USCCB: Church should oppose FOCA 'early and often,' Niederauer (Pelosi's Archbishop) says

Nat CatholicReporter ^ | Nov 11, 2008 13:30pm | JOHN L. ALLEN JR.

[Salvation]

USCCB: Church should oppose FOCA 'early and often,' Niederauer says

Posted on Nov 11, 2008 13:30pm CST.
 Print Friendly Version

By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Baltimore

Facing President-elect Barak Obama’s pledge to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would bar legal restrictions on abortion at the state and federal level, Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco today said that the Catholic church needs to make the case against the measure “early and often, both with members of congress and with the new administration.”

Speaking with reporters during the Nov. 10-13 meeting of the U.S. bishops in Baltimore, Niederauer suggested that it would be a mistake to interpret Obama’s victory as an expression of popular support for the Freedom of Choice Act, known as FOCA.

Niederauer heads the communications committee for the U.S. bishops’ conference.

“If you look at exit polls on election day, you will not find very many people who came out of the polling place and said their vote for either candidate was based on FOCA,” Niederauer said. “Many wouldn’t know what it is.”

Asked what the church should do about Catholic legislators who support FOCA, Niederauer said that the bishops agree on the diagnosis – that such a vote amounts to cooperation in evil – but may not be able to reach a common policy on the hot-button question of whether to deny communion to pro-choice politicians.

“We have a very strong statement made in 2004,” he said. “It’s still in place. It says we should not give a platform [to pro-choice politicians], we shouldn’t give them awards or feature them. But with regard to Holy Communion, it is left up to the pastoral sensitivity and responsibility of individual bishops to interact with those office-holders in their own diocese.”

“As person differs from person,” Niederauer said, “perhaps the best approach may be one thing for one person, another for another.”

The Freedom of Choice Act was introduced in the House and Senate in 2004, but to date has not made it beyond the committee stage. Estimates are that states currently have an aggregate number of 300 restrictions on abortion which would be abolished by FOCA, inclduing late term abortion bans, parental consent requirements and parental notification laws.

The web site of Barak Obama’s presidential campaign includes a January 2008 statement from Obama issued on the anniversary of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision: “When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for president who spoke out against it,” Obama said. “And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.”

[Campion]

Excellency:

Grow a spine or one will be imported for you from Rome. The time for "not being able to reach a consensus" on disciplinary measures is past. Faithful Catholics are going to be subjected to real persecution for standing up for life. Defend them.

Thank you.

[Quix]

INDEED! INDEED! INDEED!

Extremely well and Biblically put, as usual.

Thanks tons.

BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD.

[jo kus]

1. I don't believe Believers LEADERS particularly are routinely called, per se, primarily to be political lackys in a flesh driven system of buying and selling influence . . . . lobbying

Agree. But lobbying is a necessary evil in our system of government, isn't it? What happens to stands that have no lobbyist support?

2. Christians and particularly Christian leaders ARE CALLED to state forthrightly THE TRUTHS OF THE GOSPEL . . . GOD'S STANDARDS AND GOD'S PRIORITIES--TO FORCEFULLY [AND LOVINGLY] DELCARE THEM. Sometimes LOVINGLY = STERNLY--WITH CONSEQUENCES.

True, that was never the issue - the issue is whether they do it to 'be correct, who cares about their salvation' or to 'save souls'. I think we can say the later is the motive of people like Paul.

4. What RC Bishop has publicly on CNN consigned what politician to satan for the destruction of the politician's flesh that his soul might be saved? What are they waiting for--150 or 500 million murdered infants? Is THAT the trip-line for decisive courageous Christian declarations from the bureaucratic hierarchy? Or maybe the RC edifice is waiting for the beautiful cathedrals to be buried in baby skulls in garbage bags before their Bishops scrounge some cajones? <.i>

No one is arguing that the bishops in America have been doing their best job on this subject. We can look to other countries and see bishops take their jobs more seriously. However, we have a different culture now. You just cannot ORDER people to do "x", after years and years of disobedience from the BISHOPS THEMSELVES here in the US! Perhaps if the bishops here would not have been largely in dissent on a number of matters in regards to Rome, is it surprising that the bishops here are not taken very seriously? This is the culture we live in now - "I'll do what I want". Largely a Protestant culture pervades our society. Obedience to self. At any rate, it is going to take a lot of time, prayers and effort to change this culture here - if it is possible. I am not sure that mass expulsions of numerous nominal Catholics is the answer, nor do I see a precedent for that in Scriptures.

5. What's the criteria for stern spiritual declarative action?

I think Matthew 18:15-17 is the general idea. Keeping in mind that Christian leaders are not to "lord it" over those they lead. It is a difficult situation and am glad it is not upon me.

6. Playing WIMPY VERBAL FOOTSIE with demonized globalist traitorous legislators is not my idea of PREACHING, MODELING, DECLARING THE GOSPEL to any significant degree. What RESULT do you REALLY, TRULY, ACTUALLY EXPECT from such verbal mutual masturbation exchanges?

I don't think I have much more to add to this rant. But I think it calls for a more measurable response, given the reality of the culture the bishops now face (part of which THEY have reaped...).

Have trust in the Holy Spirit, Quix. We must do the best we personally can do to spread the Gospel, including the teachings on life, to those who contemplate such issues or are swayed by the liberal media.

Regards Regards

[jo kus]

1. I don't believe Believers LEADERS particularly are routinely called, per se, primarily to be political lackys in a flesh driven system of buying and selling influence . . . . lobbying

Agree. But lobbying is a necessary evil in our system of government, isn't it? What happens to stands that have no lobbyist support?

2. Christians and particularly Christian leaders ARE CALLED to state forthrightly THE TRUTHS OF THE GOSPEL . . . GOD'S STANDARDS AND GOD'S PRIORITIES--TO FORCEFULLY [AND LOVINGLY] DELCARE THEM. Sometimes LOVINGLY = STERNLY--WITH CONSEQUENCES.

True, that was never the issue - the issue is whether they do it to 'be correct, who cares about their salvation' or to 'save souls'. I think we can say the later is the motive of people like Paul.

4. What RC Bishop has publicly on CNN consigned what politician to satan for the destruction of the politician's flesh that his soul might be saved? What are they waiting for--150 or 500 million murdered infants? Is THAT the trip-line for decisive courageous Christian declarations from the bureaucratic hierarchy? Or maybe the RC edifice is waiting for the beautiful cathedrals to be buried in baby skulls in garbage bags before their Bishops scrounge some cajones? <.i>

No one is arguing that the bishops in America have been doing their best job on this subject. We can look to other countries and see bishops take their jobs more seriously. However, we have a different culture now. You just cannot ORDER people to do "x", after years and years of disobedience from the BISHOPS THEMSELVES here in the US! Perhaps if the bishops here would not have been largely in dissent on a number of matters in regards to Rome, is it surprising that the bishops here are not taken very seriously? This is the culture we live in now - "I'll do what I want". Largely a Protestant culture pervades our society. Obedience to self. At any rate, it is going to take a lot of time, prayers and effort to change this culture here - if it is possible. I am not sure that mass expulsions of numerous nominal Catholics is the answer, nor do I see a precedent for that in Scriptures.

5. What's the criteria for stern spiritual declarative action?

I think Matthew 18:15-17 is the general idea. Keeping in mind that Christian leaders are not to "lord it" over those they lead. It is a difficult situation and am glad it is not upon me.

6. Playing WIMPY VERBAL FOOTSIE with demonized globalist traitorous legislators is not my idea of PREACHING, MODELING, DECLARING THE GOSPEL to any significant degree. What RESULT do you REALLY, TRULY, ACTUALLY EXPECT from such verbal mutual masturbation exchanges?

