Rape victim gets excommuniated in Brazil

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think I can post my opinion of the Catholic Church without getting banned from WP

Rape is venial sin. That is what the Church is for. To forgive venial sins and charge a price for the indulgence.

ruveyn

That "stupid principle" you're referring to is a reverence for the sanctity of human life -- exactly the same principle that caused you to object so strongly in the first place. If you're going to judge a Catholic decision on whether or not certain Catholics should be allowed to remain in the Catholic church, you should judge it based on Catholic principles -- including the one that says abortion is morally equivalent to murder.

Of course, the decision fails that test too, sadly enough. It doesn't excommunicate the father, who repeatedly raped her over the course of several years, and apparently her 14 year old sister as well. (If the repeated incestuous rape of two underage girls isn't anti-Christian, I don't know what is.) And it doesn't take into account the fact that a nine year old pregnant with twins is, practically speaking, a death sentence for all 3.

The girl wasn't excommunicated; the girl's mother and the doctors who saved her life were excommunicated. Brazil has one of the strictest abortion laws I'm aware of; incest and the imminent danger of the mother's death are the only reason that an abortion can be performed. The Catholic church's opinion on abortion has changed since the Middle Ages-- it was at one time permissible to essentially have an abortion until the fetus quickened or could be felt kicking in the womb; from what I recall in seminary there were also exceptions when the mother's life was in danger, because the loss of the mother would have a greater impact than the loss of the child.

As a former Old Catholic priest, I imagine I'm at least moderately qualified to speculate on this matter. I have a pretty decent theological education and am relatively familiar with the RC doctrine on the matter, past and present.

The excommunication was incurred latae sentiae, which means automatically as soon as the abortion was performed and anyone who participated incurred the penalty. The girl was too young to be responsible for her own actions and so didn't incur the penalty. It's absolutely abominable that the Catholic church has chosen to excommunicate people who saved a 9 year old girl's life and also saved her from the suffering that she would endure in Brazil had the child and her baby lived.

the "stupid principle" I was referring to was putting the same value into a bunch of cells as to a living human being.

That's what human beings are, a bunch of cells.

But a punch of cells that have consious though, feelings, hopes, identity ect. These are all things it has been proven beyond any doubt that fetus do not posses.

Abortion is no more murder than eating an apple.

Most of these things are also true of infants. But if you went around smashing babies' faces in with a brick, you would not find yourself becoming very popular.

babies have feelings and expereince consiousnes. Fetus don't.

Given that the difference between the two is only birth, a relatively short event, trying to draw a dividing line like that is an exercise in futility.

And babies do not have consciousness. I'd say they develop it by the toddler stage, but there is further development in self-awareness after that.

No totally incorect.

First of all babies do experience consiousnes, being self aware and being consious are not the same thing and babies are self-aware just not to the same extent as we are. But regardles of the phillosothical minefied of trying to determine if a baby is self aware they are ceartainly consious, they have the bedrock of all consiousness, feelings. They can feel pain, they can sense that they don't like it.

This is also true of fetus beyond a ceartain point of growth. This is why there are laws to say abortions cannot be perfurmed after a ceartain point after conception. But it takes a few months for that fetus to develop anything like what could be called consiousness, there simply isn't a enought neural development for that to be possible at first. And it is not possible to murder something which is not consious.

There has been a scientific debate on these issues and the matter has been settled, the only thing keeping the debate open is relegious belief. Now if you want to renounce abortion as part of you're beliefs that's fine. But expecting everyone else to do the same, in short for all of society to bow down to you're beliefs, is crossing a bloddy line.

You're using a different definition of consciousness than me.


Laws vary from place to place. I'm not sure, but I don't think there are any such laws here in the US.

If all abortions after the first trimester were banned, I would still not be completely comfortable, by a long shot, but I would be very much relieved.


So you can kill sleeping people without murdering them? What about people in comas? The mentally ill?


You can't settle a philosophical issue scientifically. Science is wonderful and beautiful and useful, but it can't tell you what you *ought* to do. Science deals with facts, not shoulds.


How can I not expect everyone else to do the same, if it's as evil as I think it is? (I don't remember any requests for bowing and scraping, either.)

You seem to be saying I can believe anything I like, as long as I only pretend to believe it, and never mention it or act as if it were true. Unless, of course, you believe it too...

Whatever defienition of consiousness you use the aurgument is the same, fetus under a ceartain stage of development don't experience it. Any form of consiousness relies on a significant amount of neural activity, neurons are nerve cells otherwise known as brain cells. Upto a ceartain point fetus don't have any.

Yes there are such laws in the us. And the laws are made to match the scientific evidence as to what fetus at various stages are capable of feeling/experiencing.

The mentally ill do experience consiousness, people that are asleep will wake up, if doctors think someone in a comma will never wake up they usually terminate life support.

Many phillosothical debates have been settled scientificly, earths posostion in regards to the heavens was once a debate.

Yes you may believe anything you like, but when those beliefs are wholly irrational and have have been tottally scientificly debunked you don't have a right to try and enforce those views on other people. You're views only make sense by adhering to a strict relegious doctrine, and asking everybody to be subjected to one groups relegious beleiefs goes against pretty much everything America is supposed to stand for.

I am going to stay out of the debate over when does life start, and when does the human mind start up for the moment and concentrate on the bigger issue.

The Catholic church, my own view is that some of the rank and file clergy are good people who care for the needs of other people, but the leadership of the church is more interested in the following

1. Making and keeping money
2. Maintaining the power of the church
3. Making up and/or keeping new rules which are good for the church not the churchgoer or the ordinary person.
4. Caring for their own needs

If you read the gospels then you will read how Jesus tried to deregulate religion and produce mankind with a more direct contact with god. Jesus also taught that the written rules which exist should be broken when by obeying them a situation is occurring where the letter of the law is being followed but the sprit of the law is being flouted. For instance he suggested in Luke 14 verse 1 to 6 that it is lawful to work on the Sabbath to protect an animal's welfare.

I would strongly suggest that starting with the gospels that the leadership of the Roman Catholic church should start to read their bibles, one page a day and that by the end of the day they should think about what they have read, how they should put into practise what they have read.

Or perhaps instead of starting at Mathew 1, they should start at Luke 19 and read the story of Zacchaeus the tax collector. He was a money grabbing man who made himself rich by taxing others, he then repented and turned his life around and made restitution. I think that the catholic church has acquired and stockpiled lots of wealth while many ordinary Catholics live in dire poverty. I think that the Vatican should spend some of its wealth to put an end to poverty.

I think that the child should have had an abortion to protect her from further physical harm and that the catholic clergy involved in the excommunications should crawl on their knees and beg for forgiveness from the child's mother, the medical staff and from the people of Brazil. If you read the account of the penance of Henry II then it might be a good model for what should happen to those members of the clergy.

Editted once to remove a typo

Last edited by Woodpecker on 14 Mar 2009, 3:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Totally agree with all thats said above.

only birth huh? you're either seriously undereducated or completely brainwashed.

how about central nervous system? ability to breathe and live on one's own? how about consciousness, awareness of one's existence?

I think no one here openly supports abortions in later stages of pregnancy unless complately necessary, so your comparing embryos to infants is ridiculous.