Excommunication for Brazilian Mother who Allowed Daughter to Abort

[desflood]

Brazil Church Excommunicates Mom, Doctors After Raped 9-Year-Old Has Abortion
Thursday, March 05, 2009


RIO DE JANEIRO — A Roman Catholic archbishop says the abortion of twins carried by a 9-year-old girl who allegedly was raped by her stepfather means excommunication for the girl's mother and her doctors.

Despite the nature of the case, the church had to hold its line against abortion, Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho said in an interview aired Thursday by Globo television.

"The law of God is higher than any human laws," he said. "When a human law — that is, a law enacted by human legislators — is against the law of God, that law has no value. The adults who approved, who carried out this abortion have incurred excommunication."

Health Minister Jose Gomes Temporao rebuked the archbishop, saying, "I'm shocked by two facts: by what happened to the girl and by the position of the archbishop, who in saying he defends life puts another at risk."

Abortion is generally illegal in Brazil, which is home to more Catholics than any other nation. But the procedure is allowed when the mother's life is in danger, when the fetus has no chance of survival or in rape cases where the woman has not passed her 20th week of pregnancy.

Doctors said the girl was 15 weeks pregnant when the abortion was performed Wednesday in the northeastern city of Recife, where Sobrinho is archbishop. Health officials said the life of the girl — who weighs 80 pounds —was in danger.

The pregnancy was discovered last week when the girl fell ill and her mother took her to a clinic. The child then told officials she had been abused by her stepfather, who is in police custody.

[mrsmaalox]

OMG that poor,innocent little girl :(

[jack sommerset]

Brazil Church Excommunicates Mom, Doctors After Raped 9-Year-Old Has Abortion
Thursday, March 05, 2009


RIO DE JANEIRO — A Roman Catholic archbishop says the abortion of twins carried by a 9-year-old girl who allegedly was raped by her stepfather means excommunication for the girl's mother and her doctors.

Despite the nature of the case, the church had to hold its line against abortion, Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho said in an interview aired Thursday by Globo television.

"The law of God is higher than any human laws," he said. "When a human law — that is, a law enacted by human legislators — is against the law of God, that law has no value. The adults who approved, who carried out this abortion have incurred excommunication."

Health Minister Jose Gomes Temporao rebuked the archbishop, saying, "I'm shocked by two facts: by what happened to the girl and by the position of the archbishop, who in saying he defends life puts another at risk."

Abortion is generally illegal in Brazil, which is home to more Catholics than any other nation. But the procedure is allowed when the mother's life is in danger, when the fetus has no chance of survival or in rape cases where the woman has not passed her 20th week of pregnancy.

Doctors said the girl was 15 weeks pregnant when the abortion was performed Wednesday in the northeastern city of Recife, where Sobrinho is archbishop. Health officials said the life of the girl — who weighs 80 pounds —was in danger.

The pregnancy was discovered last week when the girl fell ill and her mother took her to a clinic. The child then told officials she had been abused by her stepfather, who is in police custody.

And this is why abortions are legal in America.

[easjer]

That poor, dear girl.

I never have understood this. If murderers can be forgiven via confessional, why not those abort? In this case, it was CLEARLY the right decision. I feel very certain that she is ok in God's eyes here.

[Jekka]

You know, if your church is going to even threaten to excommunicate you for making the right decision, then maybe it's a good time to find another church anyways. This archbishop will get what's coming to him in the end, I really do believe that. What really fucking pisses me off is that the girl's mother and doctors were excommunicated, but the stepfather who raped her and put her in this situation was not? WTF?

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/zoom_awesome.gif

[desflood]

What really fucking pisses me off is that the girl's mother and doctors were excommunicated, but the stepfather who raped her and put her in this situation was not? WTF?
Well, no. He didn't kill anyone.

Priorities, you understand :rolleyes




(just so nobody misunderstands me, that was sarcasm)

[Jekka]

Well, no. He didn't kill anyone.

Priorities, you understand :rolleyes




(just so nobody misunderstands me, that was sarcasm)

Sarcasm noted and appreciated, but regardless, I think a pretty damn good argument could be made that he DID kill someone, seeing as how he completely destroyed that girl's childhood and most likely her sense of personal security. But yeah, I guess the Catholic church of Brazil needs things to be completely literal to process them.

[tlongII]

An example of the stupidity of catholicism...

[travis2]

That poor, dear girl.

I never have understood this. If murderers can be forgiven via confessional, why not those abort? In this case, it was CLEARLY the right decision. I feel very certain that she is ok in God's eyes here.

First of all, they can. Excommunication is not forever unless the person excommunicated wishes it to be.

And CLEARLY is not a word I would use here. Except that CLEARLY the aborted babies didn't ask for THEIR fate.

[travis2]

You know, if your church is going to even threaten to excommunicate you for making the right decision, then maybe it's a good time to find another church anyways. This archbishop will get what's coming to him in the end, I really do believe that. What really fucking pisses me off is that the girl's mother and doctors were excommunicated, but the stepfather who raped her and put her in this situation was not? WTF?

So killing an innocent is the "right decision"? Nice.

And last I looked, you don't get to judge who goes to hell and who doesn't.

[travis2]

An example of the stupidity of catholicism...

