possible. Even if there was a possibility of survival, it’s absolutely unreasonable to force this young girl to face the serious medical complications that come with childhood pregnancy. She did not ask for this or choose it and it is the responsibility of both her mother and her physicians to protect her life.

In one article I read the bishop stated that the sin of the doctors and the mother was worse than the rapist step-father. When I read that, I almost vomitted. The decision made by the doctors, mothers and judge was an act of mercy, and in no way sinful.

I think as long as the church continues to make such ridiculous and incompassionate statements, we will continue to lose members and validate those who argue that the church is full of judgemental zealots.

 

[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?

When is a zygote a human?
At what point can it live out of the body?
I say when it gets a job,but I am kind of mean.

speed

 

[tuviskazinai]

I think that we just see the situation differently, perhaps we are coming at it from two different points?

Yes, you may be right.
But thanks for the conversation…it is thought-provoking!

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[Rutherfords]

In New Zealand it was on every radio talk show. I was driving home from an evening meeting and by chance happened to hear this woman presenter flogging the Catholic faith and call after call was worse than the previous. She was saying things like “The Catholic Clergy don’t actually care about the people whatsoever. It is simply a case like a sausage factory to them. People must just produce one after the other. Probably to just ensure they keep their numbers up…to ensure they keep their excellent revenue …” went on and on with utter rubbish. I was so angered by their words that I called in to tell them that as far as I was concerned their issue should not be against the Catholics, whom they are using as a scape goat, as it is clearly written in The Bible. Catholics follow what The Bible tells us to do. The Bible tells us things like “Go forth and multiply” - I agreed that what happened to this little girl was absolutely tragic but that it is not for us to determine if the twins should live or die.

Needless to say this presenter took what I was trying to say and completely turned it into something totally horrific and instead of letting me finish to clarify where I was coming from, she cut me off. She said that she was brought up as a Catholic but realised that the Catholics were taking things too literally. The Church needs to “wake up to the modern world”. She is so glad “not to belong to the Church if we condone the death of a 9 year old girl, who would certainly die trying to give birth to the twins according to the doctor’s report”. Call after call then came in saying things like I am a total “monster” and absolute hatred from their mouths for what I had said - remembering that she said her piece and cut me off.

I am so saddened by this whole thing… Feel like I had the perfect opportunity to defend our beliefs but totally screwed it up (sorry to be so blunt). I went to bed feeling so sorrowful and pray for forgiveness. I know God knew I was doing what I thought best to defend my faith but the issue is that I think it just gave them fuel to hate us even more. I feel terrible. How do I make this up?

I hate abortion and even though I don’t understand how something so terrible could happen to this little girl, I believe that it was all part of God’s plan. Perhaps one of them was destined for great things, who knows, but now they are gone…

Perhaps we need thee Pope to address this situation directly as it has led to massive hate campaigns for our Church, In this forum it all sounds clear and informative but to the outside world, we are now merely “monsters” who are “cold hearted” and “sick”.

 

[St_Francis]

Medically speaking, just because one 9 year old sucessfully gave birth, doesn’t mean that any 9 year old could. It is well known that giving birth before you are physically developed (which doesn’t occur until your teens) can leads to serious medical problems and sometimes death. Go online and read about all the young girls in Africa and the Middle East who suffer a lifetime of pain, isolation and infection due to fistulas formed during childbirth because their bodies were not big enough to carry and deliver a full term baby.

This is very true; however, the girls in Africa apparently do not have access to medical care, since there are operations to fix the problems which they encounter so he situation is quite different.

My understanding is that this girl was very small, and these babies likely would have not survived anyway, so the moral thing to do was proceed with the abortion as soon as possible. Even if there was a possibility of survival, it’s absolutely unreasonable to force this young girl to face the serious medical complications that come with childhood pregnancy. She did not ask for this or choose it and it is the responsibility of both her mother and her physicians to protect her life.

You might consider reading the rest of this thread; many posts have explained why the abortion was wrong, *and the medical alternatives which might have saved all three lives. *

In one article I read the bishop stated that the sin of the doctors and the mother was worse than the rapist step-father. When I read that, I almost vomited. The decision made by the doctors, mothers and judge was an act of mercy, and in no way sinful.

The little girl was raped repeatedly from a young age and that is indeed horrific, but at least she is alive. Her two babies are now dead. You think that the former crime is more terrible than the latter, but that is because you do not comprehend the humanity of the latter.

I think as long as the church continues to make such ridiculous and incompassionate statements, we will continue to lose members and validate those who argue that the church is full of judgemental zealots.

