'Forgive the Rapist, Excommunicate the Victim'

[Sel Nar]

Note: this was originally posted in 2009, but only recently was I linked this by a friend.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/brazil-rocked-by-abortion-for-9yearold-rape-victim-1640165.html

Short version; 9 year old girl was raped, pregnant with twins, doctors aborted both feti because they threatened the life of the child. Cardinal Giovanni Batista Re, and, allegedly, a Leading member of the Vatican, Excommunicated the Girl's Mother, and the Doctor that did the abortion. Only reason the child wasn't also excommunicated is because she's still considered a child by church doctrine.

the cardinal added: "It is a sad case but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons. Life must always be protected."

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".

Is it just me, or has the church gone completely stupid?

[vtboy]

I'm having trouble with "gone."

[NatalieB]

I love the way these things crop up again years after they happened.  God bless the internet.

Murder (I'm not trying to start an abortion debate here, merely state how the Church sees it) is expressly forbidden.  Rape is only vaguely prohibited by a couple of passages in Romans.  The Church has different priorities to you.

[Callie Del Noire]

I know their (the RCC) outlook has alienated a LOT of people. From what I heard of the rulings and investigations in Ireland, where some orders got blanket immunity for past offenses, they have lost a LOT of the faithful

[Sabre]

Forgive the Rapist...

This is incorrect.  Just because the rapist does not meet the canon law requirements for automatic excommunication does not mean he is forgiven at all.

[Samnell]

I'm having trouble with "gone."

They had a chance to smarten up. At Vatican II they had a panel of experts tell them they ought to come out in favor of at least limited forms of contraception and all that. The Pope vetoed it because he reasoned that if the Church changed its position on something it would encourage the faithful to wonder what other stuff it was wrong about. After all, what's untold millions suffering against the authority of the Church?

[Hemingway]

I love the way these things crop up again years after they happened.  God bless the internet.

Murder (I'm not trying to start an abortion debate here, merely state how the Church sees it) is expressly forbidden.  Rape is only vaguely prohibited by a couple of passages in Romans.  The Church has different priorities to you.

Is this entirely unproblematic, though? It seems like criticizing those "differerent priorities" is a very appropriate, even necessary thing to do. Simply pointing out the views of the church seems like a fairly tepid response to this.

I have strong views on religion, but even so I try not to involve myself in what is essentially a problem that's internal to a religion. Still, I simply can't not react to stories like these. I'd be guilty of something like cowardice, I feel, if I didn't speak my mind. Now, I don't know how you actually feel about this, NatalieB, so this isn't addressed specifically at you, but I would happily debate anyone who thinks this is at all an appropriate reaction to rape and subsequent abortion.

[vtboy]

The Church has different priorities to you.

Well, that's rather the point, isn't it.

The excommunication of the mother and doctor strikes me as something of a Dorian Gray moment, when the church's beatific mask drops away and  we are treated to a glimpse of the hideously deformed face that had been hidden beneath it. Speaking as one who views all organzied religion, on balance, as a retardant of mankind's better impulses, perhaps it is not such a bad thing that Mother Church let's the world see how truly irrelevant it is.

[Callie Del Noire]

Well, that's rather the point, isn't it.

The excommunication of the mother and doctor strikes me as something of a Dorian Gray moment, when the church's beatific mask drops away and  we are treated to a glimpse of the hideously deformed face that had been hidden beneath it. Speaking as one who views all organzied religion, on balance, as a retardant of mankind's better impulses, perhaps it is not such a bad thing that Mother Church let's the world see how truly irrelevant it is.

What gets me is the fact that at about four months (that's what.. 16 to 20 weeks right?) the babies have next to no chance to survive and the girl's health was clearly at risk. I think the youngest premie to survive is like .. 22 weeks and everyone said that was a million in one occurrence. Given the girl's young age and apparent distress I would have made the same call as the doctors. I've talked with my mom... she's see a girl at nine give birth ('dad' was 12 or so) and she said it was a damn miracle the kid gave birth and live. Baby was equally lucky.

[Exelion]

This is incorrect.  Just because the rapist does not meet the canon law requirements for automatic excommunication does not mean he is forgiven at all.

True, but there's something to be said for allowing a man who rapes and impregnates a child to stay in your community, but exiling a mother and doctor trying to protect that same little girl.

Mind you, this was Brazil, and most South American countries are terrifyingly devout sometimes. Also bear in mind quite a bit of that same bishop's flock think he's an idiot.

Miss JPII though. He would have told this bishop to get his head on straight.

[Sabre]

Excommunication is not the same thing as exile, though.  They remain a part of the Catholic community, and the bishop is correct in his legalism.  Abortion results in automatic excommunication without exception that requires reconciliation with the church plus penitence.  The rapist has sinned as well, but his sin is a grave one, not mortal, so the rules are different.

[rick957]

From the introductory post to this thread:

Is it just me, or has the church gone completely stupid?

This is a great example of the kind of comment that I personally think should not be allowed in this particular section of the site.  Before anyone gets mad at me, let me try to explain.

If you want to have a real discussion or debate about the Catholic Church's position on abortion or the church's misguided priorities, the only way that can happen is if somebody who agrees with the Church's position or at least has a little sympathy for it decides to post here.  The sentence above all but guarantees that if any such person sees this thread, he or she will not post here, because a tone that is harshly anti-Catholic-Church has already been set here.  No one's going to jump up and talk about the other side of the issue unless they feel they will get a calm and fair hearing from the audience, rather than being called "stupid," for crying out loud.

Now let me be clear:  I am not saying that Sel Nar has no right to think whatever he does about the church.  But the way he expressed his opinion was inappropriate for a section focused on discussion or debate.  No discussion or debate of any value can happen unless that kind of emotionalism is kept out altogether, IMO.

It turns out that E has been set up so that an entire section exists where people can say things like the above comment, as much as they want, basically; the section is called "The Bad and The Ugly," and I love that it's there, and I would have absolutely no problem with seeing the above comment at the top of a thread in that section.  Does that make sense?  It just doesn't belong here, IMO.

Let me close by saying something about the actual thread topic.  I think it's a little odd and more importantly unnecessary to go all the way back to 2009 to find an example of the Catholic Church's wrong priorities; there are more recent and more generally-relevant examples than the one cited in the first post here.

I have no personal interest in defending the Catholic Church and couldn't do so very well if I had to, but I'd like to hear from someone who can do so, in order that I could better understand certain church decisions that appear morally reprehensible to most non-Catholics, and to most Catholics as well, I imagine.

[Samnell]

Mind you, this was Brazil, and most South American countries are terrifyingly devout sometimes. Also bear in mind quite a bit of that same bishop's flock think he's an idiot.

These things have happened in the US. I recall a case a year or two ago where the entire ethics board of a Catholic hospital agreed that there was no chance of saving the fetus and if the pregnancy was continued the mother would die. The local bishop was furious that the ethics committee (including a nun!) permitted the abortion and pulled the hospital's right to call itself a Catholic hospital, among other things.

By his own standards, this bishop prefers two deaths to one. That makes perfect sense if you think the fetus is going straight to eternal bliss, of course.

[NatalieB]

Sabre and Rick have put my thoughts much better than I could.

