« Marcus and the Sanctity of Contract | Main | Good News »

March 18, 2009

Comments

Oh, they're certainly men of the cloth. They just happen to be bad people.

Because nothing says "meaningful, prayerful, decisions" like rescinding an excommunication.

aimai

What Aimai said.

"Not willing to let a nine-year-old girl die after having been raped" isn't a very high barrier to clear; I suppose any man of God might have to take a couple of tries before he could get over it.

Von, you misunderstood the story; although there has been some public dissent from another Bishop, the excommunications haven't been rescinded.

A close reading of the original story von linked shows ampersand is right--the excommunication is called a "mistake," but nobody says anything about rescinding it.

I guess the only thing about this as outrageous as the outcome described by A would, sadly, be expecting the Catholic Church...

...which let's remember has a mechanism for not punishing folks who sexually abuse children...

...to do anything other than provide cover for a vile child rapist as opposed to excommunicating him along with those responsible for the abortions.

A sad consistency you might figure a church would try to avoid

"Fairness requires me to note that the excommunications have now been rescinded."

Could you please quote the lines in your linked story that say this, von? I'm not seeing it.

Thanks.

I don't see it either, but it may be in the offing.

Now if we could get the Pope to stop undermining anti-AIDS efforts in Africa, I might consider digging out those dusty offeratory envelopes.

Earlier this week, the National Catholic Reporter covered Archbishop Rino Fisichella's rebuke to the Brazilian bishops who "publicized" the excommunication, but that news story doesn't imply that the excommunications have been rescinded. The story's here: http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/church-credibility-harmed-hasty-excommunication

If anyone has anything more recent or definitive, I'd love to know.

Why is it when I try to find references on the health implications of a nine year old carrying and birthing a baby I can find little or nothing on government web sites like NIH etc.,? Am I missing something here? shouldn't there be some easily accessible medical info on the subject, like what about the medical ramifications for pre teens in general, say a twelve year old?

You're right. The excommunication, which was automatic, has not been lifted.

A pregnant 9 year old should be a true rarity. I'd assumed puberty would not set in that early. So, I would not expect extensive medical info on that, esp. not on government web sites (as opposed to specialized medical journals).

Hartmut, But what about a twelve year old? I have been debating this with a religious wingnut, who claims that it is perfectly, medically, healthy for a child of say 9 or even 12 to carry a baby to term. I can't seem to locate credible references supporting my contention that if it was my daughter I would not consider it medically safe for a child of that age to carry a pregnancy to term. Any tips on where to look? Thanks,

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad