Pope canonises woman who died to save her unborn baby

[eddm]

see this

Makes me feel sick.

this thread is so unbelievably full of hatred. Simply because the Pope rewards someone who made an incredible sacrifice he is called a 'woman hater'.This woman died before I was even born - about 40 years ago - so none of us will ever know the real reasons why she made the choice to die. The irony is that by claiming it is somehow the fault of the Church that she gave up her life for her child you are belittling her and assuming she had no brain or opinion of her own.
I agree that aspects of the Catholic Church are problematic and I certainly do not agree with banning contraception. I am C of E which is far more 'liberal' concerning such matters. As for the Pope himself, yes he is 'old school' about such matters but he has also been very outspoken about other important world issues which other world leaders ignore or sideline, wars and military occupation in particular. As for the condoms in South Africa issue someone mentioned, it would be far more effective if Tribal beliefs were challenged, for example the belief that AIDS or HIV will be 'cured' by having unprotected sex with a virgin, which has led to an unprecedented number of child and baby rapes in the country ( and elsewhere in the African continent).I kid you not, sickening though it may be.I hardly think the Pope has anything to do with this, nor the Tribal practice of infibulation , which means removal by knife of the clitoris and partial sewing up of the vaginal passage in baby girls, so that they find any form of sexual intercourse so agonising they will never cheat on their husbands. Again, not the Pope's fault IMO.Not trying to shock or be upsetting, just trying to say that the Pope has done more good thahe is getting credit for on this thread, and also to point out that he cannot be blamed for the worlds ills.

However the Catholic church is busy telling the lie that condoms don't protect from HIV, thus making it even more likely that people will get infected and some of these will turn to the abhorant practices that you have described.

Well said Donnie. HMB what do you mean by the Catholic church? the church's views or the views of some catholic individuals?

The political right who decided to take Gianna's as an example (see my first post) were catholics but so were we who worked against it. It is only unfair to generalise.

hmb, i have been looking at the cafod website and i can't find anywhere where it says condoms don't protect against AIDS. it is stated quite openly that condoms are not supplied or promoted however.

if you want to get a real view, and not a bigoted anti catholic view, of what the church does to support aids victims and their families around the world, have a look at this .

This is the article from the Guardian of last year

'The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.

A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue.

The church's claims are revealed in a BBC1 Panorama programme, Sex and the Holy City, to be broadcast on Sunday. The president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, told the programme: "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom.

"These margins of uncertainty... should represent an obligation on the part of the health ministries and all these campaigns to act in the same way as they do with regard to cigarettes, which they state to be a danger."

The WHO has condemned the Vatican's views, saying: "These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million."

The organisation says "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. There may be breakage or slippage of condoms - but not, the WHO says, holes through which the virus can pass .

Scientific research by a group including the US National Institutes of Health and the WHO found "intact condoms... are essentially impermeable to particles the size of STD pathogens including the smallest sexually transmitted virus... condoms provide a highly effective barrier to transmission of particles of similar size to those of the smallest STD viruses".

The Vatican's Cardinal Trujillo said: "They are wrong about that... this is an easily recognisable fact."

The church opposes any kind of contraception because it claims it breaks the link between sex and procreation - a position Pope John Paul II has fought to defend.

In Kenya - where an estimated 20% of people have HIV - the church condemns condoms for promoting promiscuity and repeats the claim about permeability. The archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki, said: "Aids... has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms."

Sex and the Holy City includes a Catholic nun advising her HIV-infected choirmaster against using condoms with his wife because "the virus can pass through".

In Lwak, near Lake Victoria, the director of an Aids testing centre says he cannot distribute condoms because of church opposition. Gordon Wambi told the programme: "Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids."

Panorama found the claims about permeable condoms repeated by Catholics as far apart as Asia and Latin America. '

These are not isolated cases of single priests passing on this information. These are seniour members of the Catholic Church. Telling people not to have sex has not protected the millions that are dying of AIDs in developing countries. Spreading misinformation (as described by the WHO) will help to kill even more.

And I am honestly delighted that the Catholic church is doing do much to help those affected by AIDs. But it needs to stop spreading mis-information about the effectivness of condoms in preventing disease.

This

www.condoms4life.org/facts/condomPolicy.htm

Is a facinating round up of quotes that seniour members of the Catholic church have made about the use of condoms in the pevention of AIDs.

And just so that no-one accuses me of being anti Catholic it is a great website headed' Good Catholics use Condoms' This is a site put together by Catholics who obviously love God, but see that the Church's views on condoms are killing poeple.

hmb, i have been looking at this on the web and am astonished. i can't believe the church is doing this.

i don't mean i don't believe you, i mean i am gobsmacked.

And I do realise that good catholics of good concience are against the Church's teachings on this one. I am most definatly not Catholic bashing. But the hierachy of the Church is very, very wrong about this and it is killing people

"Parents must reject the promotion of so-called ?safe sex? or ?safer sex,? a dangerous and immoral policy based on the deluded theory that the condom can provide adequate protection against AIDS.? - one of the quotes on your website hmb. My daughter was conceived whilst using a condom, it is hardly a reliable form of contraception. It can burst, it can leak, it can come off. Therefore, if it is not a reliable form of contraception, it is not a reliable protection against Aids. The quotes on that site have been taken out of context entirely. The way I read it is that the priests concerned are saying that condoms will not solve the Aids crisis, and they won't. The Church's stance is that if you save yourself for marriage, and keep your vows of fidelity, then Aids would not be the problem it is today. But if you are telling kids that it's okay to have sex so long as you use a condom, you won't catch Aids that way, that is a lie. You CAN catch Aids using a condom, they are NOT 100% safe. That is the message the Church is sending out. Stop twisting it.

And how come, once again, this has degenerated into a Catholic-bashing session? A lot of people have tried to bring it back to the original point, but without avail. Ok, some of you are anti-catholic, you think they are all women-haters and ignoramuses. I think you've been heard now!

But in the real world most people don't wait until they are married before they have sex. Using comdoms is a way of reducing the risk.

I have made it quite clear that I am not anti-Catholic. I posted a link from a Catholic based website that disagreed with the stance that the church has over the use of condoms. Condom use is known to reduce the risk of spread by 90%. Agreed it is not 100%. Agreed that abstinence is 100% but people are not practicing abstinence Rhubarb, and they are dying in their millions. The lie that the church is spreading is that the aid virus can easily pass through a condon and the bald fact is that it cannot. You used a condom to try to prevent a pregnancy but you seem to want other people not to use one to prevent a death. There are cases when married couple has been told not to use a condom when one of them is known to have AIDs, that is tantimount to murder.

I have no argument that staying faithful is better. I have been faithful for 20 years, But this is the real world, and people are dying while the Vatican sticks to its guns.

message withdrawn

Go Rhubarb!!

I completely agree with your comments. It seems that everyone goes on and on about a woman's right to choose, but when she chooses the rights of her unborn child over her own, it is implied that she is selfish for leaving her remaining children and placing a burden on the baby that she chose to give life to!! - Now THAT, opinion is undermining to women- people should respect HER decision, which I'm sure she thought about long and hard- and if spiritual faith guided her, then so be it. Sick to death of people Catholic-bashing simply b/c it is trendy to do so these days.

Without getting too deep about this, I think it's good to celebrate an act of such love and selflessness. As long as it was the mother's choice and nothing to do with church pressure. I am a bit hazy about saints, but didn't they do all sorts of things (like burning at the stake) that we are not expected to do in our own day to day life?

I am not a catholic, and am not getting into a pro or anti debate on how this religion sees women generally. I just think as an individual act, this mother's choice was worthy of being celebrated in some way. Had she been given an award by 'Women's Own' would you then say that the magazine was anti-women?

