Excommunication of politicians backing Planned Parenthood ok under Church law: Vatican consultant

[ANNE_2]

Abortion is a crime against humanity - both the natural and moral laws.
It deprives the most innocent and most helpless of their God given right to life.
It is murder for convenience.
It violates God’s 5th Commandment - Thou shall not kill.

Excommunication is the way of ‘teaching’ obstinate sinners, heretics and schismatics the seriousness of their actions.
According to the CCC -
Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it
Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.
Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

An excellent case could be made to excommunicate Catholic politicians who participate in abortions by voting to fund organizations that perform these crimes against humanity.

Also according to the CCC -
Every word or attitude is forbidden which by … complaisance encourages and confirms another in malicious acts and perverse conduct…

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

So that would somehow differ from now, when the Church is openly vilified, calumniated and lampooned day in and day out, everywhere? I would think that standing on our principles would at least elicit “grudging respect”, which is a heck of a lot better than we’re doing right now.

While things are definitely bad now, they can most definitely be a lot worse. The Church in America is nowhere near the rejection levels its at in parts of Europe. Not to mention that in the US most state governments and the federal government by and large work with us rather than against us. That could all change very quickly.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Unless I am having a senior moment, I remember from my studies that supporting abortion automatically means that such person is excommunicated. Thus, he/she is not just a bad Catholic, but not a Catholic at all and the presence of such person at the foot of the altar to receive Our Savior in the Holy Eucharist is anathema.

Depends on what you mean by “support.” Formal cooperation in an incident of abortion is needed for a latae sententiae excommunication to apply. As of now voting to keep abortion legal has not been considered to be formal cooperation in specific act of abortion.

Things could get tricker when talking about voting to fund abortions. But even in Europe where those issues are more common, I’m unaware of any bishop or Vatican Congregation that has declared it as formal cooperation.

 

[ANNE_2]

While things are definitely bad now, they can most definitely be a lot worse. The Church in America is nowhere near the rejection levels its at in parts of Europe. Not to mention that in the US most state governments and the federal government by and large work with us rather than against us. That could all change very quickly.

Under the Obama Administration, the Federal Government does not work with the Catholic Church.
It tries to ‘use’ the Catholic Church for its own agenda when possible. And of course they want Catholic votes.
Most of the time it stands in opposition to Church Doctrine as defined in the CCC.

 

[Chris_Rendall]

I think it is naïve to think that Planned Parenthood will separate funds for abortion from the rest of their work. First, as long as any of the money given to them supports their very presence in a particular location, they will likely be carrying out abortions, on the books or off. There are plenty of abortion clinics whose employees accept cash for abortions and do not report the income, therefore there is no way to stop them from doing so as long as they are in business.

Knowing this, if a politician supports funding them, he is knowingly allowing the possibility for abortion. I do not judge them because I don’t know what decisions they are forced to make, but I would guess that at least a few try to walk the line between getting the Catholic vote, and also the secular pro “choice” vote.

If they are trying to gain popularity by supporting the death of unborn children, which is a grievous sin, then they have already excommunicated themselves from the Church. A bishop would merely be telling them what they should already know.

Also, to reiterate what Anne just said, the Obama administration definitely stands in opposition to Church teaching on a number of issues, especially abortion and contraception.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Under the Obama Administration, the Federal Government does not work with the Catholic Church.
It tries to ‘use’ the Catholic Church for its own agenda when possible. And of course they want Catholic votes.
Most of the time it stands in opposition to Church Doctrine as defined in the CCC.

Actually there’s quite a bit of cooperation between American levels of government and the Catholic Church on many levels. On a state level, here in New England the local school districts provide Catholic schools with busing and text books. If they wanted to they could cripple our school system by revoking those perks. On federal and state levels health care laws are crafted with contributions from Catholic Hospitals. We don’t always get what we want, but we are always consulted and our concerns are taken into consideration. Our diocesan structures are by and large left alone unless there’s clear evidence of some kind of criminal wrong doing. However, some aggressive AG could take the Belgium route and raid and audit our entire system. What’s happening in Philly is the exception rather than the norm but that too could change. And all those dioceses that are foolishly still organized as corporation sole could face serious problems.

Currently there’s an uneasy and difficult relatationship between the RCC in the USA and the US levels of government. However an all out war could be disasterous.

 

[onenow1]

I don’t know. But it’s not like it’s impossible. I understand the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation also funds them , but forbids their money to pay directly for abortions. I am not 100% sure on that though.QUOTE]

Seems to me Jude, they would have to inform each tax payer or doner the causes there money goes to and give them time to consider; also the government would have to set up some sort of accounting, that assures the funds generated go only to specfic entities from specfic people. Not impossibe but !:juggle:

Peace

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I think it is naïve to think that Planned Parenthood will separate funds for abortion from the rest of their work. First, as long as any of the money given to them supports their very presence in a particular location, they will likely be carrying out abortions, on the books or off. There are plenty of abortion clinics whose employees accept cash for abortions and do not report the income, therefore there is no way to stop them from doing so as long as they are in business.

