Posted on 05/11/2012 4:10:01 PM PDT by Salvation
|
Any Catholic who obstinately denies that abortion is always gravely immoral, commits the sin of heresy and incurs an automatic sentence of excommunication.
Canon Law and Church Teaching Canon 1398: “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.” Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Canon 1364 §1: “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.” The phrase “latae sententiae” means a judgment or sentence which is 'wide' (latae) or widely applied; it refers to a type of excommunication which is automatic. Such a sentence of excommunication is incurred “by the very commission of the offense,” (CCC 2272) and does not require the future particular judgment of a case by competent authority. Apostasy, heresy, and schism are all offences which incur a sentence of excommunication automatically. Heresy is the obstinate denial of any truth of the Catholic faith, on a matter of faith or morals, which has been definitively taught by the Magisterium. The Magisterium has repeatedly and definitively taught that abortion is always gravely immoral. (CCC 2270 to 2275) Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, n. 57: “Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.” Obtaining an Abortion Any Catholic who deliberately and knowingly obtains a procured abortion commits a mortal sin and is also automatically excommunicated, under canon 1398. Under the laws of secular society, if one person commits a crime, then anyone who deliberately and knowingly provides essential or substantial means for that person to commit that crime is called an accessory to that crime and is also subject to the penalties of law. Similarly, any Catholic who deliberately and knowingly provides essential or substantial means for any woman to procure an abortion also commits a mortal sin and also incurs the same sentence of excommunication. Any Catholic who substantially assists another in the deliberate sin of abortion is also guilty of serious sin and also incurs a latae sententiae excommunication. Believing in Abortion Any Catholic who obstinately denies that abortion is always gravely immoral commits the sin of heresy. The sin of heresy also incurs a latae sententiae excommunication. Unfortunately, some Catholics obstinately deny that abortion is always immoral, and some Catholics claim that abortion can, at times, be a morally-acceptable choice, and some Catholics claim that a person can, in good conscience, choose abortion. Under the Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church, canons 751 and 1364, all such Catholics are automatically excommunicated for the sin of heresy. This sentence of latae sententiae excommunication applies to any Catholic who denies that abortion is gravely immoral, regardless of whether they keep this denial hidden or publicly reveal it. Promoting Abortion Those Catholics who publicly announce their denial that abortion is always gravely immoral, or who publicly promote abortion, or who publicly argue in favor of legalized abortion, also commit a mortal sin and also incur a sentence of automatic excommunication. This sentence of excommunication applies to Catholics who are politicians, as well as to those Catholics who are political commentators, or public speakers, or who write or otherwise publicly communicate their erroneous view that abortion can be morally-acceptable or that abortion should be legal. This sentence of excommunication also certainly applies to those Catholics who claim to be theologians or Biblical scholars, but who believe or teach that abortion is not always gravely immoral. Those Catholics who promote abortion are automatically excommunicated for two reasons. First, they have fallen into the sin of heresy by believing that abortion is not always gravely immoral (canons 751 and 1364). Second, these Catholics are providing substantial assistance for women to obtain abortions by influencing public policy to make abortions legal, and to keep abortions legal, and to broaden access to abortion. Those who provide such substantial assistance commit a mortal sin and incur a sentence of automatic excommunication (canon 1398). Voting for Abortion Any Catholic politician who casts a vote with the intention of legalizing abortion, or of protecting laws allowing abortion, or of widening access to abortion, commits a mortal sin. When such a vote indicates that the Catholic politician believes that abortion is not always gravely immoral, such a politician incurs a sentence of automatic excommunication, under canons 751 and 1364, because of heresy. When such a vote is intended to have the effect of making abortion legal, or more easily obtainable, or more widely available, such a politician incurs a sentence of automatic excommunication, under canon 1398, as someone who is attempting to provide substantial or essential means for women to obtain abortions. Catholic politicians who pass laws which legalize, protect, or widen access to abortion, are providing essential assistance to women who want to obtain abortions. It is not sufficient for Catholic politicians to claim that they are “personally opposed” to abortion. If any Catholic politician favors legalized abortion, despite a claim of personal opposition, such a politician commits a mortal sin by promoting abortion and by voting in favor of abortion. The same is true