Just to summarise my position though -

1)  The Cardinal is quite correct in how he acted by the standards of the church.  Feel free to disagree with those standards as much as you wish - I personally do.  But the Catholic church feels differently.  This girl presumably knew that excommunication would be the result if she chose the abortion and made that choice.  There's no issue here.

Which leads on to:

2) This story is three years old.  Sure, I get that you only just heard of it.  This is the first I heard of it as well.  Raising it now can't possibly be for any reason other than to bash the Church.  And as Rick mentioned, the phrasing made that even more clear. 

Rick:

The Catholic Church has a doctrine called 'ensoulment'.  This refers to the exact point at which a person/fetus/zygote/whatever gains a soul.  Prior to that its not human, post that it is.  The issue is that the Catholic Church has no official position on when ensoulment occurs.  It could be birth, could be conception, could be anywhere in between.  The general belief is conception, but thats not catechism.  What is catechism is that a noone knows and so its just not a risk worth taking.

The girl in question made the decision to have an abortion, which the Catholic church believes, for reasons above, to be murder.  Hence she is automatically excommunicated - latae sententiae.  That is to say, contrary to OP the Cardinal didn't excommunicate her.  She was automatically excommunicated the second she had the abortion.  He simply mentioned it so that every else knew.  The relevant ruling is Canon 1398 if you want to look it up.

Does that answer at all?

[vtboy]

From the introductory post to this thread:

This is a great example of the kind of comment that I personally think should not be allowed in this particular section of the site.  Before anyone gets mad at me, let me try to explain.

If you want to have a real discussion or debate about the Catholic Church's position on abortion or the church's misguided priorities, the only way that can happen is if somebody who agrees with the Church's position or at least has a little sympathy for it decides to post here.  The sentence above all but guarantees that if any such person sees this thread, he or she will not post here, because a tone that is harshly anti-Catholic-Church has already been set here.  No one's going to jump up and talk about the other side of the issue unless they feel they will get a calm and fair hearing from the audience, rather than being called "stupid," for crying out loud.

I see no reason to put a straitjacket on expressions of opinion which stop short of true incivility. Emphatic speech serves a purpose, as does giving voice to repugnance and astonishment. Moreover, your concern that Sel Nar's rather mild chide will chill the other side of the debate seems misplaced, as at least two posters have already offered something of the RCC's reasons for its action. Were I a supporter of the RCC, I can only think the remark would have impelled me to some opposing response.

And, perhaps it is the wisdom of the excommunication, rather than the indecent insensitivity to human anguish it apparently reflects, which is the more interesting issue. Ours is by no means the first time in its history that the RCC has fallen out of step with the needs and conscience of its faithful, much to its ultimate regret. As both doctrine and organizational reflex for self-preservation continue to turn the church against its congregants, perhaps the damned thing will finally wither away, much as have other once cherished midieval institutions, like monarchy, guilds and serfdom.   

[vtboy]

2) This story is three years old.  Sure, I get that you only just heard of it.  This is the first I heard of it as well.  Raising it now can't possibly be for any reason other than to bash the Church.  And as Rick mentioned, the phrasing made that even more clear. 

Three years hardly consigns the story to the dustbin of history, especially since there is no reason to believe the Church would act any differently were the abortion to take place today.

And, what exactly is wrong with bashing the Church? I hope you are not suggesting that opinions in this forum need be constrained by the RCC's supposed moral authority.

[NatalieB]

Three years hardly consigns the story to the dustbin of history, especially since there is no reason to believe the Church would act any differently were the abortion to take place today.

And, what exactly is wrong with bashing the Church? I hope you are not suggesting that opinions in this forum need be constrained by the RCC's supposed moral authority.

The church would act exactly the same.  As I said: it acted totally in accordance with its own rules.  And no, of course I'm not saying that Church morals should hold sway here - even if this was a Catholic forum I wouldn't argue that, and its not.

What I am saying is that it seems somehow, I dunno, churlish.  The Church did nothing wrong here but the tone of the first post, the title of the thread, everything seems designed to draw some moral indignation.  It seems like a way of expressing a dislike for the Church and inviting others to join rather than an attempt to start a debate, do you get what I mean?  I'm not sure how well I've expressed that.

[Exelion]

The church would act exactly the same.  As I said: it acted totally in accordance with its own rules.  And no, of course I'm not saying that Church morals should hold sway here - even if this was a Catholic forum I wouldn't argue that, and its not.

What I am saying is that it seems somehow, I dunno, churlish.  The Church did nothing wrong here but the tone of the first post, the title of the thread, everything seems designed to draw some moral indignation.  It seems like a way of expressing a dislike for the Church and inviting others to join rather than an attempt to start a debate, do you get what I mean?  I'm not sure how well I've expressed that.

Actually, I heard about this story when it happened, Remember being annoyed by it too.

I agree that the head of the diocese acted in accordance with the rules of his religion. I just think they are completely idiotic and inflexible in all the wrong spots. Not excommunicating the rapist but doing so to the girl, her family, etc sends a message, unwitting or not, that rape is acceptable to the Catholic Church. It also sends the message that it's better for the girl to potentially die, and to let a doctor forswear his oath and let her die needlessly. To have a mother turn her back on her own child and let her suffer. Rather than abort.

I'm anti-abortion myself, in almost all circumstances. I think the idea of a procedure to rid oneself of a child one doesn't want could be horribly abused and probably often is. BUT, I strongly feel there are circumstances where you can't afford to be that black and white.

[NatalieB]

I think we actually agree here.  I'm in favour of abortions being freely and easily available.  And the Catholic Church isn't.  I can't have it both ways - I can be a Catholic and abandon my belief in abortions or I can agree with abortions and not be a Catholic.  The girl chose the second, the same choice I would have made and many many others have made.  As such, shes no longer a Catholic.

I dont understand how this has become a moral issue.  Or at least a moral issue for anyone other than her.

[vtboy]

I think we actually agree here.  I'm in favour of abortions being freely and easily available.  And the Catholic Church isn't.  I can't have it both ways - I can be a Catholic and abandon my belief in abortions or I can agree with abortions and not be a Catholic.  The girl chose the second, the same choice I would have made and many many others have made.  As such, shes no longer a Catholic.

I dont understand how this has become a moral issue.  Or at least a moral issue for anyone other than her.

I agree, one can either accept Church docrine and remain a Catholic, or reject it and not. Hence, my earlier post questioning the wisdom, as policy, of the Church's doctrinal intransigence.

That the mother may choose to leave the RCC does not, however, counsel indifference to her presumed anguish over a forced choice between the religion she has likely been taught illuminates the only road to salavation and saving her nine year old daughter. Although I am not Catholic, I fail to see how this is not a moral issue for every member of the Church. I realize that morality often gets lost in doctrine, but is not the most fundamental of all moral precepts that one should treat others as one would wish to be treated? And what about all that throwing the first stone stuff?   

[Exelion]

I think we actually agree here.  I'm in favour of abortions being freely and easily available.  And the Catholic Church isn't.  I can't have it both ways - I can be a Catholic and abandon my belief in abortions or I can agree with abortions and not be a Catholic.  The girl chose the second, the same choice I would have made and many many others have made.  As such, shes no longer a Catholic.

I dont understand how this has become a moral issue.  Or at least a moral issue for anyone other than her.

