I think most Catholics have concluded from the visible evidence (we cannot see private conversations, natch) that most of the hierarchy has no spine at all when it comes to politicians, and so a lack of action disappoints us in an unsurprised way rather than a surprised way. I was surprised even to see a public call for prayer and fasting for a strayed sheep by name.
I wonder what Jesus would advise us in this conundrum we face as Catholics. What would He tell us that reflects both His justice and mercy ? If a civic leader came to Him professing belief but advocating for the civil right to abortion, what would He do or say? Come Holy Spirit. Fill the hearts of thy faithful.
The interesting thing is: He would give (and does give, if we ask and are willing to get an answer) each of us *individual* advice. It's not helpful (in terms of one's growth in holiness) for me to wonder what he would advise someone else; it is helpful (in the same terms) for me to grit my teeth and ask him what he wants *me* to do, with a willingness to at least hear him out before telling him I can't possibly (sometimes of course it is something quite easy and one wonders "why did I make such a fuss - as though I were a tired child refusing to take a nap".)
He would do what he has always required for us all: repentance and conversion. Just as he instructed the rich young ruler to depart from his wealth for the benefit of his soul, he would admonish such a person. Of what good would this hypothetical person's hypothetical belief be?
So long as no real legislation on abortion passes through congress and is signed by the president, there will be no action by the bishops. They will continue to hide behind the maintenance of the status quo so long as the status quo remains intact. Given the difficulty of getting this kind of legislation through congress at the federal level, it seems likely the real action will occur at the state and diocesan levels. Certain state legislatures will most certain pass pro-abortion laws; what will local bishops do if the USCCB remains on the national sidelines?
I'm not sure I see how a SCOTUS decision announcement has much impact on EC. Rhetoric will become more intense, but how many hearts will change? EC is about hearts changing.
Excommunicate them - Biden, Pelosi, Durbin, the whole lot of any Counterfeit Catholics who condone the murder of the unborn while pretending to be Catholics. I have read that the Bishops are concerned about the optics of the Church excommunicating them. So what? The media and the culture hate and mock us anyway. I fear that the Bishops are more concerned about losing government money than they are about supporting pro-life.
If you read canon 915 it is primarily directed toward those who have been excommunicated or interdicted or otherwise subjected to public rebuke for grave sin. It is clear from the commentary ("The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law", CLSA 2000) that the phrase "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin" is a conclusion that requires a process. Several steps are required. First, the pastor or bishop must expressly and "in the public forum" warn the offending party to cease committing the sin. Second, this public expression should include the express threat, to the public sinner, that communion will be denied, thereby giving the sinner opportunity to avoid public shame. Third, the definition of "manifest" requires that it be known, and understood as sinful, by a large part of the community. If the community is deeply divided this raises the question whether the "grave sin" is truly "manifest".
Cardinal Gregory (with respect to President Biden) and Archbishop Cordileone (with respect to Nancy Pelosi) are simply being prudent in not undertaking this process. It is like a trial. If a prosecutor takes a defendant to trial, and at trial the prosecutor is faced with a defense case that calls the prosecutor's case into serious question, the prosecutor ends up looking foolish. No bishop or pastor wants to look foolish.
In the "public forum" Catholics are deeply divided on this issue. And this division is not about the life of the unborn child and the sacredness of that life. The division is because we -- as a people, in good faith -- are divided about what to do. What means should be employed to prevent abortion? Do the ends justify the means? Some think abortion should be illegal. This is the official position of the Church (see paragraphs 68 through 74 of "Evangelium vitae"). This is why there have been "right to life" marches every year since 1973.
But what does "making abortion illegal" mean in practice? Many Catholics think this is not a good approach. It is not as if the unborn child is a life unto itself. It is carried by a woman. Something more -- according to these Catholics -- is going on here than the separate life of an unborn child. To treat it as a separate life -- which is what "making abortion illegal" does -- is not being entirely honest. This situation is something that takes more care if the community is to get involved in a competent manner, to say nothing of being Christ-like.
