Catholic Cleric sends doctors and a mom to hell.

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Catholic Cleric sends doctors and a mom to hell.

 A nine year old girl was raped by her step father, and became pregnant.  Doctors discovered that the girl was pregnant with twins, and with the mother's consent, performed an abortion.  Abortion is only legal in Brazil for rape or health risks to the mother.  Doctors agreed both of these conditions had been met.  As a reward for their efforts to save the girl, the doctors and the mother have been excommunicated by Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re.  If you aren't aware, excommunication in the Catholic doctrine is a sentence to hell.  For all eternity.

Yeah, yeah, technically, it's the Church's "recognition" of the state that a person has already "put themselves in," but let's be honest about this.  The Catholic Church is stating in no uncertain terms that performing an abortion for a 9 year old rape victim is such a bad crime that unless doctors repent of their sins, swear off abortions, and kiss the pope's ass, they will be spending eternity in hell.

Oh, they also made a formal statement about the man who raped a nine year old.  He's a sinner, but if he just takes the sacrement of confession and does penance, he'll be ok.  Plus, the law's going to punish him, so... I guess it's no big deal.

LINK

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
As I have said before, the

As I have said before, the fact that this organization is still actually taken as other than a complete and utter joke by millions of people should be regarded as an intellectual emergency.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Fishpasteplay (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Don't see what's

Don't see what's unreasonable about it, the rules are the rules.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
...For real? You actually

...For real? You actually don't see what's unreasonable about suggesting that the doctor and parent of a 9 year old rape victim should burn forever for performing an abortion?

 

If that's the case... well, that's pretty scary.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Poe strikes again 

 Poe strikes again

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Excommunication always

Excommunication always seemed to be one of the more ridiculous practices in my view. How can you justify it when a simple prayer to god can absolve all sin? ALL SIN?!?!?!

Fucking idiots....

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
A couple of things, Hamby...

1.) Excommunication is *not* a sentence to Hell.  It is an act of official extreme disapproval.

 

2.) As for the girl...one would have hoped that even if the Bishop wanted to make some sort of point about abortion in general, that he would do a better job of, oh, say...picking his battles...but I guess not.

 

Conor


Melkor
Melkor's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2009-03-11
User is offlineOffline
 The Catholic Doctrine as a

 The Catholic Doctrine as a whole disappoints me time and time again.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Conor Wilson wrote:1.)

Conor Wilson wrote:

1.) Excommunication is *not* a sentence to Hell.  It is an act of official extreme disapproval.

I never said it was. But the practice means that if god were real, his most revered people could be hated by the very church that is gods representative; not to mention all of its practicing members. It's ridiculous to the extreme, and breaks the laws of their own bible.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:1.) Excommunication

 

Quote:
1.) Excommunication is *not* a sentence to Hell.  It is an act of official extreme disapproval.

Um... I mentioned that explicitly, did I not?

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Hamby, I was responding...

...to a very specific statement in your op.  You wrote: "If you aren't aware, excommunication in the Catholic doctrine is a sentence to hell.  For all eternity."

What I was trying to do was say that this statement was incorrect.  That, of course, doesn't excuse the Cardinal.  Excommunication *is* serious; it means that the Sacraments that Catholics believe to be necessary for salvation are to be denied to the excommunicated individual, for as long as he/she does not repent and be received back into communion with the Church.

 

It may be a slight bit off topic, but there are two other things that I'll take this opportunity to mention:

1.) If a person dies excommunicated, that still doesn't necessarily mean that that person goes to Hell.  Going to Hell is considered God's judgement, not the Church's.  But it would mean being denied a Catholic funeral.

2.) Excommunication can even be done on a regional or national level.  In this case, it is called an "interdict."  In such cases, the affected region/nation has its priests effectively forbidden to dispense the Sacraments until such time as a reconciliation has been effected.  This is one reason why medieval Popes had so much power; they could effectively threaten to start a rebellion to unseat whatever Lord, Duke or King wasn't playing along nicely.

 

Hopefully, this clears things up.

