your rapist is forgiven, your mother goes to hell!

[siead_lietrathua]

you are missing the point of what we said. they may have followed church law. but they certianly did not perform as loving, caring members of a faith that is SUPPOSED to be about honor and love.
they acted like assholes.

[Rageaholic]

If church law is that a mother be excommunicated for not risking her daughters life, than the problem lies with church law.

[Andara Bledin]

Whether you like it or not, it's a Law within the Church as well as Christianity itself, that those that are incapable of realizing their sins are not held accountable to them.

But there can be. The Bishop didn't just decide to excommunicate these 3. Church Law excommunicated the 3 of them the moment they carried out the abortion. The Bishop simply declared it.

I find it heartily depressing and discouraging when a religious organization that preaches about the love of their god who then goes on to support the letter of a law as opposed to its spirit.

^-.-^

[bara]

If church law is that a mother be excommunicated for not risking her daughters life, than the problem lies with church law.

This pretty much sums it up for me.

[crashhelmet]

I find it heartily depressing and discouraging when a religious organization that preaches about the love of their god who then goes on to support the letter of a law as opposed to its spirit.

^-.-^

The spirit of the law?
Canon 1398 states:

A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Here's my source

My parents always told my siblings and I that if we ever got arrested, not to call them because they wouldn't bail us out. When I did get arrested and the police called my parents, they said "we'll pick him up when the judge releases him." I spent the weekend in juvenile detention center before the judge dropped the charges and released me on the following Monday morning.

My parents had other rules that breaking them resulted in things like being grounded or losing privileges. That doesn't mean my parents didn't love me. They stood by their rules, they stood by their word, and they taught us all a lesson in the process.


The Church has a set of laws. You break a law, you pay the punishment. I agree with the French Bishop that tried to defend the mother in that Canon 1324 should've applied. It could possibly have been applied to the doctors as well.

Just like being a parent, when you start picking and choosing which rules you apply and when you apply them, it sets precedents and creates a slippery slope.

[HYHYBT]

What does this have to do with the value and recognition of life itself? And AGAIN, the monetary value is not what's due if someone kills them nor what they can be sold for. It was a tithe paid for devoting that person to God. It was a custom at the time. If you bothered to read the rest of that chapter, you'd see that there are amounts to be paid for devoting your house or your animals to God as well.

It seems to me roughly analogous to how the IRS lets you deduct a certain amount per mile for various uses of your car. It's one amount if you're using it for work, a different one for health care access, and I think a different one yet for charitable purposes, NONE of which are connected to the actual cost of owning, maintaining, and using the vehicle, which vary with what vehicle it is and how it's being used, not *why* it's being used.

Still doesn't prove that infants under 1 month are recognized as being of any worth.

You used the Bible supposedly to show that their worth begins at that point. It doesn't, as explained above. So that claim falls without having to prove those under a month had worth.

As for abortion in general… I don't think it should be an option if the fetus is far enough along that it would live if born right then. If, at that point, the health of the mother is seriously in danger (or she's just changed her mind, or whatever) go ahead and induce labor or do a caesarian and, if she doesn't want it, put the baby up for adoption.

But then, I don't get the mindset behind *wanting* an abortion at that point either.

Necessary. It's a very easy word. You should learn it.

The WORD is easy. Applying it to abortion is not. What constitutes "necessary"?

Whether or not receiving communion is a factor in going to Heaven or Hell is yet another issue of interpreting the Bible.

I don't recall the Bible addressing the subject; it's more a matter of specifically Catholic doctrine.

[bara]

when you start picking and choosing which rules you apply and when you apply them, it sets precedents and creates a slippery slope.

I argue that following a broken law sets a worse precedent.

You made a decision that would certainly save a life at the cost of two other lives that would never have lived anyway so I am going to punish you for it.

The church is wrong here. Period.

Anyone who thinks a nine year old is developed enough to carry twins safely or even at all obviously has no understanding of the human body. Ill agree that there might have been a slight chance for one child, but it still would have been very dangerous for both child and mother. Twins, not a chance.
The girl was only 80lbs. Small women have a hell of a time even carrying one child when they are fully developed.

[Andara Bledin]

The spirit of the law?
Canon 1398 states:
[snippage]
That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Here's my source

Thank you for actually illustrating my point.

Yes, that's what the law says. The issue is why is says that and what it is supposed to accomplish.

If a law is enacted to protect innocents and you then demand that an innocent not be protected to protect another, you are breaking the spirit of the law no matter how it was actually written.

There was a choice that had to be made; either protect the innocent that had already been attacked, abused, and violated and do what could be done to correct that, or ignore the plight of the original innocent and force her to undergo more torment in favor of another innocent that, to be brutally honest, would likely derive absolutely zero benefit from any intervention on their behalf, as both innocents would perish in the attempt.

So, yes, they are violating the spirit of the law to justify the adherence to the letter.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

Thank you for actually illustrating my point.

Yes, that's what the law says. The issue is why is says that and what it is supposed to accomplish.

If a law is enacted to protect innocents and you then demand that an innocent not be protected to protect another, you are breaking the spirit of the law no matter how it was actually written.

There was a choice that had to be made; either protect the innocent that had already been attacked, abused, and violated and do what could be done to correct that, or ignore the plight of the original innocent and force her to undergo more torment in favor of another innocent that, to be brutally honest, would likely derive absolutely zero benefit from any intervention on their behalf, as both innocents would perish in the attempt.

So, yes, they are violating the spirit of the law to justify the adherence to the letter.

^-.-^

The Spirit of that law and others related to it is that All life is sacred, beginning from the point of conception.

To willingly decide to arrange and perform an abortion violates both the letter and spirit of the law.

As I have already pointed out several times, the Church is compassionate and understanding and has another law that says there are exceptions to the rule.

From the same source

Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:

1/ a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age;

2/ a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;

3/ a person who acted due to physical force or a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or, if foreseen, avoid;

4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

5/ a person who acted with due moderation against an unjust aggressor for the sake of legitimate self defense or defense of another;

6/ a person who lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the prescripts of cann. ⇒ 1324, §1, n. 2 and ⇒ 1325;

7/ a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 or 5 was present.

Can. 1324 §1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed:

1/ by a person who had only the imperfect use of reason;

2/ by a person who lacked the use of reason because of drunkenness or another similar culpable disturbance of mind;

3/ from grave heat of passion which did not precede and hinder all deliberation of mind and consent of will and provided that the passion itself had not been stimulated or fostered voluntarily;

4/ by a minor who has completed the age of sixteen years;

5/ by a person who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience if the delict is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

6/ by a person who acted without due moderation against an unjust aggressor for the sake of legitimate self defense or defense of another;

7/ against someone who gravely and unjustly provokes the person;

8/ by a person who thought in culpable error that one of the circumstances mentioned in ⇒ can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5 was present;

9/ by a person who without negligence did not know that a penalty was attached to a law or precept;

10/ by a person who acted without full imputability provided that the imputability was grave.

§2. A judge can act in the same manner if another circumstance is present which diminishes the gravity of a delict.

§3. In the circumstances mentioned in §1, the accused is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty.

[Nekojin]

Just like being a parent, when you start picking and choosing which rules you apply and when you apply them, it sets precedents and creates a slippery slope.

The real problem here is that the Church has a habit of making church laws with an absolutist position, which causes considerable friction when they come into conflict with either other church laws, governmental laws, or circumstances that the law-writer never considered.

When they're taking the position of being an absolute, perfect authority, such conflicts stand out even more than they would otherwise.

[Andara Bledin]

The Spirit of that law and others related to it is that All life is sacred, beginning from the point of conception.

To willingly decide to arrange and perform an abortion violates both the letter and spirit of the law.

As I have already pointed out several times, the Church is compassionate and understanding and has another law that says there are exceptions to the rule.

If all life is sacred, then shouldn't the law recognize that saving the most lives is preferable than forcing all parties to die a miserable death?

And, you say there are exceptions, but none of them were applied, they just went straight to "All life is sacred, so all three of you have to die because causing two of you to die so that one of you can live isn't allowed." There was no grace of a "but" in there at all.

And, regardless of any other argument, what the fuck is the reason to not excommunicate the molester/abuser/rapist? Why does he get grace while the rest don't?

^-.-^

[bara]

And, regardless of any other argument, what the fuck is the reason to not excommunicate the molester/abuser/rapist? Why does he get grace while the rest don't?

^-.-^

He doesn't have a uterus. I'm serious here.

[Nekojin]

He doesn't have a uterus. I'm serious here.

Probably closer to the truth than any of us are comfortable with.

[Talon]

The real problem here is that the Church has a habit of making church laws with an absolutist position, which causes considerable friction when they come into conflict with reality

Fixed that for you

As Captain Picard so correctly put it: "There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute!"

[crashhelmet]

If all life is sacred, then shouldn't the law recognize that saving the most lives is preferable than forcing all parties to die a miserable death?

And, you say there are exceptions, but none of them were applied, they just went straight to "All life is sacred, so all three of you have to die because causing two of you to die so that one of you can live isn't allowed." There was no grace of a "but" in there at all.

And, regardless of any other argument, what the fuck is the reason to not excommunicate the molester/abuser/rapist? Why does he get grace while the rest don't?

^-.-^

Again... For the istoppedcountingatthispoint time...

1) Canon 1323 & 1324 do excuse the actions taken in choosing one life over another.

2) The Arch Bishop of that region did not excommunicate them. He declared that they were automatically excommunicated when the abortion took place.

3) I don't know why the rapist was not excommunicated. He very may well have been excommunicated since then. He might have a mental illness which prohibits him from being excommunicated. I DON'T KNOW. NOT ONE SINGLE REPORTER EVER FOLLOWED UP ON THAT All that I can tell you is that he was arrested trying to escape. For all we know he was acquitted of all charges or maybe he died in prison as the result of a massive gang rape.

4) Officials have come forward and defended the mother and the doctors, including the aforementioned Bishop of Gap, France as well as Archbishop Rino Fisichella, the then President of the Pontifical Academy for Life. They cited the laws in the Canons I pointed out in 1)

Now onto something I haven't said yet...
Reports that I could find while google-fuing this topic to Hell and back show that this whole incident didn't just pop up after the abortion was performed. It was an ordeal that involved the courts, social services, and the Church. There are reports that the girl was not in any grave danger at the time. She had been ordered to the hospital by the courts and stayed there for a few days before the abortion was performed.

In This Interview With the Doctor he never says that the child was in immediate danger. he also says that it's not the first time that he's been excommunicated. He's been performing abortions for 13 years prior to this.

The Church's stance was to have the girl carry the twins for as long as she could and then deliver through C-Section and to have them all hospitalized until they were safe to go home.

Regardless of it all though, cases like this are what shake up and wake up closed minds and promote change.