How come pro-choice politicians have not been excommunicated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter notredame_999
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In the ensuing years since abortion became law .(1973 ) Democrats have controlled the Presidency for 14 of those years. Republicans controlled the Presidency for 24 of those years. Both parties have Blood on their hands!
This is a misleading statement. Presidents have very few options for limiting abortion. They can sign bills passed by Congress that limit abortion in certain ways (which some have done), but that’s about it. Since the Supreme Court declared abortion to be a constitutional right, it would take another Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. (And even in that somewhat unlikely scenario, abortion would not be de facto outlawed; it would merely no longer be a “constiutional right” and would be returned to the hands of the states.)

Presidents (as you know) are not dictators or kings that can just declare abortion to be outlawed.
 
The Democrats are to blame because they are adamant about keeping abortion a constitutional right. The Republicans are to blame because they are not adamant enough about overturning it. There are certainly more Republicans that are adamant about overturning Roe v. Wade than Democrats.
But there are six Catholics sitting on the Supreme Court appointed for life, not having to worry about being re-elected. What to do about them?
 
This is a misleading statement. Presidents have very few options for limiting abortion. They can sign bills passed by Congress that limit abortion in certain ways (which some have done), but that’s about it. Since the Supreme Court declared abortion to be a constitutional right, it would take another Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. (And even in that somewhat unlikely scenario, abortion would not be de facto outlawed; it would merely no longer be a “constiutional right” and would be returned to the hands of the states.)

Presidents (as you know) are not dictators or kings that can just declare abortion to be outlawed.
Read post #14
 
But there are six Catholics sitting on the Supreme Court appointed for life, not having to worry about being re-elected. What to do about them?
Sadly, you make a point that is difficult to ignore. Catholics are to blame for not following what their faith teaches. As Catholics we are called to live our faith in the world.
 
But there are six Catholics sitting on the Supreme Court appointed for life, not having to worry about being re-elected. What to do about them?
Sadly, you make a point that is difficult to ignore. Catholics are to blame for not following what their faith teaches. As Catholics we are called to live our faith in the world.
In order for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, they would have to have a relevant case come before them (i.e., one involving Roe v. Wade as a precedent). Since they are not legislators, they can’t just suddenly one day decide to overturn any random case. To my knowledge, the Roberts court has not yet had a case before them involving Roe v. Wade in a way that would give them opportunity to overturn it.
 
In order for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, they would have to have a relevant case come before them (i.e., one involving Roe v. Wade as a precedent).
They’ve had several, I believe. And with all the do-good lawyers out there, there should be no problem to introduce more cases where they can rule on it or test its limitations at least. Or they could refer it back to the state. Or simply discard it, which should tell you something about them. I’m not defending them but there have been plenty of times where they’ve refused to hear a case, because it would break from, what you called, a precedent already set (citing stare decisis?)

You didn’t say this but it isn’t required that they only rule on what elected officials present to them.
 
They’ve had several, I believe.
I wasn’t aware of that. Which ones have they (the Roberts court) had? I would be interested in reading them.
And with all the do-good lawyers out there, there should be no problem to introduce more cases where they can rule on it or test its limitations at least. Or they could refer it back to the state. Or simply discard it, which should tell you something about them. I’m not defending them but there have been plenty of times where they’ve refused to hear a case, because it would break from, what you called, a precedent already set (citing stare decisis?)
It’s not that easy to get the Supreme Court to hear a case. They can only hear so many cases per year, which is generally a small percentage of the thousands that are appealed to them. There are many reasons why they turn down cases. I hope that someday Roe v. Wade will be overturned; but people should recognize that the process is complicated and difficult, instead of blaming the “Catholic justices” for not doing something about abortion.
You didn’t say this but it isn’t required that they only rule on what elected officials present to them.
Not quite sure what you mean by this. “Elected officials” have little to do with the process. The Supreme Court has appellate jursidiction over all the state and federal courts, meaning that they can hear cases appealed from all those courts–although, practically speaking, they can hear only a tiny percentage of those cases. They also have original jurisdiction (meaning that they are first to hear the case) over certain cases, as outlined in Article 3 of the Constitution.
 
Subsequent to Roe vs Wade:

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Stenberg v. Carhart

Gonzales v. Carhart

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
Perhaps I should have clarified better. I’m aware that there have been several cases subsequent to Roe v. Wade; but I wanted to know whether there had been any that had come before the Roberts court (since people were implying that a court with five Catholic justices should have done something to overturn Roe).

Of the cases you listed above, the only one to come before the court since Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito were appointed is Gonzales v. Carhart. And Gonzales was a good decision from a Catholic viewpoint, as it upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. So there you go. 🙂 In the one case presented before them, they did the right thing.
 
But when the good Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was excommunicated the Vatican made that public.

A?
he was a priest and the founder of a religious order and had actually committed grave crimes, and his discipline reflected canon law for priests

OP asked about public officials who claim to be Catholic yet espouse, advocate and vote for policies and laws contrary to the faith, but who have not necessarily actually committed those crimes such as abortion.

these are to entirely different things.
 
…Of the cases you listed above, the only one to come before the court since Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito were appointed is Gonzales v. Carhart. And Gonzales was a good decision from a Catholic viewpoint, as it upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. So there you go. 🙂 In the one case presented before them, they did the right thing.
It should be noted that all five of the Catholic justices voted to ban partial-birth abortion while the four non-Catholic justices voted to uphold partial-birth abortion.

However, Anthony Kennedy (a Catholic) upheld an overall constitutional right of abortion in the Casey decision (if I’m not mistaken). So there is at least one Catholic justice (appointed by a Republican) that favors some form of constitutional abortion rights.

Having said that, now that President Obama appointed a sixth Catholic, Sotomeyer, a case might finally come to the court to overturn Roe v. Wade. How will Sotomeyer rule? We won’t know until a case comes to the court. I have my doubts about Sotomeyer based on the evidence of Democrats having never appointed a pro-life justice since Roe v. Wade, but we shall see.
 
I have my doubts about Sotomeyer based on the evidence of Democrats having never appointed a pro-life justice since Roe v. Wade, but we shall see.
Interestingly enough, one of the two votes against Roe vs. Wade came from a JFK appointee. But you may be right no one since fought specifically in favor of overturning Roe vs Wade or placed restrictions on it.
 
Because so many of the Catholics in the pews who give to the Church are also liberal Democrats. The political ramifications of excommunicating ALL the liberal Democrats who support abortion would decimate the churches.

The Bishops would have to make it crystal clear that supporting abortion in any way, shape or form means that you are NOT Catholic. Bam! No more contributions.

Sorry to seem cynical. But just follow the money.
Purge the chaff from the wheat. So be it.
 
Thanks for this discussion. I’ve been wondering about it for quite a while.
 
Because so many of the Catholics in the pews who give to the Church are also liberal Democrats. The political ramifications of excommunicating ALL the liberal Democrats who support abortion would decimate the churches.

The Bishops would have to make it crystal clear that supporting abortion in any way, shape or form means that you are NOT Catholic. Bam! No more contributions.

Sorry to seem cynical. But just follow the money.
I would leave a Church that sold itself for 30 pieces of sylver.
The Church has always courted the rich and powerful. The following link describes Ted Kennedy’s funeral. Notice how it mentions that the Archbishop of Boston officiated at the service.

abcnews.go.com/Politics/TedKennedy/story?id=8442072

Perhaps I’m mistaken but didn’t Senator Kennedy support abortion? Did he not womanize, abuse alcohol? How about Mary Jo Kopechne?

The Church could have made an huge statement by not participating in the lovefest honoring Ted.
You may want to go read Cardinal Sean’s blog on this matter. He made several points that this article missed.
  1. He did not preside or concelebrate at this service. It was not in his parish, which is the Cathedral. What he did was grant the final blessing to the diseased before the casket is taken out the door. If you look at pictures, he’s not in his habit or vested for mass. He is in choir robes. You do not “officiate” a service in choir robes. They are meant to be worn when you are a hierarch who is in attendance at a service.
2, Whether we agree with his acceptance or not is a whole other point. But he explained that the children and relatives asked him to be there. They are as important as everyone else.
  1. He is a friar (brother) first. As he told the people of Boston when he was installed as Archbishop, “God has sent you a different kind of bishop. He has sent you a Franciscan Brother.” It is against the Rule of St. Francis to deny anyone support at the time of mourning or to imply that anyone is not forgiven. “To console rather than be consoled” and “to forgive in order to be forgiven” that is the motto by which all Franciscans live, handed down by our Seraphic Father in 1209.
As to the question in the OP, I believe that someone responded to it rather well. Those to whom the law applies are automatically excommunicated. There is no need for the Church to make it a public issue. The purpose of excommunication is to bring back the person in error, not to alienate him by humiliating him and creating a hostile relationship with him. We just need to look at Luther to see how helpful humiliation and condescension was to him.

If the person chooses to make it a public issue, then the bishop has the right to respond, as was the case with Patrick Kennedy. It was Mr. Kennedy who made it public, not the bishop.

Another thing about excommunication is that the person has to commit the crime mentioned in the law and know that the consequence is excommunication. In such a case, there is full knowledge and consent. Bishops have spoken to many pro-abortion Catholic politicians and have told them not to receive Holy Communion. The bishops are not going to make every single conversation public. As Cardinal Arinze once asked or said (I’m not sure if it was a question or statement), “What do you want us to do? Do you want us to send a troop of Swiss Guards to arrest them?”

There is a point where we have to allow people to grapple with their conscience and answer to God at the appointed time.

The faithful have to understand that the Church hopes and seeks to bring all people into the fold, not alienate people by making a bad situation worse. You make it worse when you come across as the bully. The best thing to do is to privately encourage these folks to act morally, allow the consequences to stand and help them get out of these difficult situations when they are ready to do so. As long as we know that this is the process, the rest of us should be able to get on with our lives and allow the Lord to do his part at turning hearts when human words no longer have the desired effect.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
The question has been answered.

THREAD CLOSED

Thank you for participating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top