 

Conor

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Hmm.. I guess I'm more

 Hmm.. I guess I'm more confused than I was before.  I said explicitly that technically, excommunication is not a "sentence to hell."  I appreciate the clarity on official Catholic Doctrine here, but are we suggesting that the doctrine is true?  Nobody's going to hell, and nobody's going to purgatory over this.  They're all going to die and be gone forever.   The point isn't what the official book of Vatican Law says.  It's what people believe.

If people believe excommunication means going to hell, then excommunication means going to hell.  This decision has absolutely nothing to do with where somebody's going to end up after they die.  It has to do with the political and religious significance of billions of Catholics' interpretation of this particular act of excommunication.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Okay, Hamby, at least this time...

...there isn't anywhere near as much egg for me to wipe off of my face...

You wrote: " I appreciate the clarity on official Catholic Doctrine here, but are we suggesting that the doctrine is true?"

Me: An appropriate question, I have to admit.  To be clear: no, I was not attempting to say that Catholic Doctrine is true.  In fact, I'll take this opportunity to explicitly *deny* that Catholic Doctrine is true.  Please bear in mind, I did engage in a number of discussions (...some quite heated...) via the Internet with myself weighing in on the side of the Catholics, and Protestant Fundamentalists on the other side.  A frequent occurence on those lists was the Fundamentalist side spouting some nonsense about "what Catholics believe," and of course, such nonsense called for a response.  Old mental habits die hard, I suppose.  I do still have Catholic family, so if there's any excuse for my statement, it might be that I would like for their beliefs to be accurately represented.

 

You also wrote: "The point isn't what the official book of Vatican Law says.  It's what people believe.

If people believe excommunication means going to hell, then excommunication means going to hell."

 

Me: Hmmm...good point.  It is true that many Catholics depart from the "official doctrine."  Most of the time, I think, these departures are best explained by sloppy understandings and/or poor articulations.  Of course, a notable exception to this general rule would certainly be the teaching on artificial birth control, and perhaps sexual teachings generally.  (The last figures I saw--some years back, I might add--indicated that upwards of 80% of Catholics practice artificial birth control.  The Vatican might want to be diplomatic, and call that "confusion," but I think it's better identified as outright rejection of the teaching.)  Still, your point about Vatican Law is well-taken.  Thanks for pointing that out.

 

Conor

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:It is true that many

 

Quote:
It is true that many Catholics depart from the "official doctrine."  Most of the time, I think, these departures are best explained by sloppy understandings and/or poor articulations.

I'd suggest that there's also the possibility that sloppy understanding and poor articulation are not always unintentional.  I wonder what would happen if the Church stood by their own dogma and excommunicated all Catholics who use birth control.

As you say, the practice of birth control by a large number of Catholics is pragmatic rejection of doctrine.  (There's probably a study someone could do on this phenomenon, don't you think?)  Many Catholics, especially in poorer countries, would starve to death if they followed their religion to the letter.  This is actually a good addendum to my original point -- that the utilitarian argument for religion is dead.  In fact, when people act based on utilitarianism, they tend to drop religious dogma and opt instead for that which works in the real world.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


mr804
Special AgentSuperfan
mr804's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2007-11-04
User is offlineOffline
 My friend in baszil tells

 My friend in baszil tells me "There are more churches here than houses."

 

Brazil: Home of trannie porn, and big butts. 


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
looks like they changed

looks like they changed their mind.


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Hmm.. I

Hambydammit wrote:

 Hmm.. I guess I'm more confused than I was before.  I said explicitly that technically, excommunication is not a "sentence to hell."  I appreciate the clarity on official Catholic Doctrine here, but are we suggesting that the doctrine is true?  Nobody's going to hell, and nobody's going to purgatory over this.  They're all going to die and be gone forever.   The point isn't what the official book of Vatican Law says.  It's what people believe.

Excommunication is a method of forcing people to comply... in many cases people woudl feel social pressure to stop the act.  Here, though, the archbishop likely wanted to discourage abortion.


