The_Reginator
Active member
Eh? Who did he murder?
- Status
T
TedDC
Guest
He was responsible for the pregnancy, and thus for everything which followed.
R
Rence
Guest
Now I really believe that’s true.
H
hellopeople
Guest
GREAT point!
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
The rapist was responsible for the sin of rape. . .but the mother (no matter how ‘good’ her intention) and the abortionist are the ones guilty of the sin of being complicit in murder (mother) and actually performing the murder (abortionist).
I know it would make everybody feel happy to put ALL the blame on the rapist–the rape AND the abortion–but the rapist did not (in so far as I see from the evidence) contribute to the actual abortion. If he consented to that, or urged it, then he is complicit, as is the mother, and that is likewise a sin.
And whereas the rapist is subject to civil penalties for his crime, the excommunicated people need only repent their sin and confess to be received ‘back into the fold.’ The rapist will, even if he repents, have to serve time in jail if not worse along with confessing.
I know it would make everybody feel happy to put ALL the blame on the rapist–the rape AND the abortion–but the rapist did not (in so far as I see from the evidence) contribute to the actual abortion. If he consented to that, or urged it, then he is complicit, as is the mother, and that is likewise a sin.
And whereas the rapist is subject to civil penalties for his crime, the excommunicated people need only repent their sin and confess to be received ‘back into the fold.’ The rapist will, even if he repents, have to serve time in jail if not worse along with confessing.
F
Flame4
Guest
Well thank you all for your answers. I stand by the Church despite what others may say. I think we should pray for all those involved. 
Oh by the way I heard that if a someone had an abortion the father of the unborn child is also guily of the abortion I’m not sure what the Church teaches in regards to this. Can someone clarify/
Oh by the way I heard that if a someone had an abortion the father of the unborn child is also guily of the abortion I’m not sure what the Church teaches in regards to this. Can someone clarify/
W
wanner47
Guest
Everyone always asks in this case, “Well, why wasn’t the rapist excommunicated???”
Presumably, it’s because the rapist already knew what he did was a grave sin (presumably mortal as well), and is already as separated from the Church and God as he can be. If he has sincerely repented of the sin, then there’s no basis with which to excommunicate him.
Excommunication isn’t a punishment; it’s a medicinal measure to encourage repentance and reconciliation.
This is a horrid situation indeed. I feel awful for the little girl, and awful for her poor innocent children who were unjustly killed for the crimes of their father.
Presumably, it’s because the rapist already knew what he did was a grave sin (presumably mortal as well), and is already as separated from the Church and God as he can be. If he has sincerely repented of the sin, then there’s no basis with which to excommunicate him.
Excommunication isn’t a punishment; it’s a medicinal measure to encourage repentance and reconciliation.
This is a horrid situation indeed. I feel awful for the little girl, and awful for her poor innocent children who were unjustly killed for the crimes of their father.
The father is not guilty unless he was complicit with the abortion in some way (e.g., encouraging the abortion, paying for it, driving the mother to the clinic). If the abortion was carried out without his knowledge and/or consent (or against his consent), then he is not guilty.
F
Flame4
Guest
Actually they are excommunicated automatically. I’m not sure why this case was made public, I think it had somthing to with the media coverage or something/
Thanks for your replies. I stand with the Church even if others don’t like that idea. We must pray for all those involved.
God Bless
T
TedDC
Guest
The problem is in the use of the term “murder” to describe the abortion. It was not murder. It certainly was the taking of an innocent life, but it was necessary in order to spare the girl the medical risk, physical pain and psychological trauma of carrying to term, at her age, a pregnancy which she was not responsible for creating.
It is absolutely unconscionable for the Church to condemn the mother, and the doctor who carried out the mother’s decision, for not forcing the girl to undergo childbirth.
O
Onyx88
Guest
Not one of us writing here knows exactly what the girl’s health satus was except her mother and her doctor. I’m sure her mother was thinking about what was in her daughter’s best interest and not about whether she would be excommunicated or not. If her life** was **at risk, someone had to perform the abortion. Like i said, without specific knowledge of the medical facts it’s not for me to judge and neither should you.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Any Catholic who procures an abortion is automatically excommunicated. Just because no one knows doesn’t mean God doesn’t know.
Excommunication means that a person cannot receive the sacraments until he or she repents. Normally only a Bishop may lift an excommunication…but many bishops have given dispensations to their priests to lift the excommunication in cases of abortion.
S
saveusfromhell
Guest
a think a defination of what excommunication is needed. all who aid carry out or have anabortion are automatically excommunicated. i wonder did a journalist knowing this ask the bishop were these people excomunicated (catch 22)or did the bishop offer the information up himself
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”,[citation needed] 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 if they turn from their ways. 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.
Excommunicated persons are barred from participating in the liturgy in a ministerial capacity (for instance, as a reader if a lay person, or as a deacon or priest if a clergyman) and from receiving the Eucharist or the other Sacraments, but are normally not barred from attending these (for instance, an excommunicated person may not receive Communion, but would not be barred from attending Mass). Certain other rights and privileges are revoked, such as holding ecclesiastical office.
Excommunication can be either ferendae sententiae (declared as the sentence of an ecclesiastical court) or, far more commonly, latae sententiae (automatic, incurred at the moment the offensive act takes place). The excommunicant is still considered Christian and a Catholic as the character imparted by baptism is indelible. Their communion with the Church, however, is considered gravely impaired.[1]
In the 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.
Offenses that incur excommunication must be absolved by a priest or bishop empowered to lift the penalty. This is usually the local ordinary (bishop or vicar general) or priests whom the local ordinary designates (in many dioceses, most priests are empowered to lift most excommunications otherwise reserved to the bishop, notably that involved with abortion).
The Catholic Church, especially during the Middle Ages, was obliged to issue formal pronouncements of excommunication in regard to officials and monarchs who had personally excommunicated themselves from the Catholic Church. After the Protestant Reformation, in which many people left the Church and formed new denominations, many princes announced the separation themselves and the practice was discontinued.
An analogous penalty, interdict, arose as a form of excommunication of a whole area, barring celebration of the sacraments in a town or region.
Before the 1983 Code of Canon Law, there were two degrees of excommunication: vitandus (shunned, literally “to be avoided”, where the person had to be avoided by other Catholics), and toleratus (tolerated, which permitted Catholics to continue to have business and social relationships with the excommunicant). This distinction no longer applies today, and excommunicated Catholics are still under obligation to attend Mass, even though they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from 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.
In the Middle Ages, formal acts of public excommunication were accompanied by a ceremony wherein a bell was tolled (as for the dead), the Book of the Gospels was closed, and a candle snuffed out - hence the idiom “to condemn with bell, book and candle.” Such ceremonies are rarely, if ever, held today, but exactly the same principles apply. 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
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”,[citation needed] 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 if they turn from their ways. 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.
Excommunicated persons are barred from participating in the liturgy in a ministerial capacity (for instance, as a reader if a lay person, or as a deacon or priest if a clergyman) and from receiving the Eucharist or the other Sacraments, but are normally not barred from attending these (for instance, an excommunicated person may not receive Communion, but would not be barred from attending Mass). Certain other rights and privileges are revoked, such as holding ecclesiastical office.
Excommunication can be either ferendae sententiae (declared as the sentence of an ecclesiastical court) or, far more commonly, latae sententiae (automatic, incurred at the moment the offensive act takes place). The excommunicant is still considered Christian and a Catholic as the character imparted by baptism is indelible. Their communion with the Church, however, is considered gravely impaired.[1]
In the 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.
Offenses that incur excommunication must be absolved by a priest or bishop empowered to lift the penalty. This is usually the local ordinary (bishop or vicar general) or priests whom the local ordinary designates (in many dioceses, most priests are empowered to lift most excommunications otherwise reserved to the bishop, notably that involved with abortion).
