That bothers me too. I wonder if this is just a case of a “rogue bishop”???
Possibly, but even for a rogue this seems like a funny place to draw a line in the sand. The article says that Brazilian law allows abortion to save the life of the mother. Surely there is a better test case than this.
If that is the Church’s objection.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t think so. Both Sebelius’s objection to the abortion law and the abortion of the 9 year old’s twins were based on the exception to save the life of the mother.
Personally, I can’t accept that the reasoning in these actions stems from a belief in the sanctity of life. I believe it is from a desire to control women.
If we accept the very real possibility that being required to go full term could kill both the 9 year old AND the infant(s), then it becomes even more confusing. Have the abortion and save the child, or forbid it and risk killing them all.
This excommunication was way out of line.
If the Catholic Church believes abortion is murder, then it logically follows that they would oppose this 9 year old girl having an abortion.
Not if there is an exception to save the life of the mother. Which seems to apply in this case, and therefore the excommunication doesn’t make sense.
Regards,
Shodan
There is no exception to save the mother’s life in Catholic doctrine! None.
That’s my understanding too.
Picture this scenario:
There’s a 9 year old child, and a set of infant twins. If for some reason, killing those infants might save the life of the 9 year old (no guarantee she will die if the infants get to live), would it be the correct thing to do to kill the infants?
Hence, if you think abortion is murder, it is simply the logical conclusion that you would oppose this 9 year old having an abortion.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Catholic church’s position that she be giving a hysterectmy instead of simply aborting the fetuses?
But that’s the point of excommunication–to inspire a look at the truth and how they have turned from it. And it’s not something the men of the church do, it’s something a person does to themself.
I would defer to someone like Shodan for the answer, he is more precise in these things. But, my first guess is that this would be OK, because then it becomes a “secondary effect” or something, rather than a “primary goal”.
But to me, it seems like what we used to do as little kids - kick at a ball, and just happen to kick the crap out of that annoying kid’s shins “on accident”. (add the yeah uh huh rolleyes here).
But on the other hand, telling her to have a hysterectomy, would mean that when she grows up and wants children, she can’t. So, they are still punishing the wrong person.
So, MY personal reaction would be to tell them all to go to hell.
I do NOT know all the facts of this case. But for what it’s worth, this cite might add some information:
So, again, I don’t pretend I understand all the details of the case, but this particular quote suggests that the danger of death might not have been as high as some have reported (lee describes it accurately, I think, as “the pregnancy endangered her life”; in another thread on this board I saw it described as the “the pregnancy would have killed her” or something like that).
This quote from the doctor suggests that the condition was dangerous, but death was not inevitable or, perhaps, even likely (though, of course, it’s a given that it’s likelier than if she weren’t pregnant). It’s just not clear. So, while some might find it repugnant that a nine-year-old girl give birth under ANY circumstance, if the bishop believed that there was a risk of the girl’s death (a possibility) to be considered against the death of the twins (a certainty with the abortion), there was an unfortunate but clear decision to be made. If it’s a given that one considers an unborn child a human being deserving of all rights–and I understand not everyone does–then the level of risk to the girl, it seems to me, is an important distinction.
Again, I am NOT pretending I know all the details of the situation, and I am NOT trying to convince pro-choicers that their beliefs are wrong. But it seems at least possible to me that the situation might not be as clear-cut and inarguable as some would make it out to be with regard to the danger to the girl, and I offer this detail in case it clarifies.
Square that with this case. Was it a sin to end this pregnancy, the result of the most odious of crimes, when all medical authorities said that the most likely outcome of an attempt to carry this pregnancy to term was the death of the small girl involved? Murder is a fairly huge sin as well, if two men were holding this little girl at knifepoint, would killing them have been a sin?
Does one automatically excommunicate themselves by committing murder? Do priests/bishops make a point to make public statements about the excommunicated status of Catholics who are convicted of murder within their diocese?
Has this little girl’s evil molesting father been excommunicated?
If there’s been a statement that the mother and doctors have excommunicated themselves I’d think that they’d make it a point to mention the father, but thus far I can find no statement whatsoever from the RCC officials involved in this which mention that the father is similarly outside of a state of grace or good standing with the church or whatever. It makes a fairly compelling case that the RCC cares more about fetuses than an existing, victimized, multiply-traumatized child.
Even if that’s doctrine, it’s really awful PR.
Actually, I believe you’ve overlooked an important factor out - the chance that the girl will die before the twins are born or viable, meaning they will die also. It’s not just the risk of the girl’s death, but the death of all three.
I think this is a fair point to bring up, but it leads onto a question; where is the line drawn? What amount of risk to the girl (and in turn the twins) would be acceptable (well, not acceptable, but you know what I mean) to the Church?
The Church seems to have chosen to speak out against abortion even in cases where not aborting is more shocking to the conscience of many people, and not only is it speaking out against the act of aborting, it is speaking out against allowing an abortion under law and against those who are working to lower abortion rates while trying not to drive women toward unsafe “back alley” abortions. This can’t be about life, or they would not be pressing so hard for legal measures and medical practices that will result in more death.
It is one thing to make clear the dogma that leads to them to excommunicate those who choose abortion, but it is quite another for them to advocate making it illegal to choose abortion. What benefit does that grant?
Not speaking for the RCC, but for myself (a pro-lifer who believes protecting the mother’s life can, in rare circumstances, justify abortion), I think this is important. Unfortunately, it may not be black-and-white, so the decision is necessarily one that is difficult.
Same answer, which is a tough one: there’s probably not a bright line (for me). “Any danger” is not enough. For me the danger to life must be extreme and imminent–it must be most likely that death will result. Perhaps not a certainty, but a near certainty. Real life often presents us with situations where it’s not quite so clear. So, I try not to judge people in such circumstances who have done their best to do what was right, even if no one is quite sure what that truly is.
So, again, that’s why the quote from the doctor is at least food for thought, at least suggestive of some vacillation. If the likeliest risk, as an example, was that the girl would never be able to have children again, and the risk for death was higher than a normal pregnancy, but still less likely than the girl living–that’s enormously different than “the pregnancy would have killed her,” a circumstance that seems to allow no room for discussion. That’s my only point, that it’s not crystal clear to me what the details in this case are, that it’s possible that the abortion was not justified (from this perspective) and the doctor is appealing to the repugnance the whole situation naturally makes people feel upon hearing of it.
Stratocaster the question is, do you, as a Christian, think that the RCC is doing the will of god by focusing publicly on abortion above all other sins? Do you think the RCC is serving God’s will by excommunicating those who supported or carried out the abortion of this 9 year old’s life threatening pregnancy while remaining silent on the sins of the man who abused his position of authority to impregnate her?
Speaking as a non-Catholic, should one not first establish that the RCC is indeed focusing on abortion “above all other sins”? I see them condemning abortion quite strongly, but I see no indication that they are elevating it above any and all other acts of disobedience to God.
I’ll echo what JThunder said–I haven’t concluded that they have focused on abortion to the exclusion of “all other sins.” BTW, excommunication is not a punishment in the sense some seem to be inferring. It is a call to those who have committed the most grave sins to return to the teachings they have rejected.
This is a pro-life site, but FWIW, they report additional info that suggests that the danger to the girl–the inevitability of death–may have been overstated. Apparently the girl was transferred when the first hospital did not deem the danger as grave:
Consider or ignore as you see fit. I didn’t spend a lot of time, but I couldn’t find another cite to support this that didn’t link back to the same source.