Do you think that the Church should lie to make people happy enough to join or stay? The Christian life is not supposed to be easy: we are forming ourselves to become *worthy *of entry into Heaven.

 

[St_Francis]

In New Zealand it was on every radio talk show. I was driving home from an evening meeting and by chance happened to hear this woman presenter flogging the Catholic faith and call after call was worse than the previous. She was saying things like “The Catholic Clergy don’t actually care about the people whatsoever. It is simply a case like a sausage factory to them. People must just produce one after the other. Probably to just ensure they keep their numbers up…to ensure they keep their excellent revenue …” went on and on with utter rubbish. I was so angered by their words that I called in to tell them that as far as I was concerned their issue should not be against the Catholics, whom they are using as a scape goat, as it is clearly written in The Bible. Catholics follow what The Bible tells us to do. The Bible tells us things like “Go forth and multiply” - I agreed that what happened to this little girl was absolutely tragic but that it is not for us to determine if the twins should live or die.

Needless to say this presenter took what I was trying to say and completely turned it into something totally horrific and instead of letting me finish to clarify where I was coming from, she cut me off. She said that she was brought up as a Catholic but realised that the Catholics were taking things too literally. The Church needs to “wake up to the modern world”. She is so glad “not to belong to the Church if we condone the death of a 9 year old girl, who would certainly die trying to give birth to the twins according to the doctor’s report”. Call after call then came in saying things like I am a total “monster” and absolute hatred from their mouths for what I had said - remembering that she said her piece and cut me off.

I am so saddened by this whole thing… Feel like I had the perfect opportunity to defend our beliefs but totally screwed it up (sorry to be so blunt). I went to bed feeling so sorrowful and pray for forgiveness. I know God knew I was doing what I thought best to defend my faith but the issue is that I think it just gave them fuel to hate us even more. I feel terrible. How do I make this up?

I hate abortion and even though I don’t understand how something so terrible could happen to this little girl, I believe that it was all part of God’s plan. Perhaps one of them was destined for great things, who knows, but now they are gone…

Perhaps we need thee Pope to address this situation directly as it has led to massive hate campaigns for our Church, In this forum it all sounds clear and informative but to the outside world, we are now merely “monsters” who are “cold hearted” and “sick”.

A similar thing happened to me. Their hearts are hardened… all we can do is to pray for them.

 

[fix]

You might consider reading the rest of this thread; many posts have explained why the abortion was wrong, *and the medical alternatives which might have saved all three lives. *

Not only that but the ends never justify the means. We do not intend to directly kill an innocent person to save another person we like better or who is going to die anyway. We are Catholic and understand things much differently.

 

[St_Francis]

Not only that but the ends never justify the means. We do not intend to directly kill an innocent person to save another person we like better or who is going to die anyway. We are Catholic and understand things much differently.

Yes, I should have emphasized that *all *abortion, not just this one, is wrong. Thanks for picking up on that!

 

[Cinette]

COLOR]

Yes, I should have emphasized that *all *abortion, not just this one, is wrong. Thanks for picking up on that!

As I see it this is an extremely difficult situation. Who would have conceived that a man would ever rape a child! This is sick.

However, no matter the circumstances one does not have the right to interfere with life. One cannot kill.

Yet, would a 9 year old be able to carry twins to full term? What a situation! Could Doctors not have removed the fetus and allow the twins to grow outside the Mother?

 

[catharina]

COLOR]

As I see it this is an extremely difficult situation. Who would have conceived that a man would ever rape a child! This is sick.

However, no matter the circumstances one does not have the right to interfere with life. One cannot kill.

Yet, would a 9 year old be able to carry twins to full term? What a situation! Could Doctors not have removed the fetus and allow the twins to grow outside the Mother?

**Even now, there’s been NO evidence stating that the pregnant girl was in any physical danger from the pregnancy. Not serious danger, not even remote danger. The doctors chose to imagine a ‘worst case scenario’ in the future. **

Yet, in the future, in two or three or four months, IF a danger presented to the young mother’s health, THEN doctors could consider a number of medical interventions that would protect mother and babies. Instead the doctors chose to deal in death for the babies on their own whim.

 

[St_Francis]

COLOR]

As I see it this is an extremely difficult situation. Who would have conceived that a man would ever rape a child! This is sick.

However, no matter the circumstances one does not have the right to interfere with life. One cannot kill.

Yet, would a 9 year old be able to carry twins to full term? What a situation! Could Doctors not have removed the fetus and allow the twins to grow outside the Mother?

