Reply #36: Murder, under Catholic Doctrine is ALWAYS Automatic excommunication.

[happyslug]

Thus in your hypothetical, the mother who kills her new born baby would be excommunicated, Please note the none year is NOT excommunicated, being to young to understand what is happening, but her mother is (i.e. the wife of the person who sexually abused the nine year old).

As to the father of the child, he is under arrest and will be tried for abuse. Those are also "Sins" under Catholic rules, but they are NOT "Severe Sins" as that term is used in the present catechism (Use to be called "mortal sins"). Now if the abuse is severe enough, excommunication may be applied, but all we have is accusations NOT a confirmed act.

People my disagree with the Church's position, but it is based on the assumption that a fetus becomes Human on conception NOT later. Since the fetus in this case (Two Fetuses since twins are reported) is a Human being, to kill that human just to make another human's life better is a sin. Even we in the US take that position except we we NOT accept conception as the point when Zygote becomes a Human being, we preferred the old Catholic Rule, (Pre-1869 Vatican I Rule) which made it a "Severe Sin" to have an abortion in the final trimester, but only a minor sin before that time. This was derived from medieval church rules as to abortion which in turn can be traced back to the Greeks of Roman times (And even earlier in both Greek and Jewish tradition that held a fetus was NOT a human being till it could survive outside the womb, which in humans ins about the 26th week, commonly called "Quickening").

The main problem with abortion has always been "when does the fetus become a Human Being, with all the rights of being Human, including the right to live?" If you hold it to be conception then what this bishop ruled is the only correct ruling in this case. If you hold it to occur later, then this is an acceptable abortion. When does a fetus become a human being? All of the possible dates have problems, the problem with conception is clearly seen in this case, the problem with the 26 week rule is, while it is the point where the mother and others can feel the child in her womb, as to actual development of the fetus, the only difference between the 20th week and 26th week is size of the fetus (And this was NOT found out till the early 1800s and then Doctors used it to push mid-wives out of the job of helping at births, where it had been for millennia and under the care of Doctors, the religious reversion of this issue followed the medical revision, thus the Catholic Church revision in 1869).

Birth is even worse then "Quickening" for it is clear the child can survive outside the womb before birth (and may have been able to survive outside the womb since Quickening). The next big development is when the child starts to talk and walk at about none months of age (And this appears to have been used in ancient times, but appears to have faded out when Christianity took hold). As you can see all of these dates have problems. The one that has worked the best and the longest is Roe vs Wade (i.e. the Catholic rule pre-1869, it had been adopted as part of the English Common law in the middle ages, but can trace it use back to Greek and Jewish roots).

Thus the dilemma for the Church and most other people who face this dilemma, when does human life begin and with it the protection of our society? We can attack the Catholic Church for its position, but it is a consistent position and this is one of its admitted downsides, but similar downsides exists for the other positions. When does human life begins decides the issue, and it is a debated that is generally avoided for we are uncomfortable about it. It comes up in cases like this, where the people who have debated it gets attacked for their position in the face of a case like this appear ridiculous, but then quickly dies for such cases are rare and we return to out normal rule of ignoring the problem hoping it will go away.