From the article,
Possibly one of the most disgusting things I have ever read, and worthy of being Pitted, frankly. Who was saying the anti-abortion movement was about respect for life, and not just about punishing women?
But my bigger question is, why them? Why now? These were the only Catholic doctors in the world who have done something against the Church’s teaching?
They’re probably the only ones who dared to admit it. Everyone else is hiding from all that christian love.
According to the current Code of Canon Law, Canon 1398 states “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.” A latae sententiae excommunication is automatic – by doing whatever led to that penalty, one is presumed to have voluntarily cut oneself off from the Church. The Vatican is just announcing this publically, probably to try to nip in the bud the spread of abortion in Columbia.
It just seems odd that this, of all cases, is the one they want to start their campaign on. Do they just figure most of the rest of the western world is lost, but they still have enough of a hold on Columbia to have some influence?
I would say just the opposite: they’re losing their hold on Colombia, and this is the first wielding of the big stick of excommunication. From your link:
And this is the first test of the ruling, says the article.
It’s the thin end of the wedge. The secular ban being relaxed, it’s time for the religious ban to kick in. Except that I predict that the Vatican is going to discover, to their dismay, that more and more people in Colombia actually don’t care whether they’re excommunicated for aborting an 11-year-old rape victim’s fetus. So their big stick will turn out to be not such a big stick after all.
And as more and more people see other people being excommunicated with, apparently, no ill effects here on Earth, and as for the next life, well, most folks don’t really care that much about it anyway, that’s 300,000 women a year who are going to start thinking seriously about the possibility of having a legal abortion just because they want one, without having to justify it to the legislature, and the wedge continues to increase…
Exactly. It doesn’t seem like a winning position for the Church. It can’t possibly do anything except cast them in a very bad light.
You guys just don’t get it, do you?
Apparently the RCC believes that human life begins at conception. That is certainly their right.
That position considers the unborn child to be a human life, and worthy of all the protections available to all other humans.
While the RCC would certainly agree that the rape of this girl was a tragedy, and very traumatic for everyone involved, it is not a justification for killing the unborn child. You simply don’t fix one tragedy be creating a bigger tragedy. (which is exactly what the RCC would consider the abortion of that child)
Whether you and I agree with that or not, it is a defensible position and apparently they are consistent in their value of life. (unlike many who try to split the baby in matters of rape/incest (pun intended))
And from that clearly articulated and consistently applied belief/doctrine we get Victorian Squid’s nonsense, “Who was saying the anti-abortion movement was about respect for life, and not just about punishing women?”
It doesn’t devalue the life of this poor unfortunate girl to defend the life of her unborn child, and I imagine that the RCC would offer counseling, therapy, and succor to this girl and her family. If you have evidence that the RCC would prefer to kick this girl to the curb the moment the child would have been born I’d like to see it.
Every one of us is free to believe as we see fit. But the “pro-life people only want to punish women” is banal, childish and intellectually anemic. It serves no good purpose to demonize your opponent, or make a parody of their values.
[QUOTE=Victorian Squid]
Exactly. It doesn’t seem like a winning position for the Church. It can’t possibly do anything except cast them in a very bad light.
[/QUOTE]
I am not Catholic, although one of my parents is, and I was raised as one. I have no reason to defend them.
But I would have less respect for any religion who cared more for [secular, and increasingly humanist] public opinion than their closely held doctrines and beliefs.
I say kudos to the RCC for standing firm for what they believe in.
It would be nice if the RCC and all their ilks would announce publicly the level of support that they will grant the victims of such acts instead of just saying : “Don’t do that or we will excommunicate you !”. I know, they will say that support is available. It would be better if they would provide the support without having to be asked.
[QUOTE=detop]
It would be nice if the RCC and all their ilks would announce publicly the level of support that they will grant the victims of such acts instead of just saying : “Don’t do that or we will excommunicate you !”. I know, they will say that support is available. It would be better if they would provide the support without having to be asked.
[/QUOTE]
Do they need to?
I mean, the RCC church has enormous assets. But I think the RCC has spent billions of dollars over the years through various Catholic Charities. I do not believe that a credible case can be made that the RCC isn’t extremely charitable.
I would submit that their policy can’t be subject to the RCC opening it’s wallet. They consider the fetus to be a human life, and whether they offer assistance in this particular case or not, they have the right to say, “Do Not Murder.”
Of course, this little girl is not alone. There are many girls/women who are victimized like that. And I believe the church has historically reached out to the parts of society that were downtrodden, or victimized.
[QUOTE=the raindog]
Do they need to?
[/quote]
Yes, they do.
To that, I would answer : “Money talks, bullshit walks”. But nowhere did I mention that they would hjave to pay. I would prefer that they make the support visible to show to other people what to do.
And until they make their response visible and upfront, you will continue to have victimization like this, because many people will prefer to adopt the attitude : “You dishonored our (family, town, country), you do not deserve to be helped” and all it breeds. I’d rather support abortion than this.
Well, the nice part about it is that the doctors who have been excommunicated did the right thing and are taking a personal stand. I doubt they even care what the RCC thinks.
[QUOTE=Victorian Squid]
Vatican Excommunicates Abortion Providers
[/quote]
Actually, it hasn’t happened yet
I’m quite sure that many Catholic doctors have performed abortions in the US and Europe but they most likely don’t get reported to Vatican authorities.
[QUOTE=the raindog]
But I would have less respect for any religion who cared more for [secular, and increasingly humanist] public opinion than their closely held doctrines and beliefs.
[/QUOTE]
I see where you’re coming from, but to this atheist, it just looks like a really good way to end up as a church with no parishoners. Sooner or later, the Church is going to have to bend to public opinion if it wants to remain relevant.
[QUOTE=Miller]
I see where you’re coming from, but to this atheist, it just looks like a really good way to end up as a church with no parishoners. Sooner or later, the Church is going to have to bend to public opinion if it wants to remain relevant.
[/QUOTE]
I see where you’re coming from as well.
And the RCC—and for that matter any church that has had for decades doctrines that have been now coined as 'traditional–must decide if it wishes to bend or accept the reality that it has less relevance than it has had for decades.
It’s not an easy decision.
[QUOTE=the raindog]
Whether you and I agree with that or not, it is a defensible position and apparently they are consistent in their value of life. (unlike many who try to split the baby in matters of rape/incest (pun intended))
And from that clearly articulated and consistently applied belief/doctrine we get Victorian Squid’s nonsense, “Who was saying the anti-abortion movement was about respect for life, and not just about punishing women?”
[/quote]
If they excommunicated people who support and fight in wars of aggression, or support the death penalty, your might have a point. But they don’t; it’s only abortion they come down hard on. So no, they don’t care about human life. They do care about hurting women ( and children ), as much as they can. It’s not a defensible position; it’s an evil position held by evil people in an evil organization.
[QUOTE=the raindog]
It doesn’t devalue the life of this poor unfortunate girl to defend the life of her unborn child, and I imagine that the RCC would offer counseling, therapy, and succor to this girl and her family.
[/quote]
Of course it denigrates her; it asserts the Church’s ownership of her body, and equates her and everyone else to a mindless lump of cells. You might as well put slave chains on her, and spit in her face when you walk by. As for counselling, I expect it will consist of speeches about how sinful and vile she is, how suffering is good for her, and how she should give the Church money.
[QUOTE=the raindog]
Of course, this little girl is not alone. There are many girls/women who are victimized like that. And I believe the church has historically reached out to the parts of society that were downtrodden, or victimized.
[/QUOTE]
Quite often, to join in the victimization. I’ve read news stories about how in places like Guatalmala, they pressed for anti abortion laws, then looked the other way while those unwanted children were abandoned and tortured and mutilated and murdered. And then there’s all those pedophiles. And the rape and coerced abortions of nuns in the Third World by priests ( no doubt because so few non Third World nuns are young and attractive ).
