To put it bluntly, I have a few reservations about canon 1398. “A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication,” the canon states. Please do not mistake my reservations as support for abortion. In no way do I condone this intrinsically evil act, which the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches “is gravely contrary to the moral law” as well as an “abominable crime” (2271).
Yet my experience in ministry has taught me that most women who abort their child act under some sort of emotional, mental and/or psychological duress. Despite what many feminists claim, I seldom come across an abortion that is freely chosen – that is, chosen without coercion from some outside individual or organization. Sometimes this pressure comes from a boyfriend who refuses any responsibility for the pregnancy. Other times, parents seek a quick fix for their teenaged daughters. “Get rid of it or get out of the house!” is, sadly, the execution decree of all-too-many grandchildren. But even more reprehensible, in my opinion, is the coercion a distraught pregnant mother finds among the very women’s organizations that claim to uphold her freedom of choice. As my friend Mark Shea often reminds me, abortion is the principal sacrament of initiation into the culture of death. Therefore, a woman often discovers when dealing with feminist pregnancy crisis centers that her choices do not include bringing the child within her womb to full term.
Thus abortion is a traumatic choice often made under duress. As the reality of the choice to end the life of one’s child sets in, the woman is left in need of the Church’s help and compassion. For once her child is dead, the woman will find neither help nor compassion from the abortion industry. Yet alone and ashamed, the perception of canonical censures only further drives these women away from the Church in many instances. This compounds the problem.
These women know abortion is wrong. They feel it in their soul every time they see a mother with a stroller pass by on the sidewalk. Their heart cries out with every advertisement for diapers that flashes across the television screen. What these women need is Christ’s healing touch in the confessional, as well as sustained pastoral support from pro-life organizations like Project Rachel. This is the approach Christ took with Mary Magdalen’s adultery: He did not excuse the sin, but He did not turn away the sinner. He invited her to repentance and forgiveness.
Nevertheless, I feel no such compassion toward those who profit – whether financially or politically – from abortion. As a canonist, I firmly believe in the use of canonical censures to combat this intrinsic evil. Yet these canonical censures should be aimed where they are most deserved. Thus in reflecting upon the carnage wrought by the culture of death over the past thirty years, the Church must strengthen and enforce canonical censures against the so-called "Catholic" politicians, doctors, pregnancy counselors, nurses and lawyers who continue to support and protect an industry dedicated to the willful butchering of children in the womb.
Of course, there is no need to excommunicate the doctors, nurses and other medical staff directly involved in the abortion industry – the Code of Canon Law already provides for their automatic excommunication. As canon 1329, §2 states: “In the case of a latae sententiae penalty attached to an offence, accomplices, even though not mentioned in the law or precept, incur the same penalty if, without their assistance, the crime would not have been committed, and if the penalty is of such a nature as to be able to affect them..." Since the abortion would be impossible without the direct assistance of the medical staff, this makes them direct accomplices to the abortion. So they are automatically excommunicated if they happen to be Catholic. No canonical trial is necessary. The competent ecclesiastical authority need only declare the penalty.
Unfortunately, the canonical situation is a little more complex when it comes to Catholic politicians who support abortion. For their participation in the scandal of abortion is more indirect. The politicians and lawyers draft, legislate and protect laws that permit this evil. Most do not, however, directly participate from the abortion chamber. Therefore the automatic excommunication envisioned by canons 1329 and 1398 would not apply to these lawyers and politicians since, in keeping with the principle of canon 18, “Laws which prescribe a penalty [...] are to be interpreted restrictively.”
Nevertheless, a competent Church authority may use other means to impose excommunication upon pro-abortion Catholic politicians. Moreover, there are other penalties the Church may impose. At the very minimum, the Church can and should prohibit pro-abortion lawyers and politicians from receiving Holy Communion. In fact, any bishop may invoke canon 1399 to do so. “Besides the cases prescribed in this or in other laws,” the canon states, “the external violation of divine or canon law can be punished, and with a just penalty, only when the special gravity of the violation requires it and necessity demands that scandals be prevented or repaired.”
Now some canonists will object to my interpretation of this canon, arguing that reception of Holy Communion is a right of Christ’s faithful. However, this right is in no way absolute. As canon 223, §2 states: “Ecclesiastical authority is entitled to regulate, in view of the common good, the exercise of rights which are proper to Christ’s faithful.” One is hard pressed to see how permitting pro-abortion Catholic politicians to go unchallenged contributes to the common good – either of the Church or of society as a whole. Rather, abortion destroys the common good in that it destroys the right to life. This is the right upon which all other rights, as well as the common good, are based.