Right now, the youngest baby who has survived being born early was born at 22 weeks. The child was said to be 4 months pregnant, and apparently not in immediate danger. Four months pregnant would be between 16 and 20 weeks, and I heard she was 17 weeks along when the abortion occurred.

Had the doctors performed a c-section when (if) the little girl’s pregnancy posed an immediate danger to her, it might have been that the little babies could have survived and been given a chance at life, but even if the babies had not survived (because even at 22 weeks it’s very iffy), at least the attempt would have been made and the moral decision made. Instead, the doctors and mother chose to kill the unborn twins, taking away from them any chance of survival.

The whole story is tragic.

 

[Apryl]

Yet, would a 9 year old be able to carry twins to full term? What a situation! Could Doctors not have removed the fetus and allow the twins to grow outside the Mother?

There is no reason to suspect she would not have been able to safely carry her babies to term.

It saddens me that the assumption is that this wouldn’t have worked. (and NO, it’s not just you. Go back and read this thread, esp at the beginning)

Her body is ready to carry a child to term as soon as she begins to menstruate. Sure, there are other factors involved, and as intelligent humans in a civilized nation, we want many other things to happen, but there is NO REASON to think she couldn’t have safely carried those babies to term.

It happens all the time. Sadly.

I remember more than 10 years ago, a woman telling me of working in a clinic, and the number of girls coming in, 10 years old, pregnant with their second child. They didn’t get the ink of the news, but they do exist.

The problem is NOT that she was pregnant. The problem is that she was RAPED. And the next problem is the RAPE (my term) of her by her mother and the doctors. Even if they convinced her this was for her best interest, it really wasn’t, and it’s still rape. She can’t say ‘it’s’ Ok’, and she has to deal with this for the rest of her life.

 

[Apryl]

What do you figure Christ would say to a man who would repeatedly rape a child over several years? Would he remain silent? I think not. So why is the Church silent, in that excommunication is not mentioned regarding the originator of this entire tragic event?

Has it been established that he is not excommunicated?

The news is that the family and doctors were excommunicated for the abortion in this tragic incident. But I don’t think any one said, ‘but if the pig who raped her wanted to receive My Lord in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, we would welcome him with open arms’.

The news isn’t even that there was an excommunication. And who is relaying this news story? They want to make it seem so horrible that anyone would not allow this girl to kill her babies.

From what I understand, and I’m new to this whole world of ‘excommunication’, is that the excommunication was automatic, but the church MADE IT PUBLIC because the news story was PUBLIC.

I believe, and again, I could be wrong, but I believe, he is already excommunicated himself. He’s violated his oath of marriage. He has raped. He raped a child. He raped the child of his wife. He lied to some one along the way. Oh, I bet he’s out. Not to mention: in jail? He’s going to be in a world of trouble!

 

[St_Francis]

Has it been established that he is not excommunicated?

You bring up a good point. What excommunication means is that the person is barred from receiving the sacraments. In that sense, everyone who has committed a mortal sin is barred from receiving the sacraments and therefore “excommunicated.”

However, the formal process known as excommunication is used, among other things, for areas in which the sinful nature of the act in in question, as it is in abortion.

*No one *thinks anything other about what the stepfather did than that it was a heinous crime. *No one *questions that it was a mortal sin. In fact, probably anything that happened to him short of extreme torture would be considered by any thinking human being too good for him, a *great *act of mercy. Therefore the Church sees no *need *for the additional act of formal excommunication.

…The news isn’t even that there was an excommunication. And who is relaying this news story? They want to make it seem so horrible that anyone would not allow this girl to kill her babies.
…

This is another good point: those who are relaying this news with this particular spin are those who support abortion. They *want *to publicize events like this to increase support for abortion–look, we have to keep abortion legal otherwise children whose lives are in danger because of a pregnancy foisted upon them by child-rapers will die; and abortion is needed as a solution for problem pregnancies like this, etc.

 

[catharina]

You bring up a good point. What excommunication means is that the person is barred from receiving the sacraments. ***** In that sense, everyone who has committed a mortal sin is barred from receiving the sacraments and therefore “excommunicated.”

However, the formal process known as excommunication is used, among other things, for areas in which the sinful nature of the act in in question, as it is in abortion.

*No one *thinks anything other about what the stepfather did than that it was a heinous crime. *No one *questions that it was a mortal sin. In fact, probably anything that happened to him short of extreme torture would be considered by any thinking human being too good for him, a *great *act of mercy. Therefore the Church sees no *need *for the additional act of formal excommunication.

