Cardinal Francis George & FOCA: The Question of Automatic Excommunication Would Need to Be Discussed
- Status
T
Teelynn
Guest
All this beating around the bush. Seems like he is always talking out of both sides of his mouth. FOCA is not the bill to play devil’s advocate with, for goodness sake! This is precisely the attitude that gives some Catholics an escape route to do anything THEY DEEM justifiable.
Ugh!! Very frustrating!
Ugh!! Very frustrating!
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Yes, while it’s blatantly obvious that the text of the bill has to be considered before deciding whether it is intrinsically evil, its quite clear that a bill whose primary purpose is to give freedom to perform is going to be intrinsically evil, regardless of how its worded. I agree, this is beating around the bush.All this beating around the bush. Seems like he is always talking out of both sides of his mouth. FOCA is not the bill to play devil’s advocate with, for goodness sake! This is precisely the attitude that gives some Catholics an escape route to do anything THEY DEEM justifiable.
T
Teelynn
Guest
I agree, I would think that the final bill would have to be changed almost 100% to be in essense an entirely new bill.
J
JimG
Guest
In my own opinion, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with stating clearly that voting for the bill in its present form would constitute cooperation with an intrinsic evil. And that Catholics must not cooperate with intrinsic evil.
Why wait? The bishops need to start setting the boundaries immediately.
Why wait? The bishops need to start setting the boundaries immediately.
E
elts1956
Guest
I, for one, am sick of mealy mouthed Bishops, of clergy who will not stand behind what they know to be the truth. Our Church in the U.S. is at a dividing point and I don’t know what we can do about it.
A
a_cermak
Guest
The thing with automatic excommunication is that after an act of penance, you can come right back in. So what would stop a Rep from voting for FOCA (which I don’t think will be brought to the floor any time soon, so this is more of an academic exercise than anything) one day in order to save his seat (you know a good chunk of the electorate IS pro-choice), and then a week or so later, having a change of heart at having lost their church membership, and presenting themselves for penance? There’s nothing they can do to undo their vote, so what kind of penance will they do? Say a prayer or two and voila they’re back in membership? How exactly does that not make a mockery out of the Bishops?
On the other hand, they could just leave the Church as I don’t know how many take their faith all that seriously anyway. They can always come back when their career in DC is over anyway and they no longer have a conflict.
On the other hand, they could just leave the Church as I don’t know how many take their faith all that seriously anyway. They can always come back when their career in DC is over anyway and they no longer have a conflict.
M
Muzhik
Guest
On the other hand, penance for something like this doesn’t have to the the typical 5 Hail Marys and 10 Glory Be’s. The penance for something like this can be (and would have to be, if it is to mean anything) long and severe. Something like spending an hour each day in front of the Blessed Sacrament for two years before the Bishop considers the Congressman’s petition. If he misses for one day, the penance starts over. If it means that he can’t go on any overseas “fact-finding missions” or has to be really careful scheduling his re-election campaign, so be it. This is his or her immortal soul we’re talking about.
<><
J
JReducation
Guest
The Bishops have to wait, because there is a difference between formal cooperation and material cooperation. You do not excommunicate for material cooperation. If the Bill were worded in such a way where the voter is materially cooperating with abortion, excommunication would be inappropriate and would be recinded by the Holy See. Pope Benedict XVI does not allow excommunication for material cooperation in evil.
For example, you are not excommunicated because you voted for a pro-abortion president, if you were not voting for abortion. Let’s say that you voted to improve the economy. The pro-abortion person was your candidate, but not for his stance on abortion. Therefore, you are materially cooperating with abortion, because you put him in office, but not formally, because you are not supporting his position on abortion.
The same applies to the bill. **This is just an example, not real. ** If the bill says that every citizen has the right to an abortion, because abortion is a good thing. The congressman or senator is formally cooperating. If the Bill says that the State does not have the right to limit Medicaid benefits to the exclusion of abortion, because such benefits are part of paliative care, that is material cooperation. The bill is protecting the Medicaid benefit and what it defines as paliative care. Both are wrong, but the degree of culpability is philosophically different.
These principals are principals of philosophy that Pope Benedict XVI set in place when he was the Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of the Faith. They were set in place to protect the laity who attended mass and sacraments at the SSPX from being excommunicated. They were also used in other circumstances where there was the posibility of diminished or zero culpability, even when an action was wrong.
It is obvious that Pope Benedict is not going to back off on this position, because it is based on reason. We all know how strongly he feels about reason and faith working hand in hand. The Church cannot excommunicate one group for material cooperation and not another. That would be unreasonable.
The wording of what they are voting for is very important. Otherwise the Bishops could end up with pie on their face from the Vatican. They have to make sure that if they excommunicate that it will stick in Rome.
This is especially true given the presedence set by the admition of Tony Blair to the Catholic Church without requiring him to recant his position on abortion or same-sex marriage, based on the hypothesis that he was not Catholic at the time that he held those positions and the Catholic moral law did not bind him.