Moreover, canon 912 states: “Any baptized person who is not forbidden by law may and must be admitted to Holy Communion.” In short, canon law provides an exception for to the right to receive Holy Communion, namely, for those who are forbidden by law. Canon 915 clarifies one such exception as follows: “Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”
In the end, there is no lack of pertinent canonical legislation granting a competent ecclesiastical authority the right to refuse Holy Communion to Catholic politicians who are obstinately pro-abortion. What the Church needs is the will to enforce this proposed course of action. Undoubtedly, some will denounce such refusal of the sacraments as too severe. Yet what is the alternative? For according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, through abortion “irreparable harm [is] done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society” (2272).
[Since I am already being asked, permission to reproduce in whole is hereby granted by the author, provided proper attribution is given to "Pete Vere, JCL" as the author and http://catholiclight.stblogs.org as the original source.]
Pete
You have raised a question.
I have always thought, for no good reason, that the language "person who procures and abortion" applied to the one who actually arranged for the abortion. In other words, if someone pressured a pregnant teen, say, into getting an abortion, the penalty of excommunition would apply to both persons. The idea being that this would dissuade someone from pressuring another into an abortion. I don't know where this idea in my mind came from, truth to tell.
Is this a valid way of looking at this question?
Paz y bien
Let me ask you a question. A person works in a facility which does not perform abortions, but which gives all newly pregnant women an 'options packet'. This packet includes resources for prenatal care, how to apply for financial assistance for housing etc, names of crisis pregnancy centers that will help with adoption or parenting, and also names and price lists of abortion facilities. No direct arrangements are made for abortion - no phone calls or referrals - but the information is made available in the packet.
Would a Catholic in good conscience be able to continue working in such a setting? I can see that he or she would be banned from providing the information on how to get an abortion (handing out the packet), but would he or she be OK to provide other care through that agency? (which also does prenatal, general health, and pediatric care as a provider of last resort for the indigent).
Hi, Alicia:
I don't think a Catholic would have any moral problem with working there. He or she would not be consenting to, directly assisting, or engaging in the immoral actions that other staff perform.
I suppose there might be a slight entanglement between the Catholic's work and the institution's actions: e.g., if the Catholic were aiding the institution by lending his or her professional prestige to it. However, that involvement is hypothetical and very indirect, so it is not enough to place a duty on the faithful.
We're obliged to desist from directly doing evil, but we're not obliged to totally prevent other people from taking advantage of our good actions and doing evil. It's just not possible.
I used to work as a secretary for an ob/gyn who did abortions and I just hated knowing as much as I had to to do that. However, my question really is, are many people actually banned from Communion for being involved in procuring/performing abortions and do you think it is much of a deterrent? After all, if they cared they wouldn't be doing it in the first place.
Pete,
Since, as you say, most abortions are done under duress to the woman, why didn't you bring up CIC 1324? It allows for the penalty to be reduced to a penance if grave fear or duress were present, or if the perpetrator was unaware that the abortion carried a canonical penalty. (Note that the word "canonical" is key - most women know it's a mortal sin, but not necessarily that it's a latae sententiae excommunication.) Additionally, if she was under grave inconvenience - or even just thought that she was - then the penalty may be reduced. In practice, this and a few other citations cover almost every woman who obtains an abortion, save the most hardened feminists, or those who have been informed about the Code and its penal requirements.
My practice in the confessional is to ask enough questions to ascertain whether or not the woman was aware of the canonical penalty, whether she was of age to fall under the proscription, and whether she was under duress or a similar incapacitating factor, and go from there. Regardless, I try to inform her so that she will know better in the future - or else incur the penalty if she has another abortion despite being informed.
Hi everyone!
Ron, I think you were probably thinking of canon 1329, par 2. Under certain circumstances, this would make an accomplice of one who advises another to get an abortion. So of course, the accomplice would also be excommunicated as well.
Alicia, as Richard points out, it would depend upon what one is doing. Certainly, working for a Banned Parenthood...er...Planned Barrenhood clinic would raise a few eyebrows. On the other hand, working for a women's crisis center which does make some abortion referals, but this is not the principle activity of the center, is another matter. I would say as long as one is not involved in the abortion end of things, while the situation is not ideal, it is still tolerable. It is kinda like a nurse who works in the ob-gyn section of a hospital that performs abortions. As long as she sticks to the delivery and nursery end of things, she is not cooperating with the abortion end of things.
Havdala, I agree with you. We need to enforce more strongly the excommunication of those who perform abortions.
Fr. JP, while I agree with you that most of these women have a diminishing cause under canons 1324, one difficulty I have comes across is that many priests are not as well versed in canon law as you appear to be. I don't blame the priest since in a way they are the general practitioners of the Church. This is one of the reasons why, as far as canon law is concerned (although the opposite is true when it comes to pastoral practice) I think we need to focus less on the women who approach the priest in the confessional and more on the doctors and politicians.
http://www.cathfam.org/cfexcom/Excom.html
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the following relief:
That Pope John Paul II, Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church take jurisdiction of this petition.
Part 1
That Canon 1398 be changed to read: "A person who willfully enables an abortion or euthanization incurs a latae sententiae excommunication. An elected or appointed official who willfully votes for legislation enabling abortion or euthanasia or who publicly propagandizes for or promotes abortion or euthanasia incurs a latae sententiae excommunication."
Part 2
A. That he issue to the bishops specific directives concerning the implementation and enforcement of interdiction and excommunication for public promoters of abortion, euthanasia and other forms of direct attack upon life.
B. That he publicly order Defendants to:
1. Refrain from any act or statement which enables, supports or condones abortion, euthanasia and other
forms of direct attack upon life.
2. Publicly repent and retract their errors and promise no further acts and/or statements
which enable, support or condone abortion, euthanasia and other forms of direct attack upon life.
3. Refrain from reception of the sacrament of Eucharist until the above orders have been followed.
C. That he publicly declare that Defendants' acts and/or statements as alleged are:
1. Contrary to and inimical to the faith of the Catholic Church ;
2. A scandal to the Mystical Body of Christ, the faithful of the Catholic Church ; and
3. A sacrilege to the Real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ when Defendants receive
the sacrament of the Eucharist.
D. In the event that any Defendant fails to follow any of the above orders to publicly
excommunicate him or her from the Catholic Church .
Dated at (to be implemented upon closing of the signatory phase)
The potential problem with the phraseology of Part I of the suggestion above is that someone could "vote[] for legislation enabling abortion or euthanasia" because it nonetheless restricts abortion (or euthanasia) as much as politically possible - because it's better than legislation that would enable all abortion (or euthanasia). Evangelium Vitae clearly permits and even encourages this (contra Judie Brown). So while I sympathize with that petition's goal, I couldn't support it quite as it is.
I am still not clear why supporting and enacting laws that directly allow abortion is not considered direct participation. But for the law, many (if not most) of those abortions would not have occurred. It is also clear in the mind, heart and soul of the politicians, as well as the lawyers who protect and advocate for this "right", that the direct result of their actions is more abortions. In fact, by making the practice more widely available, that is their goal. I've also heard it said that ex-communication is more something that a Catholic does to himself; the Church merely recognizes the fact that a Catholic has left. If these pols and lawyers take such a position on a non-negotiable position such as abortion, haven't they already walked out the Church door?
There are many legislative bills (esp. budgets) that encompass a wide variety of subjects of which abortion or euthanasia are only one. It is possible for a politician to support abortion by his vote while opposing it in principle.
Penalties should be brought on (1) those politicians who publicly advocate for abortion (e.g., pretty much any Democrat), and (2) those politicians whose public acts promote abortion when they could not reasonably be construed otherwise (e.g., the Michigan governor's veto of a partial-birth abortion ban).
Pete
Thanks for the clarification. Great post.
Ron
Obviously, the purpose of excommunication by the Church would be to publicly condemn the actions of such Catholic politicians. So, too, the purpose of denying the Holy Eucharist would be to publicly condemn such actions for the benefit of the rest of the flock.
As St. Paul said to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:26-27): "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord."
I take no comfort in the fact that these politicians may have condemned themselves, as I pray that we may all be rewarded with eternal life in the house of the Father. Therefore, I pray that the bishops are guided by the Holy Spirit to do what is humanly necessary to turn these errant politicians back to Christ, and, failing that, to send the rest of us the clear message that what may be permitted by society's laws is not necessarily permitted by God's laws.
I'm against human cloning, but we really need a few more Rick Santorums... (would that be Rick Santorii?). Peace.
IIRC, that would be "Santora" (-um is the singular ending of neuter nouns; -a is the plural).
To get back to Pete's original topic, I think interdict would be a better punishment than excommunication for politicians.
Since it doesn't have the image of "expulsion" associated in popular thought with excommunication, it expresses better that the Church wants to bring about the amendment of the person. Moreover, it isn't as readily used for public posturing.
The Declaration On Procured Abortion (from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith November 18, 1974) states:
"22. It must in any case be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application. It is, for instance, inadmissible that doctors or nurses should find themselves obliged to cooperate closely in abortions and have to choose between the law of God and their professional situation."
Peter, I have often wondered about the enforcement of this section of this CDF document. If one may not "take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application. It is, for instance, inadmissible that doctors or nurses should find themselves obliged to cooperate closely in abortions and have to choose between the law of God and their professional situation" what are the penalties if one does so? Pro-abort polititians vote for in in the course of legislating it. One may assume they incur Latiae Sententiae excommunication.. You say say doctors and nurses incur automatic excommunication, (Latiae Sententiae), but then you say the competent ecclesiastical authority need only declare it. I thought the whole point of automatic excommunication was that it didn't need to be declared.
Do you mean it must be declared in order for the offender to be refused the Sacraments?
I always assumed the reason Communion was not refeused (say to Ted Kennedy or John Kerry when the TV cameras were on) was because of the possibility however remote that they may have confessed and repented that morning but hadn't put out the press release and the bishop or priest is required to presume good faith. Comment?
John