This is another good point: those who are relaying this news with this particular spin are those who support abortion. They *want *to publicize events like this to increase support for abortion–look, we have to keep abortion legal otherwise children whose lives are in danger because of a pregnancy foisted upon them by child-rapers will die; and abortion is needed as a solution for problem pregnancies like this, etc.

*** Not barred from the Sacrament of Reconciliation.**

 

[Corki]

"So, you would rather the Bishop just make up a law so that he could excommunicate the rapist?"

I have to wonder why the sexual abuse of small children is not considered worthy of public excommunication, particularly since this is what led to the child getting pregnant in the first place. If this kind of behavior isn’t considered morally repugnant enough, I have to question why not? It should be, and I have every right to question the Church on it.

What do you figure Christ would say to a man who would repeatedly rape a child over several years? Would he remain silent? I think not. So why is the Church silent, in that excommunication is not mentioned regarding the originator of this entire tragic event?

No, Christ would not remain silent nor should we. But I think the reason this is causing you to wonder is a misunderstanding of excommunication. Excommunication is a legal penalty, usually due to a violations of canon law. Until the abortion plague, most people who were excommunicated were heretics. You can read the code of canon law online. It has long paragraphs about what a cleric is not allowed to do if he is excommunicated. It is a tool especially used to bring rogue clerics back into the fold.

Excommunication is NOT the biggest penalty the Church can give to a sinner. That’s what I think you and many in the public see it as. A rapist is in mortal sin. He is going to Hell if he does not repent and reform. That’s a lot worse than getting excommunicated.

It’s like saying that since murder is worse than tax evasion, it’s not fair to fine a tax evader and not a murderer. Fines are not the right punishment for murder and excommunicaiton isn’t for mortal sins against other persons. It’s usually for sins against the Church.

Has it been established that he is not excommunicated?

The news is that the family and doctors were excommunicated for the abortion in this tragic incident. But I don’t think any one said, ‘but if the pig who raped her wanted to receive My Lord in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, we would welcome him with open arms’.

The news isn’t even that there was an excommunication. And who is relaying this news story? They want to make it seem so horrible that anyone would not allow this girl to kill her babies.

From what I understand, and I’m new to this whole world of ‘excommunication’, is that the excommunication was automatic, but the church MADE IT PUBLIC because the news story was PUBLIC.

I believe, and again, I could be wrong, but I believe, he is already excommunicated himself. He’s violated his oath of marriage. He has raped. He raped a child. He raped the child of his wife. He lied to some one along the way. Oh, I bet he’s out. Not to mention: in jail? He’s going to be in a world of trouble!

As far as I know, from the details in the media, he did not excommunicate himself but he put himself in a state of grave mortal sin. He committed not just one, but many mortal sins. Like any sinner, he isn’t welcome to receive Holy Communion without confession and repentance.

And as for the excommunication being made public, again you go to canon law. The Bishop is to make excommunications, even automatic ones, public if there is a danger to the Church or to the faithful. It is a judgement call on the part of the Bishop. Maybe he felt that if he didn’t speak out, people would think the Church was not always opposed to abortion. Maybe there is more going on than is in the press. Maybe another Bishop would not have made the same decision. Who knows? We only have the news stories to go on.

 

[TMC]

Has it been established that he is not excommunicated?

The news is that the family and doctors were excommunicated for the abortion in this tragic incident. But I don’t think any one said, ‘but if the pig who raped her wanted to receive My Lord in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, we would welcome him with open arms’.

The news isn’t even that there was an excommunication. And who is relaying this news story? They want to make it seem so horrible that anyone would not allow this girl to kill her babies.

From what I understand, and I’m new to this whole world of ‘excommunication’, is that the excommunication was automatic, but the church MADE IT PUBLIC because the news story was PUBLIC.

I believe, and again, I could be wrong, but I believe, he is already excommunicated himself. He’s violated his oath of marriage. He has raped. He raped a child. He raped the child of his wife. He lied to some one along the way. Oh, I bet he’s out. Not to mention: in jail? He’s going to be in a world of trouble!

The head of Brazil’s council of bishops said there was no need to excommunicate the rapist because most people know that rape is wrong, but that the public excommunication of all those involved in the abortion was necessary to make them a public object lesson about abortion.

Also, contrary to some comments here, the bishop that announced the excommunications acknowledged that the girl’s life was in serious danger but said “The good aim of saving her life cannot justify the killing of two other lives.”

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0901197.htm

 

[St_Francis]

*** Not barred from the Sacrament of Reconciliation.**

Right…

 

[St_Francis]

Yes, you may be right.
But thanks for the conversation…it is thought-provoking!

Peace,
+AMDG+

I definitely agree