for any Catholic who casts any vote with the intention of legalizing abortion, or of protecting laws allowing abortion, or of widening access to abortion. Such a voter commits a mortal sin and incurs a sentence of automatic excommunication for two reasons. First, they are committing the sin of heresy by believing that abortion should be legal and available. Second, they are committing the grievous sin of providing women with substantial or essential assistance in obtaining abortions, by attempting to legalize or broaden access to abortion. However, if, for a period of time, Catholic politicians and voters are unable to enact a law prohibiting all abortion, then Catholic politicians and voters may in good conscience vote for whichever law offers the greatest restrictions and limits on abortion. Subsequently, Catholic politicians and voters are required by the moral law to continue to enact further restrictions and limits on abortion, to the greatest extent possible, and, at every possible opportunity, to vote for laws which completely outlaw abortion. Voting for Politicians In general, the moral law requires Catholic voters to vote for those candidates who oppose abortion over those who favor abortion. However, there are exceptions to this general principle. For example, if a political candidate favors abortion, but is a member of a party which generally opposes abortion, a Catholic voter may, in good conscience, vote for that candidate, with the intention of giving more political power to the party which opposes abortion. In another case, a Catholic voter might, in good conscience, vote for a pro-abortion candidate, if the political office would offer no opportunity for the elected candidate to vote for or against abortion. Even so, every Catholic voter should consider that anyone who supports abortion, as if it were a woman’s right, or as if it could ever be a moral choice, must necessarily be someone who has a seriously limited understanding of morality and justice. Such a person would not often be the better candidate for any office in place of one who understands that abortion is gravely immoral. In every case, a Catholic should vote in such a way as to obtain as many restrictions on abortion as possible, and so as to obtain the end to legalized abortion as soon as possible. Constitutional Amendment Within any constitutional form of government, it would be ideal to have a constitutional clause or amendment which permanently and completely outlaws all procured abortions. Such an amendment must ban all abortions, regardless of circumstance, so that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent prenatal human being will be always contrary to human law, just as it is always contrary to the moral law. A constitutional amendment can permit certain medical procedures, which are absolutely necessary to save the life of the mother, and which indirectly result in the unintended and unsought death of the prenatal, only if there is no possible way to save the life of the prenatal. A prenatal is defined as any human being from conception to birth. Every reasonable effort should be made to save the lives of both mother and prenatal. If the life of the prenatal can be saved by no other possible option than by risking or allowing the death of the mother, then the prenatal must be saved. Catholic teaching clearly allows for certain medical procedures, which indirectly and involuntarily result in the death of the prenatal, to save the life of the mother, but only when all options to save the life of the prenatal have been exhausted. Such a procedure is not an abortion and is not an exception wherein abortion is allowed. On the other hand, a constitutional amendment which bans abortion with exceptions for various cases, such as rape, incest, or a risk to the mother’s life, would be worse than having no such amendment at all. Any woman who is willing to commit the sin of abortion, would also be willing to lie. If a constitutional amendment permitted abortion in cases of rape, then any woman willing to lie and to falsely claim that she was raped, would be able to also claim that she had a constitutional right to an abortion. The result would be that a constitutional amendment, which seems to ban abortion with some exceptions, would end up giving every woman who is willing to tell a lie, a purported constitutional right to abortion. This situation would be worse than having no such constitutional amendment at all. Therefore, the only acceptable pro-life constitutional amendment would be one that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, bans all procured abortions without exception. Here is an example of a just constitutional amendment protecting human life. --- by Ronald L. Conte Jr. |
Catholic Ping!
Except for the part where the self-automatically excommunicated receive our Lord on any given Sunday, in any given daily mass, by the Bishop himself, and who receive every other benefit availed to the devout. Scandal rocks, is indulged and rewarded, and all the world has seen it, for so long now they wonder what the occasional ruckus is about.
“Any Catholic who obstinately denies that abortion is always gravely immoral, commits the sin of heresy and incurs an automatic sentence of excommunication. “
So, Pelosi is excommunicated but still claims to be Catholic?
How can she do that and NOT be called on it by the Church?
