your rapist is forgiven, your mother goes to hell!

[Nekojin]

That's my bad. He was arrested, but there has never been any follow up on whether or not he was convicted, whether or not the Church eventually Excommunicated him, or if he's even still alive. There's no follow up on how the girl and her mother have been getting by. There's no follow up what so ever outside of the conflict caused within the leadership of the Church.

As bad as it sounds for me to say it, that's how they want it. The Church doesn't like their decrees being questioned (the devout are simply supposed to obey, and those outside the church are not supposed to have a say either way), and investigating the situation at length amounts to an ongoing questioning of the Church's authority. So, they give as little direct information as possible to those outside, and hope that the matter is dropped.

It's worked so far...

[crashhelmet]

As bad as it sounds for me to say it, that's how they want it. The Church doesn't like their decrees being questioned (the devout are simply supposed to obey, and those outside the church are not supposed to have a say either way), and investigating the situation at length amounts to an ongoing questioning of the Church's authority. So, they give as little direct information as possible to those outside, and hope that the matter is dropped.

It's worked so far...

If that was the case here, would we have ever heard about it in the first place? it's bad enough that we're discussing it 3 years after the fact, but this generated a big enough shit storm in the pro life vs pro choice debate that you'd think someone in the media cared enough to follow up.

So maybe you're right. Maybe the Church wanted to squash as much as they could. At the same time, maybe the pro-choice and/or atheist sides of the media don't care about the girl or anyone else involved and just wanted another excuse to attack the Church.

Who's blood was spilled and who were the sharks?

[draco664]

maybe the pro-choice and/or atheist sides of the media don't care about the girl or anyone else involved and just wanted another excuse to attack the Church.

Wow, martyr much? You think that some people took the girl's side just because they wanted to attack the Church?

People took the girl's side because the Church adopted a position of pure-fucking-evil.

If people simply wanted to attach the Church, there's a damned smorgasboard of idiotic decisions and edicts that have been made in recent history. They didn't need this one as an excuse.

[bara]

Yeah, this was the first time I heard about this as well.
Id have been just as upset by this 3 years ago and honestly wouldn't care which church/government/institution made the decision.

[Nekojin]

If that was the case here, would we have ever heard about it in the first place? it's bad enough that we're discussing it 3 years after the fact, but this generated a big enough shit storm in the pro life vs pro choice debate that you'd think someone in the media cared enough to follow up.

The two points of obvious public contact are:
1.) The police record of the child's rape, and the ensuing legal trial; and
2.) The excommunication order, which by its very nature needs to be public and specific in order to get church-goers to shun/disassociate from her.

Either of those could have been enough to get someone's dander up.

[crashhelmet]

Wow, martyr much? You think that some people took the girl's side just because they wanted to attack the Church?

People took the girl's side because the Church adopted a position of pure-fucking-evil.

If people simply wanted to attach the Church, there's a damned smorgasboard of idiotic decisions and edicts that have been made in recent history. They didn't need this one as an excuse.

No, I'm not saying they took the girl's side. I'm saying they flew it up the flagpole because of it. People like you that jump out and call a position "pure-fucking-evil" when it isn't remotely close to it.

Now let's get back to the fact that I was speaking hypothetically. That's usually what the word "maybe" refers to. And don't forget that I also threw the hypothetical situation out there that maybe the Church was in deed trying to squash the follow up to the story.

But if you really want to, google this incident and see just how many pro-atheist, pro-choice, and/or anti-Catholic sites reported it with their own diatribe. Some even with false information, saying the girl was as young as 5 years old. Then please tell me how many of them actually followed up with the story and took the time to report how the girl is doing, whether or not her mother or the doctor were recommunicated, or what the fate of the rapist was.

[crashhelmet]

The two points of obvious public contact are:
1.) The police record of the child's rape, and the ensuing legal trial; and

Sadly, there are far more cases of rape and molestation that go unreported or are quickly forgotten about. Especially from third world countries and smaller towns like this one.

2.) The excommunication order, which by its very nature needs to be public and specific in order to get church-goers to shun/disassociate from her.

Either of those could have been enough to get someone's dander up.

It did not need to be public. The order only needed to be within the Church itself. There was no need to go to the secular media. That, however, was the fault of the Bishop that publicized it to the media. If it hadn't been for him, we may have never heard about it.

