(May 27, 2012 at 2:22 pm)Cinjin Wrote: [quote='Drich' pid='291038' dateline='1338141909']

That's just it God is not merciless. Legalistic Churches are.

FTFY

Quote:I by nature am a complacent person and I know without this shove outside the Church i would have never truly found God Only the shadow of God that was proper up in that place. The God I found was The God of the bible which offers nothing but mercy when you simply ask, seek, knock for it, and forgive as you have been forgiven.

Quote:A billion muslims say the EXACT same thing.

No they do not. I have studied Islam, their doctrine is one of work and reward, not attonement and relationship with God.

---

(May 27, 2012 at 1:43 pm)Minimalist Wrote: She'd be better off without any fucking churches and their petty, vindictive, merciless fucking gods.

we've ditched that church and found God.

Which is what the girl in the artical has the oppertunity to now do.

(May 27, 2012 at 4:14 pm)Drich Wrote:

(May 27, 2012 at 2:22 pm)Cinjin Wrote: A billion muslims say the EXACT same thing.

No they do not. I have studied Islam, their doctrine is one of work and reward, not attonement and relationship with God.

Yes, they do.
First of all, I'm nearly positive that your "study of Islam" is nothing more than an internet web page or two and the ramblings of your favorite preacher.
Secondly, Yes, muslims do indeed claim their god is merciful, which is all I was saying to begin with. Beyond that, I'm not going to debate the tenants of Islam with a man who is not and has never been a Muslim. On top of that, you have no more credibility when it comes to knowing the characteristics of the christian god, mercy or otherwise. You only "discovered" god when you found a new church after you got kicked out of your old one. That's pathetic. You simply decided that the god who accepts you must be the real one, and not that other one that showed some backbone. Seriously, you have zero credibility now.

Drich's probable inner thoughts on the matter:
"Hey everybody, I KNOW god is real because now I go to a church with cool people who know MORE stuff. God likes me now, and I just didn't understand stuff the way I do now. Some churches have strict rules and god doesn't like them, but they're not real christians. I thought I was a real christian when I went to that church, but now I see I wasn't. Oops. Those people don't understand the real mercy and tenderness of god like me and MY church do. Don't you see? I finally picked cool people who believe the same way I do, so clearly THIS god is the TRUE god that you should all be serving."

Quote:"Hey everybody, I KNOW god is real because now I go to a church with cool people who know MORE stuff.

That would be setting the bar pretty low.

Hitchens said it best "No child's behind left".

(May 27, 2012 at 1:33 pm)Drich Wrote:

(May 26, 2012 at 10:36 pm)Ziploc Surprise Wrote: The controversy represents a PR nightmare for the Vatican. The unnamed girl's mother and doctors were excommunicated for agreeing to Wednesday's emergency abortion yet the Church has not taken formal steps against the stepfather, who is in custody. Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, the conservative regional archbishop for Pernambuco where the girl was rushed to hospital, has said that the man would not be thrown out of the Church, because although he had allegedly committed "a heinous crime", the Church took the view that "the abortion, the elimination of an innocent life, was more serious".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...40165.html

Sometimes blessings come in the form of hardship. At least now she is free to find a church that does not teach a works/legalism based doctrine.

Yeah, now that she's officially going to hell she can be an atheist. I'm sorry I couldn't resist that comment. Hee, hee.

(May 28, 2012 at 12:35 am)Ziploc Surprise Wrote:

(May 27, 2012 at 1:33 pm)Drich Wrote: Sometimes blessings come in the form of hardship. At least now she is free to find a church that does not teach a works/legalism based doctrine.

Yeah, now that she's officially going to hell shes can be an atheist. I'm sorry I couldn't resist that comment. Hee, hee.

No suprise there.

Anyone who participates in abortion is excommunicated automatically--there's no input from the Vatican (outside of making abortion an latae sententiae offense in the first place). Its not some case-by-case issue, it happens at the very moment anyone decides to participate in abortion.

