The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
EasternChristian19, James OConnor, biblicalhope, Ishmael, bluecollardpink
6,161 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 1,331 guests, and 83 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,508
Posts417,509
Members6,161
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
J
Member
Member
J Offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
Originally Posted by Athanasius The L
Originally Posted by MrsMW
Any thoughts on the death penalty for child rapists?

Adamantly opposed to it.

I'll get back to the main topic later. I'm opposed to the death penalty for child rapists because I think that the death penalty is an important card for prosecutors that should be saved in order to get information. Also, I think that if there was a death penalty for rape, there would be no incentive to not kill the victim. But if you have life for rape, death for murder, then you have an incentive for the rapist not to murder (that that this actually works out most of the time).

Joe

oops, I meant to say "not that this works out most of the time"

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza
Member
Catholic Gyoza
Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
Originally Posted by Stephanos I
First of all Joe this persons understanding of a lie isnt accurate, lying means telling an untruth to someone who has the right to know, the Nazis obviously did not have that right so it was no lie.
Stephanos I

Dear Father Stephanos. This view, which you articulate here, is the view that I hold. But it is not the view of the majority of Catholic theologians and it doesn't seem to have any support in tradition. Aquinas is explicitly opposed to this view. According to Aquinas a lie can never be meritorious; not even for the best of reasons. However, good intentions can diminish the gravity of sin in telling the lie.

Here is what Aquinas says in the Summa:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3110.htm

See especially this:

On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 7:14): "Be not willing to make any manner of lie."

I answer that, An action that is naturally evil in respect of its genus can by no means be good and lawful, since in order for an action to be good it must be right in every respect: because good results from a complete cause, while evil results from any single defect, as Dionysius asserts (Div. Nom. iv). Now a lie is evil in respect of its genus, since it is an action bearing on undue matter. For as words are naturally signs of intellectual acts, it is unnatural and undue for anyone to signify by words something that is not in his mind. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 7) that "lying is in itself evil and to be shunned, while truthfulness is good and worthy of praise." Therefore every lie is a sin, as also Augustine declares (Contra Mend. i).


and in response to the lies told by Rahab the Harlot, the God-fearing midwives in Exodux, etc...

Reply to Objection 2. The midwives were rewarded, not for their lie, but for their fear of God, and for their good-will, which latter led them to tell a lie. Hence it is expressly stated (Exodus 2:21): "And because the midwives feared God, He built them houses." But the subsequent lie was not meritorious.

Peace and blessings,

Joe

Joe,

I'd say that the people who lied to the Nazis and gave out fake Baptismal Certificates will not be rewarded for the lie but for the Fear of God and for being "...wise as serpents..."

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Likes: 1
L
Member
Member
L Offline
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Likes: 1
I think both of these articles are worth reading. The first is about the comments made by the President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, Archbishop:

Quote
Vatican Official Says Doctors Didn't Deserve Excommunication

Monday March 16, 2009
VATICAN CITY -- The Vatican's top bioethics official said the two Brazilian doctors who performed an abortion on a 9-year-old rape victim do not merit excommunication, since they acted to save her life.

The statement by Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, appeared as the lead article in the Sunday (Mar. 15) issue of the official Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano.

"There are others who deserve excommunication and our forgiveness,"
Fisichella wrote, addressing the unidentified rape victim, "not those who permitted you to live and who will help you to regain hope and faith."

The case drew international attention earlier this month after the local Catholic archbishop excommunicated the two doctors who aborted the girl's twin fetuses, as well as the girl's mother.

The child was 15 weeks pregnant, allegedly after being raped by her stepfather. Weighing only 80 pounds, she might have died if forced to carry the pregnancy to term, the doctors said.

While reiterating Catholic teaching that abortion is an "intrinsically wicked act," Fisichella suggested that under the circumstances, it may have been the lesser evil.

"Her life was in serious danger because of the pregnancy in progress," Fisichella wrote. "How to act in these cases? An arduous decision for the physician and for the moral law itself."

In contrast with church authorities' typically uncompromising statements on abortion, Fisichella stressed the degree of moral discretion that the doctors were forced to exercise.

"The conscience of the physician finds itself alone when forced to decide the best thing to do," he wrote. "A choice like that of having to save a life, knowing that one puts a second at serious risk, never comes easily."

The article did not explicitly mention the girl's mother, who was excommunicated for authorizing the abortion. Church officials have said the girl is not under threat of excommunication.

