Somhairle Kelly (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mirrorshard) wrote2009-03-09 07:38 pm
mirrorshard) wrote2009-03-09 07:38 pm
More Catholic fail in Brazil
More Catholic Fail: nine-year-old rape victim pregnant with twins, has abortion, bishop excommunicates everyone who helped her, Vatican defends the bishop.
I wish this sort of thing was unexpected, but really, that's bishops for you. With a few honourable exceptions, who'd be decent noble human beings without any titles at all, all the ones we hear about are a bunch of authoritarian frock-wearing gay-hating child-killing paedophile-enabling Holocaust-denying weirdos.
The thing is... for once, I'm not going to condemn the bishop in question for moral cowardice, for being evil, or for having a moral compass so far out of whack it thinks Santa's living in Tunbridge Wells.
This particular episode, of all of them, is just plain stupid. No matter how you feel about abortion orteenage childhood pregnancy, none of the Bishop's response makes either moral or tactical sense.
There is no conceivable way that this girl could have become a mother. There was only one conceivable way that she could have survived the whole tragic episode, and she took it. Attempting to cram a pair of growing foetuses inside a nine-year-old girl just does not work. I like to think of early-stage pregnancies as the potential for a person, but barring a few centuries' worth of SFnal medical development those poor scraps of cells didn't even have that.
So what did the Bishop think he was trying to achieve? Even if pregnancy is supposed to be a good thing in itself, it's atomistic. Six months' worth isn't better than three. If sex isn't worth it unless you get a child out of it, then that should surely go nine times over for pregnancy.
Of course, that assumes he was trying to achieve something positive... he may be the kind of sub-Daily Mail scum who thinks an object lesson will teach all those disobedient nine-year-old girls that they'd jolly well better stop getting themselves raped if they know what's good for them.
Alternatively, of course, he might be some sort of anti-rational superstitious moron. Something bad happened - quick, make sure someone connected with it suffers in some baroquely unpleasant fashion, or it will happen again! This is cargo-cult thinking. They've seen justice happening, and they know it's a good thing, but they don't know how it works and can't reconstruct the chain of decisions and desired outcomes that lead to the end results.
On the gripping hand, he may just be a panicked authoritarian, who's made himself subject to the Peter Principle. Told that he's some sort of spiritual shepherd, responsible for peoples' souls, he worries and panics and starts going through pointless rituals of condemnation and casting-out to reassure himself that he still has a firm grip on his responsibilities. He's Doing Something, and responding vigorously to the evidence of sin. Never mind the niggling little details; the important thing is that it says, right here in the manual, that abortion is a sin and it must be stopped. If you just follow the manual, it'll all turn out OK, and WILL YOU JUST DO WHAT YOU'RE TOLD AND STOP QUESTIONING EVERY LITTLE THING I SAY!
Really quite sad. I almost pity him, except, well... he took up bishoping of his own free will, and Peter Principle or not he knew what was coming up.
Since I'm genuinely curious - what's the point of bishops? Why do we still have them? What do they do that any other priest can't?
I wish this sort of thing was unexpected, but really, that's bishops for you. With a few honourable exceptions, who'd be decent noble human beings without any titles at all, all the ones we hear about are a bunch of authoritarian frock-wearing gay-hating child-killing paedophile-enabling Holocaust-denying weirdos.
The thing is... for once, I'm not going to condemn the bishop in question for moral cowardice, for being evil, or for having a moral compass so far out of whack it thinks Santa's living in Tunbridge Wells.
This particular episode, of all of them, is just plain stupid. No matter how you feel about abortion or
There is no conceivable way that this girl could have become a mother. There was only one conceivable way that she could have survived the whole tragic episode, and she took it. Attempting to cram a pair of growing foetuses inside a nine-year-old girl just does not work. I like to think of early-stage pregnancies as the potential for a person, but barring a few centuries' worth of SFnal medical development those poor scraps of cells didn't even have that.
