# Helped a 9 y.o. get an abortion? That's an excommunication (RO) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 5, 2009, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/helped-a-9-y-o-get-an-abortion-thats-an-excommunication-ro/488452 "2009-03-05T23:11:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Bamboo\_Boy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@Bamboo\_Boy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bamboo_Boy)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/helped-a-9-y-o-get-an-abortion-thats-an-excommunication-ro/488452/101 "2009-03-13T10:50:46Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > The Bishops were simply following a long-standing rule. > [This link has all the necessary info.](http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/Abortio2.htm) > > You may now return to your regular (and repetitively unimaginative) Catholic-bashing. I take issue with the idea that this criticism of the Catholics and the RCC is “repetitively unimiginative”. It’s that way because that’s how reality is- they have repeated the habit of victimization and abuse many many times, hence the repition. We are stating facts, which I SUPPOSE you can call ‘unimaginative’. Would you rather we just MAKE STUFF UP? Oh wait, THAT"S the realm of the church, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Bamboo\_Boy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@Bamboo\_Boy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bamboo_Boy)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/helped-a-9-y-o-get-an-abortion-thats-an-excommunication-ro/488452/102 "2009-03-13T10:59:40Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Well, there’s just SO MUCH to bash. We’re like political comedians faced with the Bush Administration. Where do you start? Where DO you start? Too true. ---
**Author:** ![Bamboo\_Boy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@Bamboo\_Boy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bamboo_Boy)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/helped-a-9-y-o-get-an-abortion-thats-an-excommunication-ro/488452/103 "2009-03-13T11:04:01Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Okay, what part of the context here do you think gives an ethically defensible reason for the Catholic Church mandating death in child birth for a nine year old rape victim? > > And, incidentally, I am aware of what excommunication entails: the excommunicants will not be able to take communion until they have reconciled with the doctrines of the church. I’m not sure precisely what is necessary for reconciliation, but I do know that the point of excommunication is to encourage that reconciliation, so the requirements are not likely to be terribly onerous. Regardless, the stance of the Church in this matter is morally reprehensible. Even granting the idea that abortion is immoral without argument, allowing this girl to die because she was violated by her own father is by any standard an even greater immorality, and moving to censure the people responsible for saving her life is an unambiguous act of moral evil. > > Also, you’re an asshole. Miller, I think I love you! ---
**Author:** ![Bamboo\_Boy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@Bamboo\_Boy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bamboo_Boy)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/helped-a-9-y-o-get-an-abortion-thats-an-excommunication-ro/488452/104 "2009-03-13T11:12:21Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Thanks for calling me an asshole, I’m sure mentioning it reminds you of the pleasure you get from it when you get fisted by stray dogs. > . I can see now why you might criticize others here for being “unimaginative”… Wouldn’t it be REALLY be called “pawed” though? That’s what I call it when I call it when I have my dog shove her appendage up my anus. She doesn’t even file her nails down, the kinky bitch! Nothin’ like a dog claw scratching on the ol’ prostate! ---
**Author:** ![Bamboo\_Boy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@Bamboo\_Boy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bamboo_Boy)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/helped-a-9-y-o-get-an-abortion-thats-an-excommunication-ro/488452/105 "2009-03-13T11:33:13Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > I don’t know bout that…have you priced those special crackers they give out? > > And man are they to die for! Holy crap that made me laugh. ---
**Author:** ![Bamboo\_Boy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@Bamboo\_Boy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bamboo_Boy)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/helped-a-9-y-o-get-an-abortion-thats-an-excommunication-ro/488452/106 "2009-03-13T11:51:41Z")
> [@Shawn1767](#): > > Are the defenders of Catholicism saying that Catholicism is a cafeteria-style religion where you get to pick and choose which things you will believe that the Catholic church believes in or what? Because, to me, if you are not believing everything a certain religion teaches, then you really can’t be part of that religion. What’s the point of having a religion then? I mean if a religion teaches that if you have an abortion, you’re going to hell, you can’t really say well, “I’m a Catholic, but I don’t believe that.” Otherwise, anyone can pick and choose what they want to believe and have it be just as valid as anyone else. Which leads me to my conclusion again: What’s the point in having a religion if you’re just going to make up your own beliefs and rules? Right. Very nicely put. This is why I always thought that being a fundamentalist made more sense than being a moderate. If fundamentalism is insanity, moderates are doubly insane. There’s a kind of paradox here. I’d still rather be around a moderate than a fundamentalist, generally speaking. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/helped-a-9-y-o-get-an-abortion-thats-an-excommunication-ro/488452/107 "2009-03-13T12:18:07Z")