[draco664]

People like you that jump out and call a position "pure-fucking-evil" when it isn't remotely close to it.

Holding a position where they prefer a nine-year-old rape victim to die rather than get help *is* pure-fucking-evil. I find that truth to be self-evident.

[crashhelmet]

Holding a position where they prefer a nine-year-old rape victim to die rather than get help *is* pure-fucking-evil. I find that truth to be self-evident.

You need to look up the definition of "truth."

They did not want her to die. They wanted her to carry as long as she could and then deliver the twins through a cesarean section.

[draco664]

But if you really want to, google this incident and see just how many pro-atheist, pro-choice, and/or anti-Catholic sites reported it with their own diatribe. Some even with false information, saying the girl was as young as 5 years old. Then please tell me how many of them actually followed up with the story and took the time to report how the girl is doing, whether or not her mother or the doctor were recommunicated, or what the fate of the rapist was.

Ok, on this point I concede. I did a search and yes, the vitriol was quite intense. And a great many did seem to attack the Church for the sake of attacking it rather than because they had sympathy for the girl. I withdraw, and apologize for, my martyr comment. Sorry.

I still hold however, that the Church's position makes this sort of thing possible (dare I say, inevitable?) when the realities and horrors of life intrude on the ideal they try to hold.

[draco664]

You need to look up the definition of "truth."

They did not want her to die. They wanted her to carry as long as she could and then deliver the twins through a cesarean section.

A situation which her doctor said was impossible. So yes, they did want her to die, rather than get the help she needed. Edit: Or perhaps, they would *prefer* that she died rather than get the help she needed.

[wolfie]

You need to look up the definition of "truth."

They did not want her to die. They wanted her to carry as long as she could and then deliver the twins through a cesarean section.

There's plenty of data regarding fetal size vs. gestation time. From what I've seen, the pregnancy would have killed the girl BEFORE the twins would have been viable outside the womb. "Wanting her to carry as long as she could" meant putting her life at risk, and then performing major surgery, without ANY chance of saving the feti (fetuses?). Classic case of treating someone with an unwanted pregnancy as an EXPENDABLE incubator.

[crashhelmet]

There's plenty of data regarding fetal size vs. gestation time. From what I've seen, the pregnancy would have killed the girl BEFORE the twins would have been viable outside the womb. "Wanting her to carry as long as she could" meant putting her life at risk, and then performing major surgery, without ANY chance of saving the feti (fetuses?). Classic case of treating someone with an unwanted pregnancy as an EXPENDABLE incubator.

Some of the articles that were pulled up in a google search said that the girl was not at any risk at the time the abortion was performed. Babies have been delivered several months premature and lived. I believe that is what the Church was hoping and holding out for.

They did not want the girl to die. They didn't want anyone to die.

[draco664]

Some of the articles that were pulled up in a google search said that the girl was not at any risk at the time the abortion was performed.

And if your bungee cord is 200 feet long and you jump into a canyon 190 feet deep, you're not at risk of dying on the way down either. It does not mean that you can make it all the way. Not even if you pray *really hard*.

Babies have been delivered several months premature and lived. I believe that is what the Church was hoping and holding out for.

Just because a few babies survive such early births does not mean that it's probable, or even possible in all cases. In this case, the doctor specifically stated that the little, tiny, fragile, rape victim's life was in jeapordy if the pregnancy went long enough to deliver viable babies. I'm sorry you seem to keep missing this point, but it seems straight forward.

The medical professional in charge of the case deemed the pregnancy a hazard to the girl's life. Quote statistical outliers of babies surviving at 5 months all you like, but the fact remains that had the Church's doctrine been followed, the girl would have died. And her babies too, but that's not important, is it?

They did not want the girl to die. They didn't want anyone to die.

The fact they excommunicated the doctor for saving the girl's life indicates otherwise.

[Andara Bledin]

First, "no immediate danger" is not the same as "not in danger."

Second, is there any excuse to essentially mandate the continuing torture of a little girl because she had the audacity to get pregnant because her step-father was raping her? She had gone to the hospital because she was in pain. There is zero excuse to force her to continue to be in pain on the very low chance that the babies won't kill her before they become viable.

^-.-^