Pope canonises woman who died to save her unborn baby

[eddm]

see this

Makes me feel sick.

lol! :0

Yes, you're right, rhubarb, it was rape - but within the marriage which the Pope thinks OK. I mean I understand him to believe that rape does not exist within marriage. In my convent we were taught that everyone who died and went to heaven was a saint - and we would all get to heaven eventually if the survivors prayed hard enough to get us out of purgatory - (unless we had committed a "mortler" but in those days that was only murder so unlikely) - but only the Pope could make a Saint (with a capital S). I haven't heard about Gianna Molla's 2nd miracle but anyway, the 2 miracle rule always sounded a bit dubious to me. But why does this Pope feel the need for so many? I believe he has cannonised more than all previous Popes...?

maybe he has targets to reach like everyone else

The Catholic Church most certainly does NOT condone rape within marriage - I should know, one of the reasons my mum got her marriage annulled was because she claimed my dad raped her (lie by the way), and I shall regret telling you all that later, but I cannot let the Church be seen in that way. And maybe the Pope is canonising so many people because he feels that we need some good examples in this day and age - I feel that we do! At a time when abortion is considered part of contraception, when schoolgirls are getting abortions and taking the morning after pill without their parents knowing, when paedophilia is at an all-time high, when mothers abuse their own children, this story is heartening at least! So she should be held up as an example! I would like to think that I would lay down my life for any one of my two children. And after my experiences whilst pregnant, I can only admire this woman's dedication and love for a child that she hadn't even seen.

As for this woman-hating theory you all seem to have about the Church, well I can't change your minds about that. Yes it does seem rather male-dominated, mainly because the 12 Apostles of Jesus were all men and that is what they have based the Church on. But Jesus had many women followers, he first revealed his true identity to a woman and he first appeared after death, to a woman. So I think the Church could do a lot more to include women in the Vatican. But the Pope is a very brave and faithful man. He has survived at least two assassin attempts, he was totally anti-war, he has tried to build bridges and said he was sorry over the treatment of Jews during the War (that's more than a politican would do) and he continues to do work even when he is extremely ill. He has been asked to decrease his workload but he refuses. So as a man, I think it is unfair to criticise him. The Church is made up of human beings prone to human weaknesses and failures. They are bound to make mistakes and suffer from weak judgements, that's what they need women for!

Seriously though, this thread is turning into a faith-bashing exercise when the original point is being lost. This woman did a truly remarkable and selfless thing, she obviously had huge love for her unborn child, I cannot possibly see what anyone could have against that!

Her love for her unborn child was certainly huge but I strongly believe the already born children are more important. How did they manage without their mother? I don't think the Pope hates women. I think he considers them as baby machines and no more. I think he is very, very misguided about women. My mother met a, very superior, nun in USA when Pope JPII first went there. She was head of her order, a very clever & intellectual woman and a deeply spiritual one. The Pope treated her, during lunch, as an irrelevancy when she tried to join in the conversation and ignored her. She was not best pleased.
And what about Sister Lavinia Byrne who was commissioned to investigate and write a book about female priests? The publishers were told they would be excommunicated if they went ahead with it. She wasn't advocating women priests merely thinking about them.
Incidentally, are you sure the world is a worse place or do we just know more about it? Are there more paedophiles? Or more reporting? This may be off the point but I think it's a valid point too. I can't help thinking of the vigilantes who broke the windows of the doctor who had 'paediatrician' on a plaque on her door...

I keep thinking of the priest who told me, many years ago, that I must think of the Church as only one way to God - not the only one!

And at the risk of being blunt the church might do more to reduce paedophilia by stopping priests from being hidden when they are uncovered as paedophiles, than by this caes of beatification.

Rhubarb, no-one (except the Pope) is judging Gianna Molla ? it was her decision to make about her own life. What I object to is the Pope indicating that this is the most worthwhile thing a woman can do. I'm not having a go at individual Catholics but at the hierarchy of the church, which has made it very clear, in countless ways, that it hates women and considers them worthless.
The Pope may have done many good things but he has also condemned people to die by teaching that Catholics shoudn't use condoms even to protect themselves against AIDS and even in countries which very high levels of HIV infection. Not only that, but the church has been lying to people in developing countries that condoms aren't effective against HIV. They aren't perfect but they are a damn sight more effective than anything else short of abstention. And abstaining may be an ideal in the eyes of the church but it is one that very few people manage. I think the AIDS issue is, to put it mildly, tragic. The Pope has used his enormous power to do some terrible things to some of the world's poorest people. And most of them are women.

absolutely eddm, it's heinous.