My only issue is with the doctrine itself. I believe in the possibility that a Catholic could believe in abortion under certain circumstances, and remain a faithful catholic. I know enough history to know the organization's stance on many topics has swayed WILDLY over the centuries. I think it's time to give that doctrine a little more though. Nothing more or less. I don't feel that will happen with a hardliner like Ratzinger (who doesn't deserve his reign name if you ask me). Maybe the next pope.

[Callie Del Noire]

I just can't understand how you can justify excommunicating two people for saving a life. Realistically at the girl's age and the short term of her pregnancy that the twins were definitely not going to survive. Was it better to let all three people die?

Must be nice to look down from on high and make such high handed decisions. I don't imagine that either the mother or doctor are having a fun time in such a country, while the shunning part of excommunication is officially gone I am sure that both aren't having an easy time about things.

I find reprehensible that such high handed actions are being taken but then again, the Church has taken a step back with the new pope's outlook. He's much more conservative than than the last pope was in areas like this and the church follows the pope.

It's a shame but not unexpected.  I find it, personally, reprehensible that the rapist is not also excommunicated..though the article is right in that what he did wasn't merited by it. I don't see anywhere in the article that he was 'forgiven' or 'welcomed back into the arms of the church' though. 

[NatalieB]

John Paul ii was fairly orthodox.  I'm not sure the difference between him and Benedict is really that large.  But thats neither here nor there.

I've given the wrong impression here, so sorry for being unclear.  My personal stance, from reading your post, seems to be the same as yours.  However, my personal stance isn't whats at stake here.  It's not a situation thats ever going affect me.

All I'm trying to say is that the Catholic Church followed its own rules (well, OK, technically they could have not excommunicated the doctor, but its not forbidden and is far from a stretch.)  Criticising this Cardinal or that Bishop is inaccurate - they belong to an organisation that has rules and they followed them.  The girl, doctor, mother, everyone involved were also part of that organisation.  And that organisation has strict rules about abortion.

Take E as the example.  It has rules and I belong to it.  Lets say I disagree with one of them.  I think its unfair, unreasonable, whatever.  I have a flat choice.  I can suck it up and stay or break that rule and go.

Sure, the stakes were way way higher than membership or not of an online community, delightful as it is, but the core principle is the same.  The Catholic Church believes as a core part of its being that being dead and in grace is infintately preferable to alive and in sin.  Accepting the Church means accepting that belief.

The girl, her mother, the doctor, chose not to accept that belief.  Ergo, they are kicked out of the Church.

[Callie Del Noire]

I guess my problem is that I have seen the church judge so many of their worshippers while doing damn little in cleaning their own clergy. Even today it is more likely to ship a priest off than to leave them open to punishment.

I think that the Church has to change its outlook but I admit that part of my outlook is from spending 2 1/2 years in an Irish Catholic school in the Republic of Ireland (not as fun for an Anglican of Scottish heritage let me tell you). Seeing the fallout in Ireland as nearly a century of abuses in such places as Magdalene schools and other church run facilities quietly swept under the rug.

So yeah I'm not as non partisan as I could be, but I also see a Church that seems largely indifferent to its  flocks needs when you move beyond a certain level. 

[Sel Nar]

To clarify on several things, including my personal thoughts, and how 'right' or 'wrong' the Church, in general, was.

Yes, I am legitimately angry about this, even though it happened 3 years ago. I admit to being a rather antagonistic person in general towards Organized religion, but there are moments where I feel justified in yelling from the rooftops about a decision or action by the church's leadership that effectively forces my brain to spend a few reboot cycles figuring out what the shit happened.

The Church has, in its books, a selection of laws and statutes that applied to this issue; one of them simply states that anyone who performs a mortal sin, unless they do not have the mental capacity, or are under the age of 16, is automatically excommunicated. You would ~think~, then, that Rape, of a family member no less, would be considered a mortal sin. However, the only people Excommunicated were the 9 year old's mother, and the doctor who performed the abortion, as the Church would rather have 3 dead people than one living child who never should have been put in that position in the first place.

Secondly, the abuse of the girl by her stepfather had been going on for 3 years; that is more than enough time for the abuser to poison her mind and justify the abuse, such as 'everyone she knows is hurt by her'. What message did the Cardinal send when he publicly declared the excommunication against the girl's mother, who was only trying to help a scared, hurt child? That would reinforce the abuser's negative reinforcement that she would 'deserve' the abuse, because everyone that 'helps' only gets hurt by her.

Thirdly, as per the Code of Canon Law 1323 and 1324, due to the Extenuating circumstance involved, the excommunication should have been immediately revoked, due to subsections 4, 5 and 8 in Canon 1324.

Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:

1/ a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age;

2/ a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;

3/ a person who acted due to physical force or a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or, if foreseen, avoid;

4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

5/ a person who acted with due moderation against an unjust aggressor for the sake of legitimate self defense or defense of another;

6/ a person who lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the prescripts of cann. ⇒ 1324, §1, n. 2 and ⇒ 1325;

7/ a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 or 5 was present.

Can. 1324 §1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed:

1/ by a person who had only the imperfect use of reason;

2/ by a person who lacked the use of reason because of drunkenness or another similar culpable disturbance of mind;

3/ from grave heat of passion which did not precede and hinder all deliberation of mind and consent of will and provided that the passion itself had not been stimulated or fostered voluntarily;

4/ by a minor who has completed the age of sixteen years;

5/ by a person who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience if the delict is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

6/ by a person who acted without due moderation against an unjust aggressor for the sake of legitimate self defense or defense of another;

7/ against someone who gravely and unjustly provokes the person;

8/ by a person who thought in culpable error that one of the circumstances mentioned in ⇒ can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5 was present;

9/ by a person who without negligence did not know that a penalty was attached to a law or precept;

10/ by a person who acted without full imputability provided that the imputability was grave.

Fourthly, Why did the church NOT excommunicate the Abuser/Molester/Rapist? There was no explanation given stating why a 23 year old man that raped a pre-teen for 3 years was given the privelege of 'Not being thrown out of the church'. There were NO followup reports at all on that angle, which leaves a LOT of questions unanswered.

Fifth, the Bishop of Gap, France as well as Archbishop Rino Fisichella, then President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, cited the laws in the Canons I pointed out above in their Defense of the girl, the girl's mother, and the doctor. So this moment of Extreme public stupidity on the part of Cardinal Giovanni Batista Re.

Now, hopefully, all this will force the church to pulls its head out of is collective backside and start making some progress on things, but it's far more likely that, like in Ireland and the Northeast USA's child abuse scandals, the people involved will be quietly shuffled about until the uproar subsides.

Edit: This link leads to an interview with the doctor who performed the abortion. http://spuc-director.blogspot.ca/2009/03/doctor-in-abortion-of-nine-year-old.html

I think this comment, from the Doctor, best sums it up.

I’m an active Catholic, but in this case I found myself before a nine-year-old girl who risked dying for being sexually abused. From the legal point of view the Brazilian law allows us to stop pregnancy resulting from rape or where there’s a risk of death. From the moral point of view, what we did was acceptable, something I would do to anyone close to me, even a relative. And from the religious point of view, our intention was to promote good. Despite the strict codes of the Catholic Church, we didn’t feel intimidated by these codes, so we acted to save the life of the child, which was most important.