How would this play out in a "public forum"? It is not self-evident that the blunt instrument that follows from "illegality" is appropriate to the circumstances. If this were brain surgery one would hope for a scalpel rather than a meat cleaver. Surely a community that claims it follows the example of Christ can do better than a meat cleaver. The reason Gregory and Cordileone have not pursued the necessary process is that they don't want to be in the position of defending use of a meat cleaver.
The decision in Roe v. Wade understood the meat cleaver that Texas was using and tried to handle the problem with a practical approach to the legitimate use of state power: first trimester, nothing; second trimester, nothing if the doctor agrees; third trimester -- after viability -- the state can invoke its power to preserve life of the unborn. Twenty years later the Casey decision tried to simplify this somewhat complicated formula by using a somewhat fuzzy standard: "no undue burden upon the woman".
What we really need now is something more creative and Christ-like than going back to the pre-Roe days where the power of the state could be used as a meat cleaver. We need to move beyond Roe and Casey, not back before Roe and Casey.
So the talk about denying communion to politicians trying to navigate between the scalpel and the meat cleaver suffers from a lack of prudence. It is a tempest in a teapot. It is certainly not Christ-like.
“A tempest in a teapot” is great excitement over a trivial matter. I’m not sure what Clyde means by this description, since it should be obvious that abortion is not a trivial matter and neither is the withholding of the Eucharist.
He says that the promotion of late-term abortion does not constitute manifest grave sin because many Catholics don’t think it’s sinful. If that’s so, we have a major catechetical failure.
He says the unborn child is not “a life unto itself.” We’re talking about a distinct human being, but also a mother-child relationship, which entails more obligations not fewer.
Make no mistake: legalization of abortion is promotion of abortion because it has enabled the establishment of an industry that feeds off the desperation of mothers, tempting them to allow the killing of their own children. It doesn’t get much more brutal than that. Those who promote that industry (including politicians taking its money and doing its bidding) are involved in manifest grave evil. For a bishop to warn them of this is certainly Christ-like.
I think most Catholics have concluded from the visible evidence (we cannot see private conversations, natch) that most of the hierarchy has no spine at all when it comes to politicians, and so a lack of action disappoints us in an unsurprised way rather than a surprised way. I was surprised even to see a public call for prayer and fasting for a strayed sheep by name.
I wonder what Jesus would advise us in this conundrum we face as Catholics. What would He tell us that reflects both His justice and mercy ? If a civic leader came to Him professing belief but advocating for the civil right to abortion, what would He do or say? Come Holy Spirit. Fill the hearts of thy faithful.
The interesting thing is: He would give (and does give, if we ask and are willing to get an answer) each of us *individual* advice. It's not helpful (in terms of one's growth in holiness) for me to wonder what he would advise someone else; it is helpful (in the same terms) for me to grit my teeth and ask him what he wants *me* to do, with a willingness to at least hear him out before telling him I can't possibly (sometimes of course it is something quite easy and one wonders "why did I make such a fuss - as though I were a tired child refusing to take a nap".)
He is the way and the truth and the life. He is full of mercy if people reject the clear teaching of the Church they are rejecting him.
He would do what he has always required for us all: repentance and conversion. Just as he instructed the rich young ruler to depart from his wealth for the benefit of his soul, he would admonish such a person. Of what good would this hypothetical person's hypothetical belief be?
probably, he would answer the same as he did with the woman caught in adultery.
I see a hierarchy that want to curry favor with the New York Times, Washington Post set. They had
no problem throwing the Sandman kid under the bus and BLM violence.
So long as no real legislation on abortion passes through congress and is signed by the president, there will be no action by the bishops. They will continue to hide behind the maintenance of the status quo so long as the status quo remains intact. Given the difficulty of getting this kind of legislation through congress at the federal level, it seems likely the real action will occur at the state and diocesan levels. Certain state legislatures will most certain pass pro-abortion laws; what will local bishops do if the USCCB remains on the national sidelines?
I'm not sure I see how a SCOTUS decision announcement has much impact on EC. Rhetoric will become more intense, but how many hearts will change? EC is about hearts changing.
