www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Excommunications After Raped 9-Year-Old Has An Abortion

I agree that abortion is always a grave evil; however, and with all due respect, Canon 1323 seems to disagree with you regarding the absolute of no exceptions...

Just saying...

In Christ,
Gabriel

While abortion is punishable with an excommunication, it is my understanding that, unlike other excommunicable offenses, an excommunication due to abortion can be lifted by confession to any priest (thanks to a concession made by Pope John Paul II in 1988).

You guys might be better informed than I am, but in that case, what makes this excommunication any different than a "mere" state of mortal sin?

Shalom,
Memo

Actually if you read that canon and the ones preceding it they are not refering to abortion at all.
Abortion when it is a deliberate act and people act in a material way, incure the penalty of excommunication.
Read it again and the other canons which do specifically deal with the issue of abortion.
Stephanos I

The girl had no part in this. This choice was probably made by her mother and other adults. So, in that case, excommunicating whoever who suggested and abetted the abortion is reasonable and shows our commitment to life. However, I am disappointed that we're not going after the father just as much as we are going after those who pushed for the abortion. The father shouldn't be let off easily, both civilly and canonically. I'm in no place to judge that man, but shouldn't we be looking down upon a heinous act such as rape? Why not excommunicate the father for committing incest and raping a minor as well. Rape's just an abomination, equally as abortion is.

What is the Orthodox position on this? I know they never would allow for an abortion. Fr David?

Here are two articles about this sad case from BBC News:

Rape row sparks excommunications [news.bbc.co.uk]. March 5, 2009.
Vatican backs abortion row bishop [news.bbc.co.uk]. March 7, 2009.

In principle the case would seem to be clear. To procure an abortion is always intrinsically evil because it entails the taking of innocent life. However, there are cases where an abortion may be necassary for other reasons, for example as part of other life-saving treatment or treatment which is necessary to prevent serious physical harm.

Indeed, I was struck by this from the first of the two BBC reports [news.bbc.co.uk]:

If this is true, it seems to me (though I have no medical qualifications) that it would have been physically impossible for this nine-year-old girl to carry her pregnancy to completion, and that to ask her to attempt to do so anyway would have been both cruel and meaningless.

Indeed, one could argue that the purpose of the procedure was not to kill the two unborn children, but to prevent serious (perhaps permanent) physical damage to the nine-year-old girl's uterus. If so, the procedure would perhaps be justifiable, in the same way that it would be justifiable to perform a hysteroctomy as part of life-saving treatment even if the patient were known to be pregnant.

I use this example because it features in the case of Saint Gianna Beretta Molla. She refused [en.wikipedia.org] "both an abortion and a hysterectomy when she was pregnant with her fourth child, despite knowing that continuing with the pregnancy could result in her death." However, Saint Gianna was a pediatrician herself who made an informed and heroic decision based on her faith, a decision which the Church would never demand of anyone, but which she holds up as an example of faith and heroic virtue.

Obviously, a nine-year-old girl would not be in a position to make a similarly heroic decision, i.e. to decide to attempt to carry her pregnancy to completion despite knowing that it would be difficult or impossible, and that it could cause serious (perhaps permanent) harm to her uterus.

It would also be wrong for anyone else (her mother, the doctors, or the Church) to demand such heroism from her if there was no chance that she could carry her pregnancy to completion. Therefore, I believe that the Archbishop in this case may have made a mistake in publicly declaring the excommunication of the mother and doctors (despite the support from Cardinal Re, [news.bbc.co.uk] who by the way is not synonymous with "the Vatican" as the BBC seems to think).

However, all of this is based on the assumption that it would in fact have been impossible for the girl to carry her pregnancy to completion.

Which leads me to a question I've pondered before.

Why does the Church allow for procedures that will result in the death of the child in order to save the life of the mother? Is the mother's life more valuable than the child's? So why is this allowed?

Alexis

The Church never under any circumstance allows for the direct attack on the life of the fetus.
One can treat the mother for cancer or other life threatening illness and the secondary effect is that the fetus dies in the process but never never never is it alowed to kill the fetus.
Stephanos I

Dear Father Stephanos,

So, in other words, if one has cancer and needs an immediate hysterectomy that accidently involves the killing of the fetus, then it is morally permissible (principle of double effect).

However, if a woman (let's say she's 2 or 3 months pregnant) developes a sudden case of pre-eclampsia (SP?) and her blood pressure spikes to stroke levels (and it is reasonably certain that she will die within 24 hours if the fetus is not removed), she may not have the fetus removed since this would be direct abortion. So, instead she and her child will have to go to the grave knowing that they are heroes for upholding medieval scholastic notions of double effect.

My understanding is that the Orthodox Church, not given to such scholastic subtleties, simply says that in grave circumstances, such as preserving the life of the mother, it is not necessarily sinful to have an abortion (or at least the sinfulness is mitigated).

Here's what I don't understand. Certainly, all abortions are homocides, but not all abortions are first degree murder. If we make allowance for the fact that in other kinds of homocides, circumstances show it to be manslaughter rather than murder, then why can't an abortion in these grave circumstances be regarded as manslaughter? And in upholding the Church's teaching, why does the Bishop have to be so cold and callous? Why not offer an explanation that emphasizes the real fear and moral confusion of the mother and doctor and say something like, "Unfortunately, the Church still regards this as objectively wrong, but under the circumstances, I offer my help to the family to aid them in reconciling with the Church and with dealing with this unfortunate choice."

And I'm going to say that I am not saying that the decision that was made was the right decision. Being completely an outsider and not knowing all of the significant details, I don't feel qualified to make a judgment. I do know for a fact that if my 9 year old daughter were raped and if there was a significant risk to her life or physical health, that I would approve an abortion and if God sends me to hell, so be it!

You know, I've probably given myself away here, but I no longer see all of this as black and white as I used to. Very few people in this world wake up in the morning saying, "Whoopie! I think I'll go get an abortion today!" Most women who get these abortions do so with a conflicted heart. I'm not saying it's right, but I think that in many cases, we are talking about manslaughter or 2nd degree murder.

I will also note that in the Orthodox Church, all grave crimes incur excommunication. Rape, murder, adultery, etc. all have canonical penalties. Why does the Roman Catholic Church only declare excommunication on one form of homocide?

I don't mean to offend but to those outside the Church, especially those who aren't Christians, this kind of imbalance in Church discipline and the lack of mercy that is shown appears to be (to many people) fanaticism and obsessive compulsiveness. On a related note, I've read that many Catholics are outraged that Sam Brownback voted to confirm Obama's choice for secretary of human and health services (as if Obama would ever appoint a prolife cabinet member). Many are calling him a traitor to the prolife movement and are calling for Bishops to ban him from communion. Put these two cases together and you see how many think that the Roman Catholic Church is run by fanatics.

I am not saying that the RC Church is fanatical. I'm saying that the Church often appears that way to people and somtimes it might be because the Church hasn't used enough prudence in communicating her teachings to the public.

Anyway, please pray for me since I'm clearly not staunchly 100% prolife.

Joe

As far as this case goes, I think that the abortion was wrong. However, given the circumstances, I'm not sure why the bishop felt he needed to excommunicate the doctor and the mother.

Is the pre-eclampsia situation Joe mentioned truly not allowed in the Catholic Church? I would have to agree that if a medical situation, clearly outside of any individual's control, means the the death of the mother AND the child, then why not, regrettably, settle for the lesser of two evils (i.e. one death instead of two). Or does that tie into the whole "the ends don't justify the means" aspect of Catholic theology?

Alexis

Alexis,

In Catholic moral theology, acts that are intrinsically evil are never justified (in a weird way, this makes Catholic theology rather Kantian, not that this is a bad thing). The "lesser of two evils" is never permissible in Catholic moral theology. Intrinsically evil acts are always evil. So, for example, since lying is always intrinsically evil, one must always tell the truth or, at least avoid telling a deliberate lie. I remember once a friend of mine (A specialist in Aquinas and in moral theology) became upset with me because I said that if I had been in Germany and was hiding Jews during World War II, that I would gladly lie to the Nazis and say that I wasn't hiding Jews. He said that this was impermissible and that the most I could do would be to find some kind of answer that was equivocal and potentially misleading (but not substantially a lie). In the casuistic moral theory of the Jesuits, this was called the doctrine of "mental reservation." That is, I could answer in such a way that I equivocate on the meaning of the words that I utter. For example, I could say, "I am not hiding Jews in this house," while looking at the house across the street. Literally, in my mind, I'm intending to say that I'm not hiding Jews in the house across the street. But the nazis would (mis)understand me as saying that I'm not hiding Jews in my own house. Somehow, this is morally acceptable and praiseworthy whereas just saying, "no, I'm not hiding Jews," is a sin.

Now, if the uterus or filopian tubes are damaged and need to be removed, then it is legitimate to do so even if it "accidentally" kills the fetus. But if what is required is the removal of the fetus itself, then it is murder. In other words, Catholic moral theologians argue that a woman getting a hysterectomy to cure cancer is not aborting at all. The abortion is unintentional and accidental.

Now, personally, I think this kind of hairsplitting is absurd (like the hairsplitting between so-called "Natural Family Planning" and "artificial" contraception; as if NFP were actually natural), but it is a way of being consistent about one's moral principles. As much as I admire, to some extent, such a Kantian rigor, I have to confess that it is not fully realistic and that it depends upon a construal of human acts that abstracts from the very things that make such acts human acts (namely the intentionality of the act and the consequences as reasonably known). I do not believe that there is any such thing as an "act in itself," apart from intentions and consequences. Let me give you an example that proves what I am saying.

The act of killing a human being is not intrinsically evil. If it were, then capital punishment, just war, and killing in self defense would be intrinsically evil. Rather when we say that a particular homocide is morally evil, we do so precisely because of the circumstances. It is precisely the intentionality of the act as well as the consequences that determine the evil of the act. This is why we can also rank homocides as being justified, unjustified manslaughter, unjustified murder, etc. This is true of all human actions. Aquinas even says that the starving person who steals food is not guilty of theft and the man who mistakenly sleeps with a woman other than his wife is not guilty of adultery.

What I find interesting is that the Orthodox Church follows the ancient canons. Abortion is ordinarily a crime that merits excommunication (as all intentional homocides merit excommunication). Such is true of adultery, rape, theft, and many other crimes. But why does the Roman Church insist on formally excommunicating only those who have abortions, are divorced and remarried, or who punch out priests?

I studied enough scholastic theology and philosophy to know that much of this depends upon how you choose to spin things. This is why I reject natural law theory, because it rests on certain abstracts views of reason and nature. Anyway, these are just my opinions, for what they are worth, which I realize is not much. Sorry to cause controversy, but I feel that someone needs to stand up for this poor family that is dealing with severe turmoil and heartache.

Joe

Joe, you're probably asking the same question as me. I have always pondered on this question and today will be no different: Why is it that the Roman Church gets its priorities wrong in doing the right thing?

I think this should be brought into the discussion: http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/11/intrinsic_evil.html?

Alexis

Joe, economia is used in the EOC and not in the RCC. It would be nice to see the RCC pick up the usage because this is a case where akrobeia should be put aside. I suspect Stephanos I's comments will be the norm.