Vatican Excommunicates Abortion Providers

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
And when you say “deposited into sewers,” it sure sounds like you are talking about miscarriages. What is the Church supposed to do about that? I am not sure I am following you at all. What I was trying to say is that in these cases, it is too late for baptism, and it is difficult if not impossible to provide a funeral. So…what is your suggestion as to what the Church should do about these miscarried babies?

Oh, and, incidentally, none of these babies are “ignored.” The Church does for them the best thing they can do under the circumstances, which is to pray for them. Perhaps not individually, since, as you point out, they are not even aware of them, but as a group.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I am talking about miscarriages; specifically, the ones that no one knows about. A simple monthly pregnany test would identify these children. If they are fully human, why are their deaths of such little consequence, when the death of just one child can result in multiple excommunications? Suppose a man strikes his pregnant wife and kills the fetus. Is his sin the same if she were not pregnant? Should it not be important enough to find out whether she is?

My whole point is that to declare a two-celled embryo fully human as justification for a ban on abortion, and then not treat other embryos as human simply because no on has bothered to look for them, is inconsistent. Do we not look for humans in the rubble of collapsed buildings, in the sea after a boat capsizes, under the snow after an avalanche? If these children are human why is their fate of so little concern?

I am not sure what you mean when you say Catholics pray for these children. Can you give me an example?

62

[QUOTE=Lissa]
I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand this. If the pro-life stance is about the baby, why should it matter how it was concieved? Abortion is acceptable when the mother is innocent of consensual sexual activity?

I can see how some people would see this as anti-woman (or misunderstand it as such) because it seems to make an exception for those who didn’t want to have sex. The “slut” must bear the consequences of her actions while the outraged virgin gets a pass.
[/QUOTE]
You are exactly right in your assessment, here. The Church does not, and IMO, should never, make ANY exceptions (aside from IMMEDIATE threat to the life of the mother). The circumstance of pregnancy is completely irrelevant to the worth of the human life that exists in the fetus. The legal issues aside (totally different discussion, IMO), the MORALITY of abortion does not change.

63

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Yes, I am talking about miscarriages; specifically, the ones that no one knows about. A simple monthly pregnany test would identify these children. If they are fully human, why are their deaths of such little consequence, when the death of just one child can result in multiple excommunications? Suppose a man strikes his pregnant wife and kills the fetus. Is his sin the same if she were not pregnant? Should it not be important enough to find out whether she is?

My whole point is that to declare a two-celled embryo fully human as justification for a ban on abortion, and then not treat other embryos as human simply because no on has bothered to look for them, is inconsistent. Do we not look for humans in the rubble of collapsed buildings, in the sea after a boat capsizes, under the snow after an avalanche? If these children are human why is their fate of so little concern?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t get why you think there is little concern for these children. Basically, it boils down to this. The ONLY thing that can be done for these children, according to Catholic doctrine, is to pray for their souls & trust the mercy of God. There have been probably billions of miscarried babies in the history of mankind that no human ever knew existed (these early, at-home pregnancy tests being a pretty new development, you understand). One of the articles I linked to talks about how to approach the situation if you have a miscarriage and wish to give the baby a proper funeral, which can be done. BUT, this is at the discretion of the parents, and is not necessary. People are searched for in the rubble of buildings, yes, but oftentimes remains of people are never found, and this does not change anything in the eyes of God. In any case, the Church doesn’t do the searching. They will bury a body when it is presented to them by the loved ones, including a miscarried fetus. If it is not, and the loved ones wish it, they will happily do a memorial service for the person instead. If the loved ones do nothing, then the Church can do nothing.

When I had my miscarriages, I notified the Church and asked for prayers. They they will pray for the soul of those particular children. In addition, the church prays for all the miscarried & aborted babies that are not known about specifically, as a group, assuming that God will not discriminate among them, anyway. These children are often prayed for as an “intention” at mass (where the priest asks us to pray for certain individuals or groups), and additionally, they are prayed for by individuals all the time…some people even have a personal mission to pray for these babies.

