Cardinal George Warns Catholic Members of Congress About FOCA

Inside Catholic.com ^ | 11/21/08 | Deal W. Hudson

[Salvation]

Cardinal George Warns Catholic Members of Congress About FOCA

by Deal W. Hudson   

11/21/08

Cardinal George has warned Catholic members of Congress that voting for the Freedom of Choice Act may result in excommunication.

Francis Cardinal George of Chicago, who is president of the USCCB, did not say politicians supporting FOCA would necessarily result in excommunication -- he said it would depend on whether the cooperation with evil was "material" or "formal."

This is what Cardinal George said in response to the question from CNS about the process of excommunication:

“The excommunication is automatic if that act is in fact formal cooperation, and that is precisely what would have to be discussed once you would see the terms of the act itself,” responded George.

“Could you expand on that, Cardinal?” a reporter asked.

“The categories in moral theology about cooperating in evil, which make you complicit in the evil, even though you don’t do it yourself, are material cooperation, which is usually remote and therefore doesn’t involve you in the moral action except in a very auxiliary and minor way, and formal cooperation, which would involve you even though you are not doing it, in the way that makes you culpable,” said George.

“So we would have to take a look at each case, and at each law, to determine whether or not the cooperation is material or formal. We’ve never done that,” he added.

Material or formal cooperation in evil: the former “remote,” the latter “direct.”

Ok, let’s compare the following:

A Catholic member of Congress votes for the Freedom of Choice Act overthrowing all the legal restrictions against abortions in all 50 states.

According to a study from the Heritage Foundation, 125,000 more abortions a year will be the result. Regardless of the precise number, more abortions are a certainty as a result of FOCA.

Is that direct, formal cooperation with the evil of abortion?

It looks formal and direct to me. Why? Because by voting for FOCA you know more abortions will be the result. The intent of FOCA is to make abortion more available.

I’d be interested in hearing the argument that voting for FOCA is “remote” cooperation.

Compare the member of Congress voting for FOCA with, say, the voter who put Obama in office knowing he intended to sign FOCA if it reached his desk.

Is that remote, or direct?

Compare the member of Congress with the bishop, or the priest, who said nothing to warn his flock about the likelihood of FOCA being passed by the Congress and signed by the president if Obama was elected.

Remote or direct?

Remember, more abortions are a certainty if FOCA is passed and signed by the president.

Cardinal George has raised an important question, and he has addressed it in a way to prompt reflection on the consequences for all Catholics, not just for members of Congress, who publicly support FOCA or who supported Obama knowing that FOCA was on his legislative agenda.

Do we face the possibility that most of the Catholic members of Congress will be excommunicated in 2009 by their support of FOCA?

Will the USCCB issue an official statement on whether support for FOCA is material or formal cooperation with evil?

Cardinal George said, "We've never done that."

It's time for the bishops to draw a line. That shouldn't be too difficult a task.

FOCA leads directly to the death of more unborn children. I can only imagine the impact on the Church if all our bishops do not, like Cardinal George and others, acknowledge that.

 

[NTHockey]

Enough of this political double talk. The message to CINOs in Congress MUST be: “You fote for FOCA, you are excommunicated.” PERIOD!

No case by case study, no evaluation, no penumbras.

[count-your-change]

How do you know this? Is there a list available somewhere?

[ardara]

This is a time for action.Support the 1/22/09 pro-life march on Washington!

[count-your-change]

What example of Becket should they consider?

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

How do you know this?Excommunication in the cases you mention is automatic. It requires no action by the Church, no communication of any kind to anyone. It does not matter if any Church officials are even aware of the crime.

[incredulous joe]

The saddest thing about the election this year is that it seems to me that the constituents no longer really care about this issue, or if they are pro-life that it is not an very imortant issue.

As for them being Dems, while they may not say it from the GOPs platform, there are a great many Republicans who consider this issue to be an annoyance to them. They don’t really care about it and they don’t want to waste political capital fighting against it.

They should go on Cardinal George’s list, as well.

[incredulous joe]

The saddest thing about the election this year is that it seems to me that the constituents no longer really care about this issue, or if they are pro-life that it is not an very imortant issue.

