After she saw an article she called police? I guess up to that point she just put it off to benevolent five foot bronze sculpture of Mary front lawn droppers.

The CCC actually goes on to say right after this "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," and Canon 1398 says the same. It has not been an interpretation of this canon that it extends further than those directly involved in a "successful procured abortion."

"If openly Catholic politicians vote for this Freedom of Choice Act, which would pretty much allow unfettered access to abortion in the United States, would it be an automatic grounds for excommunication? But even if it's not automatic ... could you just explain the process of the excommunication?" CNSNews.com added.

"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.

I would love this to be true, but I seriously doubt that regardless of how the law is written and how ardent it is in supporting abortion that it will result in an automatic excommunication. Certainly those who voted for abortion including partial-birth abortion have ever been seen as excommunicated by their own action. I would certainly loved to see Rome broaden the Canon to mean precisely this (which I think would be possible). Though Canon 915 certainly applies to those who "obstinately persist in manifest grave sin" could be denied Communion. Individual bishops though could certainly excommunicate those politicians who would vote for FOCA.

"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.

Not sure how a vote for FOCA could result in only "material cooperation" with evil.

Fr. Frank Pavone of the Priests for Life told CNSNews.com: "Any legislator who would vote for such an extreme piece of pro-abortion legislation [FOCA], and any executive who would sign it or judge who would uphold it, or even a citizen who would lobby in any way in favor of it, would be committing a serious sin, objectively speaking. It is cooperation with evil in a totally unjustified way."

Totally agree with that.

Pavone said that the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law lays out multiple conditions which must be met before an automatic excommunication occurs. "This really becomes a legal question that would require analyzing those conditions in an actual situation, and it is a step removed from the more clear-cut case of a person actually performing or undergoing the procedure [of abortion]," he said.

Dr. Mark Miravalle, a theology professor at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, said of a Catholic politician voting for FOCA, "I think you would have to conclude that it would be a formal act, a formal cooperation [in the act of abortion]."

The purpose of FOCA, he continued, "is to ensure the right of a woman to have an abortion."

One theoretical case where it would not be formal cooperation, but material, he said, was if the politician was pro-life at heart but did not favor legislation as the way to overturn abortion. Miravalle said, however, that such a case would be an "extremely rare and almost entirely theoretical impossibility, given the gravity of the legislation."
[article]

This of course will cause much wailing and gnashing of teeth from pro-abortion types.

But three officials from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including its legal counsel, whom President George W. Bush appointed, said the proposal would overturn 40 years of civil rights law prohibiting job discrimination based on religion.

The counsel, Reed Russell, and two Democratic members of the commission, Stuart Ishimaru and Christine Griffin, also said that the rule was unnecessary for the protection of employees and potentially confusing to employers.

Yes not allowing discrimination based on religious belief will "overturn 40 years of civil rights law prohibiting job discrimination based on religion." It must be opposite day there.

Obama has said the proposal will raise new hurdles to women seeking reproductive health services, like abortion and some contraceptives. Michael Leavitt, the health and human services secretary, said that was not the purpose.

Officials at the Health and Human Services Department said they intended to issue a final version of the rule within days. Aides and advisers to Obama said he would try to rescind it, a process that could take three to six months.

Yes allowing someone to follow their religious beliefs is a "hurdle to overcome." Not being able to force people to not follow their conscience is a problem. Yes those few people who actually have properly formed consciences are a defect that must be trampled over. You will assimilate to the culture of death or else! You can only have a consciously objection if it is to the military don't you know. Don't worry oh culture of deathers since this will only be a temporary span of time where conscience is king and Moloch will get back his crown within three to six months.

The proposal is supported by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic hospitals.

Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, said that in recent years, "we have seen a variety of efforts to force Catholic and other health care providers to perform or refer for abortions and sterilizations." [article]

Quite successful efforts especially when it came to pro-life pharmacists to have them fired. Planned Parenthood has called doctors, nurses, and pharmacists refusing to do what is evil a "significant and growing trend" and of course it must be quashed.

"It is not possible to anesthetize the conscience, for example, when it comes to molecules whose aim is to stop an embryo implanting or to cut short someone's life... I invite your federation [of pharmacists] to consider conscientious objection which is a right that must be recognized for your profession so you can avoid collaborating, directly or indirectly, in the supply of products which have clearly immoral aims, for example abortion or euthanasia..." -- Pope Benedict XVI, address to Catholic Pharmacists, 29 Oct 2007

This is a pretty cool idea and the finalists ere evaluated with the assistance of their Awards Selection Advisory Committee, which included the Archbishop of Denver Charles Chaput, the Reverend Dr. Alveda King, Ambassador Raymond Flynn, and Professor Hadley Arkes of Amherst College.

Wow that is so generous of him. Besides of course it is the Pope's job to individually contact Catholics who supported Obama publicly to set them straight.

Well who are you as a priest to set yourself up against the magisterium? Though I guess he must get to look through God's mail since he says these invitations are from God. Vocations are routed through Fr. Bourgeois or at least he gets CC'ed.

Bourgeois said the toughest part of the ordeal was informing his 95-year-old father, a devout Roman Catholic. He said he drove to his family's home in Lutcher, La., near New Orleans, to tell him, and that his father shed tears and then told his family that God had protected Bourgeois before, and would continue to today.

"When he said God will take care of him, I wept," said Bourgeois.

I find this very sad. It is always good to remember the human side of the equation and even though father here is in error, like almost all sin and thus error it is pursued as a good. Sincerity does not protect you from being sincerely wrong and maybe it is more than coincidence that sincerity starts with "sin". Once again we see the use of "devout" by the media as someone who opposes the Church in some fashion.

Canon Lawyer Ed Peters recent posted on this and said "I suspect that a penal decree here will not only impose an excommunication, it will also lay the groundwork for a fairly expeditious dismissal from the clerical state."

If Fr. Bourgeois does get dismissed from the clerical state, at least it will not mean a change of wardrobe for him. Seriously though please pray for him.

Tom of Disputations also looks at these comments and notices " complete lack of any residue of Dominican formation in many of the comments. How many could have been written by just about any politically liberal American and posted to just about any politically liberal American comment board? Does contemplation of the truth really add so little to political observation?"

The comments are rather amazing considering that they are all from vowed Dominicans or Lay Dominicans. Somehow I can't see St. Thomas Aquinas writing a defense for voting for President-elect Obama. More likely a Sed Contra in response for such a defense.

With Dominicans like these it is no surprise that St. Thomas Aquinas seems to be stepping in and helping out the pro-life movement himself. Here is a wonderful story of how St. Thomas Aquinas figures in the conversion of a former abortionist in Serbia personally responsible for performing 48 thousand abortions.

There is a smattering of messages from Popes throughout history, but the brunt of the book consists mainly of popes from Pius XII through Pope Benedict and not suprisingly many from Pope John Paul II in particular. I greatly enjoyed the papal messages that were selected and found that they were a great companion when it comes to thinking more deeply on this liturgical season. I easily read through the entire book in a day, but for best effect I think it would be better to read it in smaller chunks during Advent to Epiphany. In fact I found this book so worthwhile that I probably will pick it up again this year and do just that. Besides you just can't go wrong with what the popes have written on the subject and in this case you might want to have your highlighter ready.

Jesus is My All in All: Praying with the "Saint of Calcutta" is a new book put together by Father Brian Kolodiejchuk and serves mainly as a novena. It starts with the obligatory biography of Blessed Mother Teresa and then nicely covers the purpose of a novena. This is frankly the most meditative novena I have ever read. The various passages written by Blessed Mother Teresa are mostly short, but filled thoughts to ponder. This is really a novena whose purpose is to bring you closer to Christ as you meditate on him and to bring into focus the thought for each day at th end of the novena. Included are also two litanies written by Mother Teresa that are also quite excellent, especially "Who is Jesus to me."

This is a small hardcover book that reminds me more in style of older prayer books in it's sturdy quality and the photographs throughout only add to the value of this book. This is a book that is not going to just be placed into the recesses of a bookshelf, but one to keep handy and reuse as a novena.

Bishop W. Francis Malooly, the newly-appointed bishop of Sen. Biden's Wilmington diocese, said according to an AP report that he had agreed to discuss Catholic teaching with Biden, but shied away from advising the senator to refrain from receiving Holy Communion.

"I won't politicize the Eucharist," Malooly said. "I don't want to alienate people. I want to change their hearts and minds."

Yes we have heard that one before. As I have written in the past many bishops really dislike the idea that their actions will be seen via a political lens. I can understand this to an extent. Nobody wants to do what is right and have people interpret it as an act of political partisanship. Though the key is that you have to do what is right even when it can be wrongly interpreted and of course their are ways to try to mitigate unintentionally misunderstanding.

The problem about not wanting to politicize the Eucharist is that it is sadly already been politicized. When a pro-abortion politician receives Communion he is making a statement that he believes he is still in communion with the Church regardless of what the Church teaches. Pro-abortion politician receiving the Eucharist can certainly be making a political statement by this act. They are in effect saying "Hey I vote pro-abortion and receive Communion and nobody thinks this is serious enough to act including my bishop."