Sorry, raindog, but we part company here. I can understand, and respect the idea that a fetus is in their eyes a human being already with a right to life. (Though, in passing, IIRC this “human at fertilization” thesis goes against Aquinas, an odd position for the Magisterium to hold.)
But what disturbs me is using “secular, and increasingly humanist” as a pejorative. Again I can respect the right of any individual to accept or reject such values. But we are talking about following the Man who defined “love thy neighbor as thyself,” the Golden Rule, “inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these, you have done it unto Me,” and other such humanistic moral pronouncements. (Yeah, He had a lot to say about Hell too – different argument, thankewverymuch.) Proposition: a Christian who takes seriously the commands of Christ (as opposed to apparent hyperbole) is obliged to have an ethics that is more or less humanist, within a theocentric framework.
FWIW, in Catholic Church writings for most of my lifetime have not used “humanist” to mean a negative value, in the sense Fundamentalists do. The usual bugbears were first Modernism and Liberalism, and later Materialism and Relativism.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Sorry, raindog, but we part company here. I can understand, and respect the idea that a fetus is in their eyes a human being already with a right to life. (Though, in passing, IIRC this “human at fertilization” thesis goes against Aquinas, an odd position for the Magisterium to hold.)
But what disturbs me is using “secular, and increasingly humanist” as a pejorative. Again I can respect the right of any individual to accept or reject such values. But we are talking about following the Man who defined “love thy neighbor as thyself,” the Golden Rule, “inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these, you have done it unto Me,” and other such humanistic moral pronouncements. (Yeah, He had a lot to say about Hell too – different argument, thankewverymuch.) Proposition: a Christian who takes seriously the commands of Christ (as opposed to apparent hyperbole) is obliged to have an ethics that is more or less humanist, within a theocentric framework.
[/QUOTE]
I can appreciate your viewpoint, but as you might imagine I disagree. Within a theological context, and specifically a biblical/Christian viewpont I intended it to be pejorative.
It is my view that secular humanism has perhaps done more damage to Christianity in the last 100 years than any other assault.
Certainly there is nothing wrong with concern for human affairs, and welfare for our fellow man. But much of secular humanism elevates human reasonings and humanist values to be on par with God. In Jesus we see man a man who showed tremondous humility–and not just the humility evident when he washed the feet of his disciples. Again and again he subordianted his own self will to the will of his father. Again and again he was given the opportunity to exert self will and reason for himself. He made it clear in every instance that he came to do, “not my own will, but the will of my Father.” Consistently Jesus showed humility and obedience to his assignment. Even on the last night of his [earthly] life in agony and fear he prayed, “If it is your will, let this cup pass from me. But let not my will, but yours take place.” Only love is a more prominent quality in the record of his life.
And so it is my humble opinion that a Christian should model his thinking in that fashion, and flee from “self will”; endeavoring to demonstrate humility and obedience. Secularism elevates human reasoning in a way that is inconsistent with Christ’s model. A proverb put it best, “Trust in God with all your heart and do not lean upon your own undesrstanding, for he will make your paths straight.”
(Perhaps our most prominent humanist, Diogenes once said [something to the effect,] ’ If there is a God he must conform to my sense of morality’!)
And so it seems clear to me that a Christian who takes seriously the commands of Christ seriously will have a Christian ethic. Jesus Christ was certainly not a secular humanist. On the contrary.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
But we are talking about following the Man who defined “love thy neighbor as thyself,” the Golden Rule, “inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these, you have done it unto Me,” and other such humanistic moral pronouncements.
[/QUOTE]
Nicely put. Now all we have to do if we want to follow the Master and be part of the catholic* church, is decide if Jesus meant to include unborn children or not as “the least of these”
Will a seven month terminated fetus have an afterlife, or must that fetus be expelled alive first.
If you are a humanist Christ believer, I can’t see how you can ever completely resolve this abortion issue .
*not neccessarily Roman