So don't be one.

[Kermit]

So killing an innocent is the "right decision"? Nice.

And last I looked, you don't get to judge who goes to hell and who doesn't.

Two innocents. And yes, it was the right decision. You don't get to judge what a mother does for her 9 year old daughter, especially when her life was in danger.

[travis2]

If you noticed, I didn't judge either one.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

[Sec24Row7]

Just become Episcopalian (Catholic Light)

All the fun without most of the messy rules... Kind of like swingers Catholic :p

[Jekka]

So killing an innocent is the "right decision"? Nice.

And last I looked, you don't get to judge who goes to hell and who doesn't.

Obviously "right" is a subjective term, but I do believe this to be the "right" decision. This girl fulfilled multiple criterion for having an abortion in a country that has made all but extreme situations illegal.

And, I didn't say I was sending him to hell - that would be blasphemous since I'm not Manny.

[tlongII]

A 15 week old fetus is not a sentient being.

[desflood]

And, I didn't say I was sending him to hell - that would be blasphemous since I'm not Manny.
Nice.

[ploto]

Excommunication means that a person is no longer a member of a religious body. It in no way passes sentence on whether or not a person is forgiven by God. In actuality, its intent is to state something that is already true; that is, that the person no longer holds to the teachings of that particular faith.

[easjer]

Yes, clearly. I think that is the best word. An 80 pound 9 year old is not physically capable of carrying twins, and for her physical health alone I think it was the clearly correct decision. I also think for her emotional health and for her family (yes, even those 2 babies) it was clearly the correct decision.

Given the odds of her ability to carry them anywhere near approaching term, and the physical risks she would undertake (and this is leaving aside the fact she is NINE YEARS OLD) - the risks of all three of them dying - I am relieved her mother made that choice.

[Blake]

So killing an innocent is the "right decision"? Nice.



If you noticed, I didn't judge either one.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

No, you only questioned it being the right decision, implying that it wasn't.

seeing as how your friend count is zero, I'd say reading comprehension isn't your friend.

[travis2]

Or maybe I have better things to do than play with certain features of this board? :rolleyes

Comparing "friend count" with reading comprehension is weak.

[travis2]

Obviously "right" is a subjective term, but I do believe this to be the "right" decision. This girl fulfilled multiple criterion for having an abortion in a country that has made all but extreme situations illegal.

And, I didn't say I was sending him to hell - that would be blasphemous since I'm not Manny.

My comment was directed towards your "he'll get what's coming to him" statement. My point being that neither you nor I know what that is.

[smeagol]

An example of the stupidity of catholicism...

So you have more examples?

Stupidity compared to other religions?

I think I smell a biggoted anti-Catholic . . .

[travis2]

A 15 week old fetus is not a sentient being.

An argument could be made that someone suffering from profound mental retardation is not a sentient being. Would you recommend euthanasia in that case?

[travis2]

Excommunication means that a person is no longer a member of a religious body. It in no way passes sentence on whether or not a person is forgiven by God. In actuality, its intent is to state something that is already true; that is, that the person no longer holds to the teachings of that particular faith.

Nicely put.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm amazed there are people in here defending this decision.

[smeagol]

I'm amazed there are people in here defending this decision.

I'm not defending it, I'm actually torn by it.

I'm amazed other people are not torn by it too.

[easjer]

Had the girl's health not been in danger, had she been older, I would be more torn by it Smeagol. But in this case - physically alone, I believe 100% it was the right decision. And if it makes any difference, I'm not devaluing human life or what an embryo is or isn't. I've had 2 failed pregnancies in the last 6 months. I wasn't callous about them because they were early or not sentient or anything. I've wept for my children. But I still think this was the right call.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not defending it, I'm actually torn by it.

I'm amazed other people are not torn by it too.

There's nothing to be torn about a church turning its back on people in need.

[smeagol]

Had the girl's health not been in danger, had she been older, I would be more torn by it Smeagol. But in this case - physically alone, I believe 100% it was the right decision. And if it makes any difference, I'm not devaluing human life or what an embryo is or isn't. I've had 2 failed pregnancies in the last 6 months. I wasn't callous about them because they were early or not sentient or anything. I've wept for my children. But I still think this was the right call.

I understand where you are coming from. I'm obviously pro-life and feel abortion is only warranted when the mother's life is in danger. Given the mother's age, and although I have not read any medical report confirming this, I believe this is the case (mother's life in danger).

Nevertheless, I still feel for the two lives that are being destroyed. No matter what the situation or the circumstance of a pregnancy, chosing to abort kills a life. And that makes me sad. Even in this case.

[smeagol]

There's nothing to be torn about a church turning its back on people in need.

I'm talking about the decision to abort, not the excomuniaction.

[easjer]

She was 80 pounds, and 9 years old. Her life was in danger with twins, no doubt about it. Very likely with only one baby, because of the weight, her size and the fact that most teenage mothers (and she wasn't even a teenager) run higher risks for certain pregnancy complications.

And this ignores the fact she had no prenatal care prior to the discovery of the pregnancy at 15 weeks and that with twins, it was unlikely she was receiving adequate nutrition for all of their development.

[tlongII]

An argument could be made that someone suffering from profound mental retardation is not a sentient being. Would you recommend euthanasia in that case?