Another extraordinary aspect of Fisichella's article was its frank rebuke of Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, archbishop of Olinda and Recife, whom it accused of having "rushed" to declare the excommunications -- "a judgment as heavy as a meat cleaver" -- when his first task should have been the pastoral care of the victim.

Cardoso Sobrinho's action had harmed the "credibility of our teaching, which appears in the eyes of so many as insensitive, incomprehensible and lacking in mercy," Fisichella wrote.

Since church law requires the automatic excommunication of anyone who collaborates in an abortion, Fisichella wrote, "there was no need ... for such urgency and publicity" in declaring the fact.

Fisichella's article also implicitly contradicted Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, head of the Vatican's Congregation for Bishops, who had publicly defended Cardoso Sobrinho's action earlier this month.

Vatican officials rarely air their differences in public, let alone on the front page of the pope's own newspaper.

According to the respected Vatican journalist Sandro Magister, Fisichella's article was probably approved in advance by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who as Secretary of State is considered the Vatican's No. 2 official after Pope Benedict XVI himself.

After nearly two months of international controversy over the pope's decision to readmit a Holocaust-denying bishop to the church in late January, Magister called this case of crossed signals the latest indication of confusion at the highest levels of the Holy See.

"It is yet another sign of the disorder that reigns in the Curia," Magister said, referring to the church's international governing bureaucracy. "It shows that Benedict XVI is paying the price for refusing to reform the Curia."

By Francis X. Rocca
c. 2009 Religion News Service

http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2009/03/vatican-official-says-doctors.php

The second article is a response by the relevant Brazilian dioceses:

Quote
DECLARATION
OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF OLINDA AND RECIFE


Regarding the article entitled "Dalla parte della bambina brasiliana” [by Archbishop "Rino" Fisichella] and published in L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO on March 15, we the undersigned declare:

1. The fact [the rape of the little girl] did not happen in Recife, as the article states, but in the city of Alagoinha (Diocese of Pesqueira).

2. All of us - beginning with the parish priest of Alagoinha (undersigned) - treated the pregnant girl and her family with all charity and tenderness. The Parish priest, making use of his pastoral solicitude, when aware of the news in his residence, immediately went to the house of the family, in which he met the girl and lent her his support and presence, before the grave and difficult situation in which the girl found herself. And this attitude continued every day, from Alagoinha to Recife, where the sad event of the abortion of the two innocent [babies] took place. Therefore, it is quite evident and unequivocal that nobody thought in "excommunication" in the first place. We used all means at our disposal to avoid the abortion and thus save all THREE lives. The Parish priest personally joined the local Children's Council in all efforts which sought the welfare of the child and of her two children. In the hospital, in daily visits, he displayed attitudes of care and attention which made clear both to the child and to her mother that they were not alone, but that the Church, represented by the local Parish priest, assured them of the necessary assistance and of the certainty that all would be done for the welfare of the girl and to save her two children.

3. After the girl was transferred to a hospital of the city of Recife, we tried to use all legal means to avoid the abortion. The Church never displayed any omission in the hospital. The girl's parish priest made daily visits to the hospital, traveling from the city which is 230 km [140 mi] away from Recife, making every effort so that both the child and the mother felt the presence of Jesus the Good Shepherd, who seeks the sheep who need most attention. Therefore, the case was treated with all due care by the Church, and not 'sbrigativamente' [summarily], as the article says.

4. We do not agree [with Archbishop Fisichella] that the "decision is hard... for the moral law itself". Our Holy Church continues to proclaim that the moral law is exceedingly clear: it is never licit to eliminate the life of an innocent person to save another life. The objective facts are these: there are doctors who explicitly declare that they perform and will continue to perform abortions, while others declare with the same firmness that they will never perform abortions. Here is the declaration written and signed by a Brazilian Catholic physician: "...As an obstetrician for 50 years, graduated in the National Medical School of the University of Brazil, and former chief of Obstetrics in the Hospital of Andarai [Rio de Janeiro], in which I served for 35 years until I retired in order to dedicate myself to the Diaconate, and having delivered 4,524 babies, many from juvenile [mothers], I never had to resort to an abortion to 'save lives', as well as all my colleagues, sincere and honest in their profession and faithful to their Hippocratic oath. ..."