For the good of souls and consistency with moral theology, the bishops have to wait and see the final draft of this document. Even then, they will probably consult Cardinal Levada, who succeeded Cardinal Ratzinger.
I believe they are trying to tread gently to be more sure-footed. This is just my opinion. I could be wrong. So don’t take it to the bank.
Fraternally,
JR
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Correct me if I am wrong here. But is it not another sin if you do something that is a known “intrinsic evil” with the intention of just saying “sorry” after you do it?
When someone does this it is like that automatic “sorry” you get from a child that you know is just going to do it again. The parent knows the child is not truly “sorry”. I believe God knows the difference also.
When someone does this it is like that automatic “sorry” you get from a child that you know is just going to do it again. The parent knows the child is not truly “sorry”. I believe God knows the difference also.
J
JReducation
Guest
A
a_cermak
Guest
That’s why I worded my post as I did. That the congresscritter started to miss his Church and so did repent. Or maybe after his retirement,l he started missing his Church and repented.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
It would be imprudent for the Bishops to make any statement on the FOCA bill now, for it may not even make it to a house vote.
As Cardinal George states, the final wording of the bill has to be looked at first.
My understanding is that this bill hasn’t even gone into committee yet. What I read so far, the bill is vague and should be thrown out.
The good thing is, one of the framers, Hillary Clinton, is not going to be in the senate, to help if through there. Hopefully, she’ll be in Afghanistan somewhere if it does make it that far.
Jim
As Cardinal George states, the final wording of the bill has to be looked at first.
My understanding is that this bill hasn’t even gone into committee yet. What I read so far, the bill is vague and should be thrown out.
The good thing is, one of the framers, Hillary Clinton, is not going to be in the senate, to help if through there. Hopefully, she’ll be in Afghanistan somewhere if it does make it that far.
Jim
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Barbara Boxer will be there to push it.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Well, that may be a good thing, for I don’t think Barbara Boxer, has the clout that Hillary had, in the Senate.
Jim
J
JaMc
Guest
This is the same bishop who, when a priest under him (a) endorses a rabidly pro-abortion politician, (b) from the pulpit of a protestant church, which (c) openly and admittedly promotes liberation theology, and who (d) has openly defied him on a number of prior occasions, only issues a two-week suspension, and a statement to the effect of “Now, now, we shouldn’t be engaging political endorsements.”
While I agree it is necessary to study the exact language of FOCA prior to issuing a thorough and scholarly criticism of it, the very concept should be vehemently and unequivocally condemned in no uncertain terms. Tippy-toeing around the abortion issue is what has allowed the pro-aborts to cite and quote USCCB documents to justify their position every election cycle.
While I agree it is necessary to study the exact language of FOCA prior to issuing a thorough and scholarly criticism of it, the very concept should be vehemently and unequivocally condemned in no uncertain terms. Tippy-toeing around the abortion issue is what has allowed the pro-aborts to cite and quote USCCB documents to justify their position every election cycle.
J
JReducation
Guest
I agree with your second paragraph. Your first paragraph crosses into the internal matters of a diocese, matters between a bishop and his clergy. I’m uncomfortable with the laity crossing into those areas unless we’re talking about something that is illegal or in conflict with Church doctrine.
There are lines that we have to be careful to observe. This is just an opinion of mine.
JR
C
childofmary1143
Guest
I am thinking that JaMc is referring to Michael Pfleger. Assuming that to be correct then I have no problem with the laity being very critical of his Bishop. You mentioned that you are uncomfortable discussing it unless its something illegal or in conflict with Church doctrine.I agree with your second paragraph. Your first paragraph crosses into the internal matters of a diocese, matters between a bishop and his clergy. I’m uncomfortable with the laity crossing into those areas unless we’re talking about something that is illegal or in conflict with Church doctrine.
There are lines that we have to be careful to observe. This is just an opinion of mine.
JR
Is it not against the teachings of our faith to slander someone with no cause whatsoever. I cite his rant about Senator Clinton and portraying her as a racist that was televised during the Election campaign. Say what you want about her, but I sincerely doubt that she is a racist towards Blacks.
Is it not scandalous that he would have Louis Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson speak from the pulpit in his parish?
Is it not scandalous that little over a year ago, he said to a legitimate gun shop owner, “We’re going to get you and snuff you out” and then the next day say, “Ohhh, I didn’t know what snuff you out meant”?
I am extremely disappointed in the leadership of Cardinal George in this matter.
T
Teelynn
Guest
I agree with you 100%. Whatever his reasoning, he certainly has NEVER taken the bull by the horns in matters that are crucial to Church doctrine.
Not long ago I had a “discussion” with a fellow parishioner in regards to the 2008 election. She said that “Catholic” politicians have to make certain “choices” in their career whether or not they agree with them. (the abortion issue) My response: “They made the wrong choice”. The “grey” area in The Church has to start disappearing before we loose the whole church.
- Status