Doctrinal congregation on 9-year-old's abortion

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith should be disbanded as it is "wrong","intrinsically evil" and has not and cannot be improved because of the ignorant and misogynist old men who run the place.

So what did they conclude? To save the little 9 year old, raped since she was six by step-dad, so she did not die, the abortion must happen.

Otherwise this little child dies having this child of incestuous rape, a sin of such horror inflicted on this little 66 pound girl. Probably the baby would die too as the little 9 year old's body can not handle a pregnancy either.

Complexity, but can the Vatican handle theological complexity of the human condition when it is factored by inhumane conditions... because of the terrible inhumane sin of the step-dad, doing actions he never should have done, inflicting horrible abuse on the little girl.

Why is the step-dad not the centre of outrage, why does the church inflict outrage on the little girl and her mother? It is this monster of a step-dad that has wronged so much! The Vatican just becomes another monster when it treats the girl victim and mother worse than it treats this evil step-dad who also was abusing the handicapped 14 year old sister.

You mean Church teaching of the natural law that is it ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE wrong to kill an unborn child didn't change just because NCR wanted it to? And, it turns out that the Church was ministering to the girl. So, I am sure they are ready for your apology.

I am curious as to why this is located under the "women" heading and not something like the "justice" heading?

To be so hardnosed with respect to abortion invites the question of why it is sometimes all right to kill the born who pose a threat.

(The penalty of excommunication)
"places in evidence the gravity of the crime committed (and) the irreparable damage caused to the innocent who was killed, to the parents and to all of society,"

"should have been defended, hugged and held tenderly to help her feel that we were all on her side,"

"All of us ... treated the pregnant girl and her family with extreme charity and tenderness. ... All efforts were focused on saving all three lives."

"In this regard, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirms that the doctrine of the church on procured abortion has not and cannot change,"

"taking into account the dramatic situation of the child -- who, it turns out -- was accompanied with pastoral delicacy by the then-archbishop."

"It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important values such as her own health or a decent standard of living for the other members of the family. Sometimes it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being."

These statements are a stark reminder of the moral language, the moral world, of the Catholic Church. These men address these words to all human beings, not just to the billion Catholics. And they expect obedience with the hammer of the justice of excommunication hovering over all our souls.

Once again our hierarchy shows a level of insensitivity to this situation that clearly defies comprehension of understanding, this was a little girl weighing no more then 66 Lbs, who had been repeatedly raped, this clearly is a situation which should not have incurred the penalty of excommunication.

This terriblily unfair penalty cuts her and her family off from the Church which should have protected her from a PREDATORY Step-Father who deserves nothing less then to have his wally cut off.

The official church loses all credibility when it does not vehemently support LIFE when it comes to just war issues and capital punishment. When the hierarchy speaks out as forcefully for those issues as well as abortion, then I will place my confidence in them. Until then, they are a "resounding gong or a clashing cymbal."

Is this predatory step-dad, raping the 9 year old girl since 6, impregnating her with twins, raping her sister too, all probably while the mother worked to give income to them..... is this stepdad (can he be called dad?) excommunicated?

Or only females , the raped 9 year old, her mother, are they the only ones the Vatican excommunicates, for their sin is they are born female. Is that it?

So does this Vatican conclude all three must die, the little girl and the twin babies , yet this is a crazy crime of pedophile rape and incest, that never should have happened in the first place. Why is the girl and mom to be punished, excommunicated, the girl made to die all because of the terrible unbearable sin of the step-dad, and he does not even get excommunicated for this?

Did the Vatican agree in the last sentence of the write-up that yes abortion was necessary in this complex case?

Jesus said mercy and compassion and justice triumph over the letter of the law.

Jesus gave mercy to the adultress and to many others in the bible.

Jesus would save the life of that abused little girl, as that pregnancy should never have happened,

It was horrific pedophile incest, rape and blatant abuse. That preganancy should never have happened. That man should never have done that to those little girls.

Mercy, compassion and justice must be given and not letter of the law . If the Vatican insists otherwise they are not like Jesus one bit.

Just to set a few things straight. The little girl was not excommunicated by the Church. A person has to be over 17 years of age to be excommunicated according to the Vatican.