The Catholic Church, especially during the Middle Ages, was obliged to issue formal pronouncements of excommunication in regard to officials and monarchs who had personally excommunicated themselves from the Catholic Church. After the Protestant Reformation, in which many people left the Church and formed new denominations, many princes announced the separation themselves and the practice was discontinued.
An analogous penalty, interdict, arose as a form of excommunication of a whole area, barring celebration of the sacraments in a town or region.
Before the 1983 Code of Canon Law, there were two degrees of excommunication: vitandus (shunned, literally “to be avoided”, where the person had to be avoided by other Catholics), and toleratus (tolerated, which permitted Catholics to continue to have business and social relationships with the excommunicant). This distinction no longer applies today, and excommunicated Catholics are still under obligation to attend Mass, even though they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from 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.
In the Middle Ages, formal acts of public excommunication were accompanied by a ceremony wherein a bell was tolled (as for the dead), the Book of the Gospels was closed, and a candle snuffed out - hence the idiom “to condemn with bell, book and candle.” Such ceremonies are rarely, if ever, held today, but exactly the same principles apply. 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
R
Rence
Guest
All of this is irrelevent for me. We all know (at least all of us who have posted on this thread) what the rules are and what excommunication is. This is all irrelevent.
The relevent matter is that this child’s case was handled differently, and made the Church look bad, at the very least, it made the Bishop bad . It could have been handled better, like with a bit more dignity and kindness. In addition, being discrete is not the same as covering up.
IIRC, the article said that the Bishop made a public announcement. Again, unnecessary given the circumstances. He didn’t announce that anyone else was excommunicated and I’m sure she wasn’t the only one who aborted a fetus that day, or the next, or the next, or the next.
If my 7 year old daughter was raped (God forbid) and the Bishop publicly humiliated my daughter and excommunicated me for taking care of my daughter…I’m really not too sure I would bother to be reconciled with a Church that would do that. I never saw a follow up to that, so I have no idea what the mom did about it. Thankfully, we can all rest at ease for not having to be burdened with such things. We just get to argue about what someone else should have done in someone else’s shoes online. But there were real people living it. And hopefully somehow they’re at peace now. All of them.
The relevent matter is that this child’s case was handled differently, and made the Church look bad, at the very least, it made the Bishop bad . It could have been handled better, like with a bit more dignity and kindness. In addition, being discrete is not the same as covering up.
IIRC, the article said that the Bishop made a public announcement. Again, unnecessary given the circumstances. He didn’t announce that anyone else was excommunicated and I’m sure she wasn’t the only one who aborted a fetus that day, or the next, or the next, or the next.
If my 7 year old daughter was raped (God forbid) and the Bishop publicly humiliated my daughter and excommunicated me for taking care of my daughter…I’m really not too sure I would bother to be reconciled with a Church that would do that. I never saw a follow up to that, so I have no idea what the mom did about it. Thankfully, we can all rest at ease for not having to be burdened with such things. We just get to argue about what someone else should have done in someone else’s shoes online. But there were real people living it. And hopefully somehow they’re at peace now. All of them.
S
saveusfromhell
Guest
Rence i posted this just as you did so im editing it.
A public annoncement could still be an answer to a question.
there is 3 possible headlines if it was a journalist looking to embrass the bishop
2 if the bishop had refused to comment
BISHOP REFUSES TO CONDEMN ABORTION
and as such it generates the notion abortion is permissible acording to the church in certain circumstances
3 If the bishop had said yes abortion was allowed in the circumstances
BISHOP AGREES WITH ABORTION
and also RENCE you say you know all about Excomunication and didn’t need my post. read the last line in my original post again
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
so if the bishop felt that people were under the illusion that abortion was acceptable in this or simmilar cases he would be right to clarify.no matter who is offended. everyone has free will no one is compelled to follow catholic teaching
A public annoncement could still be an answer to a question.