That's not to say she is going to hell. She cannot take Eucharist or participate in the liturgy until she repents. And the church doesn't "let the rapist go free". Whaaat? They just didn't excommunicate him probably because imposed/declared excommunications are much rarer (where the Church singles you out specifically instead of just saying "anyone who is an apostate is automatically excommunicated). He is in mortal sin (assuming he raped of his own free will). The rapist also cannot get Eucharist until he repents, and he's going to go to jail (and the Church is not about to bust him out). Usually you get your Excommunication lifted and your sins absolved at once in the Confessional.

I mean...I can see why its sort of a strangle place, why murder of a child isn't an automatic Excommunication (extremely mortal sin), but yet abortion is. And I think the Church does set apart that sin because it is very much the "issue" of our time. If you read the Douay Catechism of 1647 you will see that all the latae sententiae offenses are the same (Heresy, Apostasy, Schism, Sacramental Abuses, etc)--but abortion is less of an issue, and apparently dueling used to be the "issue" of the day which similarly had an automatic excommunication penalty placed on it:

Quote:Is it lawful to fight duels, appointing a set time and place, for private interest, or punctilios of honour?
No, by no means; for the church hath forbidden it under excommunication, to be incurred ipso facto; and such as die in duels, can be neither have Christian burial nor be prayed for the church.

I have to take some issue with your interpretations, Aiza. The first is a quibble: the little girl wasn't excommunicated. The news sources I've read all indicate that the Vatican doesn't excommunicate minors. It was her mother and the doctors who were excommunicated.

Secondly, you've said yourself that the excommunication isn't permanent, "all" the mother and the doctors of this child have to do is repent of their deeds and they'll be forgiven. I'll be the first to admit that this doesn't sound so bad on its face. Indeed, the idea that we can screw up and be forgiven as long as we're truly sorry is, I think, the source of a lot of the appeal of Christianity.

But in order for repentance to work, the sinner (to use the vocabulary of the Catholic Church) has to be truly sorry. It's not enough to go to confession and say your Hail Marys. You have to mean it. Again, that sounds reasonable. We wouldn't want to tell a serial killer, "You're forgiven, the slate is wiped clean!" only for him/her to take that as a license to go out and kill some more people.

Let's apply that logic to this particular case. In order for the mother and doctors to be welcomed back into the Catholic Church and have this mortal sin wiped clean from their souls -- a sin that, according to the Catholic Church, will send them to Hell if they aren't sorry for it -- they have to be truly sorry for permitting or participating in this abortion. This was an abortion performed upon a nine-year-old girl in order to (according to Fox News of all places!) save her life.

The Catholic Church is asking doctors to be truly sorry for doing their jobs and preserving the life of one of their patients.

The Catholic Church is asking a mother to be truly sorry for saving the life of her child.

At the very least, the Catholic Church is asking that these doctors and this mother deny their common humanity and every decent and moral feeling they possess in order to uphold a rule that (IMHO) shouldn't exist in the first place. But I would say -- especially in the case of the mother -- that the Catholic Church is asking the impossible.

Essentially, the Catholic Church has condemned these people to hell for doing an act most sane and reasonable people would see as a positive moral good, no questions asked: saving the life of a child. And the Catholic Church claims to work for a just and loving God.

(May 28, 2012 at 12:18 pm)Morganna Wrote: I have to take some issue with your interpretations, Aiza. The first is a quibble: the little girl wasn't excommunicated. The news sources I've read all indicate that the Vatican doesn't excommunicate minors. It was her mother and the doctors who were excommunicated.

You are right, no automatic excommunication is incurred when you are under 16, I missed this child's age and the OP line says as such.

It's also worth noting as another "quibble", that Excommunication does not automatically send you to Hell any more than any other mortal sin does.

Quote:But in order for repentance to work, the sinner (to use the vocabulary of the Catholic Church) has to be truly sorry. It's not enough to go to confession and say your Hail Marys. You have to mean it. Again, that sounds reasonable. We wouldn't want to tell a serial killer, "You're forgiven, the slate is wiped clean!" only for him/her to take that as a license to go out and kill some more people.

There is such a thing as an imperfect contrition, actually. If you willfully do not want to sin, even if its out of fear of Hell or want of Heaven, then you can still make a confession and have your slate "wiped clean" as it were. (Though the temporal affects of sin are still there, to be wiped clean through Purgatory, earthly penance or perfect contrition).

Quote:The Catholic Church is asking a mother to be truly sorry for saving the life of her child.

They aren't asking the doctors to be "truly sorry" for preserving any life or saving any life--they are asking for them to be "sorry" about killing (or assisting in the killing of) another. Abortion itself is considered a grave evil in Catholicism, and there isn't any circumstances where you can make it "good". The ends don't justify the means, is what I am trying to say.

Even in the case of self-defense, your intention should not be to kill the person. If you use an excess of force it is still a sin. And since there is no known medical condition which absolutely requires the direct killing of a fetus, it is also still a sin. (Indirect killing of a fetus can still occur, as in the removal of a diseased uterus--but that cannot be an intended effect, and of course the child should also be baptized upon removal; "I am going to remove this diseased uterus to save the mother" vs. "I am going to kill this fetus to save the mother").

So yeah--no, she doesn't need to be "genuinely sorry" for saving her child's life. Just a resolution and will to sin no more regardless of reason. (and lets be straight here--the sin is assisting in the killing of a human being),

(May 28, 2012 at 1:48 pm)Aiza Wrote: It's also worth noting as another "quibble", that Excommunication does not automatically send you to Hell any more than any other mortal sin does.

It doesn't? I thought it does. Wikipedia seems to confirm it: "Excommunication at the moment of death results in a person going to hell, the same result as dying in plain mortal sin, because of the necessity of the unity of the ecclesiastical body." Their source for that statement is a council that took place in Florence in 1442. Is that incorrect?

(May 28, 2012 at 1:48 pm)Aiza Wrote: And since there is no known medical condition which absolutely requires the direct killing of a fetus, it is also still a sin. (Indirect killing of a fetus can still occur, as in the removal of a diseased uterus--but that cannot be an intended effect, and of course the child should also be baptized upon removal; "I am going to remove this diseased uterus to save the mother" vs. "I am going to kill this fetus to save the mother").

To be honest, that strikes me as hair-splitting. You still get a dead fetus at the end of it. And the example you brought up, a hysterectomy, is one that even a layman (in medical terms) knows will result in the death of the fetus. It's one thing to say that undergoing a medical procedure that has a chance of leaving the fetus alive, even if the fetus doesn't come through, is not a sin -- that's sane and reasonable. But saying that a hysterectomy -- which kills the fetus -- is permissible, while a therapeutic abortion -- which kills the fetus -- is not, is ... well, mind-boggling, at least to me.

Maybe there is, as you said, "no known medical condition which absolutely requires the direct killing of a fetus [emphasis added]." But this is the real world, and especially in medicine, there are very few absolutes. Maybe one woman has an underlying medical condition that could be aggravated by a pregnancy, but she gets lucky and is able to carry the fetus safely to term. Another woman isn't so lucky and needs an abortion to save her life. The lucky woman gets off scot-free. The unlucky woman has two, maybe three choices: become a martyr, commit a mortal sin, or pray for a miracle and see how well that works out.

Honestly, the wording of that quote -- absolute, direct -- strikes me as the Catholic Church trying to hedge their bets. They hate abortion, but they don't want to be known for killing women, so they allow a loophole or two if you know how to find it. But all the same, if you happen to be the unlucky woman with the underlying medical condition -- or the raped 9-year-old who has the ill fortune to be carrying twins that she can't possibly deliver -- well, you'll get no sympathy from the Catholic Church if you dare to undergo a safe, effective procedure that will save your life.

(May 28, 2012 at 1:48 pm)Aiza Wrote: (and lets be straight here--the sin is assisting in the killing of a human being),

And there is where we are just going to have to agree to disagree, because while some people see an embryo, a blastocyst, a fetus or anything in between as a full human being ... others don't.