HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Brazil rocked by abortion...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed May 23, 2012, 10:00 PM

Brazil rocked by abortion for 9-year-old rape victim

Declaring that "life must always be protected", a senior Vatican cleric has defended the Catholic Church's decision to excommunicate the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old rape victim who had a life-saving abortion in Brazil.

Cardinal Giovanni Batista Re, who heads the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, told reporters that although the girl fell pregnant after apparently being abused by her stepfather, her twins had, "the right to live, and could not be eliminated".

In an interview with the Italian newspaper, La Stampa, the cardinal added: "It is a sad case but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons. Life must always be protected."

Police believe the girl was sexually assaulted for years by her stepfather, possibly since she was six. That she was four months pregnant with twins emerged only after she was taken to hospital complaining of severe stomach pains.

The controversy represents a PR nightmare for the Vatican. The unnamed girl's mother and doctors were excommunicated for agreeing to Wednesday's emergency abortion yet the Church has not taken formal steps against the stepfather, who is in custody. Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, the conservative regional archbishop for Pernambuco where the girl was rushed to hospital, has said that the man would not be thrown out of the Church, because although he had allegedly committed "a heinous crime", the Church took the view that "the abortion, the elimination of an innocent life, was more serious".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/brazil-rocked-by-abortion-for-9yearold-rape-victim-1640165.html




For our Catholic friends here, how so you continue to justify your direct and indirect support for this terrible organization?

43 replies, 8788 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 43 replies Author Time Post
Reply Brazil rocked by abortion for 9-year-old rape victim (Original post)
cleanhippie May 2012 OP
The Velveteen Ocelot May 2012 #1
cleanhippie May 2012 #2
calimary May 2012 #4
MichiganVote May 2012 #3
cbayer May 2012 #5
muriel_volestrangler May 2012 #7
rug May 2012 #10
rug May 2012 #6
trotsky May 2012 #8
rug May 2012 #9
trotsky May 2012 #11
rug May 2012 #12
trotsky May 2012 #13
rug May 2012 #14
trotsky May 2012 #15
rug May 2012 #16
trotsky May 2012 #17
rug May 2012 #18
trotsky May 2012 #19
muriel_volestrangler May 2012 #20
rug May 2012 #21
muriel_volestrangler May 2012 #22
rug May 2012 #23
muriel_volestrangler May 2012 #24
rug May 2012 #25
muriel_volestrangler May 2012 #26
rug May 2012 #27
Goblinmonger May 2012 #28
rug May 2012 #29
Goblinmonger May 2012 #30
muriel_volestrangler May 2012 #34
rug May 2012 #35
muriel_volestrangler May 2012 #37
rug May 2012 #38
muriel_volestrangler May 2012 #40
rug May 2012 #41
Dorian Gray May 2012 #43
Just-Passing-Through May 2012 #31
Goblinmonger May 2012 #32
cyberswede May 2012 #33
rug May 2012 #36
struggle4progress May 2012 #39
JNelson6563 May 2012 #42

Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Wed May 23, 2012, 10:02 PM

1. I would consider it to be an honor to be kicked out

of such a medieval, cruel organization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Wed May 23, 2012, 10:06 PM

2. Yeah, I thenk the Vatican actually did these folks a favor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Wed May 23, 2012, 10:07 PM

4. Yeah, no kidding. I can't believe the stands they take, and the justification they offer.

As a lifelong Catholic, it's deeply offensive, hurtful, and embarrassing to me. Indeed - who would Jesus ostracize?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Wed May 23, 2012, 10:07 PM

3. I'd volunteer for the "ex" treatment too but frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Wed May 23, 2012, 10:22 PM

5. Bishops admit excommunication in abortion row was wrong

http://www.france24.com/en/20090314-bishops-admit-mistake-annul-excommunication-abortion-row-minor-rape-brazil

Brazil's bishops have annulled the excommunication of people involved in the abortion of a raped nine-year-old girl following an outcry by President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and women's groups throughout the world.

AFP - Brazilian bishops have said the excommunication of the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old girl who had an abortion after being raped was wrong and would not be applied.

