Correct penalty?

[Leopard]

…One of the doctors said he was going to continue to go to mass despite the bishop’s orders…

As he should. Excommunication does not void a Catholic’s serious obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and days of obligation. It just means that an excommunicated person attending Mass should not receive Communion until the excommunication is lifted.

 

[Amber2]

If any man rapes a child or a woman they must be excommunicated too though not officially as in this case. Otherwise NOTHING makes sense.
As far as the saying that abortion in case where the mothers life is in danger is not permitted either. That is not what I have been taught. Let me remind you that a dead mother can’t carry a living child and as the Church is pro-life it is better to save the life of the mother than that they both die.
I am as pro-life as it gets but sometimes I get the feeling that certain kinds of people care only about the wellfare of the child and not the mother.
Amber

 

[Shin]

From what I have read the original hospital said the little girl’s life was not in danger – but the mother went to a different hospital, made the excuse and had the abortion done.

Even if the girl’s life was in danger, you may not use evil means to save your own life, in other words it is not acceptable to -sin- to save your own life. Capish?

Basic Catholicism. No sin even to save one’s own life. That’s how important and bad it is.

You can’t kill your baby to save your life. Isn’t allowed.

Abortion in any case is never necessary to save a life.

All that had to be done in this case is I speculate, wait till the pregnancy was well enough developed, and have a c-section at worst.

 

[Amber2]

If you can choose to have one child survive in stead of none it seems to me the SIN would be not to save that child. Do you Capish?

 

[Shin]

We gain our knowledge about what is a sin from God, through the Church. That is how it works for a Catholic – we have revealed moral truth that we can trust in with certainty.

What God says is a sin, is a sin. Directly killing an innocent human being, even to save another innocent human being is a sin.

Sin is a terrible evil, more terrible than death. Better to die and go to Heaven, than sin. Heaven is where we spend eternity. Earth is where we either choose to serve God or the devil, not our home forever.

 

[kage_ar]

If any man rapes a child or a woman they must be excommunicated too though not officially as in this case. Otherwise NOTHING makes sense.

Anyone who commits grave sin is not to recieve communion until they have gone to confession and rec’d absolution. That is Christianity 101.

As far as the saying that abortion in case where the mothers life is in danger is not permitted either. That is not what I have been taught.

It seems someone has taught you error. Above, I posted links to where you can read the Catechism (and the footnotes in the CCC will point you to the Scriptures and other important Church documents), you see that direct abortion is never permissible, it is always evil.

Let’s say I need a heart transplant, or I will die. The Church does not say that it is okay for my mother and my doctors to decide that they will kill my child and use that child’s heart to save me.

The Church says every single life is precious, no life is more important than another.

 

[jwashu]

A Brazilian bishop has recently excommunicated a mother of a nine year old girl who was raped by her step-father, as well as the doctors who carried out the abortion.

The excommunication is supported by Vatican senior Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re.

Is the church rule to excommunicate in this case? A ordinary murderer or any woman who has an abortion behind is not excommunicated, so why this penalty in this case?

smh.com.au/world/vatican-defends-excommunication-for-raped-nineyearold-girls-abortion-20090308-8s3s.html

time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html

Here is the thing… a 9 year old child is pretty innocent as well so was the mother saving the life of one child in her actions? possibly… this is a much more difficult moral situation that it seems at first.

Brazil is a very Catholic nation and they don’t take abortions lightly. I believe the ArchBishop made a mistake in his desire to react quickly. It may be that those individuals are excommunicated but he should have taken the time to think about and discuss the matter more.

The Church also need to make sure they the family knows that the ex-communication can be lifted with a sincere confession. (at least in the US).

Personally the young girl had been wrong and her life ruined in so many ways by the stepfather I would have excommunicated him. I know the Church dosen’t see it that way but in many ways, he took her life a long time ago psychologically, emotionally in the least and now with her actions the Church has probably taken away any future spiritual life she might have…

A very sad situation…

Which in some ways mirrors issue we have in the US with abortion in general…

Joe

 

[jwashu]

Another note…

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish. God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

While true, the definition on when life began HAS changed since the first century… Of course so have many others. The point though is we haven’t been consistent for 2000 years on this. It changed as we better understood the physical aspects of reproduction.