64

[QUOTE=constanze]
Do you know what kind of danger a pregnancy for an 11-year-old girl is? It’s not like for a grown woman (where a normal pregnancy has low health risk), she’s still growing up and her body isn’t equipped to handle a pregnancy on top of that. It’s not a “disruption” of her life, it can cause serious, life-long damage to her organs, or have other serious health consequences.
[/QUOTE]

And if the child dies from carrying a pregnancy to term, can we hold the RRC responsible for that death? Those deaths?

65

[QUOTE=constanze]
Do you know what kind of danger a pregnancy for an 11-year-old girl is? It’s not like for a grown woman (where a normal pregnancy has low health risk), she’s still growing up and her body isn’t equipped to handle a pregnancy on top of that. It’s not a “disruption” of her life, it can cause serious, life-long damage to her organs, or have other serious health consequences.
[/QUOTE]

I suspect the danger of pregnancy to the young girl is considerably less than the danger of abortion to the fetus. Wouldn’t you agree? That’s all the argument consists of. **Mayo **specifically said the RCC was choosing the less bad of two bad options, so why do you think it matters to point out that the RCC’s choice is still bad?

66

BTW let us have a reminder for us all that the text of the Catholic Encyclopedia at www.newadvent.org is a **100-year-old ** document. Yes, I know, the RCC prides itself in constancy and unchanging “truth” but really, there is some evolution of the rules, regulations and requirements… (Interestingly, its article on “humanism” does indeed show that the RCC at that time did NOT use that word to refer to the same thing as American Fundamentalists)

67

I’m okay with the church excommunicating whomever they choose. After all, it’s their church.

If you consider what excommunication is, though, it’s a bit puzzling why it would be necessary in the church’s eyes. Who really gets to decide a person’s eternal fate, after all? If God can save 'em anyway, what has the church accomplished other than a reminder of their irrelevance? And if God can’t save 'em anyway, what has the church accomplished other than a reminder of God’s impotence?

68

[QUOTE=John Mace]
I suspect the danger of pregnancy to the young girl is considerably less than the danger of abortion to the fetus. Wouldn’t you agree? That’s all the argument consists of. **Mayo **specifically said the RCC was choosing the less bad of two bad options, so why do you think it matters to point out that the RCC’s choice is still bad?
[/QUOTE]
That’s just it…the situation is what is tragic. Every possible outcome is bad…the idea is to mitigate the damage. Since the fetus is considered a human life, then the question of how much more dangerous it is to have the child vs. have an abortion is moot…either one of those options holds a remote possibility of harm to the mother, when compared with the harm perpertrated on the fetus.

69

I’ve got a question, and I honestly intend no snarkiness, but I think it’s a pretty rude question; and for that I apologise.

What does praying for miscarried fetuses accomplish? As FriarTed said, the souls of these children will be going to Limbo; does praying for them improve their situation at all?

70

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I’ve got a question, and I honestly intend no snarkiness, but I think it’s a pretty rude question; and for that I apologise.

What does praying for miscarried fetuses accomplish? As FriarTed said, the souls of these children will be going to Limbo; does praying for them improve their situation at all?
[/QUOTE]
It’s not a rude question if you are really trying to understand.

Limbo is a concept that was never specifically defined by the Vatican, and although it became part of the Church’s teaching for a long time, it is no longer taught. But in any case, it is always worthwhile to pray for God’s mercy.

71

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
It’s not a rude question if you are really trying to understand.
[/quote]
I am honestly attempting to understand. I’m just somewhat squeamish of asking questions like this since it’s a case of Church policy, and not a debate of philosophy. I could be very wrong about this factual issue and in that way offensive.

I don’t see how it is always worthwhile. As far as I can tell, the Church teaches that once a soul is in hell, that’s it; there is no second chance. I also don’t think that they teach that Hell has different “levels” of badness, for lack of a better word; there’s no “Hell lite”. So if a soul is in Hell, surely praying for God’s mercy isn’t worthwhile, since it’s not going to have any effect on allieviating that soul’s condition? It looks to me as though the time would be better spent praying for someone whose fate is not yet sealed.