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
shelleymtjoy wrote:

"looks like they changed their mind."

 

Me: What a shocker.  The old seminary joke asks, "How do you know when the Pope is about to announce a change in doctrine?  When he begins by saying, "In union with the teachings of all my august Predecessors..."

 

Next, we'll see numerous Catholic apologists trying to square this with Traditional teaching on abortion.  (You know...a woman who's life is endangered by a pregnancy is supposed to be willing to die to give her babies a chance at life.  Oh, and this holds true even in cases when there is no practical chance that the babies, if born, will actually live for any appreciable length of time.)  Once it--very quickly--becomes obvious that this can't be done, the conservatives in the Church will, of course, begin to demand a retraction from Archbishop Fisichella, for his "heresy."  And then the doctrine will be promulgated anew.

 

What a sideshow the Papacy of Benedict XVI is shaping up to be, eh?

 

Conor


fatty
Posts: 22
Joined: 2009-03-18
User is offlineOffline
I'm not catholic, so I can't

I'm not catholic, so I can't quite give you a for sure answer on this but I'm going to assume that the doctors were excommunicated because the catholic church believed that the doctors murdered an innocent child.  That's about the only legitimate reason I can think of for why the catholic church would do that.

Yes I am a Christian. I'm sorry that there are jerks out there that have done bad things all in the name of, I ask that you don't judge all of us because of the acts of those few. I pray that you're having a great day today. Since that doesn't mean much to most people on this site lets just say that I really really hope you have an awesome day. God bless. -fatty


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
You. Nail. Head.  Yup.

You. Nail. Head.

 

Yup. That's the whole reason. And I wouldn't dare call it "legitimate." But I suppose that's what we get when there's the head of a church who was the head of it's most conservative (ok, spade is a spade- "insane&quotEye-wink sub-offices. Basically, this pope has been head of the modern Inquisition (not even making this up- the Church changed the office's name to something like "Office of Truth in Doctrines" in the 17th century, I think- maybe a bit earlier, and *mostly* stopped torturning people) for years. So it's not surprising that we're getting the most bold-faced of the traditional Christian dogma- belief structure over people, at any cost (because we're all just scummy sinners anyway, riiiiiiiiiiiiight?!?) has come out again. 

 

I say: Let it all hang out, Catholic Church. You're hurting your own case. Which means, to lots of us here: One denomination down, about six thousand to go. The next step is to stem this "True Christianity" bullshit, that backlash against the recent 'strong atheism' movement and the gradual cooling of the recent upswing in religious fundamentalism (it's still going strong, but to hear them talk, you'd think there were roving gangs of gay folks having sex orgies in front of families and firebombing churches).

 

Oh, and to get people to realize that we don't give a flying fuck about how 'true to Christ' you want to live your life, nor, generally, about the history of your religion (pick any religion, any one that's major, and you'll find some really nasty history about how it stayed on or near the top). No, we only care that you've got an invisible friend that you believe tells you to do things- whether via a book (crazy) or another person (really crazy) or through 'personal experience' (REALLY fucking crazy), and that, if you talked to someone who believed they talked to Marie Antoinette nightly through "Les Miserables," you'd have them in a nice set of restraints faster than it takes for you to read this sentence.

 

Welcome to our world- where people tell us they talk to a 2000-year-old Jewish zombie who somehow was god and yet talked to god, sacrificed himself to himself for the work *he* fucked up, and who you all claim to know, in a dialogic fashion. And with this, you expect to take you seriously. Puh-leaze.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
I grew up in catholic

I grew up in catholic school, and being excommunicated meant that the pope (who has direct bearing on who is allowed into heaven) would likely bar you from passage. He has the "key" which was supposedly left to the catholic church to the pearly gates. That is the ultimate reason why he is so revered, and that is why he claims the legitimacy he does. 

 

Of course, how many catholics still adhere to this foundation of the catholic church is questionable. Many simply follow traditions and don't really question it until it becomes a problem for them.

I got in trouble in school a lot for asking too many questions :I

Theism is why we can't have nice things.