Society often reacts to give more attention to the guilty
rather than the victim.  Often the victim gets mis-identified
and overlooked, or worse, accused.

So, a raped 9-year-old is a victim.  Forced to carry a fetus,
victimized again.  After there is a mention about the fetus’
rights, the girls’ rights are never even mentioned, victimized
again.  Does she want the pregnancy?  (The question is important
to give the girl her say, see what she is thinking, give
her some consideration.)  How can she deal with an abortion?
Are there any questions attempting to assess her mental state
during such a extreme situation, if not, victimized again.
Consider the pregnancy all-important and make no estimate of
the risks to mother and fetus, victimized again.  The mothers’
rights (a citizen born with rights) get compared to the rights
of a fetus, victimized again, then losing the compression,
victimized again.  Does anyone explain her rights, options,
and how badly people are treating her and how well she
could be treated, no?, victimized again.

There are many extreme situations in society that re-victimize
the victim.  Men are assaulted, they don’t get sympathy, after
that they are told to “take it like a man”.  Pedestrians and
cyclists are getting killed by the great mass (3000 pounds or
so) and velocity of automobiles, then people say that bicycling
(a 30 pound vehicle), and walking (a 0 pound vehicle) are so
very dangerous, and then when the driver says “I didn’t see
him” no charges are filed.  In a competitive (it’s YOUR fault)
divorce children get used as pawns in their parents’ competition
to be seen as the better parent, this while their family (for
a young child, almost their _entire_ world) is torn apart,
and they don’t understand why.  There are many more examples
that put blame (and worse) onto the true victim, I sympathize
with them.  Try not to let that happen to victims, please.

As far as the Vatican, I do recall the Polish Pope John
Paul II did apologize for their treatment of Galileo Galilei
and apologize for the Vatican’s behavior during WWII in not
supporting the Jews, these sorts of improvements to Vatican
attitude made him popular with the young people, showing that
the Vatican does improve at times.  He never did approve of
abortion for the sake of the mother, I guess that there is
no hope that Pope Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) would be anything
as good (as mediocre as he was) as John Paul II.  I guess
that neither wants to disturb the church very much for the
sake of the children who must grow having been raped, why
make the church pay for the sake of some children now grown?
Get over it people, sarcastically speaking!  I hope that the
CFI can influence hundreds-of-thousands of fair and liberal
minded Catholics to withdraw their support for a stubborn and
wrong-minded Vatican.

omnibus09 - 08 March 2009 10:47 AM

This makes no sense outside of Catholic dogma, but it is in line with that dogma.

Taking the girl as the subject for culpability of the sin I think is misdirected. However there are individuals who this punishment applies, but it isn’t the girl. The adults should have known better.

First:

From new advent:

Imputability for Mortal Sin

  * first, the sinner must foresee at least confusedly the evil effects which follow on the cause he places;
  * second, he must be able to refrain from placing the cause;
  * third, he must be under the obligation of preventing the evil effect.

These are more fitting to the adult causes in this case. In 3 calls for some forceful objection I doubt a 9 year old could do anything about.

Secondly: if the girl were not a charge of someone else and on her own, then we could perhaps hold some responsibility to her. Since this is a deliberate act, and permission needs to be given, then the adult is responsible for anything he approves of.

Third: Intent, we must always measure intent, and it is imperative the Church doesn’t overreact without careful thought. Emotions would get out of hand.

Dogma: 1/ The Pope is infallible in decisions that are inspired by the Holy Spirit. He is fallible in his own decisions.
        2/ Jesus created the Church and is the first Catholic, and since God created it, it is more than simply a social event.
       
Spence

[Blue is for moderator/admin comments. dougsmith—admin]

If one does not subscribe to a holy spirit, then one concludes that the Pope is as fallible as anyone else on anything.

Jesus did not create any church, even according to the gospels.  He lived and died as a Jew. The early Christians were a polyglot bunch with widely different views on just about everything. One might argue that Paul, AKA Saul, was the primary mover and shaker of early Christianity.

In any event, there was no ‘Church’ until the Council of Nicea when a large body of doctrine and literature was codified [somewhat]. That embyonic church was modelled after Roman political and military organizations.

Thanks for a more precise explanation of Catholic dogma in regards to this incident.

omnibus09 - 13 March 2009 09:31 AM

If one does not subscribe to a holy spirit, then one concludes that the Pope is as fallible as anyone else on anything….... Jesus did not create any church, even according to the gospels.

....Unless of course Deity devised a sure fire effective way of getting across to the people of that era and all generations that indeed the Holy Spirit made his presence known at Pentecost and sanctified the Church’s new birth. The event was not hidden and was witnessed by unbelievers and believers alike. 

The early Christians were a polyglot bunch with widely different views on just about everything.

True initially and for some time even.

One might argue that Paul, AKA Saul, was the primary mover and shaker of early Christianity.

True, although Peter was already on the road spreading the word.