Receiving Communion when you support an intrinsic evil is objectively gravely sinful. This is an act of sacrilege. Our number one priority for pro-abortion politicians is that they do not further harm themselves by committing sacrilege and that they repent and be brought back to be truly in communion. Our love for them means that we don't want them to commit a sin by receiving Communion when they have not yet repented from supporting an intrinsic evil. Receiving Communion unworthily is not like breaking some rule, it is receiving Jesus when you do not receive what Jesus teaches through his Church. It is an act of mercy to rebuke someone in a charitable manner. To ignore their sin is not merciful in any way. Receiving Communion unworthily is spiritually dangerous as St. Paul pointed out in I Corinthians 11:27-30.

What in troubling in Bishop Malooly case (if the report is true) is that this is not about denying Sen. Biden Communion, but about not even advising him to refrain from receiving. This is to totally ignore the steps in Matthew 18:15 that start with rebuking the sinner and then escalate. For example Bishop Naumann had discussions with Governor Sebelius and ended up telling her to not present herself for Communion which subsequently she has not done. The Bishop has a concern about not alienating and of course wants to change hearts and minds. But no hearts and minds get changed when you standby and do nothing about it. All acts of ecclesial discipline have a medicinal application which is to help lead towards repentance. "You just keep on doing what you are doing" is not exactly an effective method to change hearts or minds.

Now the persons soul is the number one priority in this issues, but many bishops also seem to forget about the scandal of this and the message it sends. For pro-abortion Catholics when they see that pro-abortion Catholic politicians are ignored it only confirms them in their own opinion about abortion. This can't be the worst crime of our time if it is met with such a wimpy reply. Formal cooperation with evil must not be all that bad if the answer is to ignore it. Those that are pro-life are scandalized when a pro-abortion politician receives Communion. The media delights in taking pictures of pro-aborts receiving Communion since even they do that this is not right or at least realize it is in opposition to the Church. While scandal is of secondary importance, it is still important. Action is a teacher and so is inaction.

God graced me by not having the heavy load of being a bishop and I can totally understand why so many saints were unwilling to take on the weight of episcopal office since they truly understood what being a shepherd who is responsible for his sheep means. Though like many in St. Blogs I am an Armchair Bishop in that I pontificate on what I think bishops should do. As an armchair bishop this is what I would imagine I would do if one of my sheep was a pro-abortion politician. First off all the steps assume prayer involved at every level and follow the steps of Matthew 18:15.

• Meet with the person to teach the truth and to express the seriousness of the pro-life issues. No doubt one meeting would not bring about the necessary repentance and it might take several.
• If the meetings get nowhere, than to inform the person not to receive Communion until such a time as he has repented.
• If he still obstinately receive Communion than to order that Communion be withheld from him and an act of mercy.
• Excommunication is certainly something else that should be considered when a person obstinately continues to vote for abortion and to publicly advocate it. Archbishop Joseph Rummel of New Orleans excommunicated three men who resisted segregation. These three men later did repent of their sin. As evil as racism is in modern times it has nowhere the death toll of abortion. Supporting abortion does not result in an automatic excommunication, but there is nothing stopping a bishop from excommunicating someone if he sees it as a prudential. Church history is filled with stories of those who were excommunicated who lated died within the graces of the Church. Yeah the media would raise a firestorm over it, but so what? Better that the media raises a firestorm than for someone to die not being in a state of grace and finding what a real firestorm is. Blessed are those who are persecuted by the media for teaching the truth.

Archbishop Burke was pretty much a model when it comes to this. Bishop Martino of Scranton judging by what he said at the USCCB meeting seems to think along these lines also and certainly seemed frustrated on the conference's tepid response to this.

I would like nothing better than to see Sen. Biden, Rep. Pelosi, Mayor Giuliani, Gov. Ridge, etc, repent and to be in full communion with the Church. This is not a political issue, but a mandated act of loving our neighbor. The Good Samaritan acted when others passed by and I pray that more bishops act and that we in turn pray for our bishops..

Though why believe in good? And if you are going to believe in good than was is the objective absolute you base good on, or is good just whatever you "feel" is good. If good is subjective, why not believe in a god if it makes you feel good?

Fellow ex-atheist John C. Wright also weighs in on this and makes great points.

Because, of course, rational and critical thinking is an exclusive province of the atheist camp.

In my own life, I just had a fan of secularism tell me this in all sobriety. When I produced examples and evidences to the contrary, he retreated to the posture of merely repeating himself without addressing any of the points raised. In other words, it was an dogma of faith with him, not open to dispute. Ironic, no?

Regarding the article, this is the part that gets me: "Edwords said the purpose isn't to argue that God doesn't exist or change minds about a deity."