[Shjade]

I just can't understand how you can justify excommunicating two people for saving a life. Realistically at the girl's age and the short term of her pregnancy that the twins were definitely not going to survive. Was it better to let all three people die?

I believe this falls under the purview of the popular phrase, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

Did they do anything illegal? No.
Did they save a life? Most likely, yes.
Did they still "kill" two "people" do accomplish the above? According to the church, yes.

It's fairly cut and dried: it doesn't matter why they did what they did, they still did it. They could have refused to save the girl's life and, in so doing, saved their souls (Is that how it works? Someone more familiar with Catholicism please feel free to correct me on the specifics.). They made a choice. Given there are conflicting systems of value involved, it stands to reason that they couldn't have made everybody happy no matter what they chose to do.

As for the earlier question from vtboy: what's wrong with bashing the church? The same thing that's wrong with bashing any group, I should think. "Bashing," in general, isn't an activity one should expect to be widely accepted: it's insulting, overtly hostile and pretty much intended to draw a negative reaction. If you disagree and think it's fine, by all means, try making a gay bashing thread and let's see how well it goes over. On second thought, let's not do that and just say we did; I'm sure we can all imagine the most likely outcome. Didn't turn out so well, did it? Locked immediately, or as immediately as staffers could see it existed, along with everyone involved getting warned for their behavior, I should think?

So why should you think bashing a religion is any better?

Now, that's not to say you should agree with them, or even like them. It's totally cool to point out flawed reasoning, present counter-arguments, raise conflicts or disagreements or whatever - that kind of thing happens here (and other places) every day. Heck, just look through some fairly recent threads for some less-than-supportive videos about hardline religious fervor in action from an atheist's point of view and etc. That's not on the same level as bashing for its own sake, which is basically just prejudice/the beginnings of hate speech.

If you don't understand why this might cause problems within a community, see Rick's earlier post for details.

[Sure]

Right, so, this is a post about abortion and religion, which are two landmines. So I'll try to escape with my dignity and sanity:

Sel Nar, you have some facts wrong. The Cardinal specifically and the Vatican generally was not involved in this incident until questioned on it, nor did the Cardinal excommunicate anybody. This was all done by the local Archbishop, who is a local official and has no special status as a Vatican insider or influence there. This mistake is not present in the article you linked, as far as I can see, so I can only come to the conclusion you invented that. It's a bit like looking at the recent anti-gay marriage laws in certain states and claiming they were promulgated by a White House staffer and then using this as 'proof' the United States is anti-homosexual.

Furthermore, the Archbishop comes from Brazil, a country which recognizes the right to life of fetuses. This girl had to go before a judge to get the abortion specially approved or the doctors would have, in fact, been breaking the law. The current laws are supported by 82% of the population as of the last count I've seen (which was in 2010). So some allowance has to be made for cultural context. Furthermore, from his comments, it seems to me like the Cardinal is saying "This is an unfortunate episode but abortion is still wrong and we have to follow cannon law". Which is to be expected, I would think. The Archbishop, on the other hand, seems to have actively pushed for the girl's excommunication until the Vatican told him 'no'.

Anyway, hopefully everyone excommunicated has since been absolved and this is just one Hanging Archbishop, to paraphrase an colloquialism.

[vtboy]

Responding to Shjade:

Thank you for your definition of "bashing." Mine is a bit different.

Please note, I asked what is wrong with bashing the Church, not what is wrong with bashing Catholics. The RCC is an organization, like political parties, corporations and governments with all of which it bears some striking similarities. I fail to see how criticism of the Church for its actions and policies --such as those which are the subject of this thread -- can possibly be labeled "hate speech" or equated with deriding the character of homosexuals. And, let's not forget we are talking about an institution which has shown little compulsion about its own forms of "hate speech" aimed at, among others, women who would like to free themselves from the burden of serial child birth, homosexuals, and politicians in secular democracies who dare to compartmentalize between the personal duties imposed by their religion and the duties to constituents imposed by office.

[NatalieB]

Responding to Shjade:

Thank you for your definition of "bashing." Mine is a bit different.

Please note, I asked what is wrong with bashing the Church, not what is wrong with bashing Catholics.

It's difficult to explain what is wrong with bashing the church if we cant agree on what bashing means.  What is your definition?

[Sabre]

The Church has, in its books, a selection of laws and statutes that applied to this issue; one of them simply states that anyone who performs a mortal sin, unless they do not have the mental capacity, or are under the age of 16, is automatically excommunicated. You would ~think~, then, that Rape, of a family member no less, would be considered a mortal sin. However, the only people Excommunicated were the 9 year old's mother, and the doctor who performed the abortion, as the Church would rather have 3 dead people than one living child who never should have been put in that position in the first place.

It's not a matter of what decision has an objectively lower body count.  Both can be considered mortal sins, but the excommunication is not based on how personally disgusted a society is with the perpetrator but whether or not the sin is both grave (which both abortion and rape are) and if the act threatens the unity of the church and its community.  Rape does not seriously threaten the Church as it is clearly a very personal crime that no one will obviously defend within or without the church.  Abortion, however, threatens the teachings of the Church on life and the soul because in modern times abortion is a frontline topic that straddles the line between moral acceptance and moral abhorrence.  Abortion became a reason for automatic excommunication recently because of this while there is clearly no threat of Catholics believing 'well incest and rape are okay and not at odds with Catholic teaching.'

The Church would rather not have three dead people.  But what it wants is to maintain that abortion is still an act of murder which is a grave sin made mortal by people accepting it might not be immoral (based on objectivism rather than theology for the most part).

Secondly, the abuse of the girl by her stepfather had been going on for 3 years; that is more than enough time for the abuser to poison her mind and justify the abuse, such as 'everyone she knows is hurt by her'. What message did the Cardinal send when he publicly declared the excommunication against the girl's mother, who was only trying to help a scared, hurt child? That would reinforce the abuser's negative reinforcement that she would 'deserve' the abuse, because everyone that 'helps' only gets hurt by her.

The message they wanted to send is that, at the end of this tragedy, the aborted fetus was also a victim that was willingly sacrificed through an act of murder.  That it was done in order to save her life does not erase the fact that this was still a grave sin much like killing in self-defense.

Thirdly, as per the Code of Canon Law 1323 and 1324, due to the Extenuating circumstance involved, the excommunication should have been immediately revoked, due to subsections 4, 5 and 8 in Canon 1324.

"4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;"

The Church maintains that abortion harms the soul (of the fetus).

Fourthly, Why did the church NOT excommunicate the Abuser/Molester/Rapist? There was no explanation given stating why a 23 year old man that raped a pre-teen for 3 years was given the privelege of 'Not being thrown out of the church'. There were NO followup reports at all on that angle, which leaves a LOT of questions unanswered.

Because excommunication is not a criminal penalty like being sentenced to jail.  Its purpose is not to be vindictive.  And there's no rule on automatic excommunication on rape.

[rick957]

There's been a lot of specific info presented here about the Catholic Church that I didn't know, so that's been very positive and useful.  I'm especially grateful to those of you who have been brave enough to defend the Church, whether as devils' advocates or not.

