Religious post, cut-tagged as per SOP

[avevale_intelligencer]

This article has been commented on by catsittingstill and others, and the tone is much as one might expect.

The Catholic church's position on birth control and abortion is wrong. it was wrong when they first articulated it, it has if anything become even more obviously wrong over the years, and it will remain wrong. As one commenter pointed out, it is not sanctioned by the Bible, and it is surely clear to the bishops and to the current Pope that it will have to be reversed at some point if the church is going to retain any credibility at all. They're all just hoping it won't be they who have to do it. They are old, and cowardly, and fond of their power, and they have (as I commented elsewhere) lost their God. And I think, sometimes, they know that.

I wanted to say that, because I am quite sure Cat and others are expecting me to defend or at very least excuse the church here. I do not. I condemn it utterly. I actually only ever defend religious belief, not churches, but I understand that if one is unable consistently to distinguish between the two it can be hard to tell.

So, having said that, some facts:

The church excommunicated nobody till after the abortion had taken place. So there is no question of the church forcing (or "sentencing") the girl to carry the foetuses to term, even if it had the power so to do. It does not.

The girl was not excommunicated, because of her age. So there is no question of the church punishing her at all. It did not.

The stepfather rapist has been arrested and will be tried by secular authorities. So there is no question of the church "letting him off." It cannot. (The secular court can, of course, but that is a separate problem.)

Excommunication is a purely religious punishment: the excommunicated person is forbidden to receive communion (EDIT: and other sacraments such as confession or last rites). That's it. They are not barred from attending mass, and no other penalty is imposed on them. I can see why a very devout Catholic (the sort who would never consider assisting in an abortion) might consider that a cruel and heinous punishment, but to an atheist I'd have thought it would seem like being let off school. (EDIT: I may be erring on the side of secularism here, as keristor points out below. There are places where excommunication could still bite. However, see my reply to him.)

The President of Brazil, who has unequivocally condemned the bishop's action, is a Catholic himself. I have seen nothing about any move to excommunicate him.

With this decision, the Catholic church has yet again shot itself in the foot. It will alienate more churchgoers and attract nobody. It will hasten the day when believers realise that churches are an irrelevant intrusion between themselves and their God. If there were anything in the future still to interest me, it would be that day.

It's not all good, though. This article mentions another girl, eleven years old this time, who is seven months pregnant by her adoptive father and apparently does not intend to seek an abortion. If that is because of her religious upbringing, and it seems likely that it is, then the church is responsible for whatever suffering she undergoes and should be held to account, as it should for the suffering of every woman forced to undergo pregnancy against her will. I hope that more Catholics of conscience like the President of Brazil will speak out against decisions like these. The church fathers (ha) certainly won't pay any attention to a bunch of atheists, agnostics and Protestants.

And someone ought to try to bring them back to God.

Comments

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

I,for one, certainly did not think that you would condone this, or defend the Catholic church. I do not know any of my Catholic friends who will, either.

I agree with nearly all of this - but please to be remembering that most of the anti-abortionists/anti-choice people in the US, at least, are actually Protestant... and a great many Catholics (including in Brazil) just ignore the Pope on the subject of birth control and abortion.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes. In many ways there's more freedom of thought within the Catholic community than in other variants of Christianity, whether the priests and bishops like it or not...and many of my strictures above apply even more to some Protestant churches. But I think, possibly even because of that, that Catholicism will be the first to fragment, if it doesn't learn to bend quite soon.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Re this, and "It will hasten the day when believers realise that churches are an irrelevant intrusion between themselves and their God. "

Actually, this is a cyclical phenomen. Arguably, Catholicism *was* the first to fragment, back in the days of the reformation, albeit over a different set of issues. It has done so again (in a less splashy way) several times since over various issues, and the various fragments it produced have themselves undergone various fragmentations... This is all just part of the lifecycle of churches/denominations.

Recent example: The house-church movement was an evacuation from various protestant/evangelical denominations and independant churches, primarily over the issue of exercising gifts of tongues, prophecy etc., but also over the more direct issue of church authority, where it came from and why the heck should any particular bunch of people have it. These folks didn't have priests: They had convenors (whose houses were used for meetings) and apostles (who were respected for their wisdom and teaching, but who had no formal authority over anything).

20 or 30 years on, after the memberships got too big to have their monthly lets-all-get-togethers in anything smaller than a huge custom built auditorium, and the buzz of hero worship around the apostles has effectively (but unofficially) handed them all the authority they weren't supposed to have, it's quite hard to distinguish the house churches from a generic protestant denomination, except in a few details of practice and theology and their staunch insistence that they *aren't* one.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

It isn't just the lay Catholics who feel that way. I have actually heard several US Catholic priests (and at least one UK one) giving sermons on the subject of birth control (contraception, that is) and saying from the pulpit that it is a matter of conscience and personal decision when it is necessary, and that they do not consider it to be a sin unless done purely for selfish purposes (i.e. if a person uses contraception purely so they they can be promiscuous safely, which would make it part of a different sin anyway). I have also heard them say (although not from the pulpit) that the same applies to abortions, especially in the case of rape or danger to the mother.

