Symptom or disease? Excommunicating injustice

[Tiassa]

How do we decide whether to treat the symptom or the disease?

"If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell."

(Matthew 5.29-30)​

The metaphor is interesting. Taken literally, this part of the Sermon on the Mount seems to suggest that it is better to blind oneself than visually appreciate what God has endowed. Or, well, cut off your hand after wanking.

Or something similarly stupid.

Taken in a figurative context, it can be just as dangerous.

Let us consider it:

• A hand is twitching painfully because a tumor in the wrist has affected certain nerves. We must amputate.

• A hand is twitching painfully because a tumor in the brain has affected certain nerves. We must ... well, what?​

Modern medicine allows us to better locate the source of offense, so we would probably excise the tumor from the brain if possible, but we wouldn't hack off the hand.

So far, we're still in the figurative. After all, the unfortunate hand-severing wanker—one Timothy Ringstob, of whom no mention can be found after the above-linked story about cutting off his hand—would have done better to either cut off his penis or perform some sort of lobotomy on himself. In either case, he would have been closer to the offense than in removing the hand.

So far we're still in the figurative. The theme, for those who need reminding at this point, is the question of whether to treat the symptom or the disease.

Enter ... the Catholic Church. And a nine year old girl. Some family, some doctors, and a couple of old men in priestly vestments who think they have a clue.

The story so far: Doctors in Brazil recently performed the abortion of twins carried by a nine year-old. The doctors feared that the 80-pound girl could not carry the pregnancy to term without dying.

The Catholic Church has responded by excommunicating the girl's mother (for authorizing the procedure) and the doctors (for performing the procedure).

Here's a question, though: What about the alleged father of the twins, the girl's 23 year-old stepfather?

Of course he hasn't been excommunicated. Perhaps after he is convicted of the crime? Maybe?

Nope, probably not:

"It is a sad case, but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated," Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re told the Italian daily La Stampa ....

.... Upon learning of the abortion, the regional archbishop excommunicated the doctors, as well as the girl's mother. He did not excommunicate the step-father, saying the crime he is alleged to have committed, although deplorable, was not as bad as ending a fetus's life.

"The law of God is higher than any human laws," Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho said in an interview on Globo television. "When a human law is against the law of God, that law has no value."

(CBC)​

Here we have the question of the symptom and the disease. Cardinal Re and Archbishop Sobrinho seem to have overlooked the problem. They're upset at the outcome of a situation, but don't seem to give a damn about the cause.

I would propose that the blindingly obvious counterpoint to this is that if you don't want nine year-olds having abortions, get the fuck off of them!

Really, don't rape kids, they won't get pregnant.

Well, for the most part. There is that story about God forcing a young woman to carry his child.

But this travesty also resurrects a deeper question about the anti-abortion zeal: What the hell is God doing blessing the conception of twins in a nine year-old?

Let's even acquit the stepfather for the sake of argument. What possible reason could God have for blessing the conception of twins in a nine year-old?

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with these people?
_____________________

Notes:

Willis, Elroy. "Jesus Restores Right Hand in Philippines". ElroysEmporium.com.

Bible: Revised Standard Version. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/

"Vatican backs excommunication of Brazilian MDs over child's abortion". CBC.ca. March 7, 2009. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/03/07/catholic-abortion.html

 

[lightgigantic]

so in short, your argument is "good things are immune to being wrongly applied", yes?

 

[wynn]

How do we decide whether to treat the symptom or the disease?

Did you mean - 'How do we decide whether to treat the symptom or the cause'?

 

[Tiassa]

This and that

Did you mean - 'How do we decide whether to treat the symptom or the cause'?

Sure, why not? I mean, we could probably devise a philosophical shortcoming for that expression, too, but yes, that's the essential question.

• • •​

so in short, your argument is "good things are immune to being wrongly applied", yes?

No, nothing so obscure. I'm just making a point about some people's priorities.

 

[Baron Max]

.... I'm just making a point about some people's priorities.

Yeah, but you're trying to apply that point to far too many people. I.e., trying to make generalizations ...which is most often wrong.

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

Yes, I'm sure you counted

Yeah, but you're trying to apply that point to far too many people.

How many people, Max?

 

[Baron Max]

How many people, Max?

"WE" is exactly how many people, Tiassa.

Baron Max

 

[Bells]

No, nothing so obscure. I'm just making a point about some people's priorities.

Their priority is their religion. And at no time can they back down from what their religion dictates, even when common sense would show that saving the girl's life is of equal if not more value..

To the Church, the systematic abuse of the girl at the hands of her step-father is pardonable and does not warrant ex-communication. Had he killed her, he would still not be excommunicated and the crime would still be pardonable.