72

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I am honestly attempting to understand. I’m just somewhat squeamish of asking questions like this since it’s a case of Church policy, and not a debate of philosophy. I could be very wrong about this factual issue and in that way offensive. I don’t see how it is always worthwhile. As far as I can tell, the Church teaches that once a soul is in hell, that’s it; there is no second chance. I also don’t think that they teach that Hell has different “levels” of badness, for lack of a better word; there’s no “Hell lite”. So if a soul is in Hell, surely praying for God’s mercy isn’t worthwhile, since it’s not going to have any effect on allieviating that soul’s condition? It looks to me as though the time would be better spent praying for someone whose fate is not yet sealed.
[/QUOTE]
A brief primer on Catholic doctrine on this subject (it’s not deep, as I am no theologian!) Everyone in Heaven is considered a saint. The only people we are really supposed to assume are there are the people who have been Canonized by the Church. The recognized saints are not the only ones there, but we can never be sure that any other specific person has made it there. These are the only people whose fates in the afterlife is known for sure. Heaven, of course, is a permanent state. If the babies are in Purgatory, then they can benefit from our prayers, just like anyone.

Hope this helps.

Hell is also a permanent state. The thing is, the Church doesn’t have a similar list of people who are “known” or understood to be there (the general assumption that people like Hitler must be there nonwithstanding).

Since the list of actual saints is relatively short, and there is no list of “damned” people, the assumption is that the vast majority of souls are in purgatory. This is not the same concept as Limbo. Purgatory is where souls go as a kind of punishment for earthly sins, with the eventual destination to be Heaven. These are the souls who are being prayed for. It MAY be true that any particular person is already in heaven or hell, and those prayers are “wasted,” but since there is no way to know, we err on the side of helping them through prayer.

Limbo is a theological answer to the idea that babies should not be punished in Purgatory, because they haven’t personally sinned, and the idea that they can’t go to heaven either, because they haven’t been baptized to erase the original sin of Mankind that they were born with. It’s a theological tangle, and these days, the Church is leaning more towards Purgatory as a better answer for this dilemma.

73

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I am honestly attempting to understand. I’m just somewhat squeamish of asking questions like this since it’s a case of Church policy, and not a debate of philosophy. I could be very wrong about this factual issue and in that way offensive. I don’t see how it is always worthwhile. As far as I can tell, the Church teaches that once a soul is in hell, that’s it; there is no second chance. I also don’t think that they teach that Hell has different “levels” of badness, for lack of a better word; there’s no “Hell lite”. So if a soul is in Hell, surely praying for God’s mercy isn’t worthwhile, since it’s not going to have any effect on allieviating that soul’s condition? It looks to me as though the time would be better spent praying for someone whose fate is not yet sealed.
[/QUOTE]
A brief primer on Catholic doctrine on this subject (it’s not deep, as I am no theologian!) Everyone in Heaven is considered a saint. The only people we are really supposed to assume are there are the people who have been Canonized by the Church. The recognized saints are not the only ones there, but we can never be sure that any other specific person has made it there. These are the only people whose fates in the afterlife is known for sure. Heaven, of course, is a permanent state.

Hell is also a permanent state. The thing is, the Church doesn’t have a similar list of people who are “known” or understood to be there (the general assumption that people like Hitler must be there nonwithstanding).

Since the list of actual saints is relatively short, and there is no list of “damned” people, the assumption is that the vast majority of souls are in purgatory. This is not the same concept as Limbo. Purgatory is where souls go as a kind of punishment for earthly sins, with the eventual destination to be Heaven. These are the souls who are being prayed for. It MAY be true that any particular person is already in heaven or hell, and those prayers are “wasted,” but since there is no way to know, we err on the side of helping them through prayer.

Limbo is a theological answer to the idea that babies should not be punished in Purgatory, because they haven’t personally sinned, and the idea that they can’t go to heaven either, because they haven’t been baptized to erase the original sin of Mankind that they were born with. It’s a theological tangle, and these days, the Church is leaning more towards Purgatory as a better answer for this dilemma. If the babies are in Purgatory, then they can benefit from our prayers, just like anyone.

Hope this helps!

74

Dang…posted twice, and the first one is messed up. Read the second one! And can a mod delete the first one?

Thanks!

75

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Hope this helps!
[/QUOTE]
It does, thanks a lot. :slight_smile:

76

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I’m okay with the church excommunicating whomever they choose. After all, it’s their church.

If you consider what excommunication is, though, it’s a bit puzzling why it would be necessary in the church’s eyes. Who really gets to decide a person’s eternal fate, after all? If God can save 'em anyway, what has the church accomplished other than a reminder of their irrelevance? And if God can’t save 'em anyway, what has the church accomplished other than a reminder of God’s impotence?
[/QUOTE]

Excommunication is a weird doctrine. (I’m not Catholic, but I’ll bet the Catholics here will agree with me about it.) It doesn’t presume to set the eternal fate of anybody-- the Catholic Church can be a mite egotistical, but not that egotistical.

Essentially, it’s a sort of left-handed, half-assed form of grace – spiritual tough love, so to speak. It’s the Church pronouncing formally that you sinned big time, enough so that you are not entitled to the normal means of grace of the church, and need to repent of your sins, to be welcomed back into the communion of the faithful. Cecil did a nice piece on formal excommunications in his classic SD style, but the bottom line is, “Hey, wake up! You fucked up spiritually really major, and you can’t receive communion, get the Last Rites, etc., until you formally repent of your sin.”

Notice they’re talking about what the Church will not do, on Earth, not what God will do, in Heaven. I have no clue what happens if you die excommunicate but a believer, in Catholic theology, but I suspect it’s a really long term in Purgatory.

Tom~? Sarah? Comments? Corrections?

77

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Excommunication is a weird doctrine. (I’m not Catholic, but I’ll bet the Catholics here will agree with me about it.) It doesn’t presume to set the eternal fate of anybody-- the Catholic Church can be a mite egotistical, but not that egotistical.

Essentially, it’s a sort of left-handed, half-assed form of grace – spiritual tough love, so to speak. It’s the Church pronouncing formally that you sinned big time, enough so that you are not entitled to the normal means of grace of the church, and need to repent of your sins, to be welcomed back into the communion of the faithful. Cecil did a nice piece on formal excommunications in his classic SD style, but the bottom line is, “Hey, wake up! You fucked up spiritually really major, and you can’t receive communion, get the Last Rites, etc., until you formally repent of your sin.”

Notice they’re talking about what the Church will not do, on Earth, not what God will do, in Heaven. I have no clue what happens if you die excommunicate but a believer, in Catholic theology, but I suspect it’s a really long term in Purgatory.

Tom~? Sarah? Comments? Corrections?
[/QUOTE]
I think you may be right that even the excommunicated dead cannot be assumed to be in hell. A person who is excommunicated cannot, as you say, receive the sacraments. The sacrament are indeed the Church’s way of conferring Grace, and while the Church doesn’t say that you CAN’T be saved without the sacraments, it is presumably more difficult. The Church doesn’t make decisions FOR God, they just try to have an understanding of God and His works, and facilitate His works on earth.

78

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
I have no clue what happens if you die excommunicate but a believer, in Catholic theology, but I suspect it’s a really long term in Purgatory.
[/QUOTE]
Presumably so, given that a person must have committed some very serious sins to have been excommunicated. In the end though, of course, it’s in God’s hands.

79

[QUOTE=the raindog]
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]

You don.get it doyou?.Bringing upachildof rape,ecpecially in the family. Who is going to do it. ?Who would want this child. ?Force the mother to take it.This child would be put in a horrible spot . Forcing a child to give birth is disghusting.She is a little kid for crying out loud. Make her go to term for your religious convictions .Her’s don’t matter.

80

So in essence, excommunication is a form of shunning. Isn’t that pleasant. If only those who were being excommunicated realized it isn’t that big a deal…