Note that the position of the top of the Catholic church has worsened considerably under the current Pope, as many Catholics feared would happen. Under the previous one a great many things were becoming more liberal, but this one seems to want to go back to the Inquisition...

[keristor.livejournal.com]

I agree with your conclusions and share your disgust at the event. Just a point about the severity of excommunication as a punishment, though:

"Excommunication is a purely religious punishment: the excommunicated person is forbidden to receive communion. That's it. They are not barred from attending mass, and no other penalty is imposed on them."

Generally excommunication is a bar to all of the sacraments, not just communion (although that is the only one generally considered regular). That means, to a devout Catholic (not necessarily only one who supports the Papal views on abortion and contraception), that if they die excommunicate then they will be damned because they cannot confess, take communion, or receive viaticum when dying. To one who believes that is a very severe punishment because it lasts for ever, not just this life. That's why in mediaeval times the threat of excommunication -- or worse, of Interdict where whole communities would be cut off from the sacraments -- was a credible threat, it did no physical harm but cut them off spiritually. I suspect that in heavily Catholic countries like Brazil (and I know that southern Ireland was like it in the 60s) it's not at all seen as trivial.

Note also that pre Vatican II in the 60s (and for a long time afterward, especially in heavily Catholic countries like Eire and parts of South America) Catholics were only allowed to mix socially with non-Catholics for the express purpose of "bringing them back to Holy Mother Church". They were allowed to work and trade with them, if there was no alternative, but any other kind of social intercourse was effectively banned. That often applied to excommunicates as well, who often could find that they couldn't get jobs (they might not lose jobs but an employer, given the choice between a devout and an excommunicate person, would generally choose the devout one).

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Yes, that is a good point, and one I'd overlooked, not being a believer.

However, using excommunication in cases like this can do nothing but weaken it more quickly in the eyes of believers. I'm fairly sure, for instance, that a hospital refusing one of those doctors a job in the near future would have to be very sure they could justify themselves on grounds other than spiritual. In mediaeval times one could rely on people to act as if they knew they were damned, which reinforced the lesson for the rest. At least one doctor, according to the article, is not willing to play that game.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree on both points. I suspect that there are now a lot more people who are members of the church but are not totally committed to all of its precepts (among other things there are now a lot more churches with similar beliefs than there were in mediaeval times when there was only the Catholic church), and they are much more prepared to walk and possibly as you suggested split the church or form a schismatic group. With modern employment laws refusing a job would be definitely dodgy (especially with the president of his country on his side!) and sacking a person because of their religious status would be asking for trouble.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Huh. I never would've thought you'd somehow approve of it, or split hairs over it, and, no surprise, you don't. :)

On a different note, I've always been appalled at the idea of excommunication. Sure, I don't believe... but, in my view, the people who do believe have their own relationship with their god(s), and no one has the right to take that relationship away based on their interpretation. If there is a Heaven, it isn't up to that cardinal or any other human being to deny it to anyone.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

As a person who has been excommunicated (as a Mormon, not as a Catholic) for cause, and agreed with the reasons[1], I feel competant to answer this one.

Imprimus, I agree that many times excommunication is used incorrectly and often arbitrarily (example: excommunicating only one of a couple involved in adultery, where they were both complicit). It's easy to misuse, and certainly has been for 'political' purposes many times.

However, the principle of excommunication is basically none other than the right of any club to expel people who don't keep the rules of that club. If a member behaves in such a way as to show that they do not actually believe, then put them outside the rules. Some of them will then recant because their desire to be in the 'club' is greater than their desire to do what they want, others will go their own way (which is what I did) instead.

In the case of (say) the Catholic church, if a member decides to go up against the Pope or important doctrines publically then there may well be no way of dealing with that except to say publically "this person is not a member of the church". This happened recently with the Holocaust denier (a cardinal? something fairly high anyway), the church had to distance itself from his views and make clear that this person was not acceptable to them.

I see it that if a person has their own personal relationship with their deity, no one can take that away. Excommunication can't work, because it can't affect their personal practices. Only when a person delegates that relationship to another (a priest, for instance), and accepts that other person as being the only route to the deity can that relationship be taken away, and in that case the believer has already stated that they believe that what the church does is correct.

Of course, when the organisation is the only club in town (as in mediaeval times) and has all the power then you're stuck. That's a problem with the monopoly, though, not with excommunication per se.