In any event, there was no ‘Church’ until the Council of Nicea when a large body of doctrine and literature was codified

The day of the Church’s new birth (ribbon cutting?) was here .... Acts 2

Thanks for a more precise explanation of Catholic dogma in regards to this incident.

No prob

Spence

omnibus09 - 13 March 2009 09:31 AM

If one does not subscribe to a holy spirit, then one concludes
that the Pope is as fallible as anyone else on anything.

Here here!  The whole Vatican is comprised of humans, as fallible as
any other.

omnibus09 - 13 March 2009 09:31 AM

Jesus did not create any church, even according to the gospels.

omnibus09 - 13 March 2009 09:31 AM

In any event, there was no ‘Church’ until the Council of Nicea when a large
body of doctrine and literature was codified [somewhat]. That embyonic church
was modelled after Roman political and military organizations.

No church you say?  Who has ever claimed that there was such a church? 

Don’t you understand the dogma, omnibus09?  You seem to expect an actual brick-and-mortar
church at the supposed time of Jesus.  The Vatican claim as the sole church of Jesus
is not based on brick existing at that time, but instead on Peter.  If you intend
to argue against that Vatican dogmatic claim, you have to start with the claim that they are
actually making, not with a brick-and-mortar church.

Here is an example of the dogmatic claims and counter arguments that are used to
refute anti-Catholic arguments: http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap050200.htm

Matthew 16:18 “18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my
church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e]”

The Apostle Peter is the rock, they say, that the church is built upon, St. Peter’s
Basilica in Rome being Peter’s tomb.

Peter and Paul did not get along very well. The circumcisim thing, the pagan admission stuff, the role of Jews, etc.

Jesus was always a Jew…he was never a Christian. You are right about ‘church’, but I meant an organization rather than any building. Matthew is far from my favorite gospel, but is better than John.

I don’t have qualms about any religious organization having rules and dogma as long as there remains a real choice about whether to be religious or not. I chose not to be assossiated with any religious group or any dogma. I don’t waste my time arguing whether god exists or not. I just don’t like religious oppression of any kind, or using shame as a weapon for obedience, etc.

So I am free to walk down my own roads, unfrettered by any awe or fear of any supernatural beings. That’s not a very wide or busy path, but you sure do meet the most interesting people….

omnibus09 - 14 March 2009 04:44 PM

Jesus was always a Jew…he was never a Christian.

Sure, if one believes the Christian stories, born a Jew, preaching to
the Jews, praying to the God of the Jews.

omnibus09 - 14 March 2009 04:44 PM

You are right about ‘church’, but I meant an organization rather than any building. Matthew is far from my favorite gospel, but is better than John.

Church meaning an organization rather than a building, you say?
No organization, you say?  Not until Emperor Constantine, did those little
Christian group really organized, as I understand the story.  I’ll agree.

Matthew not your favorite?  I was just trying to provide a convenient
link to the full context, of a part of what the Vatican is claiming.
Maybe some Gospels that start with the Ancient Greek and gives some
Greek->Aramaic->English, and Greek->English parallel translations would
be nice to have because they’d be less supernatual, but I don’t know of
such a source.  If you have a better recommendation, then please say so.

omnibus09 - 14 March 2009 04:44 PM

I don’t have qualms about any
religious organization having rules and dogma as long as there remains
a real choice about whether to be religious or not. ...  I just don’t
like religious oppression of any kind, or using shame as a weapon for
obedience, etc.

The Catholics certainly feel ashamed over their humanity, and feeling
oppressed by it, I whole-heartedly agree with you there.  I’d like them
to have more exposure to some good skeptical analysis of the Vatican
dogma, too.  The threat of Hell is a dirty underhanded trick, too.
omnibus09, I know what a relief it is to get away from all of that ,
such a good freeing emotional relief!

Enjoy the forum!

macgyver - 08 March 2009 04:07 PM

Correction: It looks like I misread the article. The little girl was not excommunicated. Just mom and the doctors. I would assume this wasn’t the first abortion they had ever performed though unless they were interns. Why were they only excommunicated now. Were all the other fetuses lives less valuable?

Actually, the chief of the institution was already excommunicated over 10 years ago

Stefano - 19 March 2009 06:06 PM

macgyver - 08 March 2009 04:07 PM

Correction: It looks like I misread the article. The little girl was not excommunicated. Just mom and the doctors. I would assume this wasn’t the first abortion they had ever performed though unless they were interns. Why were they only excommunicated now. Were all the other fetuses lives less valuable?

Actually, the chief of the institution was already excommunicated over 10 years ago

Well, that’ll make it REALLY stick!!
Some one mentioned the sick irony that if they had just KILLED the 9 year old girl, and asked for forgiveness, they would not have been excommunicated! The abortions are considered worse than just KILLING HER!!!!! Muslim ‘honor killing’ will fit right in with THIS thinking!
Their dogma is just a LITTLE confused.