I guess excommunication does mean nothing to me, because I'm not a member of anything that's likely to excommunicate me. However, I do know that people who sign up for these things often do so because they feel a need to to be included in some kind of a spiritual community, to be part of something bigger, to help them cope. Does excommunication mean a lot to them? Or is it a bit like a parking ticket?
But regardles -- if, as in this case, that community chastises you at the time you need support most, ie your child is suffering and you've had to take some really hard, heart-breaking decision to prevent further suffering, then that does seem deeply morally wrong to me.
As I said, excommunication isn't permanent, nor does it stop people from coming to Church. What it does stop is the reception of the Eucharist.
From a Catholic teaching perspective abortion is the murder of innocent babies, I think people forget that Catholic teaching ascribes the same personhood value to the unborn as they do to the born.
This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.
The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.
The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
Catholic teaching ascribes the same personhood value to the unborn as they do to the born.
Forgive me, because I'm not really trying to change your beliefs or anything, but I think one of the points in this debate is that from a non-Catholic perspective, in this case, it appears that the Catholic church ascribes more personhood value to the unborn than to the born.
Honestly I don't see the justification for that critique. The Church would not agree to the mother being allowed to die, just that the twins be given a chance to survive. Yet somehow this is favouring the unborn.
There are three lives at stake, well not not anymore... But there were three lives. All were precious, all were important. Medically all three should have been cared for - and if the mother's life had to be saved and that resulted in the unborn babies death, then that would have been acceptable, albeit tragic.
The unborn however, weren't even offered that chance.
It's just hard to imagine what parent would expect their child to go through any additional trauma. I'm not a parent, so I can only imagine. But does it seem more acceptable to think about because this family is in a South American country? If a nine year old girl in New Zealand or the UK was abused, resulting in pregnancy, would anyone think it acceptable to require the abused child to continue with a risky pregnancy, jeopardising her education and future?
Well NZ and the UK has effective abortion on demand, so the issue would never reach the media until the court case, by which time the abortion would be old history.
Yes, and I suppose it would be easier for a family in similar circumstances to find support for their decision in NZ and the UK -- they'd quite possibly have less to lose.
The thing is, lots of people who are involved in religious sects are involved because they were raised to be. I think if you've made an active, informed choice to be part of it - you've chosen that out of all the possible options - you're in a pretty privileged position. For the average person who's part of such a community, they might not have ever contemplated the possibility that their child might be raped and impregnated, and that their faith might require them to stand by and watch while she gestated and gave birth to her rapist's twins.
It is harsh in this case because we can all see why the parents of the girl went for this abortion. However from a Catholic perspective they actively killed two little lives.
But regardles -- if, as in this case, that community chastises you at the time you need support most, ie your child is suffering and you've had to take some really hard, heart-breaking decision to prevent further suffering, then that does seem deeply morally wrong to me.
Reply
From a Catholic teaching perspective abortion is the murder of innocent babies, I think people forget that Catholic teaching ascribes the same personhood value to the unborn as they do to the born.
This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.
The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.
The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
Reply
Forgive me, because I'm not really trying to change your beliefs or anything, but I think one of the points in this debate is that from a non-Catholic perspective, in this case, it appears that the Catholic church ascribes more personhood value to the unborn than to the born.
Reply
Honestly I don't see the justification for that critique. The Church would not agree to the mother being allowed to die, just that the twins be given a chance to survive. Yet somehow this is favouring the unborn.
There are three lives at stake, well not not anymore... But there were three lives. All were precious, all were important. Medically all three should have been cared for - and if the mother's life had to be saved and that resulted in the unborn babies death, then that would have been acceptable, albeit tragic.
The unborn however, weren't even offered that chance.
Reply
Reply
Reply
The thing is, lots of people who are involved in religious sects are involved because they were raised to be. I think if you've made an active, informed choice to be part of it - you've chosen that out of all the possible options - you're in a pretty privileged position. For the average person who's part of such a community, they might not have ever contemplated the possibility that their child might be raped and impregnated, and that their faith might require them to stand by and watch while she gestated and gave birth to her rapist's twins.
Reply
Here in NZ (and the UK) we have the freedom to be non-religious by virtue of there being plenty of other non-church goers. It's not a radical choice.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment