Abortion and Excommunication

Dear Salvation,

“A person is warned by one kind or another of a spiritual adviser, and still persists in holding their views that abortion is OK.”

That's part of it.

Think of Ed Peters’ (the canon lawyer) reaction to the priest in the Archdiocese of Washington who attempted to prevent the Buddhist lesbian from receiving Holy Communion. What he said was, just because the priest may have taken some time before Mass to try to explicate to the woman that her intended actions were problematic didn't mean that the requirements of canon law were fulfilled.

I'm not sure I agree with Peters, but he is a canon lawyer of some repute, whether deserved or not.

I don't know precisely what he has in mind, but clearly, it's more than just some random priest or spiritual advisor stating, “What you believe is heresy,” or “You're living in a state of sin.”

I don't know what level of formality of process some might imagine necessary to be able to define someone as being in a state of obstinate denial of a tenet of the faith.

However, my own view (worth something less than the price of a cup of cheap coffee) is that it should be easier to deny someone the Blessed Sacrament as opposed to define them as excommunicated latae sententiae. Remember that part of the intention of Canon 915 is to prevent scandal of other Catholics. Whether or not the likes of a Buddhist lesbian understand completely the import of her actions and beliefs, if much of the rest of the congregation knows about her living arrangements, the purpose of denying her Communion isn't just about her, but about the others observing her at Mass. Denying her Communion is about protecting others from scandal.

I think this same approach could - and should - be used with public pro-aborts. Regardless of whether these folks are formal heretics, their ability to approach the Sacrament is a scandal, and leads others astray.

I know this as a fact. As a Past Grand Knight of my own Knights of Columbus council, I know folks who aren't really on board with our pro-life activities. I've asked, how can you think yourself Catholic when you're pro-abort? And they answer, “the bishops aren't really serious about that teaching, otherwise they'd never permit folks like the Kennedys, or (in my state) Mikulski, or Schwarzenegger or [fill in the blank pro-abort Catholic politician] to go to Communion.”

So, they reason that if it's okay for the late Chappaquiddick Ted, it must be okay for them. If it's okay for Nazi Pelosi, it must be okay for them. If Arnie Schwarzenegger can go to Communion, then you CAN be pro-abort and be Catholic, and a Catholic in good standing, in spite of the lip service paid by Donna Wuerl and other ecclesiastics of her ilk.

It's like Mr. Nixon used to say, "What what I do, not what I say."

And, you know, they have a point.

sitetest

From EWTN

Abortion - Excommunication

The way the excommunication for abortion works is this.

Canon 1398 provides that, "a person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication." This means that at the very moment that the abortion is successfully accomplished, the woman and all formal conspirators are excommunicated.

An abortion is defined as "the killing of the foetus, in whatever way or at whatever time from the moment of conception" (Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, published in the "Acts of the Apostolic See" vol. 80 (1988), 1818). This definition applies to any means, including drugs, by which a human being present in the woman is killed. Thus, once a woman knows she is pregnant the intentional killing of the new life within her is not only murder but an excommunicable offense. A woman who only thinks she might be pregnant has a grave responsibility to find out and to protect the possible life within. Any action to end a "possible" pregnancy while probably not an excommunicable offense would be callous disregard for life and gravely sinful.

Conspirators who incur the excommunication can be defined as those who make access to the abortion possible. This certainly includes doctors and nurses who actually do it, husbands, family and others whose counsel and encouragement made it morally possible for the woman, and those whose direct practical support made it possible (financially, driving to the clinic etc.).

Clearly those who think the availability of chemical abortions will settle the abortion issue are deluded. It will only widen to drug manufacturers, pharmacists and family physicians those guilty of grave sin and subject to excommunication. [It should also be noted that many contraceptive pills are already abortifacient in operation. Theoretically, the knowing use of such a pill for its abortafacient purpose could also subject one to excommunication. Pill manufacturers have recently been touting this capability of their deadly wares.]

NOTE WELL To actually incur the excommunication one must know that it is an excommunicable offense at the time of the abortion. Canon 1323 provides that the following do not incur a sanction, those who are not yet 16, are unaware of a law, do not advert to it or are in error about its scope, were forced or had an unforeseeable accident, acted out of grave fear, or who lacked the use of reason (except culpably, as by drunkenness). Thus a woman forced by an abusive husband to have an abortion would not incur an excommunication, for instance, whereas someone culpably under the influence of drugs or alcohol would (canon 1325).

In any case, whether one has been excommunicated or not, the sin of abortion must be confessed as the taking of innocent human life (5th Commandment). If the penitent did not know about this law at the time of the abortion then he or she was NOT excommunicated. If the person knew about the law but there were extenuating circumstances (such as mentioned above concerning c. 1323) then these factors should be mentioned to the confessor. He will say whether he has the faculty from the bishop to absolve from this excommunication or whether he even needs to. If he does not, he will privately and secretly obtain absolution from the bishop or send the person to a confessor who has that power.

A person who believes they have been excommunicated must refrain from Holy Communion until both absolution for the sin and absolution for the excommunication has been given.

One complicating factor for anyone in this situation is that intentionally withholding mortal sin (abortion) or knowledge of one's excommunication invalidates ALL the absolutions for other sins given since the time of the intentionally overlooked sin. Culpably withholding mortal sin or an excommunication means that even after the priest says the words of absolution because of dishonesty on the penitent's part, the sin has not been absolved. Absolution is not magic, it depends upon sincere repentance from all known mortal sins and a firm purpose of amendment. Such sins would need to be confessed again, as part of an integral (complete and honest) confession. This is not the case if the person did not know that what they did was sinful in the eyes of God and the Church, but only found out this out latter. Since they did not withhold from confession what they knew to be sinful their prior confessions are valid.

The Church makes every effort to make Penance available and obliges priests to make anonymity possible as well (c. 964). There is really no valid excuse for delaying one's full return to the sacraments. All those who have had abortions should come home to Christ and the Church.

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.