The girl possibly dying from the pregnancy that was the direct result of the systematic abuse? Regrettable, but to the Church, the right choice. That the foetus' would also die is beside the point.

But saving the girl's life by performing a necessary surgical procedure that would end the pregnancy? Well, unpardonable and worthy of excommunication. To the Church, the girl is no longer important as soon as she became pregnant. Whatever was done to her by her step-father, any risk or danger to her health and life took second place. The Church's actions in this and the support from the Vatican for the Arch-Bishop will only send a clear message to the girl. That being that she is of little to no importance and was only worthy of consideration when she was pregnant. And they proved that when they excommunicated her mother and the doctors who saved her life. The Church made a choice. The twin foetus' over the young girl who was cursed into falling pregnant with them after being sexually abused and raped by her own step-father.

It shows that the Church is completely out of touch with the realities of human life and care fuck all for life in and of itself. To demand that a child be condemned to death because she was pregnant, a death that would have resulted because of that pregnancy, it shows a complete lack of compassion and understanding for the girl or her life. The only thing they care about is that their doctrines are upheld, even if doing so results in the deaths of children.

 

[Tiassa]

This and that

"WE" is exactly how many people, Tiassa.

That's ... helpful.

Would you care to be a bit more specific? Maybe so it's a little more clear what the hell you're talking about?

• • •​

Their priority is their religion.

There is nothing I would object to in that post, although I will add that the reason they only care about upholding their doctrines is that they're selfish. It's all about going to Heaven.

The soapbox sound bite is simply to remind one and all that redemptive monotheists negotiate using the most valuable currency in the Universe—their souls—and thus cannot be bargained or haggled with.

Really, if you sincerely believed that you would spend eternity suffering excruciating misery and pain if you didn't, would you rape and torture someone into confessing witchcraft, and then set them on fire?

(Read Matthew 25, and cast yourself as a Church Inquisitor.)

 

[Nasor]

Here we have the question of the symptom and the disease. Cardinal Re and Archbishop Sobrinho seem to have overlooked the problem. They're upset at the outcome of a situation, but don't seem to give a damn about the cause.

I would propose that the blindingly obvious counterpoint to this is that if you don't want nine year-olds having abortions, get the fuck off of them!

Tiassa, I normally enjoy reading your posts and agree with you, but I'm not really sure what your point is here. They clearly acknowledge that the rape was a bad thing. But since they consider abortion to be murder, they are more upset about the abortion than the rape. Of course the abortion is the result of the rape, but it's generally accepted that you don't get to murder people in order to improve your situation, even if your situation is only unfortunate because someone else wronged you. To use a strained analogy, you don't get to murder someone by draining all his blood for your own use, even if you really need a transfusion because someone else stabbed you.I don't agree with them, but it's all consistent with their world view.

But this travesty also resurrects a deeper question about the anti-abortion zeal: What the hell is God doing blessing the conception of twins in a nine year-old?

Let's even acquit the stepfather for the sake of argument. What possible reason could God have for blessing the conception of twins in a nine year-old?

Why doesn't god use his magic powers to prevent any bad things from happening to children? There isn't anything theologically unique here.

 

[Baron Max]

That's ... helpful.

Would you care to be a bit more specific? Maybe so it's a little more clear what the hell you're talking about?

How many people actually feel that "we" should cut off the hand or cut off the head? ...which is actually the "people" that your OP addresses. So ...how many of them are there?

Or did you just pick one person and afix that label to others? And isn't this thread a very similar thing to how "we" view Muslims since 9/11? And would you agree with viewing all Muslims in that way, Tiassa? ...which is, of course, what you've done with your post, ain't it????

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

Notes Around

Tiassa, I normally enjoy reading your posts and agree with you, but I'm not really sure what your point is here. They clearly acknowledge that the rape was a bad thing. But since they consider abortion to be murder, they are more upset about the abortion than the rape. Of course the abortion is the result of the rape, but it's generally accepted that you don't get to murder people in order to improve your situation, even if your situation is only unfortunate because someone else wronged you. To use a strained analogy, you don't get to murder someone by draining all his blood for your own use, even if you really need a transfusion because someone else stabbed you.I don't agree with them, but it's all consistent with their world view.

But there are thousands of Catholics in prison, and hundreds at least for murder. None of them are being excommunicated.

Of course, this goes back to Matthew 25 (v.34-46) in a literal manner:

"... Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'

"And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'

"Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?'

"Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."​

It is not just Brazilian Catholics, though. One of the great disgraces of my school was their policy toward teen pregnancy. With a police gang-rape investigation going on during my junior year, the policy at my Jesuit school was to expel the victim because a teen pregnancy was bad for their reputation. I watched this happen.

