Lets look back to early 2004 when La Crosse still had a bishop by the name of Burke, who had recently been appointed archbishop of St. Louis.
Jan-8-2004 - LA CROSSE, Wis. (CNS) -- Archbishop Raymond L. Burke has formally notified Catholic lawmakers in the La Crosse Diocese that they cannot receive Communion if they continue to support procured abortion or euthanasia.Catholic News Service
The four-paragraph canonical notification, published in the Jan. 8 edition of The Catholic Times, the La Crosse diocesan newspaper, called upon Catholic legislators in the diocese "to uphold the natural and divine law regarding the inviolable dignity of all human life."
"To fail to do so is a grave public sin and gives scandal to all the faithful," it said.
The two documents followed reports in the secular press in December that Archbishop Burke had sent private letters to three Catholic legislators in the diocese, warning them of the spiritual dangers of their votes against human life.
According to Archbishop Burke, the notification became necessary as an outcome of his correspondence with Catholic legislators. None of the three lawmakers to whom he wrote accepted his invitation for a private meeting to discuss their voting records, and in letters to the bishop indicated they were not open to changing their positions.
"After several exchanges of letters, it became clear in all three cases that there was no willingness to conform to the teaching of the church," he said. "So the notification became a necessity in order that the faithful in the diocese not be scandalized, thinking that it is acceptable for a devout Catholic to also be pro-abortion."
Archbishop Burke has declined to name the three politicians but secular news reports have identified two of them as state Sen. Julie Lassa and U.S. Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wis.
MADISON, Wis. (WTAQ) - A Wisconsin senator says she’ll try again next year to help bring justice to victims of child sex abuse. Stevens Point Democrat Julie Lassa was a main sponsor of the Child Victims Act that died when the legislative session ended last week. It would have removed the statute of limitations for victims of child sex abuse to file civil suits. [Not extended it, removed it.]Trial Lawyer Stimulus Plan
And a few other interesting notes about her record as
- Julie Lassa opposed legislation to provide conscience protection for medical professionals.
- Julie Lassa opposed strengthening parental consent before a minor girl’s abortion.
- Julie Lassa opposed informing a woman seeking an abortion after 20 weeks that her child will feel pain.
- Julie Lassa opposed a ban on human cloning.
And an important (but lesser) issue of fiscal responsibility
Lassa, a Democratic state senator, thinks that merely pointing out the fact the U.S. was in a recession is enough to wash her hands of the state deficit. But, in fact, the rest of the report shows specifically how actions by the Legislature contributed to future deficits; most notably, the use of one-time federal "stimulus" funds that won't be available in the next budget.Lassa voted for the most recent budget which left the state with a $2.7 billion deficit, and voted for the previous budget which left the state with a $1.6 billion deficit before the recession even occurred.Recession or not, Julie Lassa repeatedly voted for budgets that left the state with large deficits - including the budget to which the NRCC ad refers. And her attempt to pull one sentence out of a lengthy report to obfuscate this politically damaging vote makes her claim
So lets see, close down all Catholic churches in Wisconsin, and sell them, so Julie Lassa can pay for taxpayer funded abortions..... no thanks.
20 comments:
I know this is picky, but Lassa does not have a 'record as a congressman.' Her record is "as a legislator."
If you wanted to be fair, you could point out that the Child Victims Act was actually written by Scott Suder, one of the most conservative Republicans in the Assembly.
Good job at pulling it all together.
I did not know that Al, thanks for pointing it out. The article just said she was the main sponsor.
Your best bet is to refer to both as sponsors. She and Suder together proposed the bills in late 2007. Suder didn't speak at the hearings last session because he was overseas on his tour, if I remember correctly. The way the "Child Victims Act" has worked both sessions is that Lassa, et. al, sponsor it in the state senate and Suder (or Parisi, last year), et. al, sponsor it in the house.
oops. Scratch "house," write in "assembly." The legis has been out too long, I'm starting to lose my vocab.
Yeah, I don't know what the point of denying communion is to people. If you want them to reform, it seems to me that the best chance of it happening are when they are receiving communion. I might not support some politicians' votes, but I also don't support denying communion. It becomes political because then somebody (ie - a bishop) decides what votes are too bad 'abortion' and what votes are not-bad-enough-to-deny-communion 'supporting the death penalty / voting for war / etc.' Let's just keep politics out of it and let any Catholic that wants to ask for God's grace receive the blessed sacrament.
