Someone just forwarded me, strangely enough, the following excerpt from an interview I did with the Northern Light. I've edited it a tad, but it explains rather nicely why I believe the pro-choice position to be heresy:
-------------------------
“Choice” equals heresy
What is John Kerry’s heresy? Kerry’s heresy does not concern his reception of Holy Communion. This is a separate – albeit not unrelated – issue. Rather, Kerry’s heresy concerns his affirmation that abortion is a matter of private morality with no public responsibility on the part of Catholic politicians.
For example, the presidential hopeful recently appeared on Larry King Live. When questioned about bishops threatening to deny him Holy Communion because of his voting record on abortion, Kerry responded: "Well, there are some bishops who have spoken out, but that’s not the position of the Church, and as you know, we have a separation in America of Church and state. My obligation as a Catholic is to examine my conscience, under the freedom of conscience under Vatican II, Pope John XXIII, and Pope Paul […] I mean, being for choice does not mean you are for abortion...”
Marc Balestrieri alleges that John Kerry is a heretic because Kerry maintains a pro-choice position, that is, that abortion is a matter of private morality that is left to the individual. The Catholic Church has always maintained that abortion is a matter of public morality since it involves the fundamental right to life. This is in keeping with articles 2270-2275 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
I would particularly draw your attention to article 2270 which states, "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent to life."
With regards to the political responsibility of every Catholic toward the child in the womb, article 2273 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: "The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation…”
It's abundantly clear that the "pro-choice" view is dissent of some sort. But my argument is that "heresy" is a narrower category; establishing dissent isn't sufficient to establish heresy.
What's disturbing about the exchange between M.B. and the Vatican is that there's an implication from Vatican reports that Kerry's name was never mentioned in the discussions and therefore they feel they've been unfairly drawn in to the issue.
It seems to me that the circumstances of names, the US election, political affiliations should not apply - MB was simply asking for a confirmation from the standpoint of theology and canon law. The issues is as much about JFK as it is about California's governor and all other politicians who support abortion on demand.
Now - one may argue that more damage is done by pursuing the matter this way. Critics of the church who say that there was a failure to help the Jews during WWII by not making declarations about the Nazi regime fail to see what went on behind the scenes. Would statements and condemnations have actually helped or hindered the secret relief efforts.
Perhaps certain people at the Vatican think this is a private matter and can deal with it in a more effective way - or they simply don't want to get involved in a firestorm.
It's probably not a great comparison, but that's the only thing I can see as a reason this matter is not being addressed properly.
Kevin, I understand where you are coming from and will concede that calling the pro-choice position heresy is still speculative at the moment (even though we are both certain that the pro-choice position is a serious form of dissent.) What needs to be explored here is how abortion affects the public good, and how closely abortion is tied to public morality under the Natural Law.
Pete: Absolutely.
One commenter over at Amy Welborn's blog made the observation that it's a travesty that a pressured, confused teenage girl is automatically excommunicated for having an abortion while a senator with an atrocious record on abortion like Kerry isn't. Worth thinking about.
What does Ludwig Ott have to say in his book about whether abortion is dissent or heresy? He spends a fair amount of time on such categorizations. (I don't have his book.)
Pete: I picked up "Surprised by Canon Law" today and skimmed it at lunch. It's excellent. Congratulations. I intend to give it a very favorable review on Amazon once I've spent more time with it.
Bad syntax above with my Ott question, but hopefully you get the gist of it.
One commenter over at Amy Welborn's blog made the observation that it's a travesty that a pressured, confused teenage girl is automatically excommunicated for having an abortion while a senator with an atrocious record on abortion like Kerry isn't. Worth thinking about.
I recall that knowing the penalty is a pre-requisite to actually incurring an automatic excommunication. Is full consent of the will also?
Rich, thanks for the kind words vis-a-vis Surprised by Canon Law. They are much appreciated and I look forward to your review.
Concerning the teenaged girl who has an abortion, the poster formerly known as anonymous coward is correct -- when the penalty is automatic, as in the case of abortion, one must know there is a penalty attached for the penalty to take effect.
But even without this, most teenaged girls who procure abortions wouldn't incur the penalty of excommunication. (Although the abortion is still objectively sinful.) This is because one must have completed one eighteenth year (day after you turn 18) to incur the penalty of excommunication and the penalty is diminished for one acting under duress or grave fear. These diminishing and excusing causes are outlined in canons 1323 and 1324.
What bothers me is that most laypeople are not canonists, so just the appearance of excommunication drives them off when they are in deep need of the Church's healing touch. So I have often argued within the canon law world that we should be focusing our canonical censures against those who profit -- whether financially or politically -- from abortion rather than the scared young woman who has likely suffered from quite a bit of domestic violence.