Bishops’ Conference Responds To 18 Democrats Critical Of Pope

[Tedster]

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

Please clarify. Are you saying that these politicians would be excommunicated unjustly? Or are you just throwing out a hypothetical not relevent to these politicians case?

 

[tee_eff_em]

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

So as long as a penalty can be lifted, it is just to impose it, even though it may be harsher than prescribed by law?

Would you think it just for the civil law to impose life in prison, with the possibility of parole, for a parking violation, even though the statutes do not call for this penalty?

tee

 

[Lance]

Let's remember that we're discussing legislative support for mass murder. As Pope John Paul II teaches in section 58 of the 1995 encyclical *Evangelium vitae*, abortion is ***murder***.

JP II had how many years to do something about the politicians who support abortion and did nothing? He was a great man/pope in many ways but this alone IMO is enough to keep him from being officially granted “The Great” title. Lets give BXVI a little more time, say 3 years, and see what if anything he does.

 

[Walt_Oliver]

WARNING

Several posts in this thread are attacking another poster and calling his faith into question rather than discussing the topic posed in the original post. This is a violation of forum rules and, if it continues, will be dealt with appropriately. Thanks for your cooperation.

 

[tee_eff_em]

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.

Once again, Steve O’Brien, you have failed to show reason to question this matter.

tee_eff_em continues to assert he has written nothing here to cause anyone to question his belief. tee_eff_em further asserts that his personal belief is not germane to the topic of the thread, viz. whether the USCCB has worsened the non-excommunication scandal (or, tee_eff_em continues to ask, is there a scandal at all?).

PS:

tee_eff_em, who opposes the excommunication of politicians who support legalized abortion

When? Where? What did he say?

“I am not a witch”,
tee

 

[childofmary1143]

JP II had how many years to do something about the politicians who support abortion and did nothing?

Nobody can make anyone do anything. Its called FREE WILL.

He was a great man/pope in many ways but this alone IMO is enough to keep him from being officially granted “The Great” title. Lets give BXVI a little more time, say 3 years, and see what if anything he does.

Pope John Paul 2 was NEVER shy about speaking of the horror of abortion.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Isn’t an individual just a really small group?

I would not ordinarily say so.

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.

And I when reiterated “groups”, I meant that that is what was done. Were there no pro-abortion Catholic politicians in the diocese? (Perhaps not, I honestly do not know, so this next is contingent) If there were, do you think Bishop Bruskewitz could not have named them? Yet he did not do so.

tee

 

[tee_eff_em]

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.

Yes.

I do not think anyone here can deny that the bishops are adhering to Canon 1318.

tee

 

[tee_eff_em]

Please clarify. Are you saying that these politicians would be excommunicated unjustly? Or are you just throwing out a hypothetical not relevent to these politicians case?

Can you show the law which clearly indicates that excommunication is the just recourse in this case? The vast majority of canon lawyers and bishops would appear think there is not one.

tee

 

[Lance]

JP II had how many years to do something about the politicians who support abortion and did nothing? He was a great man/pope in many ways but this alone IMO is enough to keep him from being officially granted “The Great” title. Lets give BXVI a little more time, say 3 years, and see what if anything he does.

Nobody can make anyone do anything. Its called FREE WILL.

Pope John Paul 2 was NEVER shy about speaking of the horror of abortion.

I was speaking his willingness to excommunicate them.

Neither has BXVI been shy about speaking of them. However speaking about them and actually doing something about them are very different things. If every Catholic who believes abortion is evil would spend 2 hours a month on a picket line in front of an abortion clinic we would see an end to this abomination.

 

[childofmary1143]

I was speaking his willingness to excommunicate them.

Neither has BXVI been shy about speaking of them. However speaking about them and actually doing something about them are very different things. If every Catholic who believes abortion is evil would spend 2 hours a month on a picket line in front of an abortion clinic we would see an end to this abomination.

I would agree with you but I would add this too. If every Catholic who TRULY BELIEVES abortion is evil and were to just raise their voice to our elected officials then abortion would cease to exist. I don’t know how many Americans are Catholic but if every one of them spoke out against the evil of abortion then the Pro-Choice movement would be DEAD. Same for Canada. Same for every country.

 

[Spirithound]

So as long as a penalty can be lifted, it is just to impose it, even though it may be harsher than prescribed by law?

Would you think it just for the civil law to impose life in prison, with the possibility of parole, for a parking violation, even though the statutes do not call for this penalty?

I have just read all the Canon law sections pointed to from this thread, and the section that I think is most relevant to the topic at hand is Canon 1369:

“A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.”

So is our debate perhaps about what is the just penalty? I know that you attached the caveat to your “parking ticket analogy” that you are not equating a parking ticket with support for abortion, but really, that’s exactly what it looks like. I believe that Canon 1369 does empower a bishop to impose an excommunication on a pro-abortion politician, (after the appropriate judicial and fraternal steps have been taken). I see supporting abortion to be a very grave matter, and so the gap in justice (if there is one) of imposing an excommunication for legislatively supporting abortion is radically smaller than the gap in justice of imposing the death penalty or life imprisonment for a parking ticket.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I have just read all the Canon law sections pointed to from this thread, and the section that I think is most relevant to the topic at hand is Canon 1369:

“A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.”

So is our debate perhaps about what is the just penalty? I know that you attached the caveat to your “parking ticket analogy” that you are not equating a parking ticket with support for abortion, but really, that’s exactly what it looks like. I believe that Canon 1369 does empower a bishop to impose an excommunication on a pro-abortion politician, (after the appropriate judicial and fraternal steps have been taken). I see supporting abortion to be a very grave matter, and so the gap in justice (if there is one) of imposing an excommunication for legislatively supporting abortion is radically smaller than the gap in justice of imposing the death penalty or life imprisonment for a parking ticket.

Canon 1369 is certainly relevant to the urgent need to excommunicate politicians who endorse legalized abortion.

Every time such politicians express this position in a televised interview or debate, they are providing justification for their excommunication under canon 1369. If defense of the legalized murder of unborn children does not “gravely injure good morals,” then words have no meaning, and this canon of the laws of the Catholic Church is pointless.

In this discussion, we should keep in mind, not only the penalties prescribed by canon law, but also the penalties of the next world. In this connection, we should ponder the following words of Pope Pius XI in section 67 of the 1930 encyclical Casti connubii:

"Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother’s womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cries from earth to Heaven."

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I do not think anyone here can deny that the bishops are adhering to Canon 1318.

The bishops are not adhering to canon 1318, which states as follows:

"A legislator is not to threaten latae sententiae penalties except possibly for certain singularly malicious delicts which either can result in graver scandal or cannot be punished effectively by ferendae sententiae penalties; he is not, however, to establish censures, especially excommunication, except with the greatest moderation and only for graver delicts."

Again, a latae sententiae excommunication is automatic and does not involve publication of the name of the person being excommunicated, whereas a ferendae sententiae excommunication is inflicted on the excommunicated person publicly and by name.

If a legislator’s support for legalized abortion is not a “singularly malicious delict,” a source of “graver scandal,” and a “graver delict,” then the Catholic Church is in error when she teaches that abortion is murder (Pope John Paul II, encyclical Evangelium vitae, section 58) and that all governments must criminalize it (CCC 2273).

The Catholic Church’s official teachings on abortion are not erroneous.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[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.

I don’t think anyone is saying legislators are not or should not be subject to Church discipline. (I’m sure I have not)

The difference is: The law imposes an explicit penalty for persons who procure abortion. The penalty for supporting abortion legislation is neither explicit nor automatic.

tee

 

[tee_eff_em]

I have just read all the Canon law sections pointed to from this thread, and the section that I think is most relevant to the topic at hand is Canon 1369:

“A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.”

I’m not sure I agree that 1369 is applicable. But as I frequently say: I Am Not A Canon Lawyer.