Eh, probably not if the individual isn't suffering. I assume you know we have legalized physician assisted suicide here in Oregon. I'm on board with that.

[tlongII]

So you have more examples?

Stupidity compared to other religions?

I think I smell a biggoted anti-Catholic . . .

Your sense of smell is dead on. The Catholic religion is one big hypocritical joke.

[jack sommerset]

Just when this family needs thier church more than ever, they "suspend" them. Classic. When will people learn?

[smeagol]

Your sense of smell is dead on. The Catholic religion is one big hypocritical joke.

Care to expand, you Catholic expert you?

[jack sommerset]

So if these two babys were aborted,killed (for argument sake) do they go to Hell or Heaven?The babys had no clue who Jesus was. Will they become lil Angels or Satans pets?

[tlongII]

Care to expand, you Catholic expert you?

Not really.

[smeagol]

Not really.

Not surprised coming from you.

Through the stone, hide the hand kind of guy.

[mogrovejo]

The adherence to the Catholic Church is still voluntary, right? I mean this decision is strictly between the Church and those individuals, correct? There's no repercussion whatsoever in the legal sphere, am I correct? Churches and religions have rules and faithfuls are supposed to follow them, as long as they don't impact with their civil rights, correct?

So, what's the fucking problem with this? It's a private relationship between the hierarchy of the church and some of their members! Nobody was hurt. What do you people want to do? Force a church to accept members that break the rules? Do you understand how fucking totalitarian that is? Freedom of religion is a basic right of every human being. That includes allowing Churches to set their own rules and say "hey mate, if you don't want to follow our rules, just find another church that suits you better". That's what happened here. Stop being so over-emotional and reactionary.

[Jekka]

The adherence to the Catholic Church is still voluntary, right? I mean this decision is strictly between the Church and those individuals, correct? There's no repercussion whatsoever in the legal sphere, am I correct? Churches and religions have rules and faithfuls are supposed to follow them, as long as they don't impact with their civil rights, correct?

So, what's the fucking problem with this? It's a private relationship between the hierarchy of the church and some of their members! Nobody was hurt. What do you people want to do? Force a church to accept members that break the rules? Do you understand how fucking totalitarian that is? Freedom of religion is a basic right of every human being. That includes allowing Churches to set their own rules and say "hey mate, if you don't want to follow our rules, just find another church that suits you better". That's what happened here. Stop being so over-emotional and reactionary.

I don't think that anyone here is suggesting that the state get involved - there are, however, several people expressing incredulity at the church rejecting some of their members at a time when they probably need the church most. A mother and doctors probably saved that girl's life and the church turned their back on what is a heartwrenchingly difficult situation. The church is a private entity and can do what it wants in that regard, but I don't see this as a way for the ministry of the church to be the supportive and uplifting influence that it could be.

I also still have a huge problem with no mention of excommunication for the stepfather who was the perpetrator, and if we're going to talk about this in terms of "breaking the rules", then is aggravated sexual assault of a child not "against the rules" enough for excommunication? Should not all murderers be excommunicated if they are going to do this for an abortion?

[desflood]

terms of "breaking the rules", then is aggravated sexual assault of a child not "against the rules" enough for excommunication?
They don't want to lose so many priests.

[mookie2001]

i guess since manu doesnt believe in god he would have no problem con un aborto

[smeagol]

i guess since manu doesnt believe in god he would have no problem con un aborto

I did not believe in God in my 20s and still was against abortion.

It all depends what you it is you are aborting. Is it a human life or a thing?

[mookie2001]

i think a fetus is a fetus, not a human
the abortion issue is just used to divide the patriots up

going to catholic school and church and ccd for years really does make you sympathetic to the cause

but if abortion wasnt legal here in the states you would have dumb chicks kicking themselves in the stomach and other horrific things

[tlongII]

Not surprised coming from you.

Through the stone, hide the hand kind of guy.

I'm going to assume you meant throw. Obviously you've never been an altar boy.

[balli]

Through the stone, hide the hand kind of guy.
Meh, the Catholic church has had enough of its skeletons dragged out of the closet (or put on public display). Whether that mean the entire, modern, Catholic church should be dismissed outright is up to the individual, but there's enough common-knowledge evidence, that it's easy to understand why some individuals would do so.

[mogrovejo]

I don't think that anyone here is suggesting that the state get involved - there are, however, several people expressing incredulity at the church rejecting some of their members at a time when they probably need the church most. A mother and doctors probably saved that girl's life and the church turned their back on what is a heartwrenchingly difficult situation. The church is a private entity and can do what it wants in that regard, but I don't see this as a way for the ministry of the church to be the supportive and uplifting influence that it could be.

I also still have a huge problem with no mention of excommunication for the stepfather who was the perpetrator, and if we're going to talk about this in terms of "breaking the rules", then is aggravated sexual assault of a child not "against the rules" enough for excommunication? Should not all murderers be excommunicated if they are going to do this for an abortion?

Well, I mean no offense, but stay away from that church then if you "don't see this as a way for the ministry of the church to be the supportive and uplifting influence that it could be". The Roman Catholic Church has been around for a few centuries now, like 21, so they probably know what they are doing. These issues have been discussed by hundreds of years, with some of the most brilliant minds ever produced by the man kind, from Augustine to Aquinas. Still, I can't understand what's your problem with it if you're not a Catholic. I suspect that's because you don't fully understand what an excommunication is. Or even partially.

I mean, turned their back? Why do you say that? It seems to me that you're confusing excommunication with some kind of ostracism. It has nothing to do with that, quite the opposite. An excommunication is an invitation to repentance, reflection and a deeper involvement with the Church. People are not forbidden of going to the Mass, for example; quite the opposite, they're encouraged to go more. And it's not exactly some kind of perpetual punishment either (it's not even a punishment, in a doctrinal sense): an excommunication is quickly resolved with a confession, there are tons of excommunication being sentenced and resolved a few minutes later in concessionaires every freaking day. I'm pretty sure thousands of Catholic priests have given absolutions to excommunications for the practice of abortions at least once in their life. So, turning their back my ass. I'm positively sure that the girl and her mother are receiving plenty of support from Catholics and from their priesthood. Where exactly are you seeing the "rejection"?

Answering your questions: Catholic doctrine is a product of a perpetual and non-stop philosophical, moral and theological conversation. Unfortunately, the tendency (from the last few decades, even from the last century) is, from my point of view, to exaggerate the value of life in an absolutist conceptualization and equate all type of killing, blurring very important differences. The traditional understanding was that the killing of an innocent life was more serious than, say, a tyrannicide - and therefore was treated differently. Nowadays the doctrine is getting very close of what it seems to be your understanding of what it should be: life is a supreme and absolute value and any kind of offence against it is regarded as an act of equal demerit.

Anyway, here's a link with some explanation on this issue:
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/Abortio2.htm

[Jekka]

Still, I can't understand what's your problem with it if you're not a Catholic. I suspect that's because you don't fully understand what an excommunication is. Or even partially.
My problem with it actually has less to do the concept of excommunication as it does with the simple concepts of empathy, tolerance, forgiveness, and love - all of which are teachings of Jesus Christ, and none of which, I feel, were displayed by the church in this decision.

It seems to me that you're confusing excommunication with some kind of ostracism.
Because I'm sure that this family has been completely free of ostracism since the Catholic church publicly called them out on this and said they had sinned, with the Vatican publicly backing up the decision. Excommunication may a less malevolent option when carried out privately, but it is a whole other case being in the public sphere now. Its effects are different, and I think more harmful to both the affected individuals and the church.

But I think you misunderstand my point - it was not to try and change anyone's mind, or have any affect on the church (as if it could), this was part of a discussion, and I fail to see where your condescension was productive.

[baseline bum]

I'm against abortion in almost all cases, but right here I can't see how 3 dead is supposed to be better than 2.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Funny how the Church is willing to excommunicate someone for a "sin" while Christ forgives all who seek it. Doesn't really make sense, and this is from a lifetime Catholic.

[Alex Jones]

The Roman Catholic Church has been around for a few centuries now, so they probably know what they are doing.


You would think with all those centuries of knowledge they would know how to keep their priest form molesting boys.

Buddha,Cannibalism,and worshiping Satan has been around even longer does that make any of them right?

http://wackyiraqi.com/wtf/get_off_your_high_horse.jpg

[mogrovejo]

My problem with it actually has less to do the concept of excommunication as it does with the simple concepts of empathy, tolerance, forgiveness, and love - all of which are teachings of Jesus Christ, and none of which, I feel, were displayed by the church in this decision.

What decision? There wasn't a "decision".

[mogrovejo]

Because I'm sure that this family has been completely free of ostracism since the Catholic church publicly called them out on this and said they had sinned, with the Vatican publicly backing up the decision. Excommunication may a less malevolent option when carried out privately, but it is a whole other case being in the public sphere now. Its effects are different, and I think more harmful to both the affected individuals and the church..

Less malevolent option? Why is it a malevolent option? I have no idea why does excommunication have any kind of malevolent nature.

[mogrovejo]

Funny how the Church is willing to excommunicate someone for a "sin" while Christ forgives all who seek it. Doesn't really make sense, and this is from a lifetime Catholic.

What's exactly the problem? Do you want forgiveness without a sin? How's that possible? What are you forgiving? The excommunication is automatic, it's a consequence of the sin - nobody really "decides" it. The absolution or forgiveness is a consequence of the confession and repentance.

[Jekka]

What decision? There wasn't a "decision".
The decision to excommunicate wasn't a decision?

Less malevolent option? Why is it a malevolent option? I have no idea why does excommunication have any kind of malevolent nature.
I give up. I think you're having some difficulty understanding how the church's decision is not without significant social implications for the people affected and how the compassionate thing for the church to have done would have been to take that into consideration and either a) opt out of excommunication, or b) excommunicate, but do so privately. It was not my impression that all excommunications made the news cycle on a global scale, nor do I believe that the international news the best place for a sexually abused 9 year old girl to be.

[mogrovejo]

The decision to excommunicate wasn't a decision?

The excommunication is automatic. If people commit certain sins, they become automatically excommunicated. So, from a certain perspective, it was a decision, but not from the Church hierarchy.