They're taking a very narrow and literal view of the Bible, one that contests other teachings of Jesus, and for the sake of political grandstanding. And it's also a route that allows them to duck a constant black eye: the sexual abuse of children.

The Catholics are apparently upset that the girl's pregnancy qualified for a legal abortion. Rather than leave it to God and minister to a sad, hurt little girl, they're punishing her by excommunicating her. Do you think, Nasor, that if the girl had died and the twins went down with her, they would excommunicate the doctors for failing to prevent three deaths? Would they excommunicate the stepfather for causing the death? Or would they simply say, "Praise Jesus"?

No. There's nothing in it for them. But this? Well, they get to exploit a child for the sake of political grandstanding.

I don't disagree with your theological interpretation. Rather, I would say that's part of the point. They're treating the symptom (pre-teen abortion) instead of the disease (child sexual abuse). And that's their priority. As I noted in my response to Bells, it's all about going to Heaven.

The funny thing is that God knows what is in a man's heart, so, yeah, God knows it's all about going to Heaven. God knows it's all about trying to increase their own chances for salvation. And I think this is part of what Jesus meant when he said that not everyone who worships will enter the kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 7.21). The greed of this Catholic hierarchy is so great that their priority in faith is the self.

Ask any preacher: Is the self the priority of faith? and you will be told No. Some churches teach that other people are the priority of one's faith; others teach ideas like "God first, others next, self last". Even a Catholic priest will tell you something like that. The difference, of course, is the abstract versus the applied.

Why doesn't god use his magic powers to prevent any bad things from happening to children? There isn't anything theologically unique here.

God works in mysterious ways, I guess.

I mean, that's what they say, isn't it? Or did that actually go out of vogue in the last century sometime? (Is God supposed to make sense?)

Still, this oft-asked question arises once again in this case.

• • •​

How many people actually feel that "we" should cut off the hand or cut off the head? ...which is actually the "people" that your OP addresses. So ...how many of them are there?

Max, one of the difficulties of answering your question is that, while you apparently object to something in the topic post, you won't specifically quote it, and you won't tell us how you reached your perspective.

I am unable to answer your question unless I presume what you mean.

Would you like me to do it the long way, then? You know, go back to the topic post, enumerate all occasions of the word "we", and explain the context of each?

Or are you capable of telling me which sentence, paragraph, or idea troubles you so and explaining the problem you're having with it? I mean, that would be easier.

Or did you just pick one person and afix that label to others? And isn't this thread a very similar thing to how "we" view Muslims since 9/11? And would you agree with viewing all Muslims in that way, Tiassa? ...which is, of course, what you've done with your post, ain't it????

Seriously, Max, what the fuck are you on about?

• • •​

A Note to the Gallery and Other Participants

Could somebody please help me out here? I would happily answer Baron Max's question, but I have no idea what he's getting after here. Anyone? Anyone?

I mean, I could speculate, but history suggests Max doesn't like those outcomes.
_____________________

Notes:

Bible: Revised Standard Version. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/

 

[Baron Max]

Max, one of the difficulties of answering your question is that, while you apparently object to something in the topic post, you won't specifically quote it, and you won't tell us how you reached your perspective.

I am unable to answer your question unless I presume what you mean.

Originally Posted by Baron Max

How many people actually feel that "we" should cut off the hand or cut off the head? ...which is actually the "people" that your OP addresses. So ...how many of them are there?

I think that question is perfectly understandable. Look at your OP, read it, then answer that simple question.

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

But there are thousands of Catholics in prison, and hundreds at least for murder. None of them are being excommunicated.

Why should they be excommunicated, Tiassa? Do you know the Catholic rules for excommunication? Again, why should they be excommunicated?

And I hope that question is more to the point, so you won't be tempted to try to confuse everyone by making innane statements.

Baron Max

 

[Asguard]

i have always wondered what the churches position is on ectopic pregancy. They cant be carried to term, they wont be viable even if the womens life was sacrificed to carry the child AND they WILL kill the women in the proccess of there growth. Sadly the body cant seem to deal with them itself so surgical extraction is the only option.

On this story specifically, you see now why i rejected the church tiassa and why i get SO offended when my mother keeps on wanting to refer to me as catholic "by culture" even though i reject everything the church stands for.

 

[Tiassa]

The question remains: What are you blithering about?

I think that question is perfectly understandable. Look at your OP, read it, then answer that simple question.

So a clumsy reformulation of the question at hand is your retort? Is the basis of your disagreement? Here, let's compare two questions:

• Topic Post — How do we decide whether to treat the symptom or the disease?