The National Conference of Bishops of Brazil (CNBB) decided Thursday that the child's mother acted "under pressure from the doctors" who said the girl, pregnant with twins, would die if she carried the babies to term.

The body's secretary-general, Dimas Lara Barbosa, told reporters the mother therefore could not be excommunicated. "We must take the circumstances into consideration," he said.

As for the doctors, there was no clear case that they should be expelled from the church either, he said contrary to the position taken by archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, who last week announced the excommunications.

more at link

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #5)

Thu May 24, 2012, 06:38 AM

7. July: Vatican confirms excommuncation for mother and doctors

In a tucked-away "clarification" published on page 7 of a recent edition of L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican produced a document that unequivocally confirmed automatic excommunication for anyone involved in an abortion even in such a situation as dire as the Brazilian case. It settles any questions about the absolute nature of church doctrine on the matter of abortion but it could potentially reignite the p.r. firestorm.

Church conservatives have steadfastly defended Sobrinho, who had rejected Fisichella's criticism of insensitivity and said he was simply stating Catholic doctrine in response to reporters' questions. The L'Osservatore Romano document makes it more than likely that the Pope has felt it necessary to publicly defend the Brazilian prelate's hard line, ordering up the clarification to straighten out any confusion created by Fisichella's article.

The brief document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the orthodoxy office that Benedict personally led before becoming Pope, defends Sobrinho's "pastoral delicacy" and leaves no wiggle room on the standing of the family and doctors who carried out the abortion. "Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life," reads the statement, which widely cites past Vatican documents. "The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society." (While the doctor and the girl's parents were excommunicated, the girl, being under age 18, was not subject to automatic excommunication.)
...
But beyond the constant tug-of-war between Rome and local dioceses, there is a more important principle at stake. "We have laws, we have a discipline, we have a doctrine of the faith," the official says. "This is not just theory. And you can't start backpedaling just because the real-life situation carries a certain human weight." Benedict makes it ever more clear that his strict approach to doctrine will remain a central pillar to his papacy, bad publicity be damned.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1911495,00.html


Translation of the article here: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1339277?eng=y

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #7)

Thu May 24, 2012, 07:54 AM

10. See post 9.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Wed May 23, 2012, 10:31 PM

6. Is there a reason you're using these people now by posting a three year old story?

An out-of-date and incorrect three year old story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #6)

Thu May 24, 2012, 07:13 AM

8. Has your church changed its policy on this?

If the same incident happened today, would the outcome be any different?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #8)

Thu May 24, 2012, 07:52 AM

9. There is a difference between excommunication latae sententiae and ferendae sententiae.

That has been for centuries, and remains today, Canon Law.

What Sobrinho did was the latter which was rescinded.

Now, why don't you answer my question. What is the purpose of using these people and their human tragedy today, three years later?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #9)

Thu May 24, 2012, 08:10 AM

11. What's the difference?

And why does it matter?

And you still didn't answer my question: would your church do anything different if the same incident happened today?

My answer to your question is based on the correct answer to the above. Please answer and I'll provide you with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #11)

Thu May 24, 2012, 08:22 AM

12. Differences matter.

Even if they impede the flow of broad brushes.

In this case, you can google the difference quite easily. Once you do your question is answered.

I'll hold my breath on your answer. I already it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #12)

Thu May 24, 2012, 08:27 AM

13. So they excommunicated themselves.

That's how you think your church and its pathetic, hateful leadership get off the hook.

Much like "good" Christians don't believe their god sends people to hell, but rather we "choose" to be apart from god, therefore hell.

I am so glad to have discarded religious belief.

