Colombian Catholic Church Excommunicates All Involved in 11-year-old Rape Victim’s Abortion September 6, 2006 Jill How compassionate. Think they excommunicated her stepfather, who raped her? via Bring it On. Thanks to Matt for the link.
Here’s an updated story which claims the Church didn’t official excommunicate them but the Cardinal claimed those performing the abortion excommunicated themselves. http://www.theindiancatholic.com/newsread.asp?nid=3201 There is also this article in Forbes http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/08/30/ap2984170.html
What i don’t understand (truly, this is not a snark) is why, theologically, abortion warrants excommunication, while regular ol’ murder (of an already-born person) does not. I don’t for a second believe that abortion is murder, but granting that the church does, why is it an excommunication-worthy sin? What makes it worse than killing your grandmother or, ahem, raping your 11-year-old stepdaughter? Are there any theological reasons for this, or (as I’m prejudiced to believe) is it merely a political gesture? Any Catholics out there who could explain this, I’d appreciate it.
Jivin, that’s interesting; I didn’t see your comments before I posted. I still wonder if their definition of self-excommunication includes conventional murders, rapes, etc.
From the article: Cardinal Trujillo, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, has been very clear on the application of excommunication in cases of abortion. In a June interview with Famiglia Christiana magazine, Cardinal Trujillo said the doctors, nurses and the mother involved in abortion all incur excommunication, as would the father if he supported the abortion decision. So, theoretically, as long as the rapist wanted his victim to keep the child, it’s all okay. This is probably the dictionary definition of “fucked up”.
Uh… They do all that, but keep the rapist as part of their “flock”? Wow… priorities, man… I can’t wrap my mind around this one.
there is nothing inherently objectionable about allowing the rapist to remain a member of the church. catholic theology is grounded in the belief that people are imperfect and are going to commit evil acts no matter what, and the only possible way to improve oneself is to seek forgiveness in christ. I do agree that it is strange to excommunicate those involved rather than allowing them to seek forgiveness. perhaps that is the contrast that has people riled up. it seems the best course of action would be to condemn all involved but allow them to seek forgiveness within the church. however, this point is likely to be lost on people who want to make wisecracks about “moving him to another parish” 🙂
I do agree that it is strange to excommunicate those involved rather than allowing them to seek forgiveness. perhaps that is the contrast that has people riled up. it seems the best course of action would be to condemn all involved but allow them to seek forgiveness within the church. And understandably enough, some people have a problem with any standard that establishes parity between “people who help an eleven-year-old rape victim obtain an abortion” and “the man who raped said eleven-year-old.”
Is there no life of the mother or health exception allowed for abortion in the RCC? I admit I’m not up on all the details of human biology, but I’m pretty sure that it’s dangerous for kids to give birth.
It does say that they also excommunicated the girl’s parents, which I assume includes the stepfather, though he isn’t excommunicated for raping her. Just supporting the abortion. Archishop Luis Augusto Castro, president of the Bishops’ Conference of Colombia, spoke out against the Court’s decision to accept abortion in difficult cases involving rape or incest, saying “The child is innocent…the criminal should be punished and put in jail for a long time, but the child should not have to pay for the sins of another….” No, the child shouldn’t have to pay for the sins of another…which is why they allowed the child to have an abortion.
several months ago i commented on an abortion-related post here at Feministe. i referred to a priest that was profiled in an article in the Boston Globe Magazine: he had been a terrorist in N Ireland – had actually blown people up – and is now an ordained priest. meanwhile, pro-choice catholics – people who were simply pro-choice, but who hadn’t had an abortion or performed an abortion – were being denied communion, etc. i said that it all came down to the church wanting to control women. someone responded saying that i had missed the point, that the former terrorist had changed his ways and had found redemption, blah, blah, blah… i didn’t agree then and i don’t agree now. it’s all about control. (and to hell with the church.)
Last I read about the catholic church was that they are wringing their hands about what to do with all their retiring nuns. I guess the upkeep is looking pretty staggering. Such news brings me joy. Reading of church closings, cost overruns, questioning believers and once compliant nations that are asserting their interest over the control of the church. And now someone is suing the pope. Not only do I imagine he and many others along the heirarchy assisted in coverups (such as cardinal Bernard Law and the still acting bishop McCormick regarding the Shanley abuse case), but probably were/are pedophiles themselves. This sure does fit nicely with the other thread about monarchy.
Notice they refer to the aborted foetus as a “he”? I noticed that too. Perhaps they were dwelling on what they thought was the worst case situation?
I didn’t actually see in any of the articles anything that said the rapist was not excommunicated–has anyone found one they could link here? Also, just for clarification: it is customary to refer to unborn babies (/foetuses/embryos) and/or babies of whom the gender is not known as “he”–this helps to distinguish when a person is speaking of the mother and when they are referring to the child. So perhaps the aborted baby was actually a boy or perhaps that information was not made public. Finally–and this is actually the thing I wanted to say–I don’t think that delighting in the downfall or the struggles of an institution that has brought personal fulfillment and emotional strength to so many through the ages, including possibly more women than men, is really any more admirable than the wrongs committed by that institution. I am certainly not happy that the RCC apparently sees fit to hold the life of the unborn child in so much higher esteem than the life or physical and mental and spiritual health of the raped and pregnant child, but we do not need to commit the sames wrongs of divisiveness, exclusion, condemnation and un-love. Instead, reminding the Church (and ourselves) of the biblical teachings is an option: one of these is that we are called to forgive, always. As a side note, I’ve always thought it funny when people talk about or condemn “playing God”–as though any action we did could be a surprise to a being who exists outside of time, as though a God who controls “the breath of life” could not choose to withold it from an embryo that would never be born.