Don’t get me wrong, this is a good thing and I believe the Church is correct in her present understanding. Yet I don’t want to get caught in a misunderstanding that we always taught life begins at conception, to my knowledge we did not. The baby was no considered alive until the mother felt him or her move. Can anyone else verify this? I know many Orthodox still understand it this way in Eastern Europe.

 

[Belgarion]

What God says is a sin, is a sin. Directly killing an innocent human being, even to save another innocent human being is a sin.

I’m quite glad you included the word “Innocent”.
Because I didn’t notice that aat first and I was thinking “What about self-defense? etc”

But yeah…An innocent human being (One human being not trying to kill another) may not be killed to save another innocent.

If you ever see a TV show where the hero is given a choice between one person, and a thousand people. Does he just kill that one person so the thousand can be saved? He may struggle with the choice, but ultimately he attempts to save both. He may fail, he may succeed. (He likely succeeds)
Apply this to real life, and you’ve got what the Church teaches.

 

[st_lucy]

Here is the thing… a 9 year old child is pretty innocent as well so was the mother saving the life of one child in her actions? possibly… this is a much more difficult moral situation that it seems at first.

Brazil is a very Catholic nation and they don’t take abortions lightly. I believe the ArchBishop made a mistake in his desire to react quickly. It may be that those individuals are excommunicated but he should have taken the time to think about and discuss the matter more.

The Church also need to make sure they the family knows that the ex-communication can be lifted with a sincere confession. (at least in the US).

Personally the young girl had been wrong and her life ruined in so many ways by the stepfather I would have excommunicated him. I know the Church dosen’t see it that way but in many ways, he took her life a long time ago psychologically, emotionally in the least and now with her actions the Church has probably taken away any future spiritual life she might have…

A very sad situation…

Which in some ways mirrors issue we have in the US with abortion in general…

Joe

What I don’t think people are understanding is that the stepfather excommunicated himself by his very actions. The fact that the bishop did not openly say he was excommunicated is because this is obvious and he (the stepfather) did not openly tell the public that he thought that his actions were just and that he was going to do it anyway.

The mother and doctors would have been excommunicated also without the public announcement by the bishop, but they chose to go ahead and tell the public that what they were doing was just and good.

I don’t understand why people are assuming that the bishop just jumped out of his thrown and ran to the tv stations to excommunicate these people. I am willing to bet a lot of PRIVATE communications and consulting went on before he (the bishop) had no choice but to go public.

He was doing the right thing and being a good Shepard, many souls were at risk in thinking that what the mother and doctors did was okay.

 

[Phemie]

What I don’t think people are understanding is that the stepfather excommunicated himself by his very actions. The fact that the bishop did not openly say he was excommunicated is because this is obvious and he (the stepfather) did not openly tell the public that he thought that his actions were just and that he was going to do it anyway.
.

Well, no, since his crime/sin wasn’t one that results in excommunication, at least not in the way we understand the term ‘excommunication’.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Now, you can try to save the baby by doing some sort of transplant. The baby (or babies in this case) will likely die, but you were giving them that chance.
Thus is becomes a good act, with good intentions, with an unfortunate end, but not an evil one.

There. Thread resolved.

Though I welcome any efforts to counter me and my elitist arguments.

I believe your resolution is still a direct abortion which still results in excommunication. The Vatican ruled on this way back in the early 1900’s regarding ectopic pregnancies. The act of removing the embryo from where it is attached inside the mother is a direct abortion, regardless of any future actions or intentions to attempt to attach it somewhere else.

 

[kage_ar]

I believe your resolution is still a direct abortion which still results in excommunication. The Vatican ruled on this way back in the early 1900’s regarding ectopic pregnancies. The act of removing the embryo from where it is attached inside the mother is a direct abortion, regardless of any future actions or intentions to attempt to attach it somewhere else.

Suggest some reading here, there is a difference between a direct and an indirect abortion.

cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57

 

[noclevername]

I believe your resolution is still a direct abortion which still results in excommunication. The Vatican ruled on this way back in the early 1900’s regarding ectopic pregnancies. The act of removing the embryo from where it is attached inside the mother is a direct abortion, regardless of any future actions or intentions to attempt to attach it somewhere else.

Can you give me a link to read more about this? Ectopic pregnancies can kill the mother and by the time an ectopic pregnancy is diagnosed, it can kill mom very quickly. I want to read the verdict for myself so I will completey understand what is going on in that situation. Thanks.