My answer is: "Because your church hasn't changed one damn bit."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #13)

Thu May 24, 2012, 08:37 AM

14. Lol, nice screed.

Much more florid than I imagined it would be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #14)

Thu May 24, 2012, 08:41 AM

15. And as usual, you make this personal rather than discuss your church's faults.

Thanks, rug. Stay classy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #15)

Thu May 24, 2012, 08:42 AM

16. I suppose "your church" is meant to impart objectivity to your posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #16)

Thu May 24, 2012, 08:45 AM

17. Do you provide the RCC with your money, time, and membership?

I was under the impression that you did. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #17)

Thu May 24, 2012, 08:49 AM

18. And as usual, you make this personal rather than discuss the church's faults.

Thanks, trotsky. Stay classy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #18)

Thu May 24, 2012, 08:51 AM

19. I did not insult you or your words.

I asked you if the RCC has your financial and logistical support. They do.

Personally, I would be ashamed to support such an organization. You prefer to defend them and lash out at those who speak against it. Classy, indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #9)

Thu May 24, 2012, 08:56 AM

20. It appears to have been 'rescinded' because the church says they were excommunicated

automatically, with no decision needed from the bishop.

So you're saying we can safely blame the entire Roman Catholic church for this. Sobrinho and the Vatican just confirmed this was the church's rules, which they have no wish to change.

Come on, Catholics, sort yourselves out. That includes you, rug, I believe.

And there's a reason for bringing this up now. Three years later, and you haven't changed your absurd and cruel laws?

Will you step up and say that as far as your concerned, these people are not excommunicated, and that anyone who says they are are being evil?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #20)

Thu May 24, 2012, 09:10 AM

21. You really should look up what excommunication latae sententiae means in fact.

It is not the walk to Canossa.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #21)

Thu May 24, 2012, 11:38 AM

22. We did this before, and I can't see that it's changed.

The person is held to have been excommunicated from the moment they did the act that canon law thinks is so heinous. No-one has to pass it as a 'sentence'. And it means that, for instance, they can't take communion.

So what's your problem with me blaming this on the entire church, who are sitting there with that piece-of-shit bit of canon law staining all of their reputations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #22)

Thu May 24, 2012, 11:59 AM

23. And that's about the only thing it means.

My objection is exageration. You may call it "that piece-of-shit bit of canon law staining all of their reputations" and I may call that an ignorant opinion, particularly when you decline to say who "all of" they are. Do you have a problem with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #23)

Thu May 24, 2012, 12:19 PM

24. "all of'" means all members of the Roman Catholic church, as it did in #20

All Catholics are to blame for this, since you have made it clear the bishop, and the Vatican, had no choice about this.

If there is a significant active movement to get that law changed, then I'd love to hear about it. After 3 years, it ought to have a lot of publicity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #24)

Thu May 24, 2012, 01:11 PM

25. "All Catholics are to blame for this"

That moves your position from an ignorant one to a bigoted one.

Within the four corners of that statement, "all Catholics", all one billion of them and all Catholics on DU , "are to blame for this".

There is no other way to spin that statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #25)

Thu May 24, 2012, 01:28 PM

26. You pointed out that the law of the Catholic church left no choice

Your law, your fault. And I can't see any attempt by you to even say to me that the law is wrong, let alone to tell the Pope that, to get the law changed.

No, this is not 'bigotry'; this is based on the actual facts of the case, and your own insistence that this is not the fault of the bishop or the Vatican.

When are you going to change the law, or leave the group that supports it? Get working. You took the blame on yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #26)

Thu May 24, 2012, 01:32 PM

27. That is not precisely what I said.

And it was you who moved from a discussion of Canon Law (which is entirely a creature of the Vatican) to an accusation against "all Catholics".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #27)

Thu May 24, 2012, 01:42 PM

28. So which is it, rug?

Is the Catholic Church actually made up of the members of the church or is it the Vatican. Because you certainly claim each when it serves you best.