5. The affirmation [in the article] that the fact was made public in the newspapers only because the Archbishop of Olinda and Recife rushed to declare the excommunication is false. It suffices to notice that the case was made public in Alagoinha on Wednesday, February 25; the Archbishop made his pronouncement to the press on March 3; and the abortion was performed on March 4. It would be too much to imagine that the Brazilian press, before a fact of such gravity, would have silenced during the period of six days. Therefore, the news of the pregnant girl ("Carmen") was made public in the newspapers before the consummation of the abortion. Only after that, when asked by journalists, on March 3 (Tuesday), the Archbishop mentioned canon 1398. We are convinced that the disclosure of this therapeutic penalty (the excommunication) will do much good to many Catholics, making them avoid this grievous sin. The silence of the Church would be very prejudicial, especially considering that fifty million abortions are being performed every year around the world, and in Brazil alone one million innocent lives are ended. The silence may be interpreted as collusion or complicity. If any doctor has a "perplexed conscience" [as the article says] before performing an abortion (which seems extremely improbable to us), he should - if he is a Catholic and wishes to follow the law of God - seek a spiritual director.

6. The article is, in other words, a direct attack of the defense of the lives of the three children vehemently made by Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho and leaves evident how much the author does not have the necessary data or information to speak on the matter, due to his utter ignorance of the facts. The text may be interpreted as an apologia of abortion, violating the Magisterium of the Church. The abortionist doctors were not in the moral crossroads mentioned by the text; on the contrary, they performed the abortion with full knowledge and coherence with what they believe and teach. The hospital in which the abortion on the little girl was performed is one of those that always perform this procedure in our state, under the cover of "legality". The doctors who acted as executioners of the twins declared, and still declare in the national media, that they did what they are used to doing "with great pride". One of them declared even that: "Then, I have been excommunicated many times".

7. The author believed he could speak about [a situation] he did not know, and, what is worse, he did not even have the trouble of first speaking to his brother in the episcopate, and, for his imprudent attitude, he is causing great scandal among the Catholic faithful in Brazil who are believing that Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho was rash in his pronouncements. Instead of seeking his brother in the episcopate, he chose to believe in our openly Anti-clerical press.

Recife-PE, March 16, 2009

Fr. Edson Rodrigues
Parish priest of Alagoinha-PE - Diocese of Pesqueira

Mons. Edvaldo Bezerra da Silva
Vicar General - Archdiocese of Olinda e Recife

Fr Moisés Ferreira de Lima
Rector of the Archdiocesan Seminary

Dr. Márcio Miranda
Attorney for the Archdiocese of Olinda e Recife
DECLARATION
OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF OLINDA AND RECIFE

Regarding the article entitled "Dalla parte della bambina brasiliana” [by Archbishop "Rino" Fisichella] and published in L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO on March 15, we the undersigned declare:

1. The fact [the rape of the little girl] did not happen in Recife, as the article states, but in the city of Alagoinha (Diocese of Pesqueira).

2. All of us - beginning with the parish priest of Alagoinha (undersigned) - treated the pregnant girl and her family with all charity and tenderness. The Parish priest, making use of his pastoral solicitude, when aware of the news in his residence, immediately went to the house of the family, in which he met the girl and lent her his support and presence, before the grave and difficult situation in which the girl found herself. And this attitude continued every day, from Alagoinha to Recife, where the sad event of the abortion of the two innocent [babies] took place. Therefore, it is quite evident and unequivocal that nobody thought in "excommunication" in the first place. We used all means at our disposal to avoid the abortion and thus save all THREE lives. The Parish priest personally joined the local Children's Council in all efforts which sought the welfare of the child and of her two children. In the hospital, in daily visits, he displayed attitudes of care and attention which made clear both to the child and to her mother that they were not alone, but that the Church, represented by the local Parish priest, assured them of the necessary assistance and of the certainty that all would be done for the welfare of the girl and to save her two children.

3. After the girl was transferred to a hospital of the city of Recife, we tried to use all legal means to avoid the abortion. The Church never displayed any omission in the hospital. The girl's parish priest made daily visits to the hospital, traveling from the city which is 230 km [140 mi] away from Recife, making every effort so that both the child and the mother felt the presence of Jesus the Good Shepherd, who seeks the sheep who need most attention. Therefore, the case was treated with all due care by the Church, and not 'sbrigativamente' [summarily], as the article says.

4. We do not agree [with Archbishop Fisichella] that the "decision is hard... for the moral law itself". Our Holy Church continues to proclaim that the moral law is exceedingly clear: it is never licit to eliminate the life of an innocent person to save another life. The objective facts are these: there are doctors who explicitly declare that they perform and will continue to perform abortions, while others declare with the same firmness that they will never perform abortions. Here is the declaration written and signed by a Brazilian Catholic physician: "...As an obstetrician for 50 years, graduated in the National Medical School of the University of Brazil, and former chief of Obstetrics in the Hospital of Andarai [Rio de Janeiro], in which I served for 35 years until I retired in order to dedicate myself to the Diaconate, and having delivered 4,524 babies, many from juvenile [mothers], I never had to resort to an abortion to 'save lives', as well as all my colleagues, sincere and honest in their profession and faithful to their Hippocratic oath. ..."

