Bishops’ Conference Responds To 18 Democrats Critical Of Pope

This ‘statement’ should have been mailed to each of those 18 Democrats.

Excellent response from Sister Walsh.

The 18 signing politicians seem to think they are above their Church AND the US Constitution. If the politicians listen to the bishops & seek out pastoral advice, what are the odds that they’ll receive proper instruction? If they consult a pastor who tells them to stand up to or ignore Rome, then what?

Well, a Catholic pastor can’t tell them to ignore Rome. I’m not saying some “liberals” won’t, but I doubt that many would be willing to go on record with that statement. You know if Fat Teddy or Granma Nancy got “permission” from their pastors, they’d be out there announcing it, and I don’t think they have the nerve to flout Rome like that.

I think this time there would be serious repercussions from Rome. It’s going to take awhile, mostly because the bishops in this country, with only a few exceptions, are outright cowards, and they’re the ones responsible for enforcing it. Unfortunately, they’re scared of the Dems, scared of their clergy, scared of Sister Snowflake, and they don’t want to look uncool. If the pressure keeps up, however, I think they’re just going to have to do their jobs.

Course they wouldn’t go on record & it would look more like, “keep your heads down & do what you’re gonna do.” Public scandal is treated differently than private sin. These politicians took their public scandal to a higher level by making the statement they did. If they stand their ground & Rome is forced to dicipline them, I only hope that Rome also goes after anyone inside of the Church that has enabled them.

I begin tpo believe that many priests and even bishops are encouraging the pols to act this way.

If they’re not encouraging it, there seem to be too few that seem willing to discourage it in the strongest terms possible.

Back in the ‘80s, the pronouncement of the Bishops’ conference often sounded like something from the DNC. I fear that many bishops would reduce the Gospel to the social gospel. But it is a long while since anyone in the Democratic Party took Rerum Novarum as a guide to that social gospel.

.

**The Catholic Church always will and must speak out against the destruction of innocent unborn children. The right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution that all legislators are elected to uphold. Speaking and acting against abortion is not a matter of partisan politics. It is a matter of life and death. **

Woohoo!

Wonder if those dimocrats will pay any attention to this??

**The bishops urge all Catholics, especially those who hold positions of public responsibility, to educate themselves about the teaching of the Church, and to seek pastoral advice so that they can make informed decisions with consistency and integrity.**

If priest and other politicos are telling those in the House of Representative to behave this way, then what will happen when they talk with their pastor who has taken a vow of obediency to the bishop and to Rome?

Maybe we need to follow up and send/fax a copy of this letter to our representatives if they are on this list. Also don’t forget Speaker Pelosi — she would make 19, but she was smart enough not to sign the letter.

House of Representatives
Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut
Joe Baca of California
Joe Courtney of Connecticut
Anna Eshoo of California
Maurice Hinchey of New York
Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island
James Langevin of Rhode Island
John Larson of Connecticut
Carolyn McCarthy of New York
Betty McCollum of Minnesota
Jim Moran of Virginia
Bill Pascrell of New Jersey
Tim Ryan of Ohio
Linda Sanchez of California
José Serrano of New York
Hilda Solis of California
Mike Thompson of California

Hmmm, but I noticed that I only had 17 on my list. Anyone know who is missing?

“scared of Sister Snowflake”

When I was a kid, there were no “Sister Snowflakes”... but we did have a Sister Domitilla and we were scared to death of her! :)

There was probably a good reason for being scared of Sister Domitilla...

As for Sister Snowflake, I can’t imagine why Father (or His Excellence) is scared of her. Except that being a good feminist flake, she probably has the press on her side, and if there’s one thing Father (and His Excellence) are scared of, it’s the press.

I thought the response would be weak, considering it was from a nun, but she did good!

Way too weak.

Of course, since the NCCB - or whatever it’s called this year - is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party, it must have absolutely KILLED them to have to issue any statement at all about their boys!

And none of the mitred birdbrains who are always pontificating about immigrants’ rights and the death penalty and blah blah blah had the buskins to come out and make the statement him/themselves . . .

they send a Sister of Mercy - who surely hasn’t seen a veil or the inside of a convent in at least three pontificates.

Please. If this is “teaching with authority,” fuggedaboudit!

the NCCB - or whatever it’s called this year - is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party, it must have absolutely KILLED them to have to issue any statement at all about their boys!

That's what I thought, too. They obviously dragged their heels and then did manage to produce a more or less supportive statement. But it's only that, a statement: no action is even implied.

The Holy See has made clear that neither the Mexican bishops nor the Holy Father have excommunicated any legislator. Rather, the Holy See reiterated longstanding Church teaching that anyone who freely and knowingly commits a serious wrong, that is, a mortal sin, should not approach the Eucharist until going to confession.

