If FOCA becomes law, what's a bishop to do?

Canon lawyer Ed Peters writes:

The final wording of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) has yet to be set, but there is every indication that it will be the most radical piece of pro-abortion legislation ever proposed at the federal level. The near certainty that FOCA will be re-introduced (compounded by the increased likelihood that it will pass and be signed into law) means that, ready or not, Catholic bishops will have to face squarely the problem of well-known Catholic legislators supporting a specifically and gravely evil bill. As I see it, bishops have four options for dealing with Catholic legislators who support FOCA:

Read about the four options on the "In the Light of the Law" blog.

Comments

[Ed Peters]

Small point, Carl: it's not just a concern "if" FOCA becomes law. A Catholic legislator's complicity in this evil bill attaches before it becomes law, and indeed, even if it doesn't. I'm generally a fan of "no harm, no foul", but in this case, the harms are more than simply increasing the number of abortions.

[Dan Deeny]

Very interesting information on the abortion business as it relates to Catholics. If you were a bishop, Ed, what would you do? And why?

[Mulder]

So is this it? Was it really that easy? People who are hard-lined pro-choice and even people that don't care that much but consider themselves pro-choice...they get one candidate in, a slight majority in Congress, and they can get a bill passed dedicated to killing the unborn?

We've truly been betrayed. We never should have allied ourselves with the Republican party. They had multiple chances to stop the killing with their own bill (spare me the 'changing hearts and minds' speech for now). They never really wanted to and so it never happened. Their 'support' for life has never matched the desire of the Democrats to kill the unborn. How very sad.

Jesus, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

[TerryC]

Anyone want to bet what the overwhelming choice of the members of our episcopal conference will be? If you picked choice 4 consider your money safe. Expect the usual suspects to actually take action using choice 1 or 2, and be lambasted by the MSM who will drag out the usual cadre of liberal Catholic priest and theologians to explain to us why said bishops are just being mean.
I would like so much to be wrong, and will pray that I am.

[Ed Peters]

"If you were a bishop, Ed, what would you do?" Spend my nights weeping for my sins.

Sorry. You meant your questions seriously, but that was really the very first thought that occured to me. Let me give you a better, but likely unsatisfying answer: as a lawyer for nigh on 20 years now, I have made it practice to be very, very reluctant to make suggestions; rather, I present licit options. If the fair presentation of licit options leads reasonble men to say, "well, there's only one real choice here", so be it. But it's not a lawyer's role to tell people WHAT to do, but rather, what they COULD do, and occasionally, what they CAN'T do.

[Mark Brumley]

Good points on FOCA.

[Subvet]

Good post. IMHO anyone who thinks prolife politicians can filibuster FOCA into nonexistence need to check what they're smoking. You can only spend so much time reading names out of telephone books, the influence of Planned Parenthood and it's ilk is too strong for the culture of death not to prevail on this one. I'd not bet the farm on President B.O. having a change of heart either.

Bottom line is we're heading into a long night. Lord help us all.

[Tzard]

While there are various options - does the content of the law change the considerations of possible action?

What I'm thinking of is whether the fact that any law pays for, or promotes abortion - is perhaps less culpable than a law which requires abortions, or forces others to commit such a mortal sin? I'm thinking of the forcing of medical professionals and pharmacists to commit abortions (by forcing them to dispense abortion-inducing drugs, for example) by making illegal "conscience clause" provisions.

[LJ]

There is some indication that the will to draw the line is gaining some momentum in the Bishop's Conference. If it were only a matter of how to deal with pro-abortion Catholics in elected office I would not hold my breath on any consensus or consistent response, but there are other significant problems raised by FOCA including the potential closure of hospitals, in the same way that adoption had to be dropped in some States with the coming of same-sex marriage.

All of this hopefully will have the effect of causing a re-evaluation of what it means to "engage" the culture, as we are directed in Vatican II and other places. In times of great evil, and a government perpetrating that evil, it seems to me prudent to disentangle from the government, as some Bishops have advised will be necessary. Disentangle does not necessarily mean disengage, but we have to be able to recognize when we can no longer follow government regulation without compromising our faith.

