Ironically, I'm listening to GNR's Sweet Child of Mine as I blog this response to fellow canonist Dr. Ed Peters. Just for the record, Dr. Peters was one of the individuals who inspired me to take up canon law. Thus I hold him in the highest esteem -- both in his capacity as an individual Catholic and in his professional capacity as a canonist. So my following response should be understood in this context.
With regards to the controversy surrounding the response to Marc Balestrieri, Dr. Peters writes:
Cole’s theological analysis does, however, move us closer to the central canonical question raised in this matter, namely: whether advocacy of abortion, by a knowledgeable Catholic, in and of itself, is heresy. Now, for the reasons ably outlined by Cole, obstinate doubt or denial of Church teaching on abortion may well be regarded as heresy. But our concern is different: is disregard of Church teaching on abortion, perhaps even chronic contempt for it, necessarily heretical? Consider: If I deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I commit heresy. But if I throw the Eucharist in the gutter, I commit the crime of sacrilege (1983 CIC 1367), not heresy (1983 CIC 1364).
So, a Catholic politician might say, “I believe that human life begins at conception and that abortion kills an innocent baby. But I want to be elected to office, and that means I support abortion.” Such reprehensible words/deeds would be gravely sinful and would place the politician in peril of his soul. But it is not clear that his sin would be heresy. At least, it is not clear how this scenario would be held as heresy, and we not be required to hold virtually every other deliberate violation of grave moral law as heretical.
As Dr. Peters points out, this situation involves a number of very fine nuances. I think Dr. Peters may have missed one, and consequently I think he misunderstands Marc's position. Dr. Peters enjoys a reputation in the canon law world as one of the most honest individuals you will come across, so I know he would not deliberately misrepresent Marc's position. But Marc employed a nuance in his argument that took me a while to grasp as well.
Here's the situation. To borrow Dr. Peter's analogy to the Real Presence, we're not strictly talking about heresy vs. sacrilege. To my knowledge, Kerry has never directly procured an abortion, which, using Dr. Peters' analogy, is the equivalent to throwing the Eucharist in gutter. Rather, Kerry has asserted that abortion is a private matter and thus the individual has a right to procure an abortion.
Thus a more accurate analogy would be if John Kerry stated: "I believe in the Real Presence and I believe that throwing the Eucharist in the gutter is a sacrilege, but I also believe that this is a personal matter between a satanist and his or her priest. Therefore, I will defend the constitutional right of satanists to desecrate the Eucharist."
Does one possess the right to descrate the Eucharist?
Similarly, the question with Kerry is whether or not the Church can ever recognize abortion as a right.
I agree with Dr. Peters that participation in an ecclesiastical crime is not necessarily the same thing as heresy. One can procure an abortion while believing abortion is wrong. Nevertheless, the debate would be moot if Kerry had directly participated in an abortion, since canon 1398 already provides for the automatic excommunication of those who directly procure an abortion, while canon 1329 accounts for accomplices without whom the criminal act would not have been possible.
So at issue here is the public dimension of abortion. Does abortion merely concern private morality, or is there a public dimension to this issue as well? According to Kerry, it is a matter of private morality. Hence his claim, "I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion." Whereas the Church recognizes the public moral dimension surrounding abortion, in that abortion entails the slaughter of an innocent human being.
Thus Kerry, in my opinion, is a heretic not because he procured an abortion (to my knowledge, he hasn't) but because he disagrees on the Church's teaching that abortion concerns the public morality and thus for him one ought to be free to carry out partial birth infanticide.
Hi Pete. Ed here. Just saw your interesting post. You are a cruel task-master, driving my little analogy beyond its ability! My point then was simply to show people that gross contempt for a doctrine is not necessarily "heresy" about the doctrine, which is where this discussion was at that time. Remember, even the Devil is not a "heretic". My analogy has nothing to do with (and hence cannot fail over) whether Kerry has been personally involved in abortion. Kindest regards, edp.
You write:
"So at issue here is the public dimension of abortion. Does abortion merely concern private morality, or is there a public dimension to this issue as well? According to Kerry, it is a matter of private morality. Hence his claim, 'I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion.' Whereas the Church recognizes the public moral dimension surrounding abortion, in that abortion entails the slaughter of an innocent human being.
"Thus Kerry, in my opinion, is a heretic not because he procured an abortion (to my knowledge, he hasn't) but because he disagrees on the Church's teaching that abortion concerns the public morality and thus for him one ought to be free to carry out partial birth infanticide."
My comment: Just to be clear: Kerry would not be a heretic merely by disagreeing "on the Church's teaching that abortion concerns the public morality and thus for him one ought to be free to carry out partial birth infanticide" or even abortion in general. In such a case he would certainly at least dissent from Church teaching, to which he is obliged to assent. The issue is whether that teaching has been proposed by the Magisterium as something to be believed with divine and catholic faith. Father Cole's letter, which represents the judgment of a private theologian, not a response of CDF, made a good case for the proposition that the Church's teaching regarding the evil of abortion has been proposed in such a way that it must be believed with divine and catholic faith. If that conclusion is a sound one, then if one denies the Church's teaching in this regard, all the other requirements being present, one is a heretic. However, Father Cole's letter devoted little attention to the crucial issue of whether the Church's teaching regarding the state's responsibility to affirm the right to life for unborn children has been proposed in such a way that it must be believed with divine and catholic faith. It would also have been helpful to have had a discussion about why the toleration of the lesser evil argument is incompatible with the pro-choice rhetoric of many, if not all, proabortion rights Catholic politicians.
Thus, we have (1) the issue of the evil of abortion as a personal choice (which Catholics are obliged to believe with divine and catholic faith and which Kerry claims to affirm; and (2) the issue of whether the Church's teaching on the state's obligation to outlaw abortion (because of the right to life of unborn children)has been proposed as something to be believed with divine and catholic faith (which, regardless of how the teaching has been proposed, is contrary to Kerry's position, which entails the affirmation of a right of a woman to chose abortion as a matter of private conscience to be upheld by the civil right to abortion). That Kerry dissents from Church teaching in (2) is clear. Whether that teaching has been proposed as something to be believed with divine and catholic faith is less clear and should be addressed in depth by those who argue that Kerry has been excommunicated because of his (supposed heretical) dissent.
Mark, thanks for your clarification. Yes, you are correct. There is no question that Kerry dissents from Church teaching, but whether his dissent rises to the level of heresy is what is being questioned. I believe that it does, but I have to admit that my conclusion is at best speculative at the moment -- that is, it is my personal opinion and not something I could present as official Church teaching or state with certitude.