I don't think I have much more to add to this rant. But I think it calls for a more measurable response, given the reality of the culture the bishops now face (part of which THEY have reaped...).

Have trust in the Holy Spirit, Quix. We must do the best we personally can do to spread the Gospel, including the teachings on life, to those who contemplate such issues or are swayed by the liberal media. Pray that our leaders can do the same - and if necessary for the sake of their souls, excommunicate the more scandalous ones.

I wonder if you would have been calling for Martin Luther's head in 1520, as well...!

Regards

[jo kus]

Ok, my internet connection screwed me up. Sorry for the double post...

Regards

[Quix]

THANKS--GREAT RESPONSES:

jo kus

to Quix QX: 1. I don't believe Believers LEADERS particularly are routinely called, per se, primarily to be political lackys in a flesh driven system of buying and selling influence . . . . lobbying

Agree. But lobbying is a necessary evil in our system of government, isn't it? What happens to stands that have no lobbyist support?

QX: A reasonable point. However, a huge part of me suspects that IF CHRISTIAN LEADERS AND PARISHIONERS OF ALL TYPES WOULD FOCUS ON WALKING THE TALK AND SEEKING GOD'S FACE AND CALLING ON HIM [AND doing their Christian-citizen duty of writing and calling their legislators] in such matters, the lobbyists would be running around playing futile catch-up to God's moving in the situations on a list of issues.

I don't think Moses or Paul were much into lobbying other leaders. Paul was persuasive with leaders about the truths of The Gospel. However, mostly, he let the POWER AND DEMONSTRATION OF GOD'S HOLY SPIRIT do the lobbying.

QX: 2. Christians and particularly Christian leaders ARE CALLED to state forthrightly THE TRUTHS OF THE GOSPEL . . . GOD'S STANDARDS AND GOD'S PRIORITIES--TO FORCEFULLY [AND LOVINGLY] DELCARE THEM. Sometimes LOVINGLY = STERNLY--WITH CONSEQUENCES.

JOK: True, that was never the issue - the issue is whether they do it to 'be correct, who cares about their salvation' or to 'save souls'. I think we can say the later is the motive of people like Paul.

TRUE. TRUE.

QX: 4. What RC Bishop has publicly on CNN consigned what politician to satan for the destruction of the politician's flesh that his soul might be saved? What are they waiting for--150 or 500 million murdered infants? Is THAT the trip-line for decisive courageous Christian declarations from the bureaucratic hierarchy? Or maybe the RC edifice is waiting for the beautiful cathedrals to be buried in baby skulls in garbage bags before their Bishops scrounge some cajones? <.i>

JOK: No one is arguing that the bishops in America have been doing their best job on this subject. We can look to other countries and see bishops take their jobs more seriously. However, we have a different culture now. You just cannot ORDER people to do "x", after years and years of disobedience from the BISHOPS THEMSELVES here in the US! Perhaps if the bishops here would not have been largely in dissent on a number of matters in regards to Rome, is it surprising that the bishops here are not taken very seriously? This is the culture we live in now - "I'll do what I want". Largely a Protestant culture pervades our society. Obedience to self. At any rate, it is going to take a lot of time, prayers and effort to change this culture here - if it is possible. I am not sure that mass expulsions of numerous nominal Catholics is the answer, nor do I see a precedent for that in Scriptures.

QX: I do NOT think this culture is necessarily more of a watered down apostate Proddy culture than it is an apostate RC culture. Leaders of both camps have abdicated, rebelled, misrepresented Christ and utterly failed generally.

QX: Sooooooo some of the Bishops evidently need excommunicated, too. The time for fantasies about changing the culture are past. GOD ALONE WILL CHANGE THIS CULTURE. And He WILL DO IT BY FLUSHING OUT OF EXISTENCE IN THIS TIME/SPACE DIMENSION ALL EVIL DOERS. That much IS CLEAR about the end times, Armageddon etc. We can either get WITH HIS PROGRAM or briefly enjoy the swirling water . . . er fire.

