I guess Republicans aren’t the ONLY ones who have a problem with rape …
Basically, a 9 year old girl in Brazil was raped by her stepfather and had an abortion. So the local Catholic honchos decided to excommunicate her. Because wow, bad girl, donchaknow. Stepfather did NOT get excommunicated. Because he’s still redeemable I guess. Words fail me.
That’s not what the article you linked to says.
Nothing about the girl being excommunicated.
—Oh wait, I just saw that’s what the headline says, but that doesn’t match the article itself.
This was six years ago, the girl was not excommunicated, the girl’s mother was not excommunicated, the President of the National Council of Bishops said that the step father was “outside communion” and “in grave mortal sin”.
And you are a gullible idiot. But we knew that already.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s a bad headline translation. The text of the story is more correct:
The girl was not excommunicated. The doctors were.
And this is in accord with canon law: while Can. 1398 declares a latae sententiae excommunication – that is, one that happens automatically – upon anyone who procures an abortion, Can. 1323(1ƒ) makes clear that this penalty, and indeed all penalties under canon law, do not apply to anyone under the age of seventeen.
More important to be outraged than right, eh?
It is outrageous (IMO) to punish doctors for ending a pregnancy that has a rather high likelihood, for a nine-year-old girl, of causing profound and permanent physical or psychological damage.
OK, that’s a perfectly understandable and defensible comment, inasmuch as it’s based on what actually happened.
I don’t agree, because this is not the kind of “punishment” that imposes any sort of permanent consequence. But I certainly recognize that opinions may differ; my post was intended to ensure that the thread topic was an actual event, not a fictional one from the translation technique or the OP’s head.
To be clear, I agree that in this case, the excommunication should justly be lifted, but not that the law imposing it was flawed.
As an analogy, we might imagine a law that strictly and automatically declares speeding in a non-emergency vehicle a crime, but allows a speeder to explain his reasons and avoid actual sanction.
I must have been fooled by this article from the Catholic News Agency cited in the article in my post, which I also read. Perhaps the Catholic leaders merely ADVOCATED excommunication but did not follow through?
Was it lifted in this case?
I was going to express my skepticism at a 9 year old getting pregnant.
Then I searched on Google.
I really, really wish I hadn’t.
Well, I suppose you could write an angry letter to God and ask him to change His opinion on the subject.
I think the real pitting should be towards those Catholic priests that thought the better idea was to force that poor 9 year old girl pregnant with twins to go through with that very risky pregnancy.
Wait-- what? there are a lot of things it is possible to do, but that it’s generally agreed are not good to do. Are you suggesting that just because it’s possible for a nine-year-old to become pregnant, nine-year-olds should become pregnant?
Cripes, it’s just as easy to say “G-d wouldn’t have given us the wisdom to perform abortions if he hadn’t meant for us to do them.”
I’ll do that right after I finish that letter to the Tooth Fairy about how 25 cents per tooth just doesn’t cut it any more.
I don’t know, because the lifting of it requires a conversation that happens in a private context.
However, as a general principle, the lifting of a latae sententiae excommunication is not remotely difficult.
Do you understand the difference between a latae sententiae excommunication and one imposed as the result of a canonical trial?
Nope. I thought an excommunication was an excommunication.
Not at all. I agree that the Church is being silly here. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of complaining about a “law” which, according to the organization that maintains it, is based on divine fiat.
If the Catholic Church believes that abortion is inexcusable in the eyes of God, then arguing against it on the basis of feminism or individual rights or sexual freedom isn’t going to be very persuasive - the argument has to be couched in the claim either that God does not exist, that God is objectively wrong, or that the Church is wrong about what God wants.
You argue against it on the premise that only a cruel and heartless bastard would make a 9 year old go through pregnancy with twins.
edited to add: And the word “silly” is TOTALLY off the table. There is nothing “silly” about this. What there were trying to do was torture.
OK.
Latae sententiae means “sentence already passed.”
In this context, it means that no person declares or imposes the penalty. It just happens, the instant you procure an abortion. It’s an automatic penalty. It doesn’t require any intervention. If you give yourself an abortion, and you’re over 17 and understand the penalty, you’re excommunicated, even though no one else knows about it.
So in this case, there’s no aspect of advocating, or not advocating, or following through. Any doctors who know that the penalty for abortion is automatic excommunication, and do one anyway, are instantly, and without anyone taking any action, excommunicated.
In effect, it’s almost an excommunication on the honor system. You know it; no one else necessarily does.
Now, in this case, perhaps someone knows who the doctors were, and it moves beyond the anonymous honor system. But the announcement about the penalty doesn’t excommunicate them: the canon law passed in 1983 does, no matter what anyone says about the issue.
And by the same token, lifting such an excommunication is a private matter, as well.
There’s also a formal sentence of excommunication, handed down publicly by a canonical court after a trial or some sort of fact-finding exercise. This is a matter of more public record, and reversing it is also more public. This is not what happened here.