As for them being Dems, while they may not say it from the GOPs platform, there are a great many Republicans who consider this issue to be an annoyance to them. They don’t really care about it and they don’t want to waste political capital fighting against it.

They should go on Cardinal George’s list, as well.

[incredulous joe]

Beckett opposed the king and was murdered for his fidelity.

I believe today is his feast day.

[incredulous joe]

St. Thomas à Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, opposed Henry II. I believe he was actually close friends with the King before he fell from favor.

The King's famous words were "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest." 4 mercenaries snuck in to Canterbury Cathedral during the night to murder the unarmed bishop before the altar.

[count-your-change]

I believe the basis for their conflict was that Becket wanted the clergy to be tried for any crimes committed in an ecclesiastical court and Henry II wanted them tried in a civil court. It appears exemption from civil law was a great incentive to be a “clergyman” in name only.

More of a power struggle than anything else I think.

[trisham]

bump!

[incredulous joe]

“It appears exemption from civil law was a great incentive to be a “clergyman” in name only.”

“More of a power struggle than anything else I think.”

There is a lot of very dense “legal” material available on this subject, and certainly a good many Catholics with time, energy and pointier heards than mine to take up the cause for Becket on these issues.

I’m not certain what your agenda may be, but I won’t go that road with you. Becket certainly put himself in harms way for his beliefs.

Certainly a good model for Catholic bishops, and the depths to which pro-life Christians should go for their cause, which I think is more to the point of the original post about Becket.

[Desdemona]

Well, they can’t say they weren’t warned. And while the may excommunicate themselves, formal writs are going to be necessary, even if they’ll be used as a badge of honor.

[count-your-change]

Much of the information about the two men came from William of Newburgh’s History of England, written a few years after Becket’s death. Not really clear about friendship such as portrayed in movie “Becket”.

[incredulous joe]

I also could have gotten it mixed up with Thomas More?

[Emperor Palpatine]

Public excommunications and formal damnations of their souls to perdition might change a few minds........

[Salvation]

I think it is time for all (not just Catholics) who believe that "The Little Ones" should not be killed by abortion, contact the local bishops in their areas and ask them to individually speak out against FOCA.

Bishops listed by Diocese

Bishops by Name

And the one I like best: Bishops listed by state

[Salvation]

**This is a time for action.Support the 1/22/09 pro-life march on Washington!**

Amen!

[Nextrush]

I’m reminded that Becket would not honor unholy men with “holy orders.”

The bishops can follow that example by making sure that Catholic individuals who enable FOCA to move through Congress from Pelosi on down are:

A. Not honored by any Catholic institution period or
allowed to speak at a Catholic function period

B. Denied Communion

C. Excommunicated if they do not repent of their support
of FOCA.

Bishops may not get killed for doing it, but you know the MSM will be riled jup against them and the church.

This may inspire some anti Proposition 8 type of hatred in the streets with attacks on churches or bishops.

I’m not a churchman or expert but I know more about politics.

Voting in Congress is tricky and we must look at votes that move legislation as well as amendments to legislation that get voted on.

Some Catholic members may claim voting for an amendment absolves them when the votes that move the legislation forward should count against them most.

A pastoral letter read in all churches and published online
and in print should announce these actions against them.

No one should be able to claim they didn’t know if a Catholic institution decided to honor a member of Congress or allow them to speak.

[incredulous joe]

I used to be a little wishy-washy on this stuff; I didn't like the idea of refusing Eucharist to those whom I thought could probably benefit from the grace of the Sacrament, whether they knew it or not.

Over the last few years, I've changed my mind. Pelosi is more or less responsible for the change of heart. She has used her position to misinform and lead Catholics away from our faith. This is different and new, from pols like Kennedy and Kerry, who may hold themselves out to be Catholic, but most followers are not fooled by the way they live their lives ~ or vote their polluted consciouses. Nancy Pelosi attempts to paint herself as a daily Mass attendee and practicing Catholic, who claims that many Church teachings have some “wiggle room” in them, despite being met head on by many in the Magesterium.

I think we need to cut the chafe from the grain.

Your steps seem rather practical to me.

To this I might add make sure that these people are buried outside the good graces of our Church.