So is our debate perhaps about what is the just penalty? …] I believe that Canon 1369 does empower a bishop to impose an excommunication on a pro-abortion politician, (after the appropriate judicial and fraternal steps have been taken). I see supporting abortion to be a very grave matter, and so the gap in justice (if there is one) of imposing an excommunication for legislatively supporting abortion is radically smaller than the gap in justice of imposing the death penalty or life imprisonment for a parking ticket.

I’m sure you don’t mean to imply that injustice is okay, as long as it’s only a little bit.

You and others are, of course, entitled to the opinion that excommunication is just in this circumstance. But no one participating in this thread is, to my knowledge (and least of all myself), a competent legislator. Trained and licensed canonists and the bishops, the successors of the holy Apostles, are evidently less thirsty for excommunications than some here, and I am inclined to agree with them.

tee

 

[tee_eff_em]

The bishops are not adhering to canon 1318, which states as follows:

"A legislator is not to threaten latae sententiae penalties except possibly for certain singularly malicious delicts which either can result in graver scandal or cannot be punished effectively by ferendae sententiae penalties; he is not, however, to establish censures, especially excommunication, except with the greatest moderation and only for graver delicts."

If a legislator’s support for legalized abortion is not a “singularly malicious delict,” a source of “graver scandal,” and a “graver delict,” then the Catholic Church is in error when she teaches that abortion is murder (Pope John Paul II, encyclical Evangelium vitae, section 58) and that all governments must criminalize it (CCC 2273).

Canon law does not prescribe excommunication for murder in every case either. There is no reason to suppose the Church could be in error. (Nor is “penalty” necessarily synonymous with “excommunication”)

I remain of the opinion that the bishops are adhering to the *greatest moderation *called for by Canon 1318.

tee

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Canon law does not prescribe excommunication for murder in every case either. There is no reason to suppose the Church could be in error. (Nor is “penalty” necessarily synonymous with “excommunication”)

I remain of the opinion that the bishops are adhering to the *greatest moderation *called for by Canon 1318.

tee

A single act of murder in violation of the criminal law of a nation is terrible enough, but to vote as a legislator in support of changing a country’s criminal laws so that millions of unborn children may be legally murdered is much more terrible. It’s an abomination that should be punished with excommunication.

Since the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade abortion decision on January 22, 1973, more than 48 million unborn children have been surgically murdered.

Let’s suppose that a Catholic politician were to defend lynching. Even though canon law does not mention lynching, would it be wrong for this legislator’s bishop to excommunicate him or her under canon 1369 for the scandal of “gravely injuring good morals”? Absolutely not.

Let’s recall the teaching of canon 1752: the supreme law of the Catholic Church is the salvation of souls.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[tee_eff_em]

A single act of murder in violation of the criminal law of a nation is terrible enough, but to vote as a legislator in support of changing a country’s criminal laws so that millions of unborn children may be legally murdered is much more terrible. It’s an abomination that should be punished with excommunication.

And again I say: You are entitled to that opinion. But it is an opinion manifestly not shared by the competent legislators, trained and licensed canonists and bishops.

tee

 

[Ender]

Steve O'Brien:

… to vote as a legislator in support of changing a country’s criminal laws so that millions of unborn children may be legally murdered is much more terrible. It’s an abomination that should be punished with excommunication.

tee_eff_em:

And again I say: You are entitled to that opinion. But it is an opinion manifestly not shared by the competent legislators, trained and licensed canonists and bishops.

I think both comments are (unfortunately) true.

The Catechism could hardly be clearer: “2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.” Supporting legislation that permits abortion seems unarguably to be formal cooperation. I assume this is Steve’s point.

Tee’s point is more painful but is also valid: the bishops don’t appear to be willing to connect the dots and come to the same conclusion. Regrettably I think this says more about the bishops willingness to perform a painful task than about the logic involved in pointing out the task to be performed. On the up side, BXVI seems to have no difficulty getting from point A to point B.

Ender