Bishops’ Conference Responds To 18 Democrats Critical Of Pope

[Spirithound]

How would you like to be excommunicated without warning?

I would hate it. I would hate it so much as to be motivated to repent.
Excommunication is not the same as execution. It can be undone, and moreover, it is supposed to be a salutary discipline. If someone does something like authorize the murder of millions of babies, then they should be given a time-out from the Eucharist.

 

[Spirithound]

From what reading I have done, the Church learned a long time ago that excommunication is simply not productive of positive results. The Church has a long memory. This is the reason BXVI and others in the hierarchy are not going to excommunicate American politicians over the abortion issue.

What do you mean by “not productive”? Do you mean that it does not spur people to repentance? In legal theory, there are 4 reasons to punish criminals: rehabilitation, retribution, segregation, and restitution. Clearly, rehabilitation is the main intention of excommunication, however it seems to me that segregation must be a secondary purpose. Every time a pro-abortion politician receives Holy Communion, they are desecrating the Body of Christ. Not to mention receiving tacit approval from the priests and bishops who are not disciplining them.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I would hate it. I would hate it so much as to be motivated to repent.

Fair enough. How would you like to be excommunicated unjustly?

tee

 

[Spirithound]

Excommunication is a legal matter. It is not a disciplinary stick which may be wielded at will.

If excommunication is a legal matter, then it must be a discipline, or, to use the lingo at hand, a disciplinary stick.

 

[Spirithound]

Fair enough. How would you like to be excommunicated unjustly?

I would not appreciate that at all.
May I take this post to mean that you are not in favour of excommunicating pro-abortion politicians? Or possibly that it would be unlawful to excommunicate said politicians?
Remember that Bishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska excommunicated 12 groups of people for holding dissident views, prominent among them, pro-abortioners, and the excommunications of Call to Action were upheld (as far as I can tell, the others went uncontested).

 

[tee_eff_em]

If excommunication is a legal matter, then it must be a discipline, or, to use the lingo at hand, a disciplinary stick.

But not one wielded at will. Its use is regulated by law.

tee

 

[tee_eff_em]

I would not appreciate that at all.
May I take this post to mean that you are not in favour of excommunicating pro-abortion politicians? Or possibly that it would be unlawful to excommunicate said politicians?

I am in favor, even though I am not a canon lawyer, of canon law being applied correctly and justly.

Remember that Bishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska excommunicated 12 groups of people for holding dissident views, prominent among them, pro-abortioners, and the excommunications of Call to Action were upheld (as far as I can tell, the others went uncontested).

I do remember. And you are correct to emphasize that Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicated those who were members of certain groups, not pro-abortionists-in-general.

tee

 

[MelanieAnne]

With all due respect to all the posters on this subject, the politicians in question never made it universally possible to have a legal abortion, the Supreme Court, legislating from the bench, did that. The PEOPLE, through their elected representatives, have never had a voice on this issue, which is why this country has been in what basically amounts to a civil war on this subject for decades.

The politicians getting all this scrutiny SUPPORT the Supreme Court’s decision and want to be sure that no future group of Supreme Court judges overturns the decision, but those politicians did not make the law that made it possible for the holocaust of abortion that has been going on for decades.

Having said that, I do agree that anyone, whether in public life or not, that publicly supports practices at variance with Canon Law, particularly on such a grave matter, should be subject to church discipline. And I find it frustrating that public figures often seem to be getting a free pass. Offenders should all be disciplined the same, regardless of their status. Public figures should be treated no better than the average person.

Will these public figures be disciplined as they should be? Maybe not. At least not now. But when they present themselves for the Holy Eucharist unworthily, they are creating bigger problems for themselves down the line. God has an eternal perspective. I take courage from that.

Melanie

Yes, I’m 100% pro-choice and I 100% support your decision NOT to have sex unless you are ready to raise the child that may result. That’s the right time to make the choice!

 

[tee_eff_em]

Having said that, I do agree that anyone, whether in public life or not, that publicly supports practices at variance with Canon Law, particularly on such a grave matter, should be subject to church discipline. And I find it frustrating that public figures often seem to be getting a free pass. Offenders should all be disciplined the same, regardless of their status. Public figures should be treated no better than the average person.

Are non-public-figure average-person supporters of abortion being disciplined, while the public-figure variety supporters are not?

It seems to me the two groups are being treated the same.

tee

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Fair enough. How would you like to be excommunicated unjustly?

tee

It would be the epitome of justice to excommunicate legislators who support legalized abortion. In fact, the refusal to excommunicate those officials is one of the worst scandals in the entire history of the Catholic Church.

I have a question for tee_eff_em: do you accept the teaching of the Catholic Church that abortion is an abominable crime (*CCC *2271)–the crime of murder (section 58 of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium vitae)?

Do you also accept the Catholic teaching that the state must use its judicial system to protect the right of unborn children to life (CCC 2273)?

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[mary_bobo]

How would you like to be excommunicated without warning?

tee

With all due respect, if they read a paper, or watch TV they cannot help but be warned. If the Catholic politicians are catechized at all, they know it is wrong.

 

[tee_eff_em]

It would be the epitome of justice to excommunicate legislators who support legalized abortion.

The canon lawyers and the bishops of the Church would disagree with you. Canon law does not clearly prescribe excommunication for legislators who support legalized abortion. That being the case, it would be no more just to impose excommunication on them than it would be in civil law to impose the death penalty for a parking violation.*

I have a question for tee_eff_em: do you accept the teaching of the Catholic Church that abortion is an abominable crime (*CCC *2271)–the crime of murder (section 58 of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium vitae)?

Do you also accept the Catholic teaching that the state must use its judicial system to protect the right of unborn children to life (CCC 2273)?

What have I written here to call for such forward questions?

Advocacy for justice is not incompatible with advocacy for the unborn – Quite the opposite, in my opinion. :twocents:

(* NB: I am not equating the gravity of support for abortion with that of parking violations. I am advocating the justice, under the respective laws, of the penalty if any to be imposed on each)

tee

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

The canon lawyers and the bishops of the Church would disagree with you. Canon law does not clearly prescribe excommunication for legislators who support legalized abortion. That being the case, it would be no more just to impose excommunication on them than it would be in civil law to impose the death penalty for a parking violation.*

What have I written here to call for such forward questions?

Advocacy for justice is not incompatible with advocacy for the unborn – Quite the opposite, in my opinion. :twocents:

(* NB: I am not equating the gravity of support for abortion with that of parking violations. I am advocating the justice, under the respective laws, of the penalty if any to be imposed on each)

tee

It is hardly “forward” for a Catholic to ask another Catholic whether he or she believes in the teachings of the Catholic Church–especially during a discussion of faith or morals.

No Catholic should hesitate for one second to give affirmative answers if questioned regarding his or her acceptance of the following teachings of the Catholic Church:

1. Abortion is an unspeakable crime (Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 51; CCC 2271).
2. Abortion is murder (Pope John Paul II, encyclical Evangelium vitae, section 58).
3. The state must criminalize abortion (CCC 2273).

Catholic brothers and sisters, please note that tee_eff_em has not responded to the above questions.

Tee_eff_em, I respectfully and fraternally pose the above questions to you again in the hope that you will be kind enough to reply to them.

Thank you very much in advance for replying.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Are non-public-figure average-person supporters of abortion being disciplined, while the public-figure variety supporters are not?

It seems to me the two groups are being treated the same.

tee

The difference is that politicians that support abortion, which is a political position virtually indistinguishable from refusing to criminalize it, are in a position to change the law, the average person is not.

Persons that perform abortions and persons that receive abortions are subject to church discipline. The politicians are facilitating abortions by their negligent refusal to criminalize it. They are thus complicit and should b subject to the same discipline.

 

[tee_eff_em]

It is hardly “forward” for a Catholic to ask another Catholic whether he or she believes in the teachings of the Catholic Church–especially during a discussion of faith or morals.

No Catholic should hesitate for one second to give affirmative answers if questioned regarding his or her acceptance of the following teachings of the Catholic Church:

1. Abortion is an unspeakable crime (Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 51; CCC 2271).
2. Abortion is murder (Pope John Paul II, encyclical Evangelium vitae, section 58).
3. The state must criminalize abortion (CCC 2273).

Catholic brothers and sisters, please note that tee_eff_em has not responded to the above questions.

Tee_eff_em, I respectfully and fraternally pose the above questions to you again in the hope that you will be kind enough to reply to them.

Thank you very much in advance for replying.

Keep and spread the Faith.

tee_eff_em is of the opinion that anyone who claims the Catholic faith should be taken at his word, unless or until he indicates otherwise.

tee_eff_em further asserts that he has written nothing here to call his beliefs in this regard into question, which is why he feels insulted. If Steve O’Brien disagrees, he may quote tee_eff_em’s words back to him.

Respectfully,
tee

 

[tee_eff_em]

The difference is that politicians that support abortion, which is a political position virtually indistinguishable from refusing to criminalize it, are in a position to change the law, the average person is not.

Persons that perform abortions and persons that receive abortions are subject to church discipline. The politicians are facilitating abortions by their negligent refusal to criminalize it. They are thus complicit and should b subject to the same discipline.

And which canon prescribes the same discipline for “neglecting to criminalize abortion” as for “performing or receiving an abortion”?

tee

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

tee_eff_em is of the opinion that anyone who claims the Catholic faith should be taken at his word, unless or until he indicates otherwise.

tee_eff_em further asserts that he has written nothing here to call his beliefs in this regard into question, which is why he feels insulted. If Steve O’Brien disagrees, he may quote tee_eff_em’s words back to him.

Respectfully,
tee

Catholic brothers and sisters, please note once again that tee_eff_em, who opposes the excommunication of politicians who support legalized abortion, refuses to tell us whether or not he agrees with the the Catholic Church’s condemnation of abortion as an unspeakable crime and the sin of murder–a sin which, according to the Church’s teaching, the state is morally obliged to criminalize.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Spirithound]

I am in favor, even though I am not a canon lawyer, of canon law being applied correctly and justly.

I do remember. And you are correct to emphasize that Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicated those who were members of certain groups, not pro-abortionists-in-general.

Isn’t an individual just a really small group?
When I emphasized “group”, I was intending to emphasize the sheer number of people who were affected by the decree.
I recognize that excommunicating “pro-abortionists-in-general” would not have the same impact as a few named, high-profile people. When the next election time rolls around, perhaps some campaign speeches can be used as evidence…

 

[Spirithound]

That being the case, it would be no more just to impose excommunication on them than it would be in civil law to impose the death penalty for a parking violation.

I believe I’ve already addressed this exact issue when I said excommunication is nothing like execution. Excommunication can be undone.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

And which canon prescribes the same discipline for “neglecting to criminalize abortion” as for “performing or receiving an abortion”?

tee

Please see the canons cited in post #7 on this thread.

These canons can be studied on the Vatican Web site by any Catholic who has access to a PC.

Keep and spread the Faith.