there is 3 possible headlines if it was a journalist looking to embrass the bishop
2 if the bishop had refused to comment
BISHOP REFUSES TO CONDEMN ABORTION
and as such it generates the notion abortion is permissible acording to the church in certain circumstances
3 If the bishop had said yes abortion was allowed in the circumstances
BISHOP AGREES WITH ABORTION
and also RENCE you say you know all about Excomunication and didn’t need my post. read the last line in my original post again
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
so if the bishop felt that people were under the illusion that abortion was acceptable in this or simmilar cases he would be right to clarify.no matter who is offended. everyone has free will no one is compelled to follow catholic teaching
R
Rence
Guest
I don’t think I said I know all about excommunication (because I don’t) and didn’t need your post (correct info is always welcome). To clarify: the information doesn’t matter to me with regards to how I feel about this case. The issue I have is not that the mother and doctors were excommunicated, but rather with HOW the situation was dealt with.
S
saveusfromhell
Guest
well actually you did but no matter, i accept it was a fairly long post. we will all have to answer some day for all our inactions/actions. i’m sure God will tell this bishop if he was right or wrong and as you say i hope i’m never in that mothers shoes
V
vera_dicere
Guest
THe link was broken for me, but I as sure the child was nine and carrying twins, she was also four months pregnant. An abortion at this stage would be both seriously invasive and traumatic, as its not as simple as suctioning away the unborn, and for there to be twins will increase the risk and the time the child wiould have to be under a general or local. Probably a general in an attempt to curb any emotional trauma.
There is plenty of medical evidence out there that supports children this young carrying safely to term, or at least to viability.
As for this situation, the rapist had actually “repented” and thus there was no need for excommunication. The mother and doctor were unrepentent and had gone directly against Church teaching and a variety of other medical opinion.
However, to sound like a complete @rse at this point, the girl had been raped since she was 6, her family were obviously aware and did nothing, no one really knew she was prego until 4 months, really, holding off another month until viability isn’t going to really be the last straw. The sort of abortion this girl woudl require would probably be as dangerous as a C section.
edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/03/11/brazil.rape.abortion/index.html
R
Rence
Guest
The above link works now (maybe the site was having difficulty). It doesn’t mention anything about a dangerous surgery. And about the father it says: However, the stepfather was not excommunicated, with Sobrinho telling Globo TV that, “A graver act than (rape) is abortion, to eliminate an innocent life.” Which of course, I don’t agree with at all whatsoever.
Perhaps she really did have a medical condition warranting the abortion.
As to the abuse going on since she was six…that’s not an indication that everyone knew and didn’t know anything about it. I know someone who was abused for years, and though her mother knew “something was wrong” couldn’t figure it out and the child was too embarassed to say anything. What saved her from continued abuse was … getting pregnant. Same old story it seems.
The news articles I read said nothing about the girl being 4 months pregnant or receiving a dangerous surgery either. It didn’t say anything about the rapist either. This link works for the article I read:
time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html
and here’s a followup article as well:
time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1911495,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-sidebar
S
Seatuck
Guest
independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/brazil-rocked-by-abortion-for-9yearold-rape-victim-1640165.html
This one states she was 4 months pregnant and carrying twins.
It’s possible she could have been medically supported and psychologically supported for as long as necessary to bring the children to viability. Counseling should continue for long after that obviously since she was allegedly a victim of parental abuse
This is a horrible situation but we shouldn’t have compounded it by killing the children.
This one states she was 4 months pregnant and carrying twins.
It’s possible she could have been medically supported and psychologically supported for as long as necessary to bring the children to viability. Counseling should continue for long after that obviously since she was allegedly a victim of parental abuse
This is a horrible situation but we shouldn’t have compounded it by killing the children.
T
TedDC
Guest
The point is, the mother’s only responsibility was for her daughter’s welfare. The abortion in this case was not murder. It would have been barbaric to force a young child to go through the physical and psychological trauma of a pregnancy and childbirth which she had no part in creating.
- Status