[1] I'm not going to comment on the reasons in public (if anyone wants to know, they can ask me privately sometime). But I actually felt liberated when they made it official and bear them no malice at all for it.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I do understand everything you're saying. It just goes against my grain, philosophically, for the same reason I get honked off at preachers who say someone -- gays, pro-choice folks, whomever -- is going to Hell. They may have a copy of what they consider to be the rule book, and they may be authorized (at least in their own minds) to interpret it for the public... but, by their own definition of the club, ultimately it's not their decision.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I am quite sure Cat and others are expecting me to defend or at very least excuse the church here. I do not. I condemn it utterly

Um, actually I didn't expect you to defend or excuse the church; I was quite confident that your compassion and sense of fairness would come through on this one.

What I wanted, and took, was the chance to show that while the position of the Roman Catholic church outrages me, *my* sense of fairness is big enough to admit that many--probably most--Catholics aren't this way. Because I have the feeling that some readers in the past have come away with the idea that I blame all religious people for the sins of a few.

The church excommunicated nobody till after the abortion had taken place. So there is no question of the church forcing (or "sentencing") the girl to carry the foetuses to term, even if it had the power so to do. It does not.

I'm going to disagree with you on this. The government tries to prevent future theft by punishing thieves after their thefts take place. And the church tries to prevent future abortions by excommunicating the people involved after the abortion takes place. This makes future would-be thieves, or abortion providers, fear the consequences.
And, of course, preventing future abortions means the next abused nine year old girl, whose doctors are afraid to give her an abortion because they will be excommunicated, will suffer through rape-pregnancy and struggle to give birth, likely dying in the process. I grant you that "sentence" in my original rant is metaphorical: the Church is not going to put this girl, or the next, on trial. But for the girl involved, the result will be the same.

The girl was not excommunicated, because of her age. So there is no question of the church punishing her at all. It did not.

Actually, I didn't say the church punished the girl. I went back and read my original post again, to make sure I hadn't forgotten something I'd actually written. I bring this up, not to accuse you of anything, but to demonstrate how easy it is for even careful readers of good will to read something into someone else's words that isn't there. I'm sorry I accidentally did it to you in the past, and I hope, now you see how easy it is to do it accidentally, that you will let me off gently.

The stepfather rapist has been arrested and will be tried by secular authorities. So there is no question of the church "letting him off."

(puzzled frown) I also didn't say that the church "let him off." I did say the church didn't do anything to him, which as far as I know was and is true.
I'm glad to hear that the stepfather has been arrested and will face secular justice. I had missed seeing that specifically laid out the first time around, and it contributed to my underlying outrage, though I didn't bring it up in so many words.
However I will point out that the church, while it has not interfered in secular justice in this case that I know of, is not doing anything I know of to censure or punish the true villain, only the mother and doctors who tried to alleviate the victim's suffering and save her life.
I find this repugnant, and don't consider the fact that the church hasn't interfered in secular justice to be much of a mitigating factor.

but to an atheist I'd have thought it [excommunication] would seem like being let off school

Well, if someone excommunicated *me* I wouldn't care a bit--it would be what excommunication is supposed to be, a declaration of a state that already exists. But naturally, just like you, I can see that a religious person would feel it as a bitterly painful rejection.
It seems I gave you the impression atheists, and I in particular, are incapable of empathizing to a degree where this would be obvious to us. Can you put your finger on when and how I did that? If possible, I would like to avoid doing it again, and it would help to know how I did it in the first place.

And someone ought to try to bring them back to God I certainly agree that someone ought to try to bring them back to kindness and fairness.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Well, first of all, I have misread you, and for that I apologise. The whole "horrible coincidence" section of your post seemed to me to have the tone of anger-fuelled sarcasm, and to suggest that you did in fact blame the girl's treatment on religion in general and people's toleration or espousal of it. I'm sorry about the misunderstanding.

For the rest of my wibblings that you quote, they weren't all or even mostly directed at you, but at the body of comments I'd absorbed on this issue in the threads of your and the other posts to which I linked. I agree that the excommunication is intended as a deterrent to others, and indeed cited an example of another girl in a similar situation who may have been deterred: again, I understood you to be saying that the church was trying to coerce *this* girl. Sorry again.

I certainly don't think you, or any of those who've commented on this, are incapable of empathising. If I had, the anger expressed would have told me otherwise in no uncertain terms. Again, we're back to general comments I've read in which religion is equated to fairy stories and such, and the implication has seemed to me to be that people choose to embrace religion because they think it will make life nicer for them.

I would entirely understand a lack of empathy if someone complained that the fairy godmother never turned up to magic a pumpkin into a BMW so that the someone could go out clubbing, and it has seemed to me that if that is the way one perceives religion, then it must be very hard to empathise with people who are hurt by it in similarly non-tangible ways.

It is hard, from a non-believing point of view, to watch people going up to kneel on a hard floor and be given a disc of what looks like rice paper, and see that for the precious truth that it represents to them. I know, I've done it, and it took me an effort. I guess I should not be surprised that others, from an even more opposed viewpoint, find it easier: or in other words, that the problem is with me.