That's the upshot of a story that is roiling Brazil, as a nine-year-old girl who was raped by her stepfather and became pregnant with twins received an abortion. There are conflicting reports as to whether the girl was excommunicated--this Irish Times story indicates the ordinary, Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho of Olinda and Recife, says she was not, even though he also invoked canon law that would automatically excommunicate her.
But he said the mother and doctors who performed the abortion were definitely excommunicated, and Saturday a top Vatican official today defended the judgments that allowed the stepfather--who has admitted sexually abused the girl since she was six--to escape the ultimate church sanction, even though the abortion likely saved the girl's life:
Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, head of the Catholic church's Congregation for Bishops, told the daily La Stampa on Saturday that the twins the girl had been carrying had a right to live.
"It is a sad case but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated," he said.
Re, who also heads the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, added: "Life must always be protected, the attack on the Brazilian church is unjustified."
The row was triggered by the termination on Wednesday of twin foetuses carried by a nine-year-old allegedly raped by her stepfather in the Brazilian state of Pernambuco.
The regional archbishop, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, pronounced excommunication for the mother for authorising the operation and doctors who carried it out for fear that the slim girl would not survive carrying the foetuses to term.
"God's law is above any human law. So when a human law ... is contrary to God's law, this human law has no value," Cardoso had said.
He also said the accused stepfather would not be expelled from the church. Although the man allegedly committed "a heinous crime ... the abortion - the elimination of an innocent life - was more serious".
Battista Re agreed, saying: "Excommunication for those who carried out the abortion is just" as a pregnancy termination always meant ending an innocent life.
The case has sparked fierce debate in Brazil, where abortion is illegal except in cases of rape or if the woman's health is in danger.
[snip]
One of the doctors involved in the abortion, Rivaldo Albuquerque, told Globo television that he would keep going to mass, regardless of the archbishop's order.
"The people want a church full of forgiveness, love and mercy," he said.
Health Minister Jose Gomes Temporao also slammed the archbishop.
"Two things strike me: the assault on the girl and the position of this bishop, which is truly lamentable," he said.
The girl, who was not identified because she is a minor, was last week found to be four months' pregnant after being taken to hospital suffering stomach pains.
Officials said she told them she had suffered sexual abuse by her stepfather since the age of six.
Police said the 23-year-old stepfather also allegedly sexually abused the girl's physically handicapped 14-year-old sister.
He was arrested a week ago and is being kept in protective custody. If convicted, he faces up to 15 years in prison.
Fifteen years? Gimme a break. The state's verdict isn't much better than the canonical verdict, IMHO.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
RJohnson,
"But (and here I think is where Gerard and I part company) at what point does "circumstances in which the death of the baby is tolerated when it's a consequence of a medical treatment which is necessary to save the mother's life" come into play? I believe that Gerard would say that there is NEVER such a case, thus abortion would NEVER be necessary (and if I am wrong I trust him to gently correct me)."
Okay, some very gentle correction. Ending an ectopic pregnancy (which does not have the chance to come anywhere near viability) is permitted to save the life of the mother. If the circumstances here were similar, where the babies could never make it to 25-28 weeks AND the mother's life is endangered, then the moral principle of "double effect" would apply here as well.
Since you are really one of the more thoughtful people I've had the pleasure of speaking with, may I offer you a pretty good resource for understanding Catholic teaching, issue, etc.? It's the online Catholic Encyclopedia by New Advent. I find them very solid and reliable.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/
Well, the babies may have been aborted, but this is only round one in a heavyweight fight this poor child and her sister will be fighting for the rest of their lives. My prayers are with them, and with you for your intentions.
God Bless.
"David Gibson
March 9, 2009 10:06 AM
I would defer to Father Guy in almost any circumstance, and I don't think he was excommunicating me (or at least I hope not--he can confirm)."
No, David, I was not excommunicating you. I was merely pointing out the gross misunderstanding by Catholics and Non-Catholics alike about what excommunication actually means. That's not a matter of my opinion; it is Church teaching.
The other (anonymous) commenter who asserted I was "excommunicating you" because he or she erroneously thought we didn't agree was clearly reading their own agenda into the discussion...and they got it WRONG.
Im a mother of a 12 yr old. and I cant believe this story. Im catholic and sometimes wonder why???? Who truely has the right to judge anyone!! No wonder Catholic churche's has all these fathers molesting and committing sins to our innocent. they claim and talk about the life of the twins, and yes thoses are innocent lifes. but what happens to the innocence of the little girl or that fact that being so young and carrying twins could kill her and her twins. theres no way she could bare that. and why isnt the mother being held responsible. I would know when my little girls body is changing. and sure as hell no if shes 4 months. This is truley obsurb and hes lucky hes not in our states!! IM DONE
What I find interesting is what information isn't presented in this article. Before passing judgement, it would be nice to have ALL the information.
**We live in a society that jumps to rash judgements without all the facts**
This article says "...and doctors who carried it out for fear that the slim girl would not survive carrying the foetuses to term."
Sounds pretty bad, and dire, doesn't it? If you look at the Irish Times article, it gives a little more information, interestingly left out of this article: "The doctor who carried out the procedure has defended his actions. 'If the pregnancy had continued, the damage would have been worse, being a high risk pregnancy. The risk would have been of death or at the very least that she would never have been able to become pregnant again,' Dr Olímpio Moraes told O Globo newspaper."
So what does 'high risk pregnancy' mean? Does it mean the mother has a 50% chance of death if the babies are carried to term? Or, is it a relative term, for example, where a regular pregnancy has a .5 % chance of complications and risks to the mother's health, and this 'high risk pregnancy' has a 1% chance of risks if the babies are carried to term? We don't really know, do we. Let's look at the Irish Times quote:
"If the pregnancy had continued, the damage would have been worse, being a high risk pregnancy. The risk would have been of death..."
Sounds pretty dire. But then there is that 'or' clause:
"or at the very least that she would never have been able to become pregnant again,”
So, does it really mean death was much of a probability? We really don't know, do we. The doctor that performed the operation (and that killed the twins) added that the girl would not have been able to become pregnant again. But surely, there would have been some percentage associated with this conclusion, wouldn't there? Since the doctor is 'defending' his actions, I'm guessing (but again, not positive) that his view is slanted anyways.
This article mentions the rational by the doctors " who carried it out for fear that the slim girl would not survive carrying the foetuses to term."
But what might the Vatican and Pope have considered that could not have been made public for privacy reasons? Again we simply don't know. Were there four other doctors that had a differing opinion that the girl could carry the babies to term unharmed? We have no information on the girl's height/weight- do other girls/women with similar stature (i.e., height/weight) deliver babies with no signifigant elevated risk of delivering? Again, we simply don't know. It appears that there may be more here than meets the eye.
So, before we jump on the bandwagon and critize the church, or support the decision of abortion, we may need more facts.
Just my humble opinion.
Paul Barenie
I am in no way a perfect catholic. I like the 10 commandments and I try to follow them as much as possible. I think I understand what was done here. Rules of the church were broken and punishment was handed out. Having said that maybe it is time that the rules change...... So now will the church excommunicate every catholic who commits murder? What about catholic solders who shoot the enemy? Is there a double standard here? What if the mother and doctor acted in good faith based on their seemingly limited knowledge of the situation? Are we punished for ignorance? Oh, yes we are. I forgot the Original sin. Its a sad day in Rome when this crap is allowed to continue.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.