 

[Belgarion]

I believe your resolution is still a direct abortion which still results in excommunication. The Vatican ruled on this way back in the early 1900’s regarding ectopic pregnancies. The act of removing the embryo from where it is attached inside the mother is a direct abortion, regardless of any future actions or intentions to attempt to attach it somewhere else.

The link given above has this:

" Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.[3]

On one hand, there can be no direct attack on the child (direct abortion) to save the life of the mother. On the other hand, the life of the mother is equally valuable and she must receive appropriate treatment. It might be that the only available remedy saves the life of the mother but, while not a direct abortion, brings about the unintended effect of the death of the child. Morally speaking, in saving the life of the mother, the Church accepts that the child might be lost."

Boom.
I win.

(Sorry, I’m grumpy today)

 

[kage_ar]

The link given above has this:

" Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.[3]

On one hand, there can be no direct attack on the child (direct abortion) to save the life of the mother. On the other hand, the life of the mother is equally valuable and she must receive appropriate treatment. It might be that the only available remedy saves the life of the mother but, while not a direct abortion, brings about the unintended effect of the death of the child. Morally speaking, in saving the life of the mother, the Church accepts that the child might be lost."

Boom.
I win.

(Sorry, I’m grumpy today)

That link is to an article, it draws opinions from various sources.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Can you give me a link to read more about this? Ectopic pregnancies can kill the mother and by the time an ectopic pregnancy is diagnosed, it can kill mom very quickly. I want to read the verdict for myself so I will completey understand what is going on in that situation. Thanks.

kage_ar gave a very good link above.

See here for an old thread on this topic.

 

[kage_ar]

Links to Vatican documents:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

1. Divine law and natural reason, therefore, exclude all right to the direct killing of an innocent man. However, if the reasons given to justify an abortion were always manifestly evil and valueless the problem would not be so dramatic. The gravity of the problem comes from the fact that in certain cases, perhaps in quite a considerable number of cases, by denying abortion one endangers important values to which it is normal to attach great value, and which may sometimes even seem to have priority. We do not deny these very great difficulties. It may be a serious question of health, sometimes of life or death, for the mother; it may be the burden represented by an additional child, especially if there are good reasons to fear that the child will be abnormal or retarded; it may be the importance attributed in different classes of society to considerations of honor or dishonor, of loss of social standing, and so forth. We proclaim only that none of these reasons can ever objectively confer the right to dispose of another’s life, even when that life is only beginning. With regard to the future unhappiness of the child, no one, not even the father or mother, can act as its substitute- even if it is still in the embryonic stage- to choose in the child’s name, life or death. The child itself, when grown up, will never have the right to choose suicide; no more may his parents choose death for the child while it is not of an age to decide for itself. Life is too fundamental a value to be weighed against even very serious disadvantages.[21]

 

[Just_Lurking]

Boom.
I win.

(Sorry, I’m grumpy today)

The paragraph after the one your quote is also relevant:

This principle applies in other pregnancy complications as well. With severe hemorrhaging, for example, if nothing is done, both will die. In respecting the life of the mother, the physician must act directly on the uterus. At that time the uterus loses its ability to support the life of the embryo. The mother’s life is preserved and there has been no intentional attack on the child. The mother and the uterus have been directly treated; a secondary effect is the death of the child.

In other words, the “morally correct” action, according to the Catholic Church, would be to let the pregnancy continue until the 9 year old’s uterus was ruptured, placing her at risk of immediate death, and then only at that point remove the damaged uterus, which only “incidentally” contains the two unborn embryos, so it is not a direct abortion. This procedure would leave the 9 year old unable to conceive when she reaches adulthood.

 

[kage_ar]

In other words, the “morally correct” action, according to the Catholic Church, would be to let the pregnancy continue until the 9 year old’s uterus was ruptured, placing her at risk of immediate death, and then only at that point remove the damaged uterus, which only “incidentally” contains the two unborn embryos, so it is not a direct abortion. This procedure would leave the 9 year old unable to conceive when she reaches adulthood.

The morally correct action would be to provide this girl with the best in medical, emotional and pastoral care. To monitor her and her babies closely, to intervene as necessary and to make every effort to get the babies to a point where they could be delivered via C-section and have a chance to live. All three are valued, treasured and precious.