The Catholic Church In Brazil

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

has excommunicated doctors who performed an abortion on a nine-year old girl, pregnant with twins by her rapist stepfather. Had she not had the terminations, she and the twins all would have died. Brazil's laws say abortion is OK in the case of rape or threat to the mother's life - but apparently "God's laws" are more important.

How can these celibate men be so lacking in compassion?

tiredlady - someone would be excommunicated if they blatantly and obviously went against Catholic teaching, causing a scandal and did not repent or had no intention of doing so.

A priest who has committed a crime may well have repented, carried out his penance and received absolution. If he utterly refused to take responsibility and said he was going to continue abusing children, then, of course, he would have put himself out of communion with the rest of the Church.

My understanding is that saving the foetus trumps saving the mother, though I could be wrong.

If you kill the foetus, that's "murder". If the mother dies, then presumably that's God's will

it's a bit too late for me to try and explain all this but it seems that the thread is going all over the place - I don't think it's just about the morality of abortion.

Going to bed now so may well come back tomorrow if you're still all here...

You are indeed wrong Tiredlady

Saving the foetus does not trump saving the mother. The catholic church dictates that every effort is made to save both mother and child.

What, so God believes them when they say "oooh, I won't do it again!" We don't!

Tommy, what's the difference between excommunication and "official" excommunication? If there are very few who have been officially excommunicated, which presumably excludes nametaken's mum.

Folks can I just say that just coz someone is a catholic it doesn't mean they know all the answers.

All excommunication means (and I don't think there is an "official" and an "unofficial" excommunication) is that the person being excommunication can no longer take communion at mass.

Ok nametaken. But what if, despite best efforts, that can't be done. What if the continuation of the pregnancy would cause the death of the mother. Would a termination be allowed then?

termination is never allowed - which is why I'm surprised that others are surprised the doctor was excommunicated.

Did people really honestly think the catholic church would let it slide? If the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy was awful? Really?

So actually nametaken, I was right after all. Saving the foetus does trump saving the mother, if she would need a termination to stay alive.

Actually, i wasn't remotely suprised that the Catholic Church did as they did

LOL, I'm glad you weren't surprised - but I do somethings think some of the mumsnetters think catholicism is a buffet whereby you can pick and choose the bits you like. It is not. It is a set menu. Take it or leave it.

So, as a Catholic country who says abortion is ok in the case of rape, Brazil seems to have selected from the menu. Do they excommunicate all doctors who conduct abortion within the law? (sorry nametaken, I'm not expecting you to have all the answers on the laws in Brazil....)

Thing is, it's NOT a set menu. That's what's so disingenuous about the teachings of the hierarchy.

Some things, like belief in God, obviously, have always been core. But others have shifted over time.

Attitudes to contraception and abortion and sex outside marriage hardened at some point - can't remember exactly when and am not about to look it up now. But it wasn't always such a big hang up.

nametaken, I thought that technically an excommunicant can't participate in any of the sacraments apart from Reconciliation? (in practical terms communion would be the only really relevant one for most purposes, admittedly)

And I think that there is a formal and an informal excommunication in that technically it is your acts that separate you from the communion of the faithful (and sort of automatically excommunicate you) but in some cases a formal announcement takes place to notify the Church as a whole that the person has separated from the Church should no longer receive the sacraments. So there are probably oodles of Catholics whose acts have separated them from the communion of the faithful, of whom a smaller proportion actually do not receive the sacraments, and an even smaller proportion have had any official recognition of their excommunicant status (rather than relying on individual conscience or local knowledge).

I could well be wrong, though (I do have a tame canon lawyer I could check with, but I try to limit the number of random canonical questions I ask).

I seem to recall reading that, way way back, the Church allowed abortion up until "quickening" - when you first feel the baby move. But I could be wrong.

wanders off to google it

Here's something:

Pope Innocent III (circa 1161-1216):
He wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."
Early in the 13th century he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder.

Pope Sixtus V (1471-1484) issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty.

Pope Gregory XIV (1535-1591) revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).

thank you, Oldlady, I knew there was more to it.

I just read a bit further on, on that same link. It seems the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion is pretty recent, given the Church has been around for what? A thousand years?

Pope Pius IX (1792-1878) reversed the stance of the Roman Catholic church once more. He dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" in 1869.

Leo XIII (1878-1903):
He issued a decree in 1884 that prohibited craniotomies. This is an unusual form of abortion used late in pregnancy and is occasionally needed to save the life of the pregnant woman.
He issued a second degree in 1886 that prohibited all procedures that directly killed the fetus, even if done to save the woman's life. The tolerant approach to abortion which had prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church for previous centuries ended. The church required excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy. This position has continued to the present time.

(My bold)

I'm not surprised it happened. Just surprised that some are trying to defend it. Supporting such cruelty and injustice should be something you keep quiet about out of shame.

Brazil only permits abortions in cases of rape or health risks to the mother.

Doctors said the girl's case met both these conditions, but the Archbishop of Olinda and Recife, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho said the law of God was above any human law>>

So HE was okay with the raped child dying in childbirth.

God may condone all kinds of depravity when it suits his purpose, but I don't have to.

And if there is anyone who doesn't feel emotion at the plight of a raped child they should think about seeing a psychiatrist.

the catholic church is disgusting with that attitude!crusty old men dictating about a subject they know nothing about.If it had been their daughter would the attitude be different?... poor wee girl... at nine years old she's just a baby herself.the church does not permit abortion because the whole point of being catholic(should you not become priest or nun) is too breed more catholics. anti -abortion, anti-contraception,- see what i mean???.... i am speaking as an ex -catholic myself!

..... and dont get me started on what the church does with peadophiles!

For me this sums up all that is wrong with the Catholic church (and I was brought up Catholic). No compassion. Surely Christianity should be primarily about compassion? If the mother was unaware of the abuse (and perhaps even if she was), isn't this the time more than ever that she needs her faith and community? What an awful thing to have to come to terms with. The doctors have presumably already made their choices about church rules, but what mother wouldn't make the same decision for their child?

It's not only in the US that the Catholic Church has protected child rapists. Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor is about to be enobled despite having moved child abusers around rather than contacting the police or throwing them out of the church. This meant, of course, that they had access to fresh victims.

Obviously child abusers are OK while 9yo rape victims must be condemned to death.