www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Violation of Freedom of Religion?

Even the Pope's statement during the in-flight press conference on his recently concluded apostolic trip to Brazil that pro-abortion politicians are "excommunicated" was clarified: instead, the Pope's statement was intended to mean that they have excluded themselves from Communion.

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=78559

So does the Archbishop of Mexico City, Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera, with respect to the legislators who passed the City's pro-abortion laws:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=9394

This has been also the stance of the USCCB, with some individual Bishops denying Communion from well-known pro-abortion politicians.

But, a Bishop may excommunicate such politicians, if he deems it to be the best pastoral route to take. I have had conversations with Bishops on this issue. Some years ago, I spoke with a very holy auxiliary Bishop who was involved in Rescue operations. He told me that if he were an "ordinary", he would choose not to excommunicate the likes of Mario Cuomo and Geraldine Ferraro, because he felt that the effects of that action would "do more harm than good". Implicit in his comment is the affirmation that a Bishop has that option. If I were a Bishop (God forbid!), I would be much more inclined to use excommunication, both for its medicinal effect on the excommunicated one, and to send a clear message to the Faithful. Catholics, as well as other Christians in the U.S., need to be taught with clarity, especially in light of the cultural "dictatorship of relativism" to which we are unwittingly subject.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

I fear that this is just the beginning of the attempt to interfere in our religious freedom. There is an undercurrent that is not confirmed that State Justices on the Connecticut Supreme Court case (about acknowledging the gay marriages of Mass in CT) have been tampered with because one was Catholic. The whole issue is confusing, one justice recused herself because of legal work on the case and then a Catholic justice was placed on the case....apparently the assumption was that the remaining six justices were already split 3-3 on the case (before it was even heard). Now the media got wind that the new justice was Catholic and nominally prolife (very nominally prolife) and made a big stink about how that was a conflict of interest and a breach of separation of Church vs. State and several days later the justice was no longer on the case. Very insidious-because now it looks like the case will go the way of gay marriage even though the legislature couldn't pass gay marriage. This is particularly frightening because I would imagine that this will begin to crop up in other states...Catholics can't sit on cases because it would violate Church vs. State.

Holly

I have to disagree with your assertion that a Bishop has the authority to excommunicate pro-abortion politicians, i.e., those who support legislation allowing abortion.

Nowhere in the Code of Canons are Bishops granted the power to excommincate such politicians. Censure them, maybe, but not excommunication.

That's why even the Pope's statement had to be corrected.

The closest thing that can be subject to excommunication, in this case latae sententiae (i.e. automatic) excommunication is that defined in Canon 1398 of the Latin Code:


Notice the words "procures" and "completed." Legislators who vote for abortion laws, and pro-abortion politicians and even abortion supporters in general, are not interdicted by this provision.

There could be other penalties or sanctions but not excommunication.

What you describe sounds like the application (in practice, if not in principle) of the "inclusivity agenda", which also includes "hate speech" legislation. (When they can define a "love-crime" I'll begin to consider "hate-crimes".) The agenda is rampant at the level of the legal "intelligentsia", who seem to take their lead from Europe and Canada.

It doesn't seem to occur to the media (and this is a feigned ignorance, I'm sure) that if citizens can be prevented from serving or participating in the society *because* of what they believe, only those who don't believe anything (and presumably don't know anything either) will be in power!

I think this kind of agenda is a blatant violation of the "no-establishment" and "free speech" clauses of the First Amendment. I think they know it too, and that's why it is being imposed by courts, legal niceties and the media, rather than out front where it can be addressed by all necessary means.

You're right; it is insidious.

It's possible that you are correct on that. I do not pretend to be a canonist. But, I do recall my conversations with Bishops on this matter clearly (particularly with the late, saintly Bishop Austin Vaughan, who was a participant in the Rescue movement).I will check on this with my pastor, who is a canon lawyer.

Dn. Robert

Hi Amado,

Yes, what you say is true. If he thought that excommunication were necessary, however, a bishop could stipulate a particular causa, promulgate it, and if everything were properly done according to the Canon Law, it would be binding. Bishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska, excommunicated a whole bunch of folks who belonged to various activist organizations which he found to endanger the faith of the faithful in his diocese, promulgated his decision, and followed through. When the various groups appealed to Rome, the Bishop was upheld.

And even if excommuncation not be necessary, Canon 915 stipulates that those who obstinately persist in a manifest (i.e., "public") grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion. This is the basis on which Archbishop Burke of St. Louis denied the Eucharist to certain politicians in his archdiocese. (Of course, he is a canon lawyer himself, and did not need to rely on the counsel of some hired hand.) I also believe this is what the Pope had in mind when he mentioned "excommunication". [That's a guess on my part, not a known fact.]

There is an important practical consideration, however, which only the Bishop can decide in each case: whether more good can be expected from excommunicating one or more persons, than the trouble that could arise from society taking the attitude described by Holly, above.

Catholic Online has the following story which discusses this very issue:

Canon 915 application by bishops in the US [catholic.org]

For those interested...a WEIRD update:

CWN links to a report of a poll done by "Rasmussen Reports" on reaction to this issue: "Many people in the United States disagree with the views of Pope Benedict XVI on the way Catholic politicians should deal with the topic of pregnancy termination."

Rasmussen Reports Poll [angus-reid.com]

Nobody seems to care that I have a slightly favorable impression of the Rotarians, but that I am opposed to their not serving alcoholic beverages at their luncheons.

The poll results might not be that weird at all!

If the universe used in the phone interviews faithfully corresponds to the U.S. total population, then those 23% in support of the Pope's stance represents 100% (or almost) the view of U.S. Catholics.

Those against are, therefore, non-Catholics!

Would that it were true (or even likely)!