Oh, rubbish. That is exactly your purpose, and if it is not your purpose, you are a disgrace to the cause of atheism. If you are an atheist, you believe that belief in God is false, if not morally wrong, then it is your duty, your duty damn it (does that word mean nothing to you?!), to argue that God does not exist and to change minds about a deity: because all honest men must oppose what is false, and all virtuous, what is wrong.

I must say that I did not depart the atheist camp because of my disgust with my fellows, but the disgust did make the departure pleasant rather than filled with lingering regret when it came. My fellow atheists who were reasonable, not merely anti-clerical bigots, were a small and silent minority, and the choir of yammerheads was the majority.

I still regard men of reason, men of the mind, to be my allies against the forces of unreason, whether the unreason issues from within the Church or from without it. A logical man respects the LOGOS, whether he calls it divine or not.

When the atheist movement turns into a secular form of religion, it has lost its soul.

Laura Ingraham: Here is the problem, how many of the bishops voted for Obama.

Raymond Arroyo: ...The bishops I spoke to say that maybe half of their brother bishops if not more voted for Obama. Because they thought the symbol of Obama would overcome racism and be a great healer and unity.

This of course is total hearsay and not verifiable. If true, which I suspect it is than it certainly explains a lot. How in the world can we be surprised if 45 percent of Mass attending Catholics voted for Obama if that percentage or more of the Bishops did. Though even if this was ten or five percent it would still be scandalous.

Though to look on the bright side maybe the number of Catholic bishops voting for a pro-abortion candidate is down from previous years. The Bishops were certainly much more vocal this year with a large segment making statements on the election. Though as Raymond Arroyo also said we can't really expect the statements to make much difference when they come out just before an election and the animals have already escaped the barn with people being indoctrinated with culture of death beliefs from the time they are a child.

But I don't want to be all whinny about the bishops when some have been quite active and forceful in what should be our reaction to protecting life. American Papist covers some of the statement here.

Cardinal George's address to the USCCB was an excellent response in addressing these issues.

Though creating a true culture of life is certainly not on just the bishop's shoulders or the parish priests either, but on all of us to live the faith and to defend life.

Considering that this story comes from the National Catholic Reporter I don't know how true it is. Though I do hope the CDF has said this and I further hope that Fr. Bourgeois repents. There was about zero chance that the Maryknolls were going to discipline him.

In other news it was one year ago today when an attempted women's ordination ended in several excommunications.

The bishops need to get with the new regime. Babies are not a "blessing", but a "punishment."

Seriously though, this is great news.

No the "big losers" were not the bishops, it was the unborn. But since Steifel's definition of being a big loser is that people did not listen to the bishops who spoke out then by that definition Steinfells and like-minded types are also big losers since nobody listens to them on all of their progressive ideas for the Church.

A similar suggestion was made by Fr. Thomas Reese S.J. of Georgetown University in an article published by the Dallas Morning News on Sunday.

Quoting the same figure of nominal Catholics voting for Obama, Reese said that "Episcopal authority took a major hit during the election," and argued that "(the) division between the vocal, partisan bishops and the silent, nonpartisan bishops will be a major issue at the Baltimore meeting."

I knew that just as soon as the election was over that progressive Catholics would be taking just this exact tack. That the bishop's authority had taken a hit. This is laugh out funny coming from those whose idea of authority is what issues from their own lips. You have to preach the truth in season or out of season. You have to preach the truth even if you do not persuade everybody. You preach the truth simply because it is the truth. But for progressive Catholics preaching the truth to prevent the murder of innocents results in being a "big loser" and "taking a hit." I guess the martyrs all got it wrong.

Fr. Reese's idea of partisan is only political, but the word means "a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person." The "cause" here was for the unborn. Remaining silent in defending life is not something to be proud about. If you are nonpartisan when it comes to defending life you are one of those who allow evil to exist by doing nothing.

Even though a sizable number of Bishops to their credit did speak up, there was never a chance that they were going to have a sizable influence. A bishop's letter or homily goes up against the 24/7 culture of death and often minions of the culture of death exist right within the diocese to make sure any strong pro-life messages from their ordinary are promptly doused with water.

After reading Steinfels and Reese here is a palate cleanser at the end of the article.

Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, Oregon, also offered a different vision on how to interpret the current circumstances from a Catholic perspective.

"In our present political climate it would be very easy to somehow link our courage and hopefulness to the outcome of political endeavors. It would be easy to position our hope in some kind of political strategy and call for greater courage in fostering that particular strategy."

"The fact that whatever kind of kingdom we manage to build here will always be an imperfect kingdom helps us keep our focus on that in which and for which we ultimately hope, a kingdom of God in eternity," he said. [article]