In this instance:
if it is the hierarchy--then leave, or denounce them, or do fucking something.
if it is the membership--then you are all fucked up to leave this in Canon law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #28)

Thu May 24, 2012, 01:46 PM

29. Binary thinking rarely works.

As you know, it's both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #29)

Thu May 24, 2012, 02:06 PM

30. It's not both when it comes to excommunication.

The hierarchy makes the rules. They never ask the membership what they think. And the only way to get it to change is to leave. If they have no membership, their rules won't mean fuck all. Unless you agree with the rule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #29)

Thu May 24, 2012, 03:20 PM

34. Your answer to the question in #8 appears to be "yes, we'd do exactly the same"

and that doesn't seem to trouble you at all. You claim that it's not your fault alone, as a member of the church, it's also the Vatican's, because they control Canon Law. Of course, when I had posted that the Vatican had pointed out the excommunication was automatic, and nothing was going to change it, you pointed me to:
There is a difference between excommunication latae sententiae and ferendae sententiae.

That has been for centuries, and remains today, Canon Law.

What Sobrinho did was the latter which was rescinded.

Now, why don't you answer my question. What is the purpose of using these people and their human tragedy today, three years later?


as if that was some kind of excuse for the Vatican's attitude. But now you want them to take some of the blame from your shoulders, after all. We see no evidence that you have lifted a finger to try to persuade the evil overlords who hold you helpless in a spell of apathy that they should consider allowing pleasant people like the mother and doctors, who did the right thing, remain in their cult.

We've answered the question "what is the purpose of using these people and their human tragedy today, three years later?" It's that this is still a problem in the Roman Catholic church. Your Roman Catholic church will happily re-enact its part in a similar tragedy - to tell parents and doctors they should watch a rape victim die rather than act to save her life, if they want to be 'good Catholics'. The church is unrepentant, even if you, and "Just-Passing-Through", think it's something better swept under the carpet until it happens again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #34)

Thu May 24, 2012, 05:43 PM

35. You've used a lot of words to say what I did not say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #35)

Thu May 24, 2012, 05:48 PM

37. This is the problem, isn't it? Catholics not saying things

just mutely accepting the idiocy and meanness of those who control the organisation. Maybe one day you'll change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #37)

Thu May 24, 2012, 05:49 PM

38. I am not one to mutely accept idiocy and meanness.

No offense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #38)

Thu May 24, 2012, 07:49 PM

40. Please tell me you argue more with priests than on DU (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #40)

Thu May 24, 2012, 08:03 PM

41. Sad to say, it's true.

It began when the pastor sent me an email after Mass complaining that I was reading the bulletin during his sermon. I emailed him back saying I'd read the Catechism next time.

It escalated during the 2004 election when he wrote an article on the parish blog titled "Is Kerry Really A Catholic?" I posted back, "Was Franco Really a Catholic?"

Before the Bishop of Scranton resigned, in disgrace, the pastor would on occasion play a politically-tinged video message from the bishop instead of a sermon. Whenever that occurred, the six of us got up and left about 4 minutes into it. More emails.

I won't get into what happened each and every time one of my children had First Communion or Confirmation other than to say his attempt to deny them because of my behavior was not supported by Canon Law.

He died suddenly last December at age 61. The new priest seems ok so far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #41)

Thu May 24, 2012, 09:49 PM

43. You're a pesky

fellow, aren't you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Thu May 24, 2012, 02:27 PM

31. Someone recommended DU to me....

(Visits site for first time.)

(Sees people starting a fight over a 3 year old news article.)

(Leaves.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just-Passing-Through (Reply #31)

Thu May 24, 2012, 02:31 PM

32. And rather than look at the political discussion

on the home page, you landed right in the Religion group first off. How interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just-Passing-Through (Reply #31)

Thu May 24, 2012, 02:35 PM

33. You could start here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1256 (Welcome & Help)

Or you could read these: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1016

Or latest news: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1014

There's lot here, if you take the time to look around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just-Passing-Through (Reply #31)

Thu May 24, 2012, 05:44 PM

36. Lol, I don't blame you.

Stick around though. What we discuss is usually more current.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Just-Passing-Through (Reply #31)

Thu May 24, 2012, 09:29 PM

42. Well I know if I'm looking for rational discussion

I always try to find a place where different viewpoints of religion are discussed. And I always go to political websites and judge the entire thing on the contents of the forum where religion is discussed. And there's no better place to discuss religion than a political website!

For such a short post it is loaded with so many kinds of fail.

Julie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread