To sum up in one long sentence: a nine-year old girl was raped and impregnated by her stepfather and had a legal abortion under Brazilian law since she fit both of the only two circumstances that allow abortion, rape and risk to mother's life, and was promptly excommunicated by the Catholic Church along with her family and doctors which has pissed off a lot of Brazilians.
I would love to hear other opinions on this case and will give mine below.
I am personally pro-choice on the matter of abortion. Partly it is because I am a man and feel I have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Partly because even when abortions are illegal they still occur, just the risk of death and infection to the mother is higher.
On the idea of destruction of life in abortion I like to tread lightly. I personally don't know exactly when life begins. Many people believe it is at the moment the 23 chromosomes of the father mix with the 23 chromosomes of the mother thus creating a new mixture of 46 chromosomes. I can understand that view. Others say life begins when the fetus is able to survive outside of the womb on its own. I can understand that as well. Others say other things and I won't blanket those with an understanding or not.
I personally tend to believe life exists closer to when a fetus is viable outside of the womb. I say closer because I think you can determine earlier if the fetus will or will not become viable in a womb if given the chance to grow. When can you make that determination? I have no flipping clue. I do know that many women have been pregnant before and never known because even after the chromosomes have mixed there is a major error and the pregnancy is terminated in the body while still at the level of a few cells (it can happen much later for many other reasons, but then it is usually obvious the mother had been pregnant). That said I do not and will not ever tell anyone they are wrong for believing life begins at the 46 chromosome moment. I feel it just depends on how you look at it and I can see both arguments being valid.
So the Catholic Church takes the 46 chromosome view and, evidently, does not care about any other circumstance. They claim the girl could have had a C-section and thus not been put at risk for death due to her tiny hips. My big disappointment in the Catholic Church here is that it didn't seem to look at any other circumstances in the story. Namely the fact this was a nine-year old who was raped by her stepfather.
I know people will say that the child had every right to live, or be given a chance. However, how much more emotional and physical stress does a nine-year old girl need to endure?
- She was raped, which may be the worst thing I can imagine happening to someone.
- Her stepfather was the one who raped her. Someone in her family who she relied on for her protection and safety did one of the most horrible crimes to her.
- She was pregnant. The fact a nine-year old can be pregnant is hard enough to wrap my mind around. Add in the fact she never chose to have sex and that is immensely unfair.
I never even factored in the ability of the child to thrive in the room available for it in a nine-year old.
So she and her mother decide to have an abortion. Now she gets the added the stress of being kicked out of her religious community. That always helps things.
Is abortion a sin? Many people feel very strongly on this issue. I think it depends on your point of view regarding when life begins. I would like to know opinions not based on the fact of abortion being a sin or not. I would like to know people's opinion on the role of the Catholic Church in this case.
I firmly believe that regardless of how you feel about abortion and this case we all can agree on one fact: this nine-year old girl needs as much love and support as possible right now.
She has to recover from being a rape victim. She has to recover from having an abortion and any thoughts she may have down the line of giving up a child. She has to recover even more from her rape and the fact it was perpetrated by a family member. On top of all this she has been kicked out of her Church.
So what the hell were you thinking Catholic Church? That by excommunicating this girl, her mother, and her doctors you were sending a great message? What happened to the actual teachings of Jesus? He was a man who went to sinners with open arms and allowed them to get themselves back on the right path. He didn't just kick them to the curb for their transgressions.
If the Catholic Church was going to do anything in this case it should have been there to support and love this child after the abortion decision was made. If it wanted to send an anti-abortion message than it could have done that by putting out an edict or declaration about the evils of abortion and directed it towards the doctors, but kicking all involved out of the Church just seems callous and against what religion should be.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with the abortion in this case. It was legal since Brazilian law only allows abortions in cases of rape or risking the mother's health, which this case had both. I applaud the Brazilians for being outraged at the Church's apparent lack of humanity or compassion for this young girl. I don't argue against the Church's stance on the issue since it is based on a belief about life, but the consequences they served in this case actually go more against the spirit of Jesus than the abortion itself. Feel free to disagree on that statement, but I stand by it.
6 comments:
I'll venture an opinion since you seemed to solicit it. I agree with the Church's stance in this manner. In the Church's view, performing an abortion or assisting in the procuring of abortion warrants excommunication, because it is clearly and unequivocally the deliberate taking of an innocent human life.
I think in this case, the Church correctly described the step-father's crime as heinous. The Church's position is that a later C-section would have allowed both the children and the mother to live.
I don't think the child was excommunicated, because children are not subject to that.
There is a paradox in the reaction to this.
By excommunication, all the Church is saying is that from the perspective of Church offices these people are to be shunned. They are not asking that they be burned at the stake. They are not saying that they should be personally be shunned by Catholics. They are not asking that they be denied love, empathy and support from other Christians. They are just saying that in the absence of repentance they should be denied the only real benefit of Church membership: the sacraments. Excommunication is not permanent - excommunication can be lifted, and access to the sacraments can be easily achieved by repentance.
What I find paradoxical in the reactions to this is the claim that it is somehow brutal and draconian, while at the same time claiming that there is no value in the sacraments.
Most people seize on the seeming unfairness of not excommunicating the step-father. It isn't at all clear that he is even a Catholic. Even if he is, excommunication is not intended as a remedy against all sinners - otherwise the Church would be empty. It should not be supposed that the Church approves of all people and their acts who are not excommunicated.
i think your post is on the money; if the Catholic church excommunicated all of its female members who have had an abortion, I think it would find itself with a much smaller congregation.
i don't dig the first comment so much...
(sorry for being lame and 'anonymous')
Sweating: You may be right about the girl not being excommunicated, because she probably is too young to have been confirmed. However, the excommunication is a shunning from the Church and Church community and by doing so they ARE denying them love, empathy, and support from priests, nuns, etc. as well as sacraments. To the excommunicated it also means they are banished to hell, without the ability to repent sins and be allowed into Heaven. Hitler, however, was not excommunicated. Go figure.
I see your points and know the Church felt it needed to do something in such a high profile case about abortion. However, I think abandoning those who you think have sinned for an abortion is a tremendous leap for the Church when it could have taken other serious, but less permanent actions.
Anonymous: The Church is so repressed and backwards sexually that all they do is make themselves look bad in cases like this. They look like out of touch bullies when it comes to sexual issues and then wonder why they are losing so many followers.
Excommunication does not, in general, require personal shunning. That happens only under very special circumstances, and this is not one of them
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
"All other excommunicated persons, even though known, are tolerati, i.e. the law no longer obliges the faithful to abstain from intercourse with them, even in religious matters."
So the church is not abandoning them. The church is also not condemning them to Hell, as repentance is always available.
And let me reiterate: excommunication is not intended as a means of distinguishing sinners from those who do not sin
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1370174
From the story:
(Regional archbishop, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho) also said the accused stepfather would not be expelled from the Church.
Although the man allegedly committed "a heinous crime ... the abortion - the elimination of an innocent life - was more serious," he said.
Later in the article:
One of the doctors involved in the abortion, Rivaldo Albuquerque, told Globo television that he would keep going to mass, regardless of the archbishop's order.
"The people want a Church full of forgiveness, love and mercy," he said.
My final thoughts:
I apologize, they are not banned from the Church as I thought ... unless Vitandus was declared. I doubt that it was seeing how it is very rare these days. The excommunication just keeps them from receiving sacraments.
However, I still believe the Church to be wrong in the excommunication. Unless the Church excommunicates every murderer in the Church then there is no argument whatsoever that the Church is being harsh. Even if they do, I am 98% sure they don't, this is still a case where the girl's life was at risk according to medical opinion.
Lastly, I understand this needs to be an issue of black and white, right and wrong, for the Church. However, a 9 year old girl who was repeatedly sexually abused by her step father and carrying twins is not a standard case.
Mr. STF we politely disagree on the sentiment of the Church in this case. I thank you for your polite, respectful, and well put together arguments. I have no idea who you are or how you found my little blog, but I am glad you did.
WC,
No problem acknowledging we remain in respectful disagreement on this.
I found your blog using Google blog search. Usually if I get interested in a topic I'll look around to see what others have said. Much of the blogs used this story to indulge some hateful attitudes. Your post seemed more reasonable, so I thought I'd comment
Post a Comment