Oh, I see some precedents in Scripture! The earth swallowed up some rebels in Moses' time. There are other Scriptural examples. And WE SHALL SEE MORE AND MORE DRAMATIC SUCH IN OUR ERA. I kid you not. I actually expect God to take out most of the congress critters . . . uhhhhh . . . emphatically from public life . . . via one means or another. I just don't know the timing nor the results. Perhaps they will all have chronic incapacitating diarrhea fromt he OTHER end, for a change! LOL.

I do believe that such actions and such a stance by a number of Bishops--even one--would galvanize the RC parishioners and force many of them to choose more consciously and more thoughtfully between God and satan. THAT WOULD BE TO THE GOOD.

5. What's the criteria for stern spiritual declarative action?

JoK: I think Matthew 18:15-17 is the general idea. Keeping in mind that Christian leaders are not to "lord it" over those they lead. It is a difficult situation and am glad it is not upon me.

QX: 6. Playing WIMPY VERBAL FOOTSIE with demonized globalist traitorous legislators is not my idea of PREACHING, MODELING, DECLARING THE GOSPEL to any significant degree. What RESULT do you REALLY, TRULY, ACTUALLY EXPECT from such verbal mutual masturbation exchanges?

JoK: I don't think I have much more to add to this rant. But I think it calls for a more measurable response, given the reality of the culture the bishops now face (part of which THEY have reaped...).

QX: What sort of more measured responses would you suggest? I understand the merit in such. However, I think the time for that has largely passed. They have had measured creeping compromise upon compromise as a result of the best Marxist globalist manipulations for decades. The result has been this horrid UNBiblical mess. NO MORE SUCH!

JoK: Have trust in the Holy Spirit, Quix. We must do the best we personally can do to spread the Gospel, including the teachings on life, to those who contemplate such issues or are swayed by the liberal media.

QX: Certainly so. Certainly so. The best I can . . . for me . . . include calling errant, UNBiblical spiritual leaders to Scripture, To God, to task. I have little to no power to influence them but I must declare as I am pressed in my spirit to declare. God will do what He will with such in terms of administering HIS consequences. However, I've seen sufficient such to know that I CANNOT abdicate the place and role HE has put me in vis a vis such declarations.

I GREATLY appreciate your thoughtful response. thanks tons. BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD.

Wonderful, thoughtful and Christian responses. Thanks.

[ArrogantBustard]

The Catholic bishops are all into "ecumenism".

OK ... use it.

You, a nonCatholic Christian, appear to be scandalised by their apparent inaction or inadequate action.

Fine.

TELL THEM.

Recognise whatever good a particular Bishop may have done, and urge him to do more.

Do it politely, do it rationally (reference the Bible, the Catechism, the endless Papal documents) do it firmly. Just do it.

Verbal blows to the head are for the enemy (Barry Hussein, for example).

Lighting a verbal fire under the chair is for sluggish friends and allies.

[Quix]

A reasonable suggestion.

Will pray about it. Do you have a suggested list?

I mostly feel it’s mostly fitting for RC’s to do so.

However, I also know I’m called to speaking thusly to whatever spiritual leaders The Lord directs me to.

I’m sure they have a large circular file for such inputs. LOL.

Thankfully, God has plenty of options for turning up their hearing.

[ArrogantBustard]

Actually, I'll pray that, if possible, God will change them into fierce proponents of HIS PRIORITIES in such matters.

See ... that's what I'm talking about.

Jesus told us to love one another.

What is love?

St. Thomas Aquinas (I believe) taught that to love was to know, will, and do the good of another.

What is good? What is the ultimate good for any of us? Is it not to be a believer in Christ; to be saved?

What could be better for someone, that for him to become a fierce proponent of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

That prayer of yours ... I don't think I've seen anything on this forum ever that I agree with more.

AMEN!

[Quix]

PRAISE GOD.

BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD.

May His will be speedily done.

Thanks.

[ArrogantBustard]

A list?

