(CNSNews.com) – Catholic members of Congress who vote for the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) could face “automatic excommunication” if the act is determined to be “formal cooperation” in the evil of abortion.

When asked last week whether a Catholic politician voting for the FOCA – which would impose nationwide abortion on demand and government funding of abortion – would incur automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago said the question would need to be discussed once the actual language of the bill was known.

George is president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

In order to be considered in the next Congress, which convenes in January, the Freedom of Choice Act needs to be reintroduced. In the current Congress, it has been sponsored by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).

At a press conference at the fall meeting of the USCCB held in Baltimore last week, CNSNews.com asked Cardinal George if the language in the Catholic Catechism that says “formal cooperation” in abortion incurs the penalty of excommunication would apply to a Catholic member of Congress voting for FOCA.

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense and the church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life,” CNSNews.com asked.

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]

WASHINGTON: A last-minute Bush administration plan to grant sweeping new protections to health care providers who oppose abortion and other procedures on religious or moral grounds has provoked a torrent of objections, including a strenuous protest from the government agency that enforces job-discrimination laws.

The proposed rule would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their "religious beliefs or moral convictions."

It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices and drugstores from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to "assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity" financed by the Department of Health and Human Services.

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

Life Prizes is an annual prize program awarding up to $600,000 for outstanding efforts to awaken the conscience of America to the sanctity of human life through public advocacy, scientific research, outreach and public disclosure activities, legal action and other noteworthy achievements. Life Prizes is an initiative of the Gerard Health Foundation, the private charity foundation of Raymond B. and Marilyn A. Ruddy, long-time pro-life philanthropists.

…The $600,000 in prize money will be divided among the following six winners:

American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) – Association of pro-life physicians that saves lives by remaining steadfastly committed to life within a stridently pro-abortion profession and which conducts research, writing, and public advocacy especially on the negative impact of abortion on women.

Richard Doerflinger – Associate Director of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, bioethics expert, consummate researcher, and has been involved in almost every major pro-life legislative initiative since 1980. He has contributed behind the scenes to all major pro-life statements from the Catholic bishops during the last quarter century.

Margaret “Peggy” Hartshorn – President, Heartbeat International, a preeminent network of more than 1,000 pregnancy resource centers spread throughout the world that has directly saved the lives of innumerable unborn children and their mothers from abortion through vital pregnancy support.

Jill Stanek – Nurse who first publicly exposed infanticide of abortion survivors, Born-Alive Infant Protection Act proponent and chief witness, and prolific writer who uses the media and her popular blog to continue revealing the truth about late-term abortion.

Lila Rose – Founder of student pro-life organization Live Action and President of its UCLA chapter. She has launched several successful, undercover investigations that exposed the racism and statutory rape cover-up by Planned Parenthood.

Kay Coles James – Founder and President of The Gloucester Institute, an outreach and education initiative for young African Americans focused on developing solutions for the challenges facing communities today, utilizing lessons learned from the civil rights movement, including a recognition that the first civil right is life itself. She and her husband, Charles James, have worked to advance the pro-life cause for three decades as advocates in the highest levels of government, including the Reagan and both Bush presidential administrations and as founders of a pregnancy resource center and Black Americans for Life. [article]

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.

Doug Kmiec, a ” pro-life ” Catholic who vocally supported President-elect Barack Obama, defended his position in a lecture Tuesday at St. John’s Seminary in Camarillo, California. The law professor told attendees that if Pope Benedict told him that his support for the pro-abortion politician was out of line with the Church’s teachings, he would stand by the Magisterium. [article]

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.

First off Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP links to what he calls “Cringe-worthy comments from Domlife.org”. And indeed they are quite cringe-worthy, though there are still some who realize what Obama’s election means to the innocent in the womb. The difference between two Dominican nuns commenters part of the Adrian Dominicans was quite stark.

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.