Well, then why don’t pro-lifers go the “al capone route.” Al Capone was a murderous criminal who went to jail on tax evasion charges. If we can’t legally stop Planned Parenthood we could most definitely hit them hard on some kind of misuse or fraudulent use of federal funds charge.
My guess is Planned Parenthood does indeed carefully separate its money sources and expenses.

 

[Chris_Rendall]

I’m sorry, I didn’t really word that the way I intended it to mean. I realize the actual money, on paper, legally would have to be separated. What I am saying is that if any of the money contributes to the facilities themselves, or the presence of employees who have the ability to carry out abortions, they can keep right on going if it’s off the books.

I’m not meaning that in a conspiracy theory kind of way. In the research I have done on abortion clinics, it seems that some do abortions as cash only procedures. I do not see any reason various PP clinics could not do the same. Obviously that wouldn’t come from corporate, but it could very well happen.

And if even if the money is used for something else besides abortion, why would you give them any money at all, since they are a company that IS carrying out abortions. Where is the logic? Give the money to womens health clinics that provide all the services PP provides, minus abortions, there are plenty of them. Problem solved.

 

[Suudy]

Well, then why don’t pro-lifers go the “al capone route.” Al Capone was a murderous criminal who went to jail on tax evasion charges. If we can’t legally stop Planned Parenthood we could most definitely hit them hard on some kind of misuse or fraudulent use of federal funds charge.
My guess is Planned Parenthood does indeed carefully separate its money sources and expenses.

This has been discussed a lot on other threads. I didn’t see you there, so perhaps you missed it. The point is that funds (and assets in general) are fungible. What funds PP gets from the federal government free up other funds for its abortion services. I gave an example that I think demonstrates the point.

Say I’m throwing a party and I have $80. I want to have beer and food, so I decide I’m going to buy 4 cases of beer at $15/case, and spend $20 on food. My buddy says he’d like to help out with the food, so he gives me $20, but says “Don’t use that $20 to buy beer. Use it to buy food.” Well, now I have $100. So instead, I decide to buy 5 cases of beer and spend $35 on food. When my buddy shows up and says “Hey! I though you only had enough to buy 4 cases of beer?! I told you not to use my $20 to buy beer!” Do you think he’ll buy my copout answer of “Well, technically, I didn’t use your $20. I used your $20 to buy food. See? I have a receipt.”?

So when PP says “Well, technically, I didn’t use federal dollars to pay for abortion.” it amounts to the same thing. PP has to choose where to spend its money. It can take money away from its other services to pay for the heating, building maintenance, supplies, parking, bus passes, etc to keep its abortion services running. Or it can use less in providing abortions and use all their funds to provide those services. It’s their choice. So let’s not blame Uncle Sam for PP’s choices.

 

[onenow1]

This has been discussed a lot on other threads. I didn’t see you there, so perhaps you missed it. The point is that funds (and assets in general) are fungible. What funds PP gets from the federal government free up other funds for its abortion services. I gave an example that I think demonstrates the point.

Say I’m throwing a party and I have $80. I want to have beer and food, so I decide I’m going to buy 4 cases of beer at $15/case, and spend $20 on food. My buddy says he’d like to help out with the food, so he gives me $20, but says “Don’t use that $20 to buy beer. Use it to buy food.” Well, now I have $100. So instead, I decide to buy 5 cases of beer and spend $35 on food. When my buddy shows up and says “Hey! I though you only had enough to buy 4 cases of beer?! I told you not to use my $20 to buy beer!” Do you think he’ll buy my copout answer of “Well, technically, I didn’t use your $20. I used your $20 to buy food. See? I have a receipt.”?

So when PP says “Well, technically, I didn’t use federal dollars to pay for abortion.” it amounts to the same thing. PP has to choose where to spend its money. It can take money away from its other services to pay for the heating, building maintenance, supplies, parking, bus passes, etc to keep its abortion services running. Or it can use less in providing abortions and use all their funds to provide those services. It’s their choice. So let’s not blame Uncle Sam for PP’s choices.

:yup::juggle: That’s why it needs to be defunded.

Peace

 

[StJudePray4Me]

This has been discussed a lot on other threads. I didn’t see you there, so perhaps you missed it. The point is that funds (and assets in general) are fungible. What funds PP gets from the federal government free up other funds for its abortion services. I gave an example that I think demonstrates the point.