Off hand ... Francis Cardinal George (Archbishop of Chicago) is president of the USCCB. He'd be a good start. Also Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington DC. New Mexico has two dioceses: Santa Fe (Archbishop Michael Sheehan) and Las Cruces (Bishop Ricardo Ramirez). They might like to hear from you.

They already hear from (and will continue to hear from) Catholics. Given the fulsome evidence on this forum of Protestants being scandalised by nonfeasance on the part of Catholic leaders ... perhaps they should hear from you folks, too.

I’m sure they have a large circular file for such inputs.

Yeah ... no doubt. Still, you never know. Somebody has to sort all the incoming mail.

[Quix]

Uhhhh . . . are these guys the good guys or shilling for the other side?

Will try and look them up and give them a piece of my perspective.

[ArrogantBustard]

Cardinal George and Archbishop Wuerl have a long history of saying the right things, but not doing much about it. I know nothing of the bishops of NM. Bishop Martino (Scranton, PA) is, I think, in much need of prayer and encouragement. He's trying to act and not just talk.

[Quix]

Any other RC’s know about the NM folks?

[ArrogantBustard]

Sorry, I have no idea.

[mimaw]

The Bishop should have opposed Nancy Pelosi and her ilk earlier and more often. Perhaps a public excommunication would be in order. That would send a message to all Catholics that our church doctrine really means something.

[Salvation]

Bishops listed by Diocese

Bishops by Name

And the one I like best: Bishops listed by state

[Salvation]

I deleted that collection. Let me see if I can find it.

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Updated: American Bishops who have spoken against Pelosi

Here is the complete list of American bishops who have responded to Nancy Pelosi's comments so far:

1. Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver was the first American bishop to respond
2. ... Bishop James Conley, his auxiliary, joined him
3. Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington DC responded twice, first in a press release and second in a statement to The Hill. He has also appeared on Fox News, I am told.
4. Cardinal Justin Regali of Philadelphia, chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities, issued this statement through the USCCB website...
5. ... Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, chairman of the Committee on Doctrine, joined him
6. Cardinal Edward Egan of New York publised a strongly worded statement of his own
7. Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo issued a letter correcting Pelosi's claims
8. Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh and...
9. ... Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs have chimed-in
10. Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio, CNA reports has added his voice ...
11. ... Bishop Oscar Cantu, his auxiliary bishop, has joined him
12. Bishop William Murphy of Rockville has published an extensive letter
13. Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa has a detailed response
14. Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas has joined the USCCB's efforts
15. Bishop Gregory Aymond of Austin is on-board
16. Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston mentions the USCCB on his blog
17. Bishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando has written at length
18. Archbishop John Nienstedt of Saint Paul/Minneapolis challenges Pelosi's statement
19. Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, President of the US Bishops, has weighed-in
20. Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, OR publishes in the Catholic Sentinel
21. Bishop Jerome Listecki of La Crosse, WI responds in a word document
22. Bishop Richard Lennon of Cleveland, OH will comment in his September 5th column (PDF)
23. Bishop Ralph Nickless of Sioux City, IA has one of the very best responses I've read
24. Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco has invited Pelosi to a "conversation"
25. Bishop Glen Provost, LA: "Catholic Church clear on when human life begins"
26. Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn: "Judging the Candidates"

{Last updated on September 10th.}

Notes:

• Previous #23 has been removed. Bishop Joseph Gossman of Raleigh, NC is actually the bishop emeritus, and the new bishop, Michael Burbidge has not, to my knowledge, made a personal statement.
• Previous #16 has also been removed, it was an erroneous duplication of current #13.
• #26 was added September 10th, although he published his column September 6th

And there were more after these initial Bishops.

[Quix]

The Bishop should have opposed Nancy Pelosi and her ilk earlier and more often. Perhaps a public excommunication would be in order. That would send a message to all Catholics that our church doctrine really means something.

---

INDEED.

[Quix]

THANKS.

Have you heard anything regarding those over New Mexico?