Brazilian Roman Catholic Archbishop Protects Pedophile But Banishes 9 Year Old to Hell

Where in the Roman Catholic church is there any reason? Nowhere that I can see, especially in Brazil. In their efforts to, once again, protect those who have a sexual predilection for children, the Church shows us exactly where its interests lie. Read this story and weep. Notice the step-father, who has raped this girl since she was six years old, has not been excommunicated. Killing potential Roman Catholics is a far more serious sin than child rape after all. I mean really, a man has needs and religion is designed to protect those needs at all costs.

To say I’m infuriated is a gross understatement.

More here. Notice the word “alleged” in this story. Excuse me, but how else does a 9 year old get pregnant? Are they saying it was planned? Are they saying she wanted it? Is that what they are saying? Even at nine, girls are expected to protect themselves and “just say no?” The world is seriously fucked if that’s the case.

Good commentary here. And here.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Brazilian Roman Catholic Archbishop Protects Pedophile But Banishes 9 Year Old to Hell

  1. The excommunication of the mother and doctors was not directly imposed by the Archbishop. The censure of excommunication was canonical and imposed automatically with the commission of the crime of abortion. What the Ordinary did was to announce the censure given the public nature of the case. The censure is routinely lifted by clergy with appropriate faculties in the sacrament of penance when they render absolution.

    I thought the step-father acknowledged the assault. If this is the case, and he is guilty, although he is certainly a sick person, he committed what is the matter of mortal sin. In other words, he committed an act by which he damned himself. Even without an ecclesiastical censure, the step-father is in pretty big trouble. Would he not also face criminal charges and imprisonment?

    It is a terrible business. I hope efforts are made to protect this child from further harm.

  2. Thanks for the clarification Father Joe. I still believe that the excommunication of the step father and anyone else engaging in acts of child rape should also be as self imposed and automatic as the “sin” of abortion appears to be. I see no difference in the gravity of either “sin” and the culpable person here is not the child by any stretch of the imagination, but the adult who caused it. If there is any justice in it, that is. Thanks for the comment.

  3. I just hope that SOMETHING has been explained to this poor kid.

    Her stepfather decides to rape her and, 3 years later, her mother and doctors decide that some medical procedure has to happen to her, and this is obviously a big deal with the news people. What about her pain? What about her wish to simply be allowed to be a 9 year old?

    She may, of course, have recieved expert counselling, and been protected from public scrutiny; am I wrong to doubt this? Whatever her mental state, this gruesome tale introduces us to the prospect of people growing up with a conviction that stuff just happens to them; nothing is truly theirs. There are strong characters who can rise above this, but my heart goes out to her and those like her whom life is grooming for victimhood.

    Reg

  4. Thank you Reg, for actually thinking of the girl first in all this. Obviously, others are not. We quickly forget about the victims and turn them into symbols for larger points we wish to make. It’s not about an institution and its unbending, merciless rules, but the damage done to a 9 year old child.

Comments are closed.