Excommunicate them - Biden, Pelosi, Durbin, the whole lot of any Counterfeit Catholics who condone the murder of the unborn while pretending to be Catholics. I have read that the Bishops are concerned about the optics of the Church excommunicating them. So what? The media and the culture hate and mock us anyway. I fear that the Bishops are more concerned about losing government money than they are about supporting pro-life.
This is a tempest in a teapot. Standard politics.
If you read canon 915 it is primarily directed toward those who have been excommunicated or interdicted or otherwise subjected to public rebuke for grave sin. It is clear from the commentary ("The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law", CLSA 2000) that the phrase "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin" is a conclusion that requires a process. Several steps are required. First, the pastor or bishop must expressly and "in the public forum" warn the offending party to cease committing the sin. Second, this public expression should include the express threat, to the public sinner, that communion will be denied, thereby giving the sinner opportunity to avoid public shame. Third, the definition of "manifest" requires that it be known, and understood as sinful, by a large part of the community. If the community is deeply divided this raises the question whether the "grave sin" is truly "manifest".
Cardinal Gregory (with respect to President Biden) and Archbishop Cordileone (with respect to Nancy Pelosi) are simply being prudent in not undertaking this process. It is like a trial. If a prosecutor takes a defendant to trial, and at trial the prosecutor is faced with a defense case that calls the prosecutor's case into serious question, the prosecutor ends up looking foolish. No bishop or pastor wants to look foolish.
In the "public forum" Catholics are deeply divided on this issue. And this division is not about the life of the unborn child and the sacredness of that life. The division is because we -- as a people, in good faith -- are divided about what to do. What means should be employed to prevent abortion? Do the ends justify the means? Some think abortion should be illegal. This is the official position of the Church (see paragraphs 68 through 74 of "Evangelium vitae"). This is why there have been "right to life" marches every year since 1973.
But what does "making abortion illegal" mean in practice? Many Catholics think this is not a good approach. It is not as if the unborn child is a life unto itself. It is carried by a woman. Something more -- according to these Catholics -- is going on here than the separate life of an unborn child. To treat it as a separate life -- which is what "making abortion illegal" does -- is not being entirely honest. This situation is something that takes more care if the community is to get involved in a competent manner, to say nothing of being Christ-like.
How would this play out in a "public forum"? It is not self-evident that the blunt instrument that follows from "illegality" is appropriate to the circumstances. If this were brain surgery one would hope for a scalpel rather than a meat cleaver. Surely a community that claims it follows the example of Christ can do better than a meat cleaver. The reason Gregory and Cordileone have not pursued the necessary process is that they don't want to be in the position of defending use of a meat cleaver.
The decision in Roe v. Wade understood the meat cleaver that Texas was using and tried to handle the problem with a practical approach to the legitimate use of state power: first trimester, nothing; second trimester, nothing if the doctor agrees; third trimester -- after viability -- the state can invoke its power to preserve life of the unborn. Twenty years later the Casey decision tried to simplify this somewhat complicated formula by using a somewhat fuzzy standard: "no undue burden upon the woman".
What we really need now is something more creative and Christ-like than going back to the pre-Roe days where the power of the state could be used as a meat cleaver. We need to move beyond Roe and Casey, not back before Roe and Casey.
So the talk about denying communion to politicians trying to navigate between the scalpel and the meat cleaver suffers from a lack of prudence. It is a tempest in a teapot. It is certainly not Christ-like.
“A tempest in a teapot” is great excitement over a trivial matter. I’m not sure what Clyde means by this description, since it should be obvious that abortion is not a trivial matter and neither is the withholding of the Eucharist.
He says that the promotion of late-term abortion does not constitute manifest grave sin because many Catholics don’t think it’s sinful. If that’s so, we have a major catechetical failure.
He says the unborn child is not “a life unto itself.” We’re talking about a distinct human being, but also a mother-child relationship, which entails more obligations not fewer.
Make no mistake: legalization of abortion is promotion of abortion because it has enabled the establishment of an industry that feeds off the desperation of mothers, tempting them to allow the killing of their own children. It doesn’t get much more brutal than that. Those who promote that industry (including politicians taking its money and doing its bidding) are involved in manifest grave evil. For a bishop to warn them of this is certainly Christ-like.