My personal issues with the rulings of the Catholic Church are more general than any individual case or even any individual issue (such as abortion).  As my previous post suggested, I find several of the Church's decisions to be personally upsetting and morally indefensible, frankly, but I'm sure there are Catholics somewhere who are able to make at least enough peace with the Church's problematic behavior that they continue to attend mass and self-identify as Catholics.  I want to better understand those people's perspectives on these issues.

I see no reason to put a straitjacket on expressions of opinion which stop short of true incivility. Emphatic speech serves a purpose, as does giving voice to repugnance and astonishment.

I agree with the second sentence there, and I'm not suggesting some sweeping censorship initiative.  The mods overseeing this section of the site have to decide for themselves what constitutes permissible frankness and what crosses the line into incivility.  Unfortunately, my personal impression is that the kind of derision heaped upon certain favorite targets at E would never be allowed if it were directed towards liberals or gay people or ethnic minorities.  My ire gets up, perhaps too quickly, whenever I see that particular kind of discrimination; I think it's far too common in this section of the site.

Many individuals who feel marginalized or discriminated against elsewhere can relax and enjoy themselves around Elliquiy and not worry about getting attacked or denounced.  It's one of the best things about Elliquiy -- maybe the very best thing.  I just wish there was more sensitivity to the way that the minorities in this particular community are treated.  In fact I think the gross lack of sensitivity at times in the past warrants a collective effort at increasing awareness about the kind of discrimination that can and does happen here, in my view.

And, what exactly is wrong with bashing the Church?

It seems like a way of expressing a dislike for the Church and inviting others to join rather than an attempt to start a debate, do you get what I mean? 

IMO the people in the minority at Elliquiy are not those of certain ethnicities or those with liberal sexual mores; the latter group must be in the majority around here, and I've never seen racism of any kind here.  What I have seen is far too many incredibly nasty comments about social, political, and religious conservatives, with American Republicans at the top of the list.  Those are the real minorities in this virtual community, and they get bashed a lot in this section, without much restraint or deliberation of any kind, it seems. 

I'm sorry if I'm being knee-jerk or oversensitive here.  I don't think it bugs me just because I happen to be a very religious person; I think -- hope -- it bugs me because bigotry and prejudice of any kind sucks, and I want to be vigilant in rooting it out, whether I happen upon it in a public place, or come to see it in my own heart or in one of my opinions.  People who face discrimination in the larger society, as many Elliquians perhaps have, are just the ones who should know better than to allow it around here, I would hope.  IMO, YMMV.

... And, now that I've finished my long-ass post, I see that Shjade made most of these points already, and probably better than I could.  :P  +1 to what he said.  Here's another great example of why I should read the whole thread before writing a response.  :)

[Callie Del Noire]

IMO the people in the minority at Elliquiy are not those of certain ethnicities or those with liberal sexual mores; the latter group must be in the majority around here, and I've never seen racism of any kind here.  What I have seen is far too many incredibly nasty comments about social, political, and religious conservatives, with American Republicans at the top of the list.  Those are the real minorities in this virtual community, and they get bashed a lot in this section, without much restraint or deliberation of any kind, it seems. 

I'm sorry if I'm being knee-jerk or oversensitive here.  I don't think it bugs me just because I happen to be a very religious person; I think -- hope -- it bugs me because bigotry and prejudice of any kind sucks, and I try to be vigilant in rooting it out, whether I happen upon it in a public place, or come to see it in my own heart or in one of my opinions.  People who face discrimination in the larger society, as many Elliquians perhaps have, are just the ones who should know better than to allow it around here, I would hope.  IMO, YMMV.

... And, now that I've finished my long-ass post, I see that Shjade made most of these points already, and probably better than I could.  :P  +1 to what he said.  Here's another great example of why I should read the whole thread before writing a response.  :)

Despite the ungodly hold of certain Moral Conservatives have on the GOP, I would like it said that not all republican conservatives fall into the 'we worship the command of Pat Robinson/ect'.  I consider myself a Goldwater conservative, which is to say I prefer issues handled on a lower level than they typically are, moral issues aren't the domineering focus of my life, and I think for myself. That being said what you're referring to are the 'Double-High Authoritarians' that have come to hijack the party over the last 2 decades for the most part.

[vtboy]

It's difficult to explain what is wrong with bashing the church if we cant agree on what bashing means.  What is your definition?

To attack. In the context of debate, to criticize, denounce, rebuke, reprehend, in vigorous or even harsh terms.

Unfortunately, my personal impression is that the kind of derision heaped upon certain favorite targets at E would never be allowed if it were directed towards liberals or gay people or ethnic minorities.  My ire gets up, perhaps too quickly, whenever I see that particular kind of discrimination; I think it's far too common in this section of the site.

Many individuals who feel marginalized or discriminated against elsewhere can relax and enjoy themselves around Elliquiy and not worry about getting attacked or denounced.  It's one of the best things about Elliquiy -- maybe the very best thing.  I just wish there was more sensitivity to the way that the minorities in this particular community are treated.  In fact I think the gross lack of sensitivity at times in the past warrants a collective effort at increasing awareness about the kind of discrimination that can and does happen here, in my view.

******************************************

I'm sorry if I'm being knee-jerk or oversensitive here.  I don't think it bugs me just because I happen to be a very religious person; I think -- hope -- it bugs me because bigotry and prejudice of any kind sucks, and I want to be vigilant in rooting it out, whether I happen upon it in a public place, or come to see it in my own heart or in one of my opinions.  People who face discrimination in the larger society, as many Elliquians perhaps have, are just the ones who should know better than to allow it around here, I would hope.  IMO, YMMV.

Bringing this back to context for a moment, all this wailing and gnashing of teeth began over a comment to the effect that, in excommunicating the mother and doctors who acted to save the life of this horribly misused nine year old, the Church -- not Catholics acting in conformity with some believed stereotype -- had acted stupidly. Fairly appraised, it was no more than modest rebuke for what can only strike those not thoroughly invested in RCC dogma as remarkable, and perhaps ultimately self-injuring, cruelty -- an act which, indeed, called into question the fidelity of the institution to the sort of humane conduct Jesus is claimed to have urged. Certainly, the comment did not savage Catholics as a group.

"Stupid" may not have been the most eloquent and least provocative of appropriate adjectives, but bigoted?  Prejudiced? Grounded in stereotype? Of a piece with the sort of derogatory and incendiary invective hurled at homosexuals, blacks, Latinos, Muslims, Jews? Really?

I understand there is something gratifying in donning the mantle of victimhood, but let's try to keep some sense of perspective and proportion here. And, above all, let's not hold the vigorous exchanges of ideas so many of us enjoy on these boards hostage to overweaning notions of what is dictated by mutual respect. 

[NatalieB]

Well, that sounds like an inherently negative thing to do.  Given that definition of "bash" would you appreciate it if someone bashed you?

Can we not agree that criticising, denounceing etc-ing in harsh terms is a counter productive debating tactic.  If you have genuine grievances then harsh terms are not necessary, if you don't then harsh terms won't hide that.

I think I mentioned this above but your attacks, your "bashing" seem personal.  Now, you may well have the greatest personal reasons in the world for disliking the Church, but the plural of anecdote isn't data.  With your "harsh terms" it makes any defense of the Church seem to be an attack on you when - and I'm pretty certain I speak for all in this thread - noone intends that.