I give up. I think you're having some difficulty understanding how the church's decision is not without significant social implications for the people affected and how the compassionate thing for the church to have done would have been to take that into consideration and either a) opt out of excommunication, or b) excommunicate, but do so privately. It was not my impression that all excommunications made the news cycle on a global scale, nor do I believe that the international news the best place for a sexually abused 9 year old girl to be.You should read the article linked (there's no way of "opting out of excommunication" - only thing that can be done is to concede absolution) first; read some more about this particular case second. LOL at the idea that the catholic church tried to publicize this case or bring it to the news.

[balli]

The amount of dogma that people take seriously boggles my mind sometimes. I'm no atheist, but damn, the awe people have for the pettiness of religion is hard for me to wrap my mind around.

[Jekka]

The excommunication is automatic. If people commit certain sins, they become automatically excommunicated. So, from a certain perspective, it was a decision, but not from the Church hierarchy.

You should read the article linked (there's no way of "opting out of excommunication" - only thing that can be done is to concede absolution) first; read some more about this particular case second. LOL at the idea that the catholic church tried to publicize this case or bring it to the news.

I wasn't kidding when I said that I give up, but I did have a laugh at that. Like the Catholic church doesn't know how to turn a blind eye ...

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

What's exactly the problem? Do you want forgiveness without a sin? How's that possible? What are you forgiving? The excommunication is automatic, it's a consequence of the sin - nobody really "decides" it. The absolution or forgiveness is a consequence of the confession and repentance.

Remind me what the point is for excommunicating someone. Is it similar to the Scarlett Letter?

In this example the mom of the little girl is automatically excommunicated for wanting to save her daughter?

If excommunication is automatic why did the archbishop have to make an announcement about it?

Educate me.

[mrsmaalox]

I don't think it's fair to assume that it was the church who put this out into the public eye. More than likely a reporter caught a blurb from any one of many possible sources and went looking for answers.


What's exactly the problem? Do you want forgiveness without a sin? How's that possible? What are you forgiving? The excommunication is automatic, it's a consequence of the sin - nobody really "decides" it. The absolution or forgiveness is a consequence of the confession and repentance.

Mogrovejo, I appreciate the link it clarified some things for me. I don't support Catholic church but I think I understand where they are coming from. :)

[MiamiHeat.]

Mogrovejo, I appreciate the link it clarified some things for me. I don't support Catholic church but I think I understand where they are coming from. :)

sellout!

[MiamiHeat.]

If excommunication is automatic why did the archbishop have to make an announcement about it?

Educate me.


http://www.cs4fn.org/biology/images/cricket.jpg

[mrsmaalox]

sellout!

:lol Sell out my ass!! It was a freaking definition....

[mogrovejo]

Remind me what the point is for excommunicating someone(...)

If a member of the Church is excommunicated that means he needs to reflect, repent and correct whatever his deeds or statements were. The point is merely to make that member conscious of that need.

English is not my primary language. Or even my fourth. You'd be better served by reading this text:
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/Abortio2.htm
I believe it answers your questions.


I wasn't kidding when I said that I give up, but I did have a laugh at that. Like the Catholic church doesn't know how to turn a blind eye ...

I think you're still missing the point. Imagine a situation where nobody would knew from the abortion. The mother of the girl and the doctors would still be excommunicated. The excommunication is not a judicial sentence or anything like that.

[tlongII]

If a member of the Church is excommunicated that means he needs to reflect, repent and correct whatever his deeds or statements were. The point is merely to make that member conscious of that need.

English is not my primary language. Or even my fourth. You'd be better served by reading this text:
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/Abortio2.htm
I believe it answers your questions.



I think you're still missing the point. Imagine a situation where nobody would knew from the abortion. The mother of the girl and the doctors would still be excommunicated. The excommunication is not a judicial sentence or anything like that.


Actually I think you're missing the point. I am certain that this exact situation has occurred in other countries without the involved parties being excommunicated. If you agree that is the case then you have to agree that it was a decision made by the catholic church in Brazil.

[mogrovejo]

For the record, I'm not a Catholic either (or a Christian, or a person of Faith). What I do believe that the intellectual and philosophical production of the Catholicism is one of the most valuable patrimonies of the Human Civilization, that freedom of Religion is one of the most important liberties and that safe-guarding churches and ecclesias from emotional and reactionary criticisms from ignorant outsiders and non-believers has become a duty in these days.

[mogrovejo]

Actually I think you're missing the point. I am certain that this exact situation has occurred in other countries without the involved parties being excommunicated. If you agree that is the case then you have to agree that it was a decision made by the catholic church in Brazil.

I don't know what else to say. Every person involved in an abortion - directly or indirectly - is automatically excommunicated, unless he or she is younger than 16 (that's why the girl wasn't excommunicated) or doesn't know the law (the 5th commandment). Or was forced to abort or cooperate with an abortion, of course. Brazil, USA, Finland, China, Mozambique... it doesn't matter. It's automatic, nobody has to know about that, except the person (or people) who commits the sin (and God, obviously). What's so difficult to understand about this?

ps - well, unless the sinners aren't Catholics. In that case, of course there's no excommunication. :bang

[David Bowie]

If a member of the Church is excommunicated that means he needs to reflect, repent and correct whatever his deeds or statements were. The point is merely to make that member conscious of that need.



My problem with this is that I don't see what the mother, the 9 year old girl and the doctor need to repent for. They did nothing wrong (in fact they did the right thing imo) so I don't see why they need to repent and ask for forgivness.......which is the point of excommunication.

[mogrovejo]

My problem with this is that I don't see what the mother, the 9 year old girl and the doctor need to repent for. They did nothing wrong (in fact they did the right thing imo) so I don't see why they need to repent and ask for forgivness.......which is the point of excommunication.

Great. Don't enter the Catholic Church then. You and that Church have different views on that issue. For them, an abortion is always, in every case, something wrong. People who don't agree with that aren't Catholics therefore can't be excommunicated. So, you don't have a problem at all. Quite simple.

[tlongII]

I don't know what else to say. Every person involved in an abortion - directly or indirectly - is automatically excommunicated, unless he or she is younger than 16 (that's why the girl wasn't excommunicated) or doesn't know the law (the 5th commandment). Or was forced to abort or cooperate with an abortion, of course. Brazil, USA, Finland, China, Mozambique... it doesn't matter. It's automatic, nobody has to know about that, except the person (or people) who commits the sin (and God, obviously). What's so difficult to understand about this?

ps - well, unless the sinners aren't Catholics. In that case, of course there's no excommunication. :bang

As I know some catholic women that have had abortions and still regularly attend the catholic church I find it difficult to believe your position.

[mogrovejo]

As I know some catholic women that have had abortions and still regularly attend the catholic church I find it difficult to believe your position.

If I were you, I'd consider reading my posts before commenting on my position. Here's what I wrote in my 1st or 2nd post:

It seems to me that you're confusing excommunication with some kind of ostracism. It has nothing to do with that, quite the opposite. An excommunication is an invitation to repentance, reflection and a deeper involvement with the Church. People are not forbidden of going to the Mass, for example; quite the opposite, they're encouraged to go more.

In which part of my position you don't believe?

Ps. - plus, do you know if those women weren't absolved and therefore aren't excommunicated anymore? All it takes is a single confession, nothing more.

[mookie2001]

owned tlong
pac10 style

[french bread]

My girlfriend is catholic and had two abortions and I don't remember ever hearing about this Excommunication bullshit.

Could you imagine if every girl or woman with an abortion left the church? There would be no one left except Angel_luv and Jekka. :lmao

[Pusher Man]

god damn

[tlongII]

If I were you, I'd consider reading my posts before commenting on my position. Here's what I wrote in my 1st or 2nd post:

It seems to me that you're confusing excommunication with some kind of ostracism. It has nothing to do with that, quite the opposite. An excommunication is an invitation to repentance, reflection and a deeper involvement with the Church. People are not forbidden of going to the Mass, for example; quite the opposite, they're encouraged to go more.

In which part of my position you don't believe?

Ps. - plus, do you know if those women weren't absolved and therefore aren't excommunicated anymore? All it takes is a single confession, nothing more.

I'm only doing this for Mookie...

from Miriam-Webster...

Main Entry: ex·com·mu·ni·ca·tion
Pronunciation: \-ˌmyü-nə-ˈkā-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : an ecclesiastical censure depriving a person of the rights of church membership
2 : exclusion from fellowship in a group or community
— ex·com·mu·ni·ca·tive \-ˈmyü-nə-ˌkā-tiv, -ni-kət-\ adjective

[tlongII]

and I have nothing against mogrovejo...

[mookie2001]

English is not my primary language. Or even my fourth.


here we go


alright phehenomanual

bust out some credentials

[B-Boys]

I have no problem with the Catholics at ST you guys can all pray to Satan as far as I care! :tu But I do have a problem with some of the ways your church does business. So this is directed at the religion as a whole not at anyone here. :toast

But the more I read about this Catholic religion the more it seems like some sort of cult. After all you have to do all kinds of things in order to be able to receive communion and if any rule is broken you must say some sort on mantra over and over as part of the forgiveness process, and now due to a medial condition the church is delegating rights and revoking privileges, But yet a priest does wrong they just transfer him.

Then you have the arch bishop the cardinal, its like I am going to join the masons. And if you notice all topics and posts about the catholic religion is always negative or controversial. You hardly see any fun or good come out of a topic when the Catholic religion is the subject.

I am not a church goer but when I was young my parents took me to a free Methodist church where we could pray to God without having to go through a priest and we didn't have to take a class before we could have communion. But I do remember reading something in the Bible about no man should come between the father or something like that. This catholic religion is like working for Enron you have to know someone if you want to advance but at the end you end up losing everything.

my 2 cents carry on...............

[MannyIsGod]

Mogrovejo should take some of his own advice and learn some more about excommunication because he's gotten things wrong in this case.

[TheProfessor]

No one has yet addressed how this decision squares with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

[jack sommerset]

Honestly, after it is all said and done this family needs to join a new club. There are thousands of religions out there they can choose from. Seriously thousands. They all have bibles,proof of existence,hats to put money in and others to tell them what to do.If they really bought in to this religion they can go to another church. Hopefully somewhere near their home.

[mogrovejo]

I'm only doing this for Mookie...

from Miriam-Webster...

Main Entry: ex·com·mu·ni·ca·tion
Pronunciation: \-ˌmyü-nə-ˈkā-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : an ecclesiastical censure depriving a person of the rights of church membership
2 : exclusion from fellowship in a group or community
— ex·com·mu·ni·ca·tive \-ˈmyü-nə-ˌkā-tiv, -ni-kət-\ adjective

I don't think a common dictionary is a good source on this issue. The Catholic Church Canon Law is the oldest continuously functioning legal system in the Western Civilization and the common meaning of a word can be different from the canonic meaning (to the point of being misleading), just like it happens with civil law. I mean, there are different types of excommunication: the Catholic excommunication is different from the Lutheran excommunication or from the Adventist excommunication or from the Takfir (the Muslim form of excommunication). The Catholic Excommunication is actually quite different from what it was in the Middle-Ages or even some decades ago. That definition is too short for such a complex issue. For example, until the Council Vatican II there was an extreme form of excommunication, the Vitandus

Anyway, definition 1 may be applicable to the Catholic Excommunication as the subjects aren't allowed to receive the Eucharist (although they can attend the Liturgy - more than that, they're under the same obligation as any other Catholic). Definition 2, not at all. I think this is pretty clear if you read a couple of articles on the issue, like the one I linked.

You know those Bishops from the SSPX whose excommunication was removed awhile ago? They were still part of the Church and their ordained status as Bishops was never lost - they were just forbidden of exercising their priestly functions.

I think the easiest way to comprehend this is to see the excommunication - in this latae sententiae form - not exactly as a punishment but as a status. If a Catholic breaks certain laws he automatically becomes excommunicated - well, not necessarily, there can be mitigating factors, but these are technicalities (there are some canonists who are against the automatic form of excommunication).

Unfortunately, there are plently of misconceptions about Excommunicatio, ergo this thread.

[mogrovejo]

No one has yet addressed how this decision squares with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Whose decision? I think you're misunderstanding something.


Mogrovejo should take some of his own advice and learn some more about excommunication because he's gotten things wrong in this case.

Perhaps, I'm frequently wrong. What I've learnt about excommunication was mostly in a couple of seminars on Canon Law and by reading some doctrinal, historic or legal bibliography - although, in all honesty, excommunication was never an issue I was specifically interested on. Anyway, if I'm wrong, I'd appreciate to know why and where, it's always good to learn new things.

[ploto]

No one has yet addressed how this decision squares with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

"If your brother sins, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.

If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.'

If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector."

[Horn Tooter]

What I've learnt about excommunication was in a couple of seminars on Canon Law and by reading some doctrinal, historic or legal bibliography

[tlongII]

from newadvent.org...


Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion -- exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence. Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of Christian society; hence, it can affect only those who by baptism have been admitted to that society. Undoubtedly there can and do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixed rights; among them are other censures, e.g. suspension for clerics, interdict for clerics and laymen, irregularity ex delicto, etc. Excommunication, however, is clearly distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of all rights resulting from the social status of the Christian as such. The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. But such exile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments. Moreover, if he be a cleric, he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority.



I think it's clear from this that decision-making does indeed go on within the church regarding excommunications. It's also clear to me that the penalized parties are excluded from participating in communion, although not necessarily forever.

[hater]

excomunication is probably the best thing a catholic could achieve in life

[Blake]

The excommunication is automatic. If people commit certain sins, they become automatically excommunicated. So, from a certain perspective, it was a decision, but not from the Church hierarchy.

You should read the article linked (there's no way of "opting out of excommunication" - only thing that can be done is to concede absolution) first; read some more about this particular case second. LOL at the idea that the catholic church tried to publicize this case or bring it to the news.

if this is how the church treats people, then yeah, she needs a new church.

nothing about automatic excommunication in the Bible.

[hater]

excomunnication means the person is banished from catholic church and probably needs to get ready to go burn in hell.

It is a medieval practice, the catholic church used it hundreds of years ago to scare, blackmail, control the people. It is hilarious that some ppl still beleive in that shit, and all that other catholic church bullshit

[TheProfessor]

"If your brother sins, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.

If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.'

If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector."
Eloquently answered. Unfortunately, the incorrect "sinner" is punished in this context, if she is even that. I see no compassion or understanding.

[TheProfessor]

A Roman Catholic archbishop says the abortion of twins carried by a 9-year-old girl who allegedly was raped by her stepfather means excommunication for the girl's mother and her doctors.

Despite the nature of the case, the church had to hold its line against abortion, Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho said in an interview aired Thursday by Globo television.


Whose decision? I think you're misunderstanding something
Please explain it to me then.

EDIT - Well, reading your answers to Blake, I see what you're getting at. Though fundamentally it is the kind of decision-making that leaves the Catholic Church in the dark ages.

[Blake]

Great. Don't enter the Catholic Church then. You and that Church have different views on that issue. For them, an abortion is always, in every case, something wrong. People who don't agree with that aren't Catholics therefore can't be excommunicated. So, you don't have a problem at all. Quite simple.

Great. If that's the case then the Catholic church sucks and has no business trying to teach the New Testament if they can't even adhere to it themselves.

[Blake]

excomunnication means the person is banished from catholic church and probably needs to get ready to go burn in hell.

It is a medieval practice, the catholic church used it hundreds of years ago to scare, blackmail, control the people. It is hilarious that some ppl still beleive in that shit, and all that other catholic church bullshit

most likely, the mother pays enough money to the church and they let her back in.

[mogrovejo]

from newadvent.org...



I think it's clear from this that decision-making does indeed go on within the church regarding excommunications. It's also clear to me that the penalized parties are excluded from participating in communion, although not necessarily forever.

1. Well, this is getting amusing. Using the definition of a Catholic Encyclopedia is certainly an improvement over a Webster dictionary. However, as I said in a previous post, the Catholic Excommunication is actually quite different from what it was in the Middle-Ages or even some decades ago. For example, until the Council Vatican II there was an extreme form of excommunication, the Vitandus.

Hence, maybe it's not wise to quote an article from the... 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. Yeah, that's the version published in the NewAdvent site (a great resource on Catholic documents, btw).

Anyway, addressing what's supposedly clear to you:

I think it's clear from this that decision-making does indeed go on within the church regarding excommunications.

Let me quote part of the article:



Excommunication, especially a jure, is either latæ or ferendæ sententiæ. The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08545a.htm); it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: "the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]". The second is indeed foreseen by the law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm) as a penalty, but is inflicted on the culprit only by a judicial sentence; in other words, the delinquent is rather threatened than visited with the penalty, and incurs it only when the judge has summoned him before his tribunal, declared him guilty, and punished him according to the terms of the law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm). It is recognized when the law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm) contains these or similar words: "under pain of excommunication"; "the culprit will be excommunicated".

As I've said before this was a latae sententiae excommunication.As the article you quote says it "is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiasticall judge". Thanks for proving me right.
Second:

It's also clear to me that the penalized parties are excluded from participating in communion, although not necessarily forever.

I'd strongly suggest you to re-read my previous post. As I've said, the subjects aren't allowed to receive the Eucharist. I don't know what you mean by excluded from participating in communion - is it the exile? If so, that kind of excommunicated - the vindati - is no longer practiced. And if it was, it would require conditions not fulfiled in this case.

To sum it up: if your Catholic friends aborted, they were excommunicated by latae sententiae. From that moment till the second they confessed and repented their act, they weren't able to receive the communion and some other Church activities (like to help the priest in the liturgy) but they were still able to attend the Mass. At any moment they were excluded from the Church.

I think the lesson here is that if you're going to quote an article, read it till the end - even if it's a wrong one.

There are ways to kick one out of the Catholic Church. However, Excommunication (as defined by the 1983 Code of Canon Law for the Roman Church - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM) is not one of them.

[mogrovejo]

Please explain it to me then.

EDIT - Well, reading your answers to Blake, I see what you're getting at. Though fundamentally it is the kind of decision-making that leaves the Catholic Church in the dark ages.

I really don't understand what you mean. I've repeated 100 times that Excommunication these days is radically different, has a different nature and meaning, than the Excommunication in the Middle-Ages. It's almost opposed.

I still don't understand to what decision you were refereeing to. The Bishop didn't decide the Excommunication, this has been explained ad nauseaum.



excomunnication means the person is banished from catholic church and probably needs to get ready to go burn in hell.


Impressive. Excommunication has nothing to do with banishment. It's pretty amazing that the Catholic Church is often accused of being obscurantist. Oh, the irony.

And an excommunicated person doesn't go to Hell. He may go or not. That's another common misconception. The Church doesn't judge dead people. The final fate is always decided by God.

[tlongII]

1. Well, this is getting amusing. Using the definition of a Catholic Encyclopedia is certainly an improvement over a Webster dictionary. However, as I said in a previous post, the Catholic Excommunication is actually quite different from what it was in the Middle-Ages or even some decades ago. For example, until the Council Vatican II there was an extreme form of excommunication, the Vitandus.

Hence, maybe it's not wise to quote an article from the... 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. Yeah, that's the version published in the NewAdvent site (a great resource on Catholic documents, btw).

Anyway, addressing what's supposedly clear to you:

I think it's clear from this that decision-making does indeed go on within the church regarding excommunications.

Let me quote part of the article:



As I've said before this was a latae sententiae excommunication.As the article you quote says it "is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiasticall judge". Thanks for proving me right.
Second:

It's also clear to me that the penalized parties are excluded from participating in communion, although not necessarily forever.

I'd strongly suggest you to re-read my previous post. As I've said, the subjects aren't allowed to receive the Eucharist. I don't know what you mean by excluded from participating in communion - is it the exile? If so, that kind of excommunicated - the vindati - is no longer practiced. And if it was, it would require conditions not fulfiled in this case.

To sum it up: if your Catholic friends aborted, they were excommunicated by latae sententiae. From that moment till the second they confessed and repented their act, they weren't able to receive the communion and some other Church activities (like to help the priest in the liturgy) but they were still able to attend the Mass. At any moment they were excluded from the Church.

I think the lesson here is that if you're going to quote an article, read it till the end - even if it's a wrong one.

There are ways to kick one out of the Catholic Church. However, Excommunication (as defined by the 1983 Code of Canon Law for the Roman Church - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM) is not one of them.

Why would I read the whole thing? I'm not Catholic! :lol

I'm surprised you don't know what communion is...