Just one more reason to ignore the rantings of these superstitious nutters.

I'm waiting for Frank Brennan to make a post.

Frank Blunt

It was a warm and comforting feeling.
Letting the world go by knowing God would fix it.
Down runner that was in my time lost and miss spent as a born again fool.
Nothing wrong with the ten commandments, even almost every rule of the church, most Church's many religions.
My reality lesson came early.
We are alone, we are responsible for our own actions.
Every religion, every church of those differing religions, has the best and the worst of mankind in them.
None may truthfully say it is not true.
Every one of them has rules that enforce doctrines on members, like this assault of an already assaulted child.
No woman, victim of rape should be told you must bare the child of such a man.
Yes we fear some religions more than most, but look deep into this matter, is it in any way different than the treatment of females we love to highlight in another religion?

Exterminator,

Are you asking did it really happen?

If so I believe there is some truth in it. Indeed there must be a Bishop somewhere in the world who would do exactly as it sounds. Every Catholic diocese in the world has one.

I believe some obscure bishop over in Brazil was the culprit. Most media stories state words to the effect that he excommunicated them which is a particularly unhelpful description for expressing an opinion on Code 1398 of Canon law in relation to whether automatic excommunication applied to the mother and doctors in that case. He also opined that it did not apply to the daughter. How much was a media ambush and how much was the Bishop volunteering his opinion is unclear. Obviously the latter would sound worse but it is surprising that the Bishop would even know about the incident unless the media approached him about it. That of course raises the issue of how the media knew about it.

Belly,

You asked if anyone has heard of a paedophile priest being excommunicated. That seems like a strange question to me. As canon lawyer Pete Vere has pointed out

'The priest-pedophile argument is a red herring, at the very least a misunderstanding of the purpose of excommunication. As a censure, excommunication is considered a medicinal penalty. That is, it's not designed to be permanent, but to bring about repentance so ...”

To excommunicate a paedophile priest to encourage them to behave better would seem no better an approach then the mishandling which occurred between the 60s to 80s. You don’t suppose that stopping them from working as priests and assisting the victims might be a better option than just encouraging them to change their behaviour in that way?

mjpb

Am I correct that you are excising the Catholic Church from any responsibility by claiming the the excommunication is merely the errant idea of a single bishop?

That a raped and pregnant nine year old obtaining an abortion a mere media beat-up?

And finally, that paedophile priests be exempted from punishment? By retaining said priests within the church and still allowed contact with children? You stated "stopping them from working as priests and assisting the victims might be a better option than just encouraging them to change their behaviour in that way". In the secular world paedophiles are jailed.

In those immortal words: "Please explain."

mjpb,

I agree that sensationalism (and vested interests) of the media should not be overlooked. However, unfortunately it was not only an "obscure bishop over in Brazil": even Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, head of the Congregation for Bishops, felt bound by the Cannon Law to endorse Archbishop Sobrinho's explicit refusal to see the case as an exception to the "latae sententiae" excommunication connected with abortion (as strange as it is, since no such automatic excommunication is connected with other killings, e.g. in an aggressive war).

I am not an expert on Canon Law, but there could hardly be a clearer case of exemption to the rule than this: saving the life of a nine year old by an action that - according to medical experts (of which neither the Archbishop nor the Cardinal are one) - changed nothing on the survival prospects of the twins.

I am afraid the Archbishop and Cardinal will enter Church history along Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino (Galileo's adversary), and worse, since this case is much more sad and incomprehensible than the Galileo case, that could - at least partly - be explained within its historic context.

Fractelle,

"Am I correct that you are excising the Catholic Church from any responsibility ...?"

No I'm pointing out that he is interpreting a rule rather than issuing a positive decree. That doesn't absolve responsibility given who's rule it is. I was also hinting that there might be different interpretations but that appears wrong.

"That a raped and pregnant nine year old obtaining an abortion a mere media beat-up?"

No that is the accurate bit. But the Bishop was interpreting a rule and all but one news report I've read makes it sounds like a positive decree. In addition it is strange that an Bishop would know about it. If those involved had gone to confession or something the excommunication would be gone.

"And finally, that paedophile priests be exempted from punishment?... still allowed contact with children?"

You have it back to front. If they were simply excommunicated they could still have contact with children in their role as a priest.

"You stated "stopping them from working as priests and assisting the victims might be a better option than just encouraging them to change their behaviour in that way". In the secular world paedophiles are jailed."

Yep. Clearly when the priest is convicted and goes to jail the distinction between excommunication and stopping him working as a priest loses significance. The relevant time is after the accusation and prior to going to jail. At that time urging him to seek forgiveness rather than stopping from working as a priest isn't in my opinion the best approach.