Anon: Because its Canon Law, bishops don't have any choice here. Even if he wants to do nothing, he does not have that pleasure. Although death penalty and voting for war CAN be voted for (albiet only under certain circumstances) by a Catholic, abortion right can NEVER be supported. Abortion is not a negotiable issue. War/death penalty are negotiable.
There are 25 children aborted per day in Wisconsin. There is absolutely no comparison to the number of unjust deaths through war/death penalty. There is no excuse for supporting an abortion backer. I'm not a big fan of Stupid Party either, but first things must come first.
The denial of communion is for the sake of the politician. It is seriously detrimental to the politician's soul to continue to receive the sacrament in the state of grave sin. Supporting the right to destroy innocent life in its most vulnerable state is gravely sinful. It is furthermore scandalous and confusing for the faithful to witness this sacrilege being tolerated by the ones who are entrusted to protect the Body of Christ from abuse. The bishops and priests who enforce the denial of Communion to overtly pro-abortion politicians are not concerned with affecting politics. They are pastorally tending to the souls of their flock.
(This comment was written by me, but I ran it past my in-house canonical expert before posting it. He helped draft the notification. He approved of this message.) :)
Yeah, same ANON here as before. Another issue is that on some level there are many politicians supporting abortion rights. Although President Bush wasn't Catholic, even he supported an abortion option in the case of rape/incest. So, should he be denied communion as well if he were Catholic? That's why I'm saying it's pretty arbitrary where the line gets drawn. BadgerCatholic said that the bishop has no choice, so if that's the case then why are Republicans that support abortion in cases of rape/incest receiving abortion? That's why I think it's too so arbitrary, on some level the bishops are making a decision as to how much you can support abortion and how much you can't, which I think is silly and injects politics into the Church.
CredoCatholic--I think we probably disagree pretty significantly in how to interpret Jesus' life. Seemed to me he was always hanging out with sinners and it was the people that thought they knew-it-all (ie the Pharisees) that were Jesus' biggest problem. Maybe Julie Lassa fits the sinner role well for her support of abortion (I don't know) and it seems to me that Jesus would want to be part of her life more than ever because of it, and the sacrament of communion might be one way that he could be part of her life and maybe help steer her in the right direction. I guess we disagree.
And I'll mention too that even if abortion were outlawed in Wisconsin, I'm not sure it would change the number of abortions that happen. 25 abortions per day in Wisconsin says Badger Catholic. Would those all still happen undergroup if it were outlawed? In a strategy to comprehensively lower abortion to eventually zero, we need to think about these things. If outlawing abortion would prevent 1 of those 25 from not occuring, but providing a better social net that allowed single mother's to raise children could prevent 5 abortions from happening, then obviously politicians would be morally obligated to support the second option at least 5 times as much as they should be morally obligated to support the first option (outlawing). I think we need a comprehensive approach and need to focus on changing people's minds about abortion so that if it were ever outlawed, abortions actually wouldn't happen rather than just happen underground.
Hypothetically speaking I think he should(applying Can. 915) have communion withheld. I am not aware of any Catholic Republicans in Wisconsin who claim the exception clause, but I think the same approach applies as was in Lassa's case(attempt private correction, and if not successful then correct publicly - even though Burke didn't publicly)
This would not apply just to abortion Catholics but say Catholic Pres Bush is involved in an affair(ala Mel Gibson) which he publicly admits to. Hate the sin, love the sinner as the adage goes. There are several reasons why this is done, I would just say in the generic sense of communion, we are talking about a "common union" or total union of belief. If abortion is murder then this is certainly a grave enough reason to rupture that union, thereby rupturing communion(of us to Christ and His Church). When a person receives communion, they essentially are communicating with their body that they do indeed believe in life over abortion. That would be a lie in the case of Lassa.
Canonist Ed Peters breaks the legality down obviously more coherently than I could.
http://www.canonlaw.info/a_denialofeucharist.htm
So any GRAVE sin this could be applied to. The church does lay out what sins are grave in the CCC 1994.
'm not sure it would change the number of abortions that happen
Should we make drunk driving legal then, because it will happen anyway?
This kind of Libertarian legality does not server the common good which we are all called to uphold and work toward. Law should support the common good. It is good to support programs helping pregnant women in need. It is evil to support programs and laws that allow the direct attack on the child (direct abortion).
It's faulty logic. Should we make it legal to shoot abortionists - "since it will happen anyway" - and hope that this legality brings about a greater respect for the abortionist so that people realize he is a contributing member of society? The answer is No.
BadgerCatholic--the logic isn't faulty. The point is effectiveness. Does having drunk driving laws on the books reduce it significantly? I would suspect that it does. Would outlawing abortion reduce it significantly? Not sure about that... it seems that having a law but not having a societal attitude that condemns it would cause women to just seek abortions in underground rather than not have them. So the question is does it work. Show me some research on outlawing abortions and how many fewer abortions have happened as a result. If outlawing only reduces 10% of abortions, then I'd say that politicians should focus on other ways to lower abortions that might be more effective at preventing them (social support system for example). If it would reduce abortion by 50%, then it's going to be hard to come up with a better policy solution than that, so in that case illegalizing it would be a good policy solution. So, I'm thinking comprehensively about this and am not convinced (although can be) that outright banning the practice is the best policy response to abortion that politicians have at their disposal currently. Whatever their best policy response is in terms of lives that can't be saved, don't you think the politicians have the duty to support that? Have the Bishops done research on this, it seems like they are really convinced that outlawing is the best solution and in Church I have never heard a convincing case for why this would reduce abortions more than other policy options. Somebody please convince me! :)
And if outlawing abortion isn't going to change the number of abortions at all, then the Church is wasting a lot of energy on that issue and not seeing an fruits for it. Instead, they could be working on a long-term-strategy of changing the nation's anti-life culture. After years of that work, when the culture was more condusive to an outright ban, then work on banning the procedure and maybe the abortions would be reduced by 20% and actually be saving lives. Right now, though, it seems like while noble-minded the Church's strategy isn't very effective at saving lives.
And the Church could work on multiple policy options at the same time, of course, but I would just encourage them to prioritize them according to which will be most effective at reducing abortion and make a convincing case to use at church.
I will do a post on the quite debatable point of illegalized abortion will increase the number of abortions. This position has been made popular by Doug Kmiec so I think it's worth addressing. However, I will leave this thread with two points.
1) The bishops must deny Communion to pro-abortion Catholics according to Canon Law. It is not optional. You could campaign to change Canon Law, but as it stands today it's not up to the discretion of a bishop to enforce it.
2) Morally speaking, politicians cannot do something evil(support abortion legally and financially) to bring about a greater "good"(reduce abortions). That act would itself be evil. In other words, the end does not justify the means. A politician must take good actions to bring about an end to abortion. Otherwise you could say the USA was justified in dropping an A-Bomb on civilians in Hiroshima(an evil action) to end WWII(a good end). The US was not, the bombing was a terrible evil.
We cannot abort ourselves out of our addiction to corporations like Planned Parenthood. Anon, if you wouldn't mind posting links to some of that statics you cite, I would be happy to include them in my post(why you think illegalized abortion increases the overall numbers of abortion). I will of course present statics in support of my position. May I ask, do you think there should be no abortions performed in Wisconsin whether it be legally or illegally?
I'm glad that you're at least consistent in who should be denied communion in Church. The problem is that almost all elected officials are going to be denied communion under your rubric, including a Catholic President Bush like you pointed out. I'm all for changing cannon law and wish this process was easier, by for example allowing priests to elect bishops rather than the Pope select them. This would allow parisioners to have a say in making the Church better. But that's an all-together different topic. I guess my position is that it's going to be really hard for the Church to be consistent in who they deny communion too, so why mess around with it at all. But if they decide they want to deny communion to all elected officials, even those that support abortion in cases of rape or incest (most Republicans), at least that would be better than there more fragmented, partial approach they have today. But I think that will create major strife, and instead of antagonizing everybody it would be better to use those people to build a more permanent pro-life culture.
I'm not saying that illegalizing abortions would increase them. I'm saying that it's possible that illegalizing abortions may have no effect or a very small effect. And there are other policy options that may have a greater effect at minimizing abortions. I think those policy options should be tried first, and the bishops should work on changing the culture so that at a future date illegalizing abortion could be effective rather than potential abortion-seekers ignorning the law and doing it anyways.
Yes, I would love there to be no abortions in Wisconsin and am interested in the best multi-faceted approach we can take to get there. And I'm not convinced the bishops have any real strategy for us to get there. It's going to require a long-term strategy that involves a lot of grass-roots building-up of a culture that respects life. They are going to have to find ways to gain allies in this struggle. Right now they are way to easy to turn their backs to people that disagree with them, and even moderates such as myself who want to get to a place of no abortions but are realistic that simply illegalizing them isn't going to get us there.
I'm interested to see how many abortions can be prevented by illegalizing, thanks for doing some research on that for us. Ireland would be an interesting example because I think they switched from allowing them to not allowing them back in the early 90's. I suspect that all the women went to GB to get the procedure done, or doctors underground did them, but I could be wrong!
Well I think it's obvious we have a major disagreement that "priests elect bishops rather than the Pope select them."(and like you said, another topic all together). The Church from Matthew 16:18 to today has been run by a pope. Just because you disagree with the Church's teaching on things like(I'll just guess) contraception, I don't think leadership change would necessarily satisfy you. I would challenge you to look for the truth. What is the will of God here, does he desire for abortion to be something illegal and not funded by taxpayers? Yes. I'm sure it is difficult for any democrat in this day an age - especially since their party has abandon traditional values as a platform leaving no room for the John F. Kennedy's of today. What are loyal democrats to do even though their political leaders have abandoned the values of the religion that brought them to prominence. When push comes to shove, a Catholic must side with their religion and the Faith handed to us(by the popes and bishops) who have come before us. It's a shame that the party of immigrants now legislates to abort them instead of educating them.
There are some good studies showing that illegal or "backalley" abortions prior to 1973 were in fact done by doctors in good standing(thereby making illegal abortions rather enforceable). So I will work on the post considering the argument.
Hmmmmm... are you suggesting that you know what the truth is and I don't? Or that either of us know what the truth is? I think assumptions like that suggest you might not know the truth as well as you think you do. I think the truth is something to be prayed for and can be given to us through God by a host of people, including Catholic leadership, for example, and those that have gone before us (such as JC), but also a baby on the bus, a friend, gangsters in Chicago, the poor in developing countries, etc. As we pray for truth in the hope that it is given to us, we need to keep our eyes and our ears open as much as possible because we might miss it in the various ways in which it is whispered to us. If we look ONLY to the Catholic leadership to provide that truth to us, we're robbing ourselves of the multiple ways in which God is likely to deliver it. And that kind of summarizes the whole reason why I think it would be valuable to bring commoners closer to the decision-making aparatus of the Church, it would likely make our Church better and stronger and bring us closer to this 'true' truth idea.
I'd suggest picking up a book by an Indian Jesuit called "Awareness" by Anthony de Mello. Everybody finds it hard to read, but being a man interested in faith I think you'll be glad that you did. I look forward to reading a blog post you write after it.
I think you are making a dichotomy where there is not one. The Magisterium of the Church is made up of poor from developing countries, friends, commoners. The Pope and bishops grew up and live among us. Many people don't like them personally or hierarchically because of what they teach as the generation-bridging conduit of truth, but that is why God himself created those offices in the first place. Example: even if you think contraception is good for women(or does any good for women); when I say the Truth, I mean either it is good for women or it is bad for women. It could not be both. There is no such thing as a 'true' truth. That is redundant. A particular religious teaching is either true or not true. So when I request that you search for the truth, I mean to say don't get locked up in a logical fallacy that two contradicting teachings can both be true at the same time. Weigh the evidence as you see it and make a decision. I mean this respectfully, don't change your church to fit your beliefs, but find the church that you believe teaches the truth. If the "gangsters in Chicago" contradict the pope, the gangsters in Chicago are lying. If the baby simply reminds us that all human life is precious and a gift from God, and that we must defend this gift, then give the baby a kiss and give praise to Jesus Christ who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Post a Comment