Essentially, that definition doesn't seem to differ too greatly from SHjade's and I don't see how Rick's criticisms don't still hold true.

What's wrong with bashing the church is it shuts down the debate.  It makes your posts seem to be, as I said above, more clarion calls to others to come and talk about how they too want to attack the Church than any attempt to exchange ideas.  I don't know whether that's your intent or not, but thats how it seems to me and I think how it seems to others.  Thats whats wrong with bashing the church.

[vtboy]

Well, that sounds like an inherently negative thing to do.  Given that definition of "bash" would you appreciate it if someone bashed you?

Can we not agree that criticising, denounceing etc-ing in harsh terms is a counter productive debating tactic.  If you have genuine grievances then harsh terms are not necessary, if you don't then harsh terms won't hide that.

I think I mentioned this above but your attacks, your "bashing" seem personal.  Now, you may well have the greatest personal reasons in the world for disliking the Church, but the plural of anecdote isn't data.  With your "harsh terms" it makes any defense of the Church seem to be an attack on you when - and I'm pretty certain I speak for all in this thread - noone intends that.

Essentially, that definition doesn't seem to differ too greatly from SHjade's and I don't see how Rick's criticisms don't still hold true.

What's wrong with bashing the church is it shuts down the debate.  It makes your posts seem to be, as I said above, more clarion calls to others to come and talk about how they too want to attack the Church than any attempt to exchange ideas.  I don't know whether that's your intent or not, but thats how it seems to me and I think how it seems to others.  Thats whats wrong with bashing the church.

I modified my last post to include a response to Rick's last which I had not yet read.

And, no I do not agree that "criticizing, denounce-ing etc. in harsh terms is a counterproductive debating tactic," provided the harsh terms remain within bounds of civility. Besides, I don't know that these boards are meant for debate per se, as opposed to the free flow of ideas.

I don't believe you mentioned in prior posts that my "bashing" seemed personal. If that is your impression, it is incorrect, and I can't imagine what  its source could be outside of your own personal prejudices.

If you are truly concerned that use of the term "stupid" to describe the excommunication shut down debate, please flip back through the posts in this thread.

[NatalieB]

Hmmm.

I would say that the free flow of ideas can't exist in the sort of environment where bashing, your definition of, occurs.  It makes things personal, it makes them private.  It leads far too much to an attack on people rather than ideas.  It shuts down the argument.

As it has done here.  "I think I mentioned this above" means I'm not sure I did or not.  I'm prepared to take your word that I didn't, far too lazy to check.  Your response felt like a personal attack on me - "personal prejudices".  You seem to be getting defensive that people don't share your abhorance of the events, and the thread is becoming a little unpleasant.

That's why bashing is wrong.

[vtboy]

Hmmm.

I would say that the free flow of ideas can't exist in the sort of environment where bashing, your definition of, occurs.  It makes things personal, it makes them private.  It leads far too much to an attack on people rather than ideas.  It shuts down the argument.

As it has done here.  "I think I mentioned this above" means I'm not sure I did or not.  I'm prepared to take your word that I didn't, far too lazy to check.  Your response felt like a personal attack on me - "personal prejudices".  You seem to be getting defensive that people don't share your abhorance of the events, and the thread is becoming a little unpleasant.

That's why bashing is wrong.

To be clear, no personal attack on you was ever intended. Nor do I think one may be read into anything I've written here. The first injection of the ad hominem in this thread seems to be your suggestion that there is some personal subtext to what I've said.

[NatalieB]

Well, perhaps I misread.  Regardless, as I say, this thread is beoming unpleasant.

It's been a pleasure talking to you all, without exception.

[Shjade]

And, no I do not agree that "criticizing, denounce-ing etc. in harsh terms is a counterproductive debating tactic," provided the harsh terms remain within bounds of civility.

Explain to me what's civil about calling someone's belief system stupid.

[rick957]

@ vtboy

I had a different response up earlier, but I didn't like part of it, so I took it down.

"Stupid" may not have been the most eloquent and least provocative of appropriate adjectives, but bigoted?  Prejudiced? Grounded in stereotype? Of a piece with the sort of derogatory and incendiary invective hurled at homosexuals, blacks, Latinos, Muslims, Jews? Really?

I meant the things I said.  Thanks.

[vtboy]

Explain to me what's civil about calling someone's belief system stupid.

1)  The term described a particular act, not an entire "belief system."
2)  Are you sure it is the word, rather than the condemnation it attempted to express, to which you are objecting? It is, after all, difficult to find nonabrasive language for behavior one finds truly odious. There are other descriptions I would have preferred, among them "benighted," "depraved," "inhumane," "perverse" and "appalling," but the initial word choice was not mine. Would these also have been "uncivil" in your lexicon? Would you have perferred "unwise" to "stupid"? How milquetoasty need one be?
3)  Not all "belief systems" merit respect and some are stupid. Take white supremacy, for instance. (To save the digital ink I already see cascading my way, let me be clear -- I am not equating the RCC with the KKK).
4)  As long as ad hominem attack against a speaker is avoided, I don't see what is uncivil about speaking plainly, vigorously, and critically. 

[Sabre]

Polemic doesn't have to be uncivil, but lack of courtesy generally is.  And it has almost always been damaging to attempts to find compromise and reconciliation - especially in this case where the purpose is not to find common ground or even desire to understand the position of the Church but to unilaterally condemn its position.

[vtboy]

Polemic doesn't have to be uncivil, but lack of courtesy generally is.  And it has almost always been damaging to attempts to find compromise and reconciliation - especially in this case where the purpose is not to find common ground or even desire to understand the position of the Church but to unilaterally condemn its position.

If the purpose of the critics is as you state, perhaps they are better students of the Church than you recognize.

Reconciliation and compromise?  Is that what the Church did when it excommunicated the mother? Or did it unilaterally condemn her?

I don't think the criticism of the Church in this thread has been fueled by either an unwillingness or inability to understand its position. Quite the contrary.

[Sabre]

She excommunicated herself, since it's an automatic thing with abortion.  The purpose of excommunication is reconciliation anyway.  The local archbishop that went too far and lambasted the mother and doctors made the situation worse, forcing the mother to dig in her heels and the local population to condemn the priest.  But then the usual media circus followed with pot shots at the Church, and the Church does the same in return.

The very thread title - 'forgive the rapist' - shows that the church's position is ignored.

[Shjade]

1)  The term described a particular act, not an entire "belief system."

Is it just me, or has the church gone completely stupid?

No, it didn't, which also makes your #2 pretty much irrelevant.

3)  Not all "belief systems" merit respect and some are stupid. Take white supremacy, for instance. (To save the digital ink I already see cascading my way, let me be clear -- I am not equating the RCC with the KKK).
4)  As long as ad hominem attack against a speaker is avoided, I don't see what is uncivil about speaking plainly, vigorously, and critically.

"Because some belief systems don't merit respect, none of them do, therefore my being disrespectful is justified." Am I reading that right? 'Cause I have to say, it's an ill-formed argument. With that kind of logic, since not all people merit respect, no one does, so there should be no repercussions for anything disrespectful anyone does in any context. What does that accomplish? No, I'm afraid I have to reject your premise, and that's without even getting into the subjectivity of who determines what does and does not merit respect.