This sobering prospect may jar some of the less enthusiastic Bishops into realizing that it is not business as usual and the world is indeed changing around us. In that context they may find it less objectionable to take a more rigid stance with high-profile Catholic dissenters.

[Greg]

This is not the beginning of a long night, it is our long, hideous nightmare deepening and lengthening.

The millions of innocents who have been murdered around the world are no less dead because they did not die under FOCA.

American Catholics and their Church own abortion. The sad fact is, there have been nine national elections since 1973, and if in any one of those elections Catholics would have voted their Church's teaching (however feebly expressed at the time), they could have stopped abortion in its tracks.

The Dems, faced with a devastating loss by 20 or 30 million votes, would have been forced to abandon death as a plank in their party platform.

(Sigh.)

It sickens me to say this, but at this point in history the future of humanity would be brighter if America -- and, yes, the American Catholic Church -- were removed from the face of the earth.

[Jeannine]

If FOCA is enacted, we will truly see what kind of bishops we have in this country: cowards or leaders of the faith. If they do not individually or collectively admonish these so called "Catholic" pro-choice politicians, I will seriously rethink how I will contribute my money to the American Catholic Church, esp to anything related to the bishops' conference. As of now, a portion of my contributions go directly to organizations accountable to the Vatican. I have no problem changing it to 100%. I'll even consider writing a letter to the Pope and tell him how I upset I am w/the bishops lack of fortitude.

As a matter of fact, every faithful Catholic should write a letter to the Pope when the time comes. I remember in the 1980's, 1 very far left bishop was put under the Vatican's radar after receiving many letters from that diocese's laity expressing their legitimate concerns. According to the NY Times back then, JP II & company were very pleased that so many people showed concern for the spiritual health of their diocese & did something about it.

[A Fine Mess]

What I see happening.
Some Bishops will get tough, others won't. IF the toughness of some Bishops "upsets" some in congress, catholics that is, they are going to register at other parishes/diocese willing to accept them no matter what without have to repent or change their ways.
That is what I see BECAUSE we know that the Bishops are sort of in agreement against FOCA, meaning they don't like it but most were sure willing to cast their vote in that way.
We will all be accountable in the end.

[Manuel G. Daugherty Razetto]

The possibility of FOCA being implemented is, truly said, a challenge to the American Episcopate. Today Laura Ingraham dealt with more news that denote how disingenuous Barak Obama is. The announcement that Alan Moran, well known friend of Planned Parenthood and Abortion,will be an aid to Obama on Communications, denies all previous promisses by the President Elect that there would be" a dialogue" on Abortion. No wonder previous Secretary of State Mr Eagelberger said of Obama: "he is a Charlatan and a Con Man".
Please Carl.. Give us an idea who the wimps in the Episcopate will be.

[Georgia]

Ed Peters, If FOCA becomes law and I were a Bishop, I would tremble with fear at the words of Our Lord to St. Catherine of Sienna on the subject of bad leadership from Bishops..... "Now how can those who do not know their own sinfulness, recognize it and correct it in others. They are neither able or willing to go against themselves. And the little sheep who have no shepherd who cares about them or knows how to guide them easily go astray and are often snatched and devoured by wolves. Because the shepherds are evil they are not careful to have a dog that will bark when they see the wolf coming. No their dog is no better than themselves. So these careless ministers and shepherds have neither the dog of conscience nor the rod of justice nor a staff for correcting. Their conscience does not bark to reproach them for their own sins, so they do not reprove the sheep either when they see them going astray or not keeping to the way of truth, not observing the commandments.

But these evil men are unworthy to be called rational much less ministers. Through their sins they have become filthy beasts. They have no dog for one could say it has become so weakened they may as well have none. And therefore they have no rod of holy justice either. And their sins have made them so timid they are afraid of their own shadows--not with a holy fear but slavishly. They ought to be readying themselves for death by rescuing souls from the devils hand's but instead they put them there by not instructing them in good and holy living. Nor are they willing to endure a single abusive word for their salvation....Our Lord's words to St. Catherine of Sienna from "The Dialogue"

[Dan Deeny]

Come on, Ed, you didn't answer the question. But I'll let it go and ask another. Can Catholics legally withhold the portion of their taxes that would be used to pay for abortions?