• Baron Max — How many people actually feel that "we" should cut off the hand or cut off the head?​

You know, Max, I know someone who survived a brain tumor. Doctors did not see any need to amputate her head. I can also say that she is not unusual among brain tumor survivors in this.

So let's try this comparison:

• Topic Post — Modern medicine allows us to better locate the source of offense, so we would probably excise the tumor from the brain if possible, but we wouldn't hack off the hand.

• Baron Max — How many people actually feel that "we" should cut off the hand or cut off the head?​

Again, no amputation of the head.

Hmm ... one more, maybe?

• Topic Post — So far, we're still in the figurative. After all, the unfortunate hand-severing wanker—one Timothy Ringstob, of whom no mention can be found after the above-linked story about cutting off his hand—would have done better to either cut off his penis or perform some sort of lobotomy on himself. In either case, he would have been closer to the offense than in removing the hand.

• Baron Max — How many people actually feel that "we" should cut off the hand or cut off the head?​

What's that? No amputation of the head?

O ... kay ... so what are you on about, Max?

Why should they be excommunicated, Tiassa? Do you know the Catholic rules for excommunication? Again, why should they be excommunicated?

What, my personal opinion? They shouldn't.

Theologically speaking, excommunication is generally arbitrary.

And I hope that question is more to the point, so you won't be tempted to try to confuse everyone by making innane statements.

It's more to a point. I would wonder why you're introducing all these sideshow distractions, except I learned a while ago not to. Obtuse priggishness is your modus operandi, Max, and there's really no point in wondering why you would embarrass yourself like that since your long-demonstrated lack of honesty suggests we'd never get a straight answer.

So how about you either stop changing the subject and offer up some useful explanation of your question as pertains to posts #5, 7, and 11, or else run along and troll someone else?

 

[quadraphonics]

Of course the abortion is the result of the rape, but it's generally accepted that you don't get to murder people in order to improve your situation,

Unless, of course, by "improve your situation" we mean "avert your death at the hands of said people."

Which is exactly what happened here. The 9 year old would have died without the abortion.

To use a strained analogy, you don't get to murder someone by draining all his blood for your own use, even if you really need a transfusion because someone else stabbed you.

No, but you DO get to kill someone else if they are attempting to drain all of your blood for their use. Which is a much better analogy to this situation.

 

[SkinWalker]

Tiassa, I wouldn't bother with Baron. He's making the only argument he's apparently capable of, which is to say engaging in a intellectually dishonest red herring to side track you. It seems to be working.

 

[wynn]

There is nothing I would object to in that post, although I will add that the reason they only care about upholding their doctrines is that they're selfish. It's all about going to Heaven.

Do YOU believe they are going to go to Heaven for their actions?
Do YOU believe Heaven exists?

 

[Bells]

Tiassa, I normally enjoy reading your posts and agree with you, but I'm not really sure what your point is here. They clearly acknowledge that the rape was a bad thing.

Yes.

But since they consider abortion to be murder, they are more upset about the abortion than the rape.

Again, yes.

Of course the abortion is the result of the rape, but it's generally accepted that you don't get to murder people in order to improve your situation, even if your situation is only unfortunate because someone else wronged you.

One would have thought that they would have realised that the 9 year old girl was virtually sentenced to death if the pregnancy had been allowed to continue. So the life of the unborn twins are somehow more important than hers? She ceases to matter because she was pregnant? Her life is not worth saving? The Bible gives no one the right to defend one's self and try to save one's own life? It's alright to allow her to die, it is more acceptable to sentence her to death (eg. to virtually murder her)?

To use a strained analogy, you don't get to murder someone by draining all his blood for your own use, even if you really need a transfusion because someone else stabbed you.I don't agree with them, but it's all consistent with their world view.

Isn't it as much as a sin to allow the 9 year old girl to die, when she could be saved?

What is grating about this is that the man who placed the poor child in this position will apparently go to heaven if he simply asks for forgiveness. He will be able to get his holy communion, if he asks for forgiveness. The child he raped and sexually abused and got pregnant will get absolutely no support from a church who should be doing its utmost to protect and help her. Instead, it is made her, her mother and the doctors who saved her life the 'evil' people in this whole tragedy. Tiassa is correct. The Church is selfish. A true Catholic would care for the girl and want to see her recover from what would have been a nightmarish ordeal, not condemn her to death because she was pregnant.

It shows that the Church is so far out of step with real life that they place themselves before doing what is right by their members.

Why doesn't god use his magic powers to prevent any bad things from happening to children? There isn't anything theologically unique here.

One would think so. But in a way, I guess the priests and the Church would view themselves as being the men given the power and the right to save and protect their congregation. If you're pregnant of course, then any right you have to life is thrown out the window and only your foetus counts.