Settle down, **Bamboo Boy**. Step away from the keyboard. Breathe slowly and deeply. Just a reminder, there are other threads to reply to. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Bamboo\_Boy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@Bamboo\_Boy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bamboo_Boy)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/helped-a-9-y-o-get-an-abortion-thats-an-excommunication-ro/488452/108 "2009-03-13T14:33:40Z")
I am well aware that there are other threads to reply to. The thing is, I am currently engaged in this one. I progress from the top and don’t want to read all the way to the end before I respond, as I will not remember where the particular entries were that I wished to respond to. So I jump in when I feel I have something to add or the itch is too great to resist. If the thread has slowed down in the meantime, it can look like an obsessive pile-up. I know this is less than desirable, is this considered bad form? Please let me know if it is and if so how much, I’m not very seasoned at this. However, I have to think that had the thread remained active, you (Boyo Jim) would not have posted your…friendly advice. I’m not angry or up in arms about this, honestly, though I DID think your post kinda smelled of a kind of matronly condescension. Maybe it’s me. No big deal, though. I’m mostly wondering if I crossed an etiquette line. But my breathing is and has been fine, I am and have been settled this whole time, the appearance of my obsessive posting, I contend, has more to do with the pace and rhythm of the post than anything else. -BB ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/helped-a-9-y-o-get-an-abortion-thats-an-excommunication-ro/488452/109 "2009-03-13T17:41:29Z")
> [@Bamboo\_Boy](#): > > If the thread has slowed down in the meantime, it can look like an obsessive pile-up. I know this is less than desirable, is this considered bad form? Please let me know if it is and if so how much, I’m not very seasoned at this. You could collect a number of quotes you’d like to respond to and respond all in one post. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/helped-a-9-y-o-get-an-abortion-thats-an-excommunication-ro/488452/110 "2009-03-13T20:26:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Shawn1767 > Are the defenders of Catholicism saying that Catholicism is a cafeteria-style religion where you get to pick and choose which things you will believe that the Catholic church believes in or what? Because, to me, if you are not believing everything a certain religion teaches, then you really can’t be part of that religion. What’s the point of having a religion then? I mean if a religion teaches that if you have an abortion, you’re going to hell, you can’t really say well, “I’m a Catholic, but I don’t believe that.” Otherwise, anyone can pick and choose what they want to believe and have it be just as valid as anyone else. Which leads me to my conclusion again: What’s the point in having a religion if you’re just going to make up your own beliefs and rules? Some of us choose to think for ourselves. It is a duty and an obligation to do so. I feel no need to obey or believe something if I see it as being wrong. There are “laws of God”. The Ten Commandments for example. There are “laws of men”. All the other stuff, the rituals, the legalistic mumbo jumbo about linen and cotton and shellfish and small mammals and which hand to wipe your ass with. I see no need, no reason, to be just a blind unquestioning follower, if I believe that a “law of men” is simply WRONG. I’d reather be a cafeteria shopper, than some blind unthinking fanatical mindless follower. > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Miller > Okay, what part of the context here do you think gives an ethically defensible reason for the Catholic Church mandating death in child birth for a nine year old rape victim? > > And, incidentally, I am aware of what excommunication entails: the excommunicants will not be able to take communion until they have reconciled with the doctrines of the church. I’m not sure precisely what is necessary for reconciliation, but I do know that the point of excommunication is to encourage that reconciliation, so the requirements are not likely to be terribly onerous. Regardless, the stance of the Church in this matter is morally reprehensible. Even granting the idea that abortion is immoral without argument, allowing this girl to die because she was violated by her own father is by any standard an even greater immorality, and moving to censure the people responsible for saving her life is an unambiguous act of moral evil. See my above comments. I have NO problem seeing where the wrong is, what the evil is here. I do not see why the people involved should feel any need or desire to reconcile themselves with this at all. If you follow what is wrong, if you reconcile to it, if you go along with it, then you become it. Or something. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/helped-a-9-y-o-get-an-abortion-thats-an-excommunication-ro/488452/111 "2009-03-13T20:55:45Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Some of us choose to think for ourselves. It is a duty and an obligation to do so. I feel no need to obey or believe something if I see it as being wrong. There are “laws of God”. The Ten Commandments for example. There are “laws of men”. All the other stuff, the rituals, the legalistic mumbo jumbo about linen and cotton and shellfish and small mammals and which hand to wipe your ass with. I see no need, no reason, to be just a blind unquestioning follower, if I believe that a “law of men” is simply WRONG. I’d reather be a cafeteria shopper, than some blind unthinking fanatical mindless follower… Am I to understand from this that you ARE in actuality what most would call a ‘cafeteria Catholic’ – and free to choose which tenets of church dogma to follow or not? And it doesn’t disturb you that one day, should you perveive the need to violate some element of dogma out of personal belief, and that action becomes known to the church, the church might cast you out and deny you the opportunity of eternal salvation? (Assuming of course, they’re right about the whole salvation thing). And how would they not learn, unless you also get to decide what sins are worth confessing and keep your mouth shut? Or, decide you know better than the church as to what constitutes sin, decide it’s not one, and there’s no need to confess. And while I don’t dispute your right to do any or all of these things, I wonder why you claim membership in it? Almost the whole point of Catholicism is that the church is a necessary intervenor between God and, well, anyone other than the priesthood. The church is interpreting God’s will, and if you don’t buy that you would probably be more comfortable in some flavor of Protestantism, IMO. I’m not saying all this to claim you belong to the wrong faith, but I do want to understand. My own sister feels much the same, And I don’t understand her either. Or am I totally misinterpreting you, and you think the fault is with the doctors performing the abortion, and the church’s response is correct? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/helped-a-9-y-o-get-an-abortion-thats-an-excommunication-ro/488452/112 "2009-03-13T21:16:16Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Am I to understand from this that you ARE in actuality what most would call a ‘cafeteria Catholic’ – and free to choose which tenets of church dogma to follow or not? Yes. You understand perfectly. > [@](#): > > And it doesn’t disturb you that one day, should you perveive the need to violate some element of dogma out of personal belief, and that action becomes known to the church, the church might cast you out and deny you the opportunity of eternal salvation? (Assuming of course, they’re right about the whole salvation thing). Not at all. There is only one judge we have to answer to. > [@](#): > > Or, decide you know better than the church as to what constitutes sin, decide it’s not one, and there’s no need to confess. There was a time (I suppose) when it would have been considered a good thing to burn witches and heretics. If you hid or protected one, that was a sin. Under the “harsh light of history”, some of those dangerous witches and heretics were nothing of the sort. It had more to do with power and land, who had it, who wanted to take it. So, what was really the worse sin or crime? Hiding the accused, or burning them in order to expedite a land grab? How many “crazy cat ladies” were burned, for not doing anything wrong? > [@](#): > > And while I don’t dispute your right to do any or all of these things, I wonder why you claim membership in it? Almost the whole point of Catholicism is that the church is a necessary intervenor between God and, well, anyone other than the priesthood. The church is interpreting God’s will, and if you don’t buy that you would probably be more comfortable in some flavor of Protestantism, IMO. The church can interpret all they want. They can (and sometimes do) reverse an interpretation. They can teach, they can advise, they can even threaten. But they can not think for me or make my decisions for me. The catch of course is, that if I go along, that itself is a decision. > [@](#): > > I’m not saying all this to claim you belong to the wrong faith, but I do want to understand. My own sister feels much the same, And I don’t understand her either. There’s nothing to understand. Some things are right. Some things are wrong. The church is made up of people. Some are right, some are wrong. Some are good, some aren’t. > [@](#): > > Or am I totally misinterpreting you, and you think the fault is with the doctors performing the abortion, and the church’s response is correct? The doctors did their job, to try and keep the girl, a 9 year old rape victim, alive. They did this in the way they had available. They made a choice, based on what they believed was right. The church, in this case, is wrong. Rules change. There was a time when “mackerel snappers” could not eat meat on Friday. Serious bizniz. The rule just went away one day. Rules change. Rules disappear. If a rule does not support what is right, the rule needs to be changed, or needs to go. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/helped-a-9-y-o-get-an-abortion-thats-an-excommunication-ro/488452/113 "2009-03-14T00:51:55Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > … > There’s nothing to understand. Some things are right. Some things are wrong. The church is made up of people. Some are right, some are wrong. Some are good, some aren’t. … This is not the part I don’t understand. What I don’t understand is why you continue to claim membership in a church that, if it knew your true feelings, and perhaps some the acts you do (or would under some circumstance), might toss you out and condemn you. Did I misinterpret this too? Do you in fact consider yourself Catholic? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/helped-a-9-y-o-get-an-abortion-thats-an-excommunication-ro/488452/114 "2009-03-14T02:05:41Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > This is not the part I don’t understand. What I don’t understand is why you continue to claim membership in a church that, if it knew your true feelings, and perhaps some the acts you do (or would under some circumstance), might toss you out and condemn you. > > Did I misinterpret this too? Do you in fact consider yourself Catholic? I consider myself a non practicing, or a backslider. I don’t attend, or take part anymore. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/helped-a-9-y-o-get-an-abortion-thats-an-excommunication-ro/488452/115 "2009-03-16T14:18:48Z")
In today’s news, it seems there are [some in high Vatican places](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jQjAIPlGEFkMsL4LzVbOmz8Q1UfgD96UKG600) who’d ask the local bishops to temper orthodoxy with mercy in extraordinary cases. At the very least, ISTM he’s saying this was not the case over which to make a hardline stand, which is putting it mildly. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/helped-a-9-y-o-get-an-abortion-thats-an-excommunication-ro/488452/116 "2009-03-16T18:29:39Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > In today’s news, it seems there are [some in high Vatican places](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jQjAIPlGEFkMsL4LzVbOmz8Q1UfgD96UKG600) who’d ask the local bishops to temper orthodoxy with mercy in extraordinary cases. At the very least, ISTM he’s saying this was not the case over which to make a hardline stand, which is putting it mildly. Imagine that. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/helped-a-9-y-o-get-an-abortion-thats-an-excommunication-ro/488452/117 "2009-03-16T18:51:20Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > In today’s news, it seems there are [some in high Vatican places](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jQjAIPlGEFkMsL4LzVbOmz8Q1UfgD96UKG600) who’d ask the local bishops to temper orthodoxy with mercy in extraordinary cases. At the very least, ISTM he’s saying this was not the case over which to make a hardline stand, which is putting it mildly. The story is very ambiguous. It seems the Vatican guy was complaining more about the public condemnation of the doctors, rather than the excommunications themselves. It seems to me his concern is about a PR nightmare, rather than taking issue with the actual doctine that drove it. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/helped-a-9-y-o-get-an-abortion-thats-an-excommunication-ro/488452/118 "2009-03-16T21:03:46Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > The story is very ambiguous. It seems the Vatican guy was complaining more about the public condemnation of the doctors, rather than the excommunications themselves. It seems to me his concern is about a PR nightmare, rather than taking issue with the actual doctine that drove it. “There wasn’t any need, we contend, for so much urgency and publicity in declaring something that happens automatically,” Fisichella wrote. Yes, he looks more worried about bad publicity. If it (the excommunication) had happened and nobody knew, I guess that would have been OK. Screw him too. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/helped-a-9-y-o-get-an-abortion-thats-an-excommunication-ro/488452/119 "2009-03-16T22:26:52Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > “There wasn’t any need, we contend, for so much urgency and publicity in declaring something that happens automatically,” Fisichella wrote. > > Yes, he looks more worried about bad publicity. If it (the excommunication) had happened and nobody knew, I guess that would have been OK. Screw him too. But he did say this: > [@](#): > > Writing as if he were addressing the girl, Fisichella said: “There are others who merit excommunication and our pardon, not those who have allowed you to live and have helped you to regain hope and trust.” I acknowledge this is a bit ambiguous, his statement as a whole. But the portion I quoted doesn’t seem to be. I read the part you quoted as meaning, “_even if_ this were cause for excommunication–which it is not–in that situation it’s automatic, so why would you feel the need to point out something that is automatically rendered?” I don’t see any other way to make the portion I quoted make sense, since it seems to clearly assign NO blame to the mother or doctors. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/helped-a-9-y-o-get-an-abortion-thats-an-excommunication-ro/488452/120 "2009-03-16T22:59:40Z")
Yes, he did seem to be concerned about the child in the sense of not wanting her to believe that she was in any way responsible for the condemnation of the doctors who treated her. OTOH, he says the acts weren’t worthy of excommunication, but still acknowledges that that is what doctrine calls for, yet doesn’t seem to have issues with the doctrine. Like it’s a computer error in the cosmic grading program and the dean of students can quietly reinstate the correct grade later. But fixing the bug in the program is too much trouble. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/helped-a-9-y-o-get-an-abortion-thats-an-excommunication-ro/488452.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/helped-a-9-y-o-get-an-abortion-thats-an-excommunication-ro/488452.md?page=7)