As for #4, what would you call labeling an entire body - of which very little was involved in the events in question at all - "stupid" if not ad hominem? In what context is that term not so categorized?

[rick957]

This post wanders widely from the thread topic but is relevant to the discussion being had.

@ vtboy

I'd appreciate it if you would answer a question with regard to your personal approach to civil discussion of contentious topics.  Not long ago at all, in a different thread, you took a considerable amount of trouble to argue that questioning the sincerity of a person with different religious or philosophical views is neither necessary nor appropriate in the course of attacking those views.  (I hope I got at least the gist of that right.)  I found your defense all the more compelling because you made your disdain for religion clear up front, so I assumed you were making the point based on more general ethics about how people ought to treat one another in a civil society.

Mere days later, I find you in this thread suggesting that it's perfectly fine to question the basic intelligence ("hasn't the church gone stupid") and the personal motives ("it's so gratifying to play victim") of your opponents in the course of this discussion. 

My view is that all three rhetorical techniques -- attacking an opponent's basic sincerity, intelligence, or motives -- cross the line into incivility, not to mention undermining the credibility of any person who chooses to resort to such low-handed tactics, even if they do so in the course of championing a correct, truthful viewpoint.  I think if such things as civil debate or the respectful exchange of differing views is possible at all, it can only happen when excessive emotionalism and crass rhetorical mudslinging is prohibited among all parties, for the benefit of all.  Those techniques are just distraction, or worse, deliberate obfuscation of the actual issues being discussed.  I think the rules of both logic and common courtesy require better behavior from all sides, and do so without prohibiting candor, vigorous disagreement, or emphatic argumentation.

I don't know how much of any of that you buy, but I'm particularly interested in the distinction you seem to draw between attacking sincerity versus attacking intelligence or motivation.  Are not all of these just varieties of ad hominem?  How is it that the latter two pass muster ethically while the former is forbidden?

[vtboy]

No, it didn't, which also makes your #2 pretty much irrelevant.

Yes, it did. "Gone stupid" was obviously a reference to a demarking event, in this case the excommunication. And, it is disingenous to take the remark entirely out of this thread's context. If you prefer not to answer my #2, that is fine, but so too is my drawing the obvious inference that it hit the mark with you
.

"Because some belief systems don't merit respect, none of them do, therefore my being disrespectful is justified." Am I reading that right? '

No, you are not. In fact, you're creating a straw man argument. You offered the absolute proposition that it is never civil to call someone's "belief system" stupid. ("Explain to me what's civil about calling someone's belief system stupid.") I offered an example where, in my view, the label would be appropriate for an entire belief system.

As for #4, what would you call labeling an entire body - of which very little was involved in the events in question at all - "stupid" if not ad hominem? In what context is that term not so categorized?

Re-read #1.

[vtboy]

She excommunicated herself, since it's an automatic thing with abortion.  The purpose of excommunication is reconciliation anyway. 

This is really a distinction without a difference.

The Church promulgated a law which prescribes the most severe possible ecclesiastical penalty for abortion and, from what I gather, pemits no exception or leniency in its application. Thus, that the pregnant woman is a nine year old girl makes no difference; that she was raped makes no difference; that the rapist was her stepfather makes no difference; that she would die without the abortion makes no difference; that the fetus would die anyway makes no difference; and that the mother was impelled to save her daughter by maternal instinct (which, if you believe in god, I assume you also believe to be a gift from god) makes no difference. It strikes me as rather poor excuse that the excommunication resulted without further (i.e., post-rule promulgation) ad hoc deliberation.

Were we discussing an equivalent civil law which automatically imposed, say, a ten year prison sentence on the mother, I suspect there would be few who would disagree the law is monstrous and that its framers, if not also monstrous, at least acted mindlessly. 

The local archbishop that went too far and lambasted the mother and doctors made the situation worse, forcing the mother to dig in her heels and the local population to condemn the priest.  But then the usual media circus followed with pot shots at the Church, and the Church does the same in return.

I suspect the archbishop's comments fell well within the compass of his ecclesiastical authority. And, what did he really do but give voice to the principle behind the rule? That the media may then have acted in a manner true to its nature is hardly defense for the Church "do[ing] the same in return," especially as the eternal Church claims to navigate by principles higher than those which guide mere mortal organizations.

The very thread title - 'forgive the rapist' - shows that the church's position is ignored.

I assume the title was not intended as literal description, but instead as allusion to the double standard of denying all spiritual benefits to the mother but not to the rapist.   

[Sabre]

This is really a distinction without a difference.

The Church promulgated a law which prescribes the most severe possible ecclesiastical penalty for abortion and, from what I gather, pemits no exception or leniency in its application. Thus, that the pregnant woman is a nine year old girl makes no difference; that she was raped makes no difference; that the rapist was her stepfather makes no difference; that she would die without the abortion makes no difference; that the fetus would die anyway makes no difference; and that the mother was impelled to save her daughter by maternal instinct (which, if you believe in god, I assume you also believe to be a gift from god) makes no difference. It strikes me as rather poor excuse that the excommunication resulted without further (i.e., post-rule promulgation) ad hoc deliberation.

As mentioned, an unwillingness to understand Church doctrine becomes widespread until all that remains is outrage that Canon law is not based on Common law reasoning.  No different from murder in self-defense, or stealing when hungry or to help others, abortion is considered an act of murder.  Mitigating factors are useful to determine the level of penalty occurred in both Canon and Common law, but in the Church's opinion the severity of the sin remains.  The Church has nothing against the mother's natural instinct to save her child, or a doctor's duty to save his patient, but it is not in the business of claiming the sin is any less grave than without their situations.  It will certainly factor into whatever penance is asked of them when reconciliation is sought, however.

Were we discussing an equivalent civil law which automatically imposed, say, a ten year prison sentence on the mother, I suspect there would be few who would disagree the law is monstrous and that its framers, if not also monstrous, at least acted mindlessly. 

But we are not discussing a sentenced punishment.  Excommunication's actual equivalent in civil law would be indictment, where the excommunicated receives his or her summons to appear in confession and seek reconciliation.  It is censure and not a criminal sentence (which would be penance if any).  Too much of this backlash seems related to overreaction and little understanding of the true purpose of automatic excommunication.  Most of the Brazilian Catholic population understands it, so their outrage is directed not at the Canon but instead at the behavior of the archbishop.  Everyone else, however, has acted just as expected.

I suspect the archbishop's comments fell well within the compass of his ecclesiastical authority. And, what did he really do but give voice to the principle behind the rule? That the media may then have acted in a manner true to its nature is hardly defense for the Church "do[ing] the same in return," especially as the eternal Church claims to navigate by principles higher than those which guide mere mortal organizations.

There's no ecclesiastical ordination within the mother church to be a dick.  The archbishop that sparked all this controversy went beyond the censure that automatic excommunication entails - which is usually a quiet and private matter - and condemned the mother and doctors in harsh terms.  That sparked the outrage in the local population.  The only one giving voice to the principle behind the rule here is the other priest that told media the rapist is probably not liable to be excommunicated.

I assume the title was not intended as literal description, but instead as allusion to the double standard of denying all spiritual benefits to the mother but not to the rapist.

So it is allusion for the first half of the phrase 'Forgive the Rapist' but then not allusion for the second half, 'Excommunicate the Victim'?