Yes, I would. Perfectly happy to respect her decision about her own life and her own baby, just don't think it should be held up as an example for others to follow, particularly not by a bunch of misogynists who hate female sexuality so much they want to punish women for daring to enjoy themselves.
As for condoms, my organisation has tested condoms (for holes and tensile strength among other things) and they are pretty darn safe, used properly, pref. with spermicide. Obviously sometimes they do come off, but if you are concerned about AIDS, they are 1,000 times safer than unprotected sex. If the Catholic church didn't preach lies about condoms then thousands of people in Africa wouldn't be dying of AIDS, leaving babies orphaned and infected themselves. But obviously the church thinks that's OK.

I had a friend who had to choose between her life or that of her unborn baby. She developed leukaemia when she was about 5mths pg and with two gorgeous girls, aged about 2 and 4. It was a hellish decision to have to make. She eventually had a termination, giving birth to a tiny baby boy. That baby could not have been loved more, he was named and cuddled and loved so much. I think it was incredibly brave of my friend to say goodbye to her much wanted baby and she had amazing faith that one day she would have another little boy. Sadly, the leukaemia eventually got the better of my friend but at least her daughters had more time with her.

I feel uneasy about holding up Gianna Molla as an example. Undoubtedly, she was very brave, but when faced with this sort of dilemma, woman are stuck between a rock and a hard place and I can't see how one decision can be superior to another.

Also, without taking away anything from Gianna, I actually wonder how much of a choice she truly had. Back in 1962 cancer treatment was much less effective and maybe she knew that she was going to die irrespective of whether she had the hysterectomy or not.

Omg suedonim - what a terrible decision your friend had to make

I feel a bit uneasy about this being held up as the right thing to do also. Surely that puts a huge amount of guilt on those who choose to have an abortion which I dont think would be wrong in this situation. There is no right or wrong surely so to reward one decision and hold it up as the right one doesnt seem the best thing to do.
Yes, she was very brave but someone who choses to have the abortion is also very brave.
Difficult one.

hmb - this is not an ideal world, and though I may stick up for the Catholic Church on this thread, I have not at any one point said that the opinions expressed are my own. I do not have a problem with contraception, I use condoms, but I can see where the Church is coming from. People seem to think that by giving out condoms to Aids-infected countries, they are doing them all a favour. So it's ok to rape and abuse your wife, so long as you use a condom? What the Church is trying to do is to change the attitudes of these people, aiming for prevention rather than curing the symptoms. I agree that people do not wait until they are married to have sex. But in these countries, rape is rife, adultery is rife, and so is the Aids virus. You cannot just give them condoms and leave them to get on with it! What about your women's rights then?

And I think you are getting the general message of the Church as a whole, mixed up with misguided advice given by individuals. If anyone can find me a written statement by the Church telling lies about condoms, then fair enough, but the Church cannot be held responsible for individual people who tell these lies for whatever reasons of their own. And if these condoms are so reliable, then my daughter and niece would not be here!

If you read the whole story of Gianna Molla, you might get a better understanding of what she did and why she did it. I have no doubt that many women face similar situations, and on Mumsnet I know many mothers who have terminated a baby because of Downs Syndrome. I would never judge anyone who decides that, it is an incredibly hard decision to make. Which makes Gianna's story all the more inspiring. How easy it would have been to terminate a 2 month pregnancy to save your own life, especially as this would have been acceptable within the guidelines of the Church itself. But she chose a different path, and one of the people who paid their respects to Gianna, was the daughter she gave her life for. Whatever has happened to you as a mother, I don't see how you could not find this story inspiring.

Are we to say that a fireman who gives his life up to rescue a family from a blazing house should not be honoured because there are plenty of other firemen who would not have taken that same risk? Or if a mother undergoes potentially life-threatening surgery to donate a kidney to save one of her children, that we shouldn't sing her praises either because there might be other mothers who are too scared to do that? We should be proud of these people, not lumbering them with our political correctness!

I fully agree that just giving countries condoms is not enough, but it is better than nothing. If you look at the short history of the AIDs virus the greatest turn around in the spread wasn't caused by preaching abstinence, it was caused by telling people to practice safe sex. Rates of AIDs in the Gay community only started to fall when people got the message and practiced safe sex, and that also has implications for the 'value' that people place on the life of their would be partners.

