The Lesson Of Louisiana

[God Conquers]

I still don't understand why public excommunications are not used.

[M.SIGGA]

I still don't understand why public excommunications are not used.

I think the bishops don't do this as much anymore because it leads to so much division, and Americans in particular don't want anyone telling them how to exercise their vote. This evidence is supported by the fact that the most densly Catholic populated areas of the U.S. are lead by solid democrats - Louisiana, New England, California, New York, South Florida, etc.

I'm pretty sure public excommunications are still allowed, but it just depends on the bishop. Archbishop Francis Rummel of New Orleans publicly excommunicated 3 Louisiana politicians who supported Jim Crow segregation laws in the 1950s.

Since segregation was so popular, the excommunication led to rioting and protest outside the bishop's residence and in the streets. Former loyal Catholics pulled their kids out of the Catholic schools and refused to tithe or give money to the archdiocese. 2 out of the 3 politicians made public confessions and their excommunications were lifted. Leander Perez gained tremendous popularity and was elected to a higher office and he eventually became a judge in his district, St. Bernard Parish, because he stood up for segregation in the face of the archbishop. There are streets, buildings, and a highway named for him today in the city.

I say let the wayward Catholics go away with the excommunicated, and only the faithful ones will be left afterwards to be real witnesses.

[Trying2BFaithful]

As for Blaise Cupich speaking out against Daschle, I applaud him. But let's be honest, Daschle has de facto excommunicated himself. Not only does he support Partial-Birth abortion, but he also got divorced, remarried (no annulment) and continues to receive Eucharist! He's in a league of his own. Grey Davis can't even compare.

As for Louisiana, give the state some credit. I am in the middle of a Senior Honors Research project where I'm looking at statistical regressions of abortive rates across states and not only does Louisiana have one of the lowest abortive rates in the country, but the state also boasts the second most restrictive abortion law (second only to Pennsylvania). While I would advocate abortion in all case and fight vigorously against its legality, Louisiana has done just about all they can. They have mandatory parental consent, waiting period, and informed consent laws. The Catholicism of the populace at least is represented in their restricting of legal murder to the full extent federal law allows.

[Trying2BFaithful]

That should read "Advocate AGAINST abortion in all CASES"...horrible typo. I'm very Pro-Life.

[mp15]

I still don't understand why public excommunications are not used.

Because most people are spineless, including the church clergy. Well not all, but a lot of them are.

[God Conquers]

I say excommunicate'em. Give people something to talk about and prove their REAL devotion to the Church.

Trying2BFaithful, are you going to look at increases in prescription abortifacients alongside of that? I know that the abortion rates in Canada are going dow, but we have no way of telling how many chemical abortions are perforemed by increased use of the Morning After Pill etc.

[Trying2BFaithful]

God Conquers:

I may take that into consideration in the latter part of my research. However, my project entails multiple Cross-Sectional analyses of state abortive rates for different model years. I may compile all years' data into one spreadsheet and run a panel regression (if you know what that means...this is all Econometrics stuff). Regardless, at this point I'm examining the impact of abortion restrictions on abortive rates by considering 1988 and 1996, four years before and four years after Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, respectively. This landmark case deemed state restrictions (as seen in states like Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Idaho) constitutionally acceptable. Prior, all restrictions had temporary stays attached to them. From the information I've gathered, only parental consent laws induce a statistically significant reduction in abortive rates (according to 1996 data). Informed consent and waiting period laws show little, if any, reduction in abortive rates unfortunately.

When considering most recent years, I will need to consider the use of prescription abortifacients. However, RU486 was not approved by the FDA for use until September of 2000, so all data compiled considering this variable will be for years starting in 2001.

As for my project, if you're interested, the most statistically significant variables that impact abortive rates are teen pregnancy rates (positive impact), population density (positive impact), income (positive impact, believe it or not), and registered Republican percentage (NEGATIVE (yay!) impact). Basically what this means is that if you want to reduce abortion encourage teen abstinence, rural habitation, and Republican registration while discouraging lavish, wealthy lifestyles. Also, when forced to deal with legal abortion, encourage parental consent laws.

Economically speaking, I was actually happy to see that income has a positive impact on abortive rates. By this I mean that for higher the per-capita-income in a state, the higher the abortive rate will be. I was happy to see this because it dispells the Pro-Abortion myth that we need abortion around for all the poor people who need them. Looks likes its the rich aborting most most often! What hypocrisy.

Anyway, I'll be finished with the research in March. It'll be a huge document (at least 100 pages), but if you'd like to see it, I can get you a copy. Needless to say the liberal-minded college I attend won't be happy about my Pro-Life opinion. I really don't care. My data doesn't lie.

[God Conquers]

Wow, That's amesome, and a huge and courageous undertaking. I salute you.

However it doesn't surprise me that abortive rates are higher among the rich. Relativism and greed are perpetuated and fueled by wealth. There are reasons why the Church for centuries has encouraged rural, agrarian lifestyles, and traditionally discouraged business, urban life etc.

Plus, if you're rich you can affortd abortions. And you can afford to not use contraception (or misuse it ). I'm not advocating contraception of course, just stating a mindset. If you are rich, you CAN'T afford the "scandal" of a teen pregnancy, whereas among the poor it is more commonplace.

Anyways, good luck and God Bless with that project.