It's perfectly morally licit to save the life of the mother, provided the death of the baby (or in this case, babies) isn't directly willed.
Had the pregnancy become a life or death issue, Catholic teaching would not demand she give her life for her children. However, pre-empting this situation by directly aborting her twins is regarded as morally wrong.
She was nine. You have kids, I expect you spend some time around girls that age, at school or that sort of thing. Do you know how small nine is?
Nine is small enough that intercourse with an adult male had probably already significantly physically traumatised her. Nine is small enough that they were concerned, not about her size overall, but the size of her uterus.
Pregnancy at all was impractical, and a multiple ridiculous. There was no way those babies were ever going to live, and allowing the pregnancy to continue only endangered another life.
And that's ignoring completely the ethics of a child who has already been traumatised by rape having to go through the trauma of an undesired, probably not understood pregnancy.
I find the idea of requiring a mother who has had to make a difficult decision to save the life of a daughter to repent of it repulsive.
I just really don't get it. Christ was all about compassion, and there just isn't any here.
Strictly speaking, I think that with this particular issue he's being anti-Catholic rather than anti-Christian.
I don't know whether official Catholic dogma still defines other sects as heretical and non-Christian -- assuming that's still so, and looking at it from the perspective of a Catholic, I guess you could say he was being anti-Christian, but not according to the commonly accepted standard usage of the term.
For what it's worth, I also think it evil, barbaric and misogynist. It may be a valid response according to the lights of the Catholic cult, but that doesn't make it morally right (except maybe to avid cult members). It certainly in no way increases the net happiness in the world.
DELICTS AGAINST HUMAN LIFE AND FREEDOM (Cann. 1397 - 1398)
Can. 1397 A person who commits a homicide or who kidnaps, detains, mutilates, or gravely wounds a person by force or fraud is to be punished with the privations and prohibitions mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336 according to the gravity of the delict. Homicide against the persons mentioned in ⇒ can. 1370, however, is to be punished by the penalties established there.
Can. 1398 A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.
I'm afraid this is about where my tolerance snaps under the strain. An abortion for a tiny nine-year-old girl who only weighs 36kg and is carrying twin fetuses is simply a medical necessity. If the Catholic Church "thinks" that prioritising the medical needs of this poor, abused child over the life of a fetus is in some way a moral evil, well, frankly, the Pope can kiss my arse.
Over the years, I'm sure the Catholic Church has done many good things. I know it's also done many terrible things. On this count, it's clearly into the latter category.
I'm not referring to denying someone Communion here by the way, since they still have the option of going and finding another way to make their peace with God. Instead I'm saddened by the message I believe that Catholic Church is promoting here, which is that by saving the life of this girl, these people (the parents and doctor) are to be rejected.
If the Catholic Church is so inflexible as to be unable to balance the needs of the girl against the actions of those helping her in deciding an appropriate course of action on its part, then it perpetuates a position of intolerance and a lack of understanding as an acceptable way of life.
I'm not asking anyone to agree re: the girl's abortion. I can imagine there would be many Catholics, lay and religious who would understand why her parents and the doctor aborted the two babies.
However, the issue is the excommunication. Canon Law is very plain, as you can see above. By all means, people are free to disagree and to walk a different path, but kvetching about these people being unable to have Holy Communion seems a bit unfair.
I would also like to point out that excommunication isn't a permanent thing. People can choose to repent and have their excommunication removed. And excommunication doesn't preclude attending church.
And my point is that I think the Catholic Church shouldn't require these people to repent, because I believe they did the morally right thing.
I'm sorry Tess, but this sort of church doctrine makes me glad to not be an active part of it. So that seems like another point of fail if one hopes to promote such a belief system.
Comments 64
That's harsh.
C.
Reply
Had the pregnancy become a life or death issue, Catholic teaching would not demand she give her life for her children. However, pre-empting this situation by directly aborting her twins is regarded as morally wrong.
Reply
Nine is small enough that intercourse with an adult male had probably already significantly physically traumatised her. Nine is small enough that they were concerned, not about her size overall, but the size of her uterus.
Pregnancy at all was impractical, and a multiple ridiculous.
There was no way those babies were ever going to live, and allowing the pregnancy to continue only endangered another life.
And that's ignoring completely the ethics of a child who has already been traumatised by rape having to go through the trauma of an undesired, probably not understood pregnancy.
I find the idea of requiring a mother who has had to make a difficult decision to save the life of a daughter to repent of it repulsive.
I just really don't get it. Christ was all about compassion, and there just isn't any here.
Reply
I would also point out that Islam allows girls of nine to be married (and the marriage consummated), citing the example of the Prophet and Aisha.
Reply
I don't know whether official Catholic dogma still defines other sects as heretical and non-Christian -- assuming that's still so, and looking at it from the perspective of a Catholic, I guess you could say he was being anti-Christian, but not according to the commonly accepted standard usage of the term.
For what it's worth, I also think it evil, barbaric and misogynist. It may be a valid response according to the lights of the Catholic cult, but that doesn't make it morally right (except maybe to avid cult members). It certainly in no way increases the net happiness in the world.
Reply
Are all murderers automatically excommunicated?
Reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latae_sententiae
This is the particular Canon Law:
TITLE VI.
DELICTS AGAINST HUMAN LIFE AND FREEDOM (Cann. 1397 - 1398)
Can. 1397 A person who commits a homicide or who kidnaps, detains, mutilates, or gravely wounds a person by force or fraud is to be punished with the privations and prohibitions mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336 according to the gravity of the delict. Homicide against the persons mentioned in ⇒ can. 1370, however, is to be punished by the penalties established there.
Can. 1398 A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P57.HTM
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I'm not referring to denying someone Communion here by the way, since they still have the option of going and finding another way to make their peace with God. Instead I'm saddened by the message I believe that Catholic Church is promoting here, which is that by saving the life of this girl, these people (the parents and doctor) are to be rejected.
If the Catholic Church is so inflexible as to be unable to balance the needs of the girl against the actions of those helping her in deciding an appropriate course of action on its part, then it perpetuates a position of intolerance and a lack of understanding as an acceptable way of life.
Reply
However, the issue is the excommunication. Canon Law is very plain, as you can see above. By all means, people are free to disagree and to walk a different path, but kvetching about these people being unable to have Holy Communion seems a bit unfair.
I would also like to point out that excommunication isn't a permanent thing. People can choose to repent and have their excommunication removed. And excommunication doesn't preclude attending church.
Reply
I'm sorry Tess, but this sort of church doctrine makes me glad to not be an active part of it. So that seems like another point of fail if one hopes to promote such a belief system.
You're welcome to your beliefs though.
Reply
The American Anglicans are part of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice for example.
Reply
Leave a comment