So what did the Bishop think he was trying to achieve? Even if pregnancy is supposed to be a good thing in itself, it's atomistic. Six months' worth isn't better than three. If sex isn't worth it unless you get a child out of it, then that should surely go nine times over for pregnancy.
Of course, that assumes he was trying to achieve something positive... he may be the kind of sub-Daily Mail scum who thinks an object lesson will teach all those disobedient nine-year-old girls that they'd jolly well better stop getting themselves raped if they know what's good for them.
Alternatively, of course, he might be some sort of anti-rational superstitious moron. Something bad happened - quick, make sure someone connected with it suffers in some baroquely unpleasant fashion, or it will happen again! This is cargo-cult thinking. They've seen justice happening, and they know it's a good thing, but they don't know how it works and can't reconstruct the chain of decisions and desired outcomes that lead to the end results.
On the gripping hand, he may just be a panicked authoritarian, who's made himself subject to the Peter Principle. Told that he's some sort of spiritual shepherd, responsible for peoples' souls, he worries and panics and starts going through pointless rituals of condemnation and casting-out to reassure himself that he still has a firm grip on his responsibilities. He's Doing Something, and responding vigorously to the evidence of sin. Never mind the niggling little details; the important thing is that it says, right here in the manual, that abortion is a sin and it must be stopped. If you just follow the manual, it'll all turn out OK, and WILL YOU JUST DO WHAT YOU'RE TOLD AND STOP QUESTIONING EVERY LITTLE THING I SAY!
Really quite sad. I almost pity him, except, well... he took up bishoping of his own free will, and Peter Principle or not he knew what was coming up.
Since I'm genuinely curious - what's the point of bishops? Why do we still have them? What do they do that any other priest can't?
no subject
I'm looking it up, and to my surprise it does seem that saving the mother's life isn't considered a valid reason for exception in Catholicism. However, abortion is permissible in cases where the pregnancy could not survive anyway and the mother's life is at risk, for instance in cases of ectopic pregnancy or uterine cancer, although they don't like calling it abortion, they're talking about hysterectomies and so on instead. I'm trying to find out more about this, since it may be relevant in this case (there's too much on this page for me to skim, I have crappy eyes I'm afraid, but I think someone said that both the child's life and the unborn twins' lives were at risk if the pregnancy continued), but I've found this (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/592962.html):
There are two questions at issue here. One is medical (Is there ever need for an abortion to save the mother's life?) and the other is moral (Would an abortion in that case be justified?) The answer to both questions is no. There is no medical situation whose only
solution is a direct abortion, as many doctors have testified.
Very blinkered thinking there. My cousin is currently going through assisted reproduction, and one reason why she's doing this is because a pregnancy would literally kill her (she has Ehlers Danlos Syndrome and Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy and is very severely disabled. I don't even dare ask what the Catholic church would say about her therefore having to use contraception, they'd probably tell her she shouldn't be allowed to marry). On further googling, a lot of people seem to be very anxious to deny that the situation where the mother's life would be at risk is even possible. Then there are the ones who grudgingly admit that it could happen, but say that life-threatening complications in pregnancy always occur so late that you could just whisk the babies out and into an incubator. No one seems to be addressing the simple point that if the mother dies during pregnancy, the foetus is most likely to die as well.
no subject
Pro-choice people do it as well: I see "it's better not to be born than be disabled/poor/bullied, so abortion is good for the foetus too" distressingly often.
My understanding of Catholic doctrine was that killing is acceptable in self defence, and that can sometimes include abortion, but I'm not an expert. I may well have been looking at unusually liberal sources when I gathered that.
As for contraception - the answer would presumably be that your cousin should use natural family planning (and/or that it's wrong that pregnancy would literally kill her).
no subject
I can't stand either of the American pro-choice or pro-life movements, and anyway neither of them wants to talk to someone like me, who has the impudence to have mixed feelings about abortion. Extremist rhetoric is a major turn-off, I agree.