FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Vatican Prelate: Doctors who performed abortion on 9-year-old did not deserve excommunication
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
I find this incredibly troubling, especially given that this statement appeared in the Vatican newspaper and was written by the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96UJD9G0&show_article=1
With prelates like this one, the Church doesn't need any external enemies.
I forgot which prophecy it was, but Our Lady said something like "Rome will become the seat of Antichrist." It's well on the way, judging by this.
There isn't enough information to give an opinion.
The babies were too young to survive on their own, and if they developed further, the doctors said the girl could die (and there was no hope for their survival, given they were twins and in a tiny body, they would have to be born earlier than any baby could survive at all, plus, they were twins and already too small).
If the doctors performed a procedure to save the life of the girl without the aim to kill the babies (basically, a premature delivery out of necessity with the result of the babies dying as a second effect), then they couldn't have sinned. It really depends on what exactly happened, which to my knowledge isn't fully published.
One possibility could have been the early selective abortion of one twin, then delivery at a later time of a single baby, perhaps still somewhat premature but long enough into gestation to give it a decent chance at survival.
That may have worked, but the risk to the child (mother and baby) would have been extremely high. Did the location of this incident have suitable facilities and means to care for a pregnant child and a baby who was likely to be at extreme risk and premature? Would the child be able to bear any baby at all?
If the girl were older, there still would be risks with one, let alone two and being only 9 years old.
The Archbp Fisichella seems to be ignoring that the excommunication never aimed at this poor little girl abused by his stepfather. It aimed only at her mother (who pushed for abortion) and the doctors (who performed it).
In another hand, the Archbp of Recife was very clumsy in that matter since the Canon law is very clear: Is excommunicated "ipso facto" whoever performs, counsels, supply or helps for an abortion. Why then to issue an excommunication decree?
It was enough to remind what says the Canon without any further comment. Then those who felt guilty had nothing to do but to ask counsel from a (good) priest and hopefully beg forgiveness in confession.
Hence the media would have not get such an amount of hate to spew against the Church.
An abortion is permissible if the intent is to save the life of the mother. Principle of double effect, look it up.
kjvail Wrote:An abortion is permissible if the intent is to save the life of the mother. Principle of double effect, look it up.

I have read something about this. You couldn't abort a baby if it's going to live, right? Doesn't this only apply if the baby is going to die anyway?
No, an abortion is not permitted to save a mother's life.  In order for double effect to apply, the death of the child must be indirect.  You may remove a cancerous uterus even if the mother is pregnant.  You weren't trying to kill the child, but to solve an unrelated problem.  In this case, the problem precisely was the pregnancy.  The "solution," from what I gather (though I don't know for sure, obviously), was to directly kill the children.  You may not go into the uterus and directly kill the child in order to save the mother.  You may not directly kill innocent person X to save innocent person Y. 

If we are speaking of direct abortion, it does not matter whether the child was going to die anyway (though that is relevant in legitimate instances of double effect).  Because someone is going to die naturally in two weeks, we may not butcher him now on our own.
Bonifacius Wrote:No, an abortion is not permitted to save a mother's life.  In order for double effect to apply, the death of the child must be indirect.  You may remove a cancerous uterus even if the mother is pregnant.  You weren't trying to kill the child, but to solve an unrelated problem.  In this case, the problem precisely was the pregnancy.  The "solution," from what I gather (though I don't know for sure, obviously), was to directly kill the children.  You may not go into the uterus and directly kill the child in order to save the mother.  You may not directly kill innocent person X to save innocent person Y. 

If we are speaking of direct abortion, it does not matter whether the child was going to die anyway (though that is relevant in legitimate instances of double effect).  Because someone is going to die naturally in two weeks, we may not butcher him now on our own.

Makes perfect sense.
Pages: 1 2 3 4