It isn't just the odd rogue preist we are taking about but Bishps and Archbishps. Many other Catholics think that the Vatican is badly wrong about this, they disagree with their church, as do I without being catholic haters. You obviously disagree with the Vatican line about contraception, it doesn't make you a Catholic hater, does it?

And I agree that women should have rights, and the first of these that women need that allows the rest to follow, is the right to limit the size of their families as they see fit. And to do this, the cheapest practical way, which also protects them from all sexually transmitted diseases, is to use a condom.

I do agree with you hmb, but I disagree that the Church tells untruths about condoms. The Church's policy is very clear, lies do not form part of it. Unfortunately, individuals will set out to deceive for their own misguided reasons, but it is not within teaching or practice of the Catholic Church.

Their stance on contraception is ideal. In this ideal world, a woman would know her own body and would know when she was ovulating, it would be something her mother would teach her and would be passed down. But in this modern world, we are so reliant on hormones, that you are quite lucky if you do know when you are ovulating. That skill of reading the signs have been lost. Therefore it is unrealistic now to expect women to practice the rhythm method. Something the Church does not understand, as it is mainly staffed by men. Therefore I do think that condoms should be accepted.

I don't think the Church are women-haters. Naive maybe. Jesus had a lot to do with women, he gave them a lot of respect and they featured greatly in his life. The Church really should start to look into the ordination of women priests, and they should also allow priests to marry. Though I can also understand why they don't do this. Jesus himself did say that ideally, a man would give his life to God, but if he could not do that then he should marry. Priests however, should be given the choice.

I am proud to be Catholic, yet I disagree with the Church on many things. I understand their reasoning, yet I don't necessarily agree with it. However I do feel that I must defend it against accusations of evil intent or deception, as I honestly don't believe that it sets out to do either of these. The Church lives in this very ideal world, and it does it's best according to this. It refuses to budge because it cannot accept modern ways or thinking. What we consider normal behaviour, the Church would consider immoral. And in some ways they do have a point. Even if you are totally anti-Catholic, you should still listen to the message they are sending out. Don't be so quick to judge them, but instead look at the reasoning behind their actions. They dictate a better way of living where people have respect for one another, where life is sacred and sex is still a beautiful and special gift reserved for the one you truly love. I wish I had waited for my husband, the man who took my virginity did not deserve it. The Church is not anti-women, but I can understand why it is perceived in that way. Just keep an open mind about the Catholic Church and give it a chance. Don't be too quick to misinterpret.

Shall we shake on it hmb and agree to disagree?

I actual fact we disagree about very little, and I don't think in any of my posts I have indicated that I hate the Catholic Church. I hope that I haven't!

And in fact, as I understand it, the ruling on contraception was never made ex cathedra (sp?). And the church does recognise that sometimes life is gray, and there are no absolutes, for example they do allow a termination if the medical reasons are compelling, as would have been in the case that started this discussion. So the Church does, on occasion recongnise that sometimes the lesser of two evils is preferable. People are allowed to refuse medical treatment if it would only prolong an agonising death. Allowing the use of condoms would slash the spread of a disease that is killing millioms. This a pandemic of vast proportion. Ironicaly the Catholic church is one of the front runners is caring for its victims, but they have to go that one step further and to help prevent it. Sometimes a little expediencey is a good thing, and an absolute doctrine is not in anyone's best interest. I am reminded of the line in the Bible where Christ talks about working on the Sabbeth, you'd pull upir ass out of a hole if it fell into it on the Sabbeth. Well, AIDs is, to my mind, one of those things.

As you said, it is unrealistic to expect people to know their own cycles. Similarly it is unrealstic to expect millions of people to never have sex again. And I suppose that this is hard to the church hieracy to understand since they have forsworn sex themselves for a higher ideal (not being snide, real observation). An mixed/married preisthood would have made a different call I think.

And yes, I'll happily shake on it, Friends??