But that is little consolation to the mother of the little 9-year-old and of the mentally challenged 14 year-old. The insistence of the Church in imposing excommunication on the working mother of both children, who was put between a rock and a hard place, is worthy of the condemnation of Christ. In Matthew 23:4-5, Jesus denounces the scribes and pharisees by stating, "They (scribes and pharisees) tie up heavy burdens, heard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others, but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them." The official Church in Brazil did just that to the mother of this little girl.

What was the mother of the child to do? Allow her little girl to continue her pregency---knowing full well that the child's body is unable to nourish growing twins, and nourish the 9-year-old's body as well? Was she supposed to sit by and watch this child of hers and the unborn twins all die? Is this how the official Church interprets its "Gospel of Life"?

And for the sake of argument, supposed the little girl survived this birth? What condition would the twins be in? Would they also be handicapped (if they survived)? Who would have to support the 4 children? The working mother, of course!

I have read that many in the Vatican think that Americans (and their bishops) {read both north and south} are a bunch of lunatics, when it comes to the abortion issue. Italians (with the lowest birth rate in Europe) and the rest of the Europeans do not agonize over the abortion issue---nor are they excommunicated for seeking abortions.

The blanket excommunication for everyone choosing an abortion, in all cases, is despicable! There are good reasons for some chosing abortions---and this was certainly one of them. There should never have been any excommunications issued here--unless it was against the step-father. The questions raised by other posters about the step-father being left--scot-free, canonically, by the official Church, are excellent questions.

Since only females can become pregnant---and females incur excommunicatiion for their actions (never the male--unless he cooperates in the selection of an abortion), this is clearly a gender-biased excommunication. Each case should be handled individually---not an automatic penality.

As implied by many, and me directly, the Roman See is in fundamental error on faith and morals, and its claims to sole 'Christian authority' (in whatever obfuscated canonical terms that is expressed), allegedly conferred upon the so-called 'first pope' are illusory.

The See needs to change or it will devolve even further into folk religion.

As a pro-lifer, I have no problem with official church teaching per se, and I could not endorse the 9-year-old girl's abortion, even to save her life.

That said, we have here a classic case of well-intentioned church teaching (re: sacredness of all unborn human life) pitted against the facts of a horrendous situation brought about by the despicable acts of a stepfather.

Sometimes, when such cases are brought to life, it may be better for Rome simply to repeat its teaching on the sacredness of life while not, at the same time, reminding the rest of us that the parties involved are automatically excommunicated from the church.

In the hard cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother, I'm at most prepared to remind the doctor that he has two patients, mother and child, and then leave the outcome to God for ultimate moral judgment. In other words, I can condemn the act but not the doer(s).

Perhaps the Vatican should reconsider its approach to these kinds of difficult, heartwrenching situations: not change its teaching but, rather, its approach.

What a wearying situation. If a woman is raped [and I will leave aside a marriage situation where the woman does not consent] she obviously has not consented to her impregnation. Is she morally required then to carry this intruder to birth? I can see the excommunication [and certainly penal action] or whatever for the raper -but to require an innocent to bear the innocent fetus is an obscenity- it violates any basic idea of justice and renders her just a biological processor .
This and the stupidity concerning the use of condoms by a married couple [one of who is HIV positive] trying to keep loving without acquiring AIDS is a mockery of moral law.
When will these mean spirited "teachers" wake up.

Wonderful comment Johnathon. The Vatican would probably try to excommunicate Jesus too. After all, canon law is more important than mercy, compassion and justice.

Anyone who thinks a 9 yr. old girl could carry twins for nine months knows very little about anatomy and health. This child ( yes young child) and the twins would have had little chance of life. I was appalled at the very idea that the church would put all the blame on the child's mother and doctors. The "satan" in this story is the step-monster who raped this child over many years. Her life is already in great peril due to the haunting memories.

How can a child who is conceived in the womb be considered an intruder? IT was not the child who raped a woman, but rather the the man. The Child is an innocent life who has done no wrong, committed no sin, and you want to kill the child???

And as already said, the little girl did not receive and excommunication she is way to young and had no freedom in that situation. The mother it is also doubtful.

The whole issue is because objectively speaking one who commits or aid an abortion is put under excommunication, not by the church but by their very action. There could be subjective aspects to the situation that might not mean the parties are excommunicated.

Obviously the church/vatican is more concerned with rules and their own power than with compassion, pity or suffering of a small child.
This is so far removed from what Jesus Christ taught and lived that the church has lost any relevance. Shame on the hypocritical religious righteous!