5. The affirmation [in the article] that the fact was made public in the newspapers only because the Archbishop of Olinda and Recife rushed to declare the excommunication is false. It suffices to notice that the case was made public in Alagoinha on Wednesday, February 25; the Archbishop made his pronouncement to the press on March 3; and the abortion was performed on March 4. It would be too much to imagine that the Brazilian press, before a fact of such gravity, would have silenced during the period of six days. Therefore, the news of the pregnant girl ("Carmen") was made public in the newspapers before the consummation of the abortion. Only after that, when asked by journalists, on March 3 (Tuesday), the Archbishop mentioned canon 1398. We are convinced that the disclosure of this therapeutic penalty (the excommunication) will do much good to many Catholics, making them avoid this grievous sin. The silence of the Church would be very prejudicial, especially considering that fifty million abortions are being performed every year around the world, and in Brazil alone one million innocent lives are ended. The silence may be interpreted as collusion or complicity. If any doctor has a "perplexed conscience" [as the article says] before performing an abortion (which seems extremely improbable to us), he should - if he is a Catholic and wishes to follow the law of God - seek a spiritual director.

6. The article is, in other words, a direct attack of the defense of the lives of the three children vehemently made by Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho and leaves evident how much the author does not have the necessary data or information to speak on the matter, due to his utter ignorance of the facts. The text may be interpreted as an apologia of abortion, violating the Magisterium of the Church. The abortionist doctors were not in the moral crossroads mentioned by the text; on the contrary, they performed the abortion with full knowledge and coherence with what they believe and teach. The hospital in which the abortion on the little girl was performed is one of those that always perform this procedure in our state, under the cover of "legality". The doctors who acted as executioners of the twins declared, and still declare in the national media, that they did what they are used to doing "with great pride". One of them declared even that: "Then, I have been excommunicated many times".

7. The author believed he could speak about [a situation] he did not know, and, what is worse, he did not even have the trouble of first speaking to his brother in the episcopate, and, for his imprudent attitude, he is causing great scandal among the Catholic faithful in Brazil who are believing that Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho was rash in his pronouncements. Instead of seeking his brother in the episcopate, he chose to believe in our openly Anti-clerical press.

Recife-PE, March 16, 2009

Fr. Edson Rodrigues
Parish priest of Alagoinha-PE - Diocese of Pesqueira

Mons. Edvaldo Bezerra da Silva
Vicar General - Archdiocese of Olinda e Recife

Fr Moisés Ferreira de Lima
Rector of the Archdiocesan Seminary

Dr. Márcio Miranda
Attorney for the Archdiocese of Olinda e Recife

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

Alexis




Last edited by Logos - Alexis; 03/18/09 03:29 PM.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
J
Member
Member
J Offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
According to Catholic moral theology, if a woman with a very early pregnancy (fetus is not yet viable) ends up in a situation where it can be concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the two options are:

a) directly remove the fetus who will, in fact die, so that the mother's life will be saved

b) do nothing so that both will die

is b the necessary choice? I'm not talking about situations of "double effect," nor a situation where there might be some other solution.

Joe

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Likes: 1
L
Member
Member
L Offline
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Likes: 1
Joe,

I THINK the answer to your question is that the object cannot be the death of the child. A procedure could be done which would knowingly result in the death of the child, but whose purpose at least was not the death of the child.

Alexis

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
J
Member
Member
J Offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Originally Posted by Logos - Alexis
Joe,

I THINK the answer to your question is that the object cannot be the death of the child. A procedure could be done which would knowingly result in the death of the child, but whose purpose at least was not the death of the child.

Alexis

If this is correct, then if the doctors sincerely believed that the procedure they performed was necessary to save the life of the child, then why are they being excommunicated?

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Likes: 1
L
Member
Member
L Offline
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Likes: 1
Joe, I didn't get from the articles that the doctors did indeed believe that she would surely die. In any case, it seems unlikely that it was given that there have been many mothers who have given birth at her age or less. Additionally, as I said above, I believe that the objective/purpose of a procedure can never be the death of a person, which it clearly was in this case.

Alexis

Last edited by Logos - Alexis; 03/20/09 03:34 PM.
Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0