Say I’m throwing a party and I have $80. I want to have beer and food, so I decide I’m going to buy 4 cases of beer at $15/case, and spend $20 on food. My buddy says he’d like to help out with the food, so he gives me $20, but says “Don’t use that $20 to buy beer. Use it to buy food.” Well, now I have $100. So instead, I decide to buy 5 cases of beer and spend $35 on food. When my buddy shows up and says “Hey! I though you only had enough to buy 4 cases of beer?! I told you not to use my $20 to buy beer!” Do you think he’ll buy my copout answer of “Well, technically, I didn’t use your $20. I used your $20 to buy food. See? I have a receipt.”?

So when PP says “Well, technically, I didn’t use federal dollars to pay for abortion.” it amounts to the same thing. PP has to choose where to spend its money. It can take money away from its other services to pay for the heating, building maintenance, supplies, parking, bus passes, etc to keep its abortion services running. Or it can use less in providing abortions and use all their funds to provide those services. It’s their choice. So let’s not blame Uncle Sam for PP’s choices.

The way I understand it, PP does not get money upfront.

They have to claim money from the gov’t the same way doctors claim it from insurance companies. They provide documents re: the services provided and then the gov’t reimburses them.

So it would be more like: you spent $60.00 on beer and $20 on food. Your buddy comes to the party and says, "Hey, I’d like to pay for the food. What did you spend?"and you give him your receipt and he gives you $20.00.

If there was some evidence that they were falsifying paperwork or something, that would be a good tactic to take to get them in trouble and eliminate their funding, IMO.

And just to clarify again, I am not advocating PP. I am simply questioning the reasoning for excommunicating the politicians who voted to fund them.

 

[Suudy]

They have to claim money from the gov’t the same way doctors claim it from insurance companies. They provide documents re: the services provided and then the gov’t reimburses them.

So it would be more like: you spent $60.00 on beer and $20 on food. Your buddy comes to the party and says, "Hey, I’d like to pay for the food. What did you spend?"and you give him your receipt and he gives you $20.00.

Now that’s a decent explanation for part of it. That answers the issue of the fungible nature of money. But it doesn’t get to the fungible nature of assets. It also doesn’t get the the point of carry forward costs.

Now PP may submit a statement to the government saying “We spent $X on women’s services and $Y on abortions.” And Uncle Sam agrees to give them some portion of $X to PP. Now, how does PP calculate $X and $Y? Does it completely separate out all expenditures? For example, if the abortionist is using 5 rooms in a 20 room clinic, does PP put 80% of the building maintenance costs in $X and 20% in $Y? What about supplies? What about office staff? If the receptionist spends 80% of her time supporting abortion activities, is 80% of her salary reported in $Y? What about property taxes, mortgage interest, health insurance for employees (including the abortionist), etc?

Further, there is a carry forward of that money. Looking at the way title X is written, it looks like PP funding is pre-approved for the year. So PP knows how much money it can apply for. So it goes through its own budget process and determines how much they got last year, how much they can get this year, and plan their expenditures in such a way to maximize their federal funding. The dollars from last year help pay for abortions this year.

I have never looked at PP’s books (has anybody in the public sphere done so?), so I don’t know how this is done. But we have enough accountants online that would confirm that this level of tracking and reporting would be difficult, expensive, and highly susceptible to mistakes, misreporting and fraud.

And just to clarify again, I am not advocating PP. I am simply questioning the reasoning for excommunicating the politicians who voted to fund them.

For my part, I’m not speaking to that. I trust the Bishops to do what is best. I’m also not familiar enough with the concepts of Church and Canon law to make any judgment on the issue.

 

[ANNE_2]

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the USA, and they have expanded to foreign Countries.
They are evil period.

Not one tax dollar should be given to them for any reason.

50 MILLION abortions have been provided in the USA since 1973 - - - murder for convenience - GENOCIDE.
Thou shall not kill.

The Catholic politicians who voted against DEFUNDING Planned Parenthood yesterday 4/14/11 (H Con Res 36) by definition are heretics and or schimatics and should be excommunicated - for their heresy, and obstinate and public scandal.

CCC - 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.
Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;
Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

 

[onenow1]

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the USA, and they have expanded to foreign Countries.
They are evil period.Thou shall not kill.

:idea: I get it thou shalt not kill { Murder} The commandment !:yup: Not the suggestion.:tsktsk:

 

[ANNE_2]

:idea: I get it thou shalt not kill { Murder} The commandment !:yup: Not the suggestion.:tsktsk:

This speaks for itself.
Planned Parenthood is evil. They are the largest abortion provider in the US and are spreading their agenda throughout the world.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/hillary_clinton_attempts_to_redefine_u.n._agreement_by_adding_abortion_experts_charge/