I thought the Pope said that anyone who engages in abortion in any way (having one, helping procure one, supports abortion legislation if one is a politician, etc...) incurs automatic excommunication. No one has to actually excommunicate such people, the abortion supporters excommunicate themselves. As I recall, this is the position the Pope "reiterated" on the plane while en route to South America. This nun has changed the meaning of what the Pope said, and watered it down. Rome is making a mistake if they do not clarify her clarification.

Ed Peters, a Canon lawyer, has some detailed information at his blog.

A primer for those who prefer knowing to opining

In the vortex swirling around the pope's comments on the canonical consequences for supporting pro-abortion legislation (including what the pope said, or meant to say, or should have said), it might be good to set out calmly and simply some canons that directly impact on this situation. Strictly speaking, there are only two, but in light of comments I've heard or read, we apparently need to explicitate a third canon even though it only repeats sound personal moral theology and does not direct ecclesiastical responses to this kind of behavior.

Here's the Shorter Version: First, Canon 916. There are lots of mortal sins out there; if you commit any one of them, you're not supposed to go to Communion. It's your obligation to stay away. Next, Canon 915. Some mortal sins are committed under circumstances that, if the Church finds out about them, not only are you supposed to the stay away from Communion, but the Church is supposed to turn you away if you try to receive. Finally, Canon 1331. A few mortal sins are serious crimes under canon law; if you commit one of those, you can suffer the penalty of excommunication, and one of the consequences of excommunication is, you can't go to Communion.

That seems pretty straight-forward, no? Still, if you want more, read the Longer Version:

1. Canon 916: "A person who is conscious of [having committed] grave sin is not to . . . receive the Body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession. . ."

This canon only expresses what is already required by moral theology: anyone who is aware of having committed a grave sin of any sort and who has not repented of and confessed the sin must not go to Communion. This canon does not lend itself to enforcement by ecclesiastical authority for many reasons, including the impossibility of Church officials knowing just who committed what grave sin. Of this canon, it may be said "One who commits grave sin makes himself ineligible to receive Communion."

2. Canon 915: "Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion."

Prescinding from the inartful ordo presentationis of the Code, this canon builds on what Canon 916 will have established as a personal obligation, but here goes on to require ecclesiastical officials, under specific circumstances, to withhold the Eucharist from some persons whose grave sins meet the additional criteria set out in Canon 915. It is self-evident from the terms of this canon that some people who are not excommunicated are nevertheless prohibited from receiving the Eucharist and that this prohibition is meant to be enforced. Of this canon it may be said, "One who commits grave sin under certain circumstances makes himself liable, upon verification of the facts, to the actual withholding of the Eucharist by ecclesiastical officials."

3. Canon 1331: "An excommunicated person is forbidden: (1) to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever; (2) to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments; (3) to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance . . ."

This canon sets out that denial of Holy Communion is one (perhaps the most notable, but nevertheless just one) of the consequences of being excommunicated. Other canons establish that excommunication can only be incurred for certain kinds of grave offenses, all of which offenses are indeed gravely sinful actions, but sins that have additionally been criminalized under canon law.

The virtually unanimous opinion among canon lawyers is that no canon, not even Canon 1398 on abortion, makes pro-abortion legislative activity an excommunicable offense. Therefore, the many complications arising from the fact that some excommunications are latae sententiae (automatic) while others are not, do not impact this discussion. Of this canon it may nevertheless be said, "Anyone who, as a result of his actions, has been excommunicated, suffers a variety of canonical consequences, including but not limited to being barred from receiving the Eucharist."

Keeping these three points clear is a prerequisite for responsible discussion of this vital matter.

At this point, my opinions:

(1) Depending on the facts of the specific case, support for even one pro-abortion legislative proposal can be grave matter sufficient, in accord with the usual criteria (especially knowledge and consent), to make one ineligible to approach Holy Communion under Canon 916. Individual Catholics have to make that decision in accord with the principles of a sound conscience, and they are accountable to God for what they decide.

(2) Depending on the character (i.e., degree, duration, etc.) of one's support for pro-abortion legislative initiatives, such activity can be sufficient basis for ecclesiastical officials to prohibit a specific person from approaching Holy Communion under Canon 915. Church officials have to make this determination in accord with the principles of canon law and are accountable, ultimately to God, for what they decide.

(3) Under the current Code, no one can be excommunicated (automatically or otherwise) for pro-abortion legislative activity. Such activity is nevertheless potentially punishable under other canons (e.g., Canon 1369) albeit not with excommunication. Moreover, particular legislation, personal precept, or contempt for lesser penalties, might make pro-abortion legislators liable to excommunication in the future. To my knowledge, though, none of these options is being pursued.