About 8000. Might not sound like many, but its certainly a Who's Who list among rank and file conservative/Pro-life Catholic leaderss in the US.
Any indications as to it being presented any time soon?
We're working through our contacts. This part is difficult, hopefully in the next 6 months. (I've always wanted to go to Rome.)
Any of John Paul's potential successors up to the task, if he is unable to continue?
That is the big question. We simply hope JPII is up to the task.
RnMomof7, DrSteveJ, OrthodoxPresbyterian
We could use prayers for this effort! Changing canon law so politicians are automatically excommunicated would greatly advance the pro-life cause, and though it would be met with bitter resistance, it might help restore some legitimacy for Rome among our "separated brethren" in these culture wars.
we will never see full restoration in our lifetimes I suspect... but that does not mean we can not experience a vast reduction in the scope of the separation. It is well known that in severe persecution... the underground church smoothly merges into one.
Too bad we have to experience such immeasurable suffering in order to be one, doncha think?
Count on our prayers to get the rules updated to fit todays religio/political landscape. I recognise of course, the goal should not be excommunication, and damnation... but simple repentence, or honesty...
If they would just come out and say... I am catholic and will no longer support evil... OR I am not catholic and I LOVE to promote abortion rights... makes NO difference. MOST of America supports SOME restrictions on abortion.
You go... and God be with you in your quest...
Out of curiosity, does not Roman Doctrine already technically regard Magistrates who cast a legislative (law-establishing) vote in Favor of child-killing to be "automatically self-excommunicated" (as opposed to Citizens who merely cast a elective Vote in favor of a Pro-Abortion representative -- which I would still regard as a Venial Sin at least, but I guess that perhaps it is more of an "accessory to Crime" against the Decalogue than is the Sin of the actual Magistrate himself -- "those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies", Evangelium Vitae).
I have heard this Justification more than once before from professing "Roman Catholics" when I have wondered out loud why (many, not all) AmChurch Roman Bishops refuse to formally excommunicate Pro-Abortion magistrates who claim Communicant status. "Well, technically they are already 'self-excommunicated', so kwitcherbitchin, Prot!" (Not from you, I don't think; you'd probably just agree, and respond with an [entirely-fair] criticism of Mainline Presbyterian failure of discipline against Pro-Aborts)
So, what would be the effectual change wrought by this change in Canon Law? Would it require the Actual (not imaginary) Excommunication of self-professed "Roman Catholic" Pro-Abort Magistrates, or at least make their Bishop liable to charges of "dereliction of duty" if the Parish adamantly refused to initiate even some type of preliminary Church Discipline??
Not baiting you, I'd sign your petition myself -- if they'd accept Protestant votes without disqualifying the ballot (grin). Just asking for your understanding of the case, if any; a fast-and-loose summation will do, if you are able to spare the time or have any Canon Lawyer friends who might pass along their opinions. Thanks!!
God bless, OP
I signed the petition a long time ago. I doubt that the Holy Father will act on it, though I hope he will.
That being said, I think that there is very little chance that canon law would be changed to envisage automatic excommunication for politicians supporting abortion.
Acts which lead to automatic excommunication are usually easily distinguished. Procuring an abortion or consecrating a bishop against the wishes of the Supreme Pontiff are two good examples. There isn't very much open to interpretation. You either get the abortion or you don't. You either pay for it or you don't. As a renegade bishop, you either consecrate after being told not to, or you don't. The line is reasonably bright.
But with regard to politics, the line isn't nearly so bright. Catholic politicians must oppose laws which permit a legal right to obtain an abortion. But, the Holy Father has taught that it is not immoral to support a law which explicitly allows abortion if it is the most restrictive law that can be passed at a given time and place.
Thus, passing a law which explicitly recognizes that a minor may procure an abortion, but requring parental consent or notification, objectively violates the norm. It is a law which permits abortion. But, if it is the most restrictive law that can be passed, it is not only not immoral, but a moral imperative for Catholic politicians to pass the law.
The problem comes when there are multiple possible legal paths which a legislator can follow. Is he supporting the most restrictive law which can pass and be enforced? Or is he compromising too far? In Maryland, our new Republican governor has publicly stated that he is pro-choice. But he has made clear that he opposes partial birth abortion. Perhaps he has decided that for now, naming oneself as opposed in principle to all abortion makes one unelectable (in Maryland, it certainly does). It also is, practically speaking, meaningless.
Even if all the anti-life Democrats in the Assembly in Annapolis dropped dead tonight (now you know the stuff of which my fantasies are made) and were all replaced by pro-life Republicans in the morning, and passed a bill outlawing all abortions by Tuesday afternoon, in time for a newly-converted Gov. Ehrlich to sign by Wed morning, the 30th anniversay of the license to murder the unborn, it would likely be thrown out as unconstitutional by Thursday evening.
But an anti-PBA guy might get elected. Indeed, one did.
Perhaps he then succeeds in getting a PBA-ban enacted. I promise you, that would be quite an achievement in Maryland.
What would we say about Mr. Ehrlich's ostensible pro-choice view at that point? If he were Catholic, would we wish to excommunicate him? Do we believe that he has taken the most restrictive line possible? Are we sure he hasn't? Do we wish to apply the extreme sanction of automatic excommunication in this area?
Until we see a big break in the favor of the unborn, our gains will be incremental. The politicians who will be able to give us those incremental gains will be those who fuzz up the issue, at least a little bit.
Excommunicating Ted Kennedy is easy. Tom Daschle, Tom Harkin, and the rest, they're easy, too. But what about David Bonior? Claims to be pro-life, never achieved a single pro-life anything all those years in the Democrat leadership. How about the deceased Gov. Casey, late of your state, Pennsylvania? How do we interpret his support for the infrastructure of the Party of Death? Excommunicate for supporting the murderers? Or laud for his words against the murders?
If Mr. Ehrlich were Catholic and achieved a PBA ban? Excommunicate for talking pro-choice but achieving the maximum achievable on the fringe?
How about President Bush, if he were Catholic? Excommunicate for using stem cells from previously-murdered embryos? Give a papal Knighthood if he gets through a PBA ban? Excommunicate for saying that he supports abortion rights in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother? Or papal Knighthood if he appoints three Justices who then vote in a 6-3 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade?
It is possible that the Holy See might excommunicate selected pro-death Catholic politicians. Automatic excommunication, I don't think so.
sitetest