can I just point out that the pope has been effectively non-functioning for many years? he is being kept alive but has little or no mental function. He may have been into canonising like a loony when he was compos mentis, I don't know, but the unbelieveable numbers in the last few years I think are just a result of all the people AROUND the Pope (ie the ones with the real power at the mo) getting their pet candidates Canonised.
I am not RC (although my father and others in my family are), but if I was I would find it very difficult to treat what this Pope comes up with as having anything to do with the Pope himself, since it is clearly all other people's work. He is a very good advertisement for the merits of retirement (a la Archbish of cantab) and I wish they would let him live out his life and die peacefully and in dignity.

hear what you're saying pph, but this pope has treated taking women back to the home where they belong, barefoot and preg as a personal mission. there was a doc on it recently...his mother died young i think and therefore he has all sorts of issues around pedestalling motherhood. he was preaching non-contraception to the masses in the early eighties...so old age and decrepitude no excuse. wish he would retire...but they are going to elect a hardcore conservative next...no chance of a liberal as far as i have understood the politics of the situation...in the west rc is in decline, in africa and developing nations rc is big big big, but the church is v hardline non-liberal in these places. all v v depressing as the catholic church could be such a tool for good/education/development.

bring back john 23rd is what i say

I'm not disagreeing with any of that Sophable - I know even when he did have mental faculty he has been inexcuseable over aids, contraception etc etc - I'm just saying in this particular case of canonisation (and in everything else which has supposedly emanated from him in the last few years) it clearly isn't HIM behind it all. Just suggesting a reason why he has supposedly made more saints than everyone else. It is because there are about 50 people putting in their tuppennyworth, not just jp2

So there are all these people jockeying for power around the failing Pope ... do you think there's any chance anyone on MN could lean on someone to get our very own candidate put forward? And who would we choose?

Pph, thank you for that image of the pope 'canonising like a loony'

haven't had a chance to read the rest of this thread - but was talking about the subject with DH the other day. I think parents have a bigger responsibility to their existing children compared to ones not yet born. A mother should not have put her life in jepody in that way when she already had children to look after. Now none of them have a mother.

Hmmm, I'm not sure that insulting the Pope is a very good idea. His advisors and his doctors have been on at him for years to cut back on his workload, but he refuses. And as for his mental faculties, I think he is all there personally, I applauded him when he refused to shake the PM's hand because of the PM's stance on the war. He has done more than any other Pope to lead the Church into an ecumenical era, he has tried to unite other faiths and other countries. He has met the editor of The Universe (a woman) and praised her position.

This is what the Church says about rape: "Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them."

This is what is says about women: "Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.

2334 "In creating men 'male and female,' God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity."119 "Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God."120

As for paedophilia hmb, yes I'm sure there are loads of priests guilty of this, just as there are in any other establishment, it's a human failing and the Church is made up of humans.

As for Aids and Contraception, the Church preaches fidelity. If everyone stuck to the same partner, then Aids would not spread. If there were more respect for women in these countries, then Aids might not spread. The priests and nuns in these countries think that changing the way the people think is the key to stopping Aids, not giving out condoms. After all, condoms burst, or split, or come off. And if a woman is raped, he's not likely to use a condom is he? I'm not saying I necessarily agree with their approach, but I can sort of see where they are coming from. They want to teach the people about keeping their marriage vows and about keeping sex between consenting married couples.

And many of you ARE judging Gianna Molla. You say that she had no thought of her other children. But as we've already said, her cancer was probably too far advanced anyway, she probably started cancer treatment straight after the birth, she might have thought that she'd survive. Unless we know all the facts, we cannot cast judgement on this woman. Many children are left without mothers, but not many mothers have given up their lives for their children. If she had done the same for a child who had been born already, would you all still feel the same way about this? Is this different because the baby was still in the womb, therefore not as important or 'real'?

Hey, I'm such a Pope-lover

Message withdrawn

I'm not making a judgement on Gianna Molla in particular as I don't know the details, but if I was in a situation where I had to make a decision between myself and my unborn child - and my two existing children were as young as they are - I think to choose the unborn child would be a very selfish decision. My two son's need me and I don't feel I have the right to dismiss that.
If i felt their lives would not be adversely affected by the loss of their mother, if there were doubt as the the effectiveness of any medical treatment or if deferring treatment could mean the survival of us both it would not be so clearcut.
I'm thankful I'm not in that situation.

Secur, I've not read all the details, but I don't think she was cannonised just because she refused treatement. She was canonised because people prayed to her and a miracle was performed - and that's the difference in this case.

Message withdrawn

Stupid stupid stupid - so the church is saying the life of the unborn child is more important than the life of the mother makes my blood boil!!

Don't quote me on this - what I think happened was that 2 other pregnant women had life or death issues - not sure if both related to the baby only (dinosaur mentions one below), and prayed to her, and the miracle bit is that the problems were resolved. So it is not the case that she's canonised purely because she decided to refuse treatement.

I suppose the Pope's view that it was a committment to God etc is due to the "proof" of these miracles. But someone correct me if I've got this wrong!