There is simply no clause that entails automatic excommunication of the rapist, and so would require an ecclesiastical court to determine this.  Excommunication is the most severe of doctrinal censures, not criminal penalties, and the outrage that the rapist is 'forgiven' does not seem to appear in Brazil.  Only that the conservative archbishop involved made a public declaration of their excommunication to make a political statement at the victim's expense.

[Shjade]

Yes, it did. "Gone stupid" was obviously a reference to a demarking event, in this case the excommunication. And, it is disingenous to take the remark entirely out of this thread's context. If you prefer not to answer my #2, that is fine, but so too is my drawing the obvious inference that it hit the mark with you.

No, you are not. In fact, you're creating a straw man argument. You offered the absolute proposition that it is never civil to call someone's "belief system" stupid. ("Explain to me what's civil about calling someone's belief system stupid.") I offered an example where, in my view, the label would be appropriate for an entire belief system.

It was a reference to an event leading to a descriptor of the entire body as stupid, rather than the action. It was not, "the church did something stupid," it was, "since the church did this, it must be stupid," thus, "gone stupid," a state from which one is expected to see future stupidity take place due to a change in the status of the church itself rather than something indicative of a mistake with regard to a single action.

Whether or not you think someone's belief system truly is stupid does not mean it somehow merits/is civil to describe as stupid. Thus, my response to your KKK comparison: the fact that you think it is not a system deserving of respect is irrelevant; your opinion does not entitle you to be disrespectful toward them or make rude behaviors somehow not rude because "they deserve it." That your response to this is claiming the label is "appropriate for an entire belief system" demonstrates that you're missing the point: whether or not you feel something merits respect does not determine whether your behavior toward that thing constitutes civility.

The wording here is getting a bit silly, [noembed]so I think I'll use a musical aid to sum up the underlying point.[/noembed]

[vtboy]

It was a reference to an event leading to a descriptor of the entire body as stupid, rather than the action. It was not, "the church did something stupid," it was, "since the church did this, it must be stupid," thus, "gone stupid," a state from which one is expected to see future stupidity take place due to a change in the status of the church itself rather than something indicative of a mistake with regard to a single action.

Since you are attempting some sort of profound literalism, which inconsistently includes both embellishment on the original and imputation of the author's intention, you might also have noted the remark was not even the declaratory statement you prefer to imagine, but a query: "has the church gone completely stupid?" But, don't let facts get in the way of your point.

Whether or not you think someone's belief system truly is stupid does not mean it somehow merits/is civil to describe as stupid. Thus, my response to your KKK comparison: the fact that you think it is not a system deserving of respect is irrelevant; your opinion does not entitle you to be disrespectful toward them or make rude behaviors somehow not rude because "they deserve it." That your response to this is claiming the label is "appropriate for an entire belief system" demonstrates that you're missing the point: whether or not you feel something merits respect does not determine whether your behavior toward that thing constitutes civility.

Now you've crossed the line into the condescension of lecture, made all the worse by your confusion of "missing the point" for rejecting the point. But, thank you anyway for your rules of propriety. Are you speaking ex cathedra?

The wording here is getting a bit silly, [noembed]so I think I'll use a musical aid to sum up the underlying point.[/noembed]

If you're going to call me a "dick," at least have the moral courage to say so here, rather than linking to someone else's inanity on youtube.

While it may be true that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, it is not true that inconsistency betokens a large one.

[NatalieB]

Since you are attempting some sort of profound literalism, which inconsistently includes both embellishment on the original and imputation of the author's intention, you might also have noted the remark was not even the declaratory statement you prefer to imagine, but a query: "has the church gone completely stupid?" But, don't let facts get in the way of your point.

I'm sorry but I really can't let this slide.  While you are correct that the first mention of "stupid" was in the form of a query - I actually read it as rhetorical, but I'm happy to accept you didn't - that quote wasn't written by you.  Your quote was

I'm having trouble with "gone"

I can't see any possible other interpretation of that phrase then that you doubted there was any fundamental change in the church, any transition from "not stupid" to "stupid".  You were having trouble with the usage of the word that implies there was some movement towards stupidity.

I'm certain you'll have some explanation here.  Some reason why that wasn't what you said or, if it was, what you meant.  But the fact remains that your quote was a flat out declaration that in your opinion not only was the church stupid but that it had been prior to this incident.

Facts in the way of points, consistency hobgoblins, pots and kettles abound.

[Shjade]

If you're going to call me a "dick," at least have the moral courage to say so here, rather than linking to someone else's inanity on youtube.

If I were going to call you a dick, I would indeed do so directly. Rather, I was using the whimsical video to point out why your earlier stated position regarding the KKK and/or other systems you feel lack merit for respect has no grounds re: being uncivil toward them. Disliking a person's beliefs is not justification for disrespecting them; it's a reason, but that's hardly the same thing. People have reasons to rob other people, that doesn't make it legal to do so.

I'm a little confused about why you insist on trying to make this conversation about me, personally, rather than about the points we're discussing. If you could try to stay at least remotely on topic I'd appreciate it. Derailing into attacks is unproductive, though it does somewhat prove the point that attacking a thing isn't helpful for discussion, given your earlier definition for "bashing" is "attacking," so I suppose you're actually undermining your own argument by doing this.

[vtboy]

If I were going to call you a dick, I would indeed do so directly. Rather, I was using the whimsical video to point out why your earlier stated position regarding the KKK and/or other systems you feel lack merit for respect has no grounds re: being uncivil toward them. Disliking a person's beliefs is not justification for disrespecting them; it's a reason, but that's hardly the same thing. People have reasons to rob other people, that doesn't make it legal to do so.

I'm a little confused about why you insist on trying to make this conversation about me, personally, rather than about the points we're discussing. If you could try to stay at least remotely on topic I'd appreciate it. Derailing into attacks is unproductive, though it does somewhat prove the point that attacking a thing isn't helpful for discussion, given your earlier definition for "bashing" is "attacking," so I suppose you're actually undermining your own argument by doing this.

When, after your condescend, first, by lecturing me about what is appropriate expression and what is not, and then by providing a link to some childish doggerel about not being a dick, coupled with the suggestion that you are doing so to ensure I get your point, I think it is fair to make the obvious inference that personal insult was intended.  I am willing to take you at your word that it was not, but how do you not recognize the reasonableness of the inference?

[Oniya]

I think it might be a good idea for people to step back, and remember to be civil - on both sides.

[vtboy]

I'm sorry but I really can't let this slide.  While you are correct that the first mention of "stupid" was in the form of a query - I actually read it as rhetorical, but I'm happy to accept you didn't - that quote wasn't written by you.  Your quote was

I can't see any possible other interpretation of that phrase then that you doubted there was any fundamental change in the church, any transition from "not stupid" to "stupid".  You were having trouble with the usage of the word that implies there was some movement towards stupidity.

I'm certain you'll have some explanation here.  Some reason why that wasn't what you said or, if it was, what you meant.  But the fact remains that your quote was a flat out declaration that in your opinion not only was the church stupid but that it had been prior to this incident.

Facts in the way of points, consistency hobgoblins, pots and kettles abound.

No. I'm sure it was what I meant. My regrets for having overlooked my own nonsense.

I stand by the rest.