If the politician is automatically excommunicated, what is the punishment for a Priest or Bishop to give this person Communion, or what is the punishment for a Cardinal who performs a funeral service for a dead Senator who was automatically excommunicated.
Then they are receiving the Eucharist unworthily, only adding to their sin.
One thing that no one knows in this scenario is whether the person went to Confession and repented and promised to not sin again.
God is merciful while we are alive, but at the moment of our death, God is pure justice.
Catholic Planet » Visit this site http://www.catholicplanet.com From Our Store: Essays in Apologetics, Volume II (eBook) Description
This site is the venue for the writings of Ronald Conte, self-described as a Catholic theologian. His site features numerous articles about Catholicism. Most controversial are his eschatology writings which give precise dates of future events right up to the coming of Christ (which he predicts to be in the 26th century). His claims are based on his interpretation of the Bible and private revelation throughout history.
While you may find something worthwhile on this site, it is replete with Mr. Conte's speculative theology. We suggest you avoid it unless you are a theologian and qualified to sift through and determine what is true and what isn't.
I know and I trust in God’s mercy and justice, but to repeatedly and publicly and actively undermine the Church at every turn brings to mind either no confession at all, or a false one.
It is my understanding that in the case of repeated, willful and public scandal calls for private confession, but a public conversion. Is that your understanding?
One would think the penance would require it, given the nature of the stripe laid upon the Church remains brutal, brazen, and of national and international consequence. Continuing defiance seldom suggests a good confession.
This article didn’t dwell on speculations about the end of the world but on Canon Law pronouncements.
Wake me when any of those Canon Laws mean anything in the real world.
So what happens to a woman who has an abortion, is automatically excommed, and then sincerely confesses her sin in the confessional and is given absolution? Is she back in the club, able to receive all the sacraments,and probably most important, what happens to her on the last judgement day?
God knows, I don’t.
Good article. Hope Donald Cardinal Wuerl sees it.
Just as a law that isn't enforced brings contempt to the law.
Oh, you are quite wrong!
This "automatic excommunication" gives wiggle room to all the bishops who can continue to pal around with their powerful pro-abortion Catholic friends, and it even allows the Bishop of Rome to remain silent in the face of prolonged, public and manifest heresy in the case of Biden, Pelosi, and others.
When my grandfather was excommunicated, it was done in public, in front of his widowed mother (he married a Lutheran).
If it was good enough for Grandpa, it's good enough for Pelosi (who just proclaimed that the Catholic faith REQUIRES support for homosexuals pretending to be married).
The attempt by Obama to begin the organization of an American Patriotic Catholic Church, with the willing cooperation of Pelosi, Biden, Georgetown, Notre Dame, and others is not just heresy on the part of his Catholic allies but is a major schism in the making which, even if it fails, will cause enormous damage.
Do you seriously contend that pretending that all of these rebels are "automatically excommunicated", while they continue to receive the Eucharist in public from the hands of bishops in communion with Peter, will suffice?
Good question. . .I wish the leadership of the Church would make public answers to your question and mine.
Words can be tricky.
“Any Catholic who obstinately denies...”
The problem comes with the word “obstinate.” It has a meaning in ordinary language, but its meaning in terms of canon law, from what I've been told, is a little more narrow.
From what I've read of a few various canon lawyers, “obstinately” denying the faith means, in part, that one has been formally corrected, directly and personally, about a matter, by a competent spiritual/ecclesial superior (your priest, your bishop, a tribunal of the Church directed by competent ecclesial authority to make such a judgment) and that the particular superior so instructing you determines that you're holding your heretical view obstinately.
Thus, a theologian who is formally investigated by the Church, and told formally to desist from certain opinions, who does not then do so, is said to be obstinately denying the faith or holding to heresy.
I'm not saying I agree with interpreting things that way, I'm just saying, this is what I've read from some canon lawyers and at least one priest/theologian.
This fellow Mr. Conte may draw what conclusions he likes, but they are not the only way to look at the issues at hand, nor, perhaps, the most commonly-accepted way, at least by those in the Church with authority or with opinions informed by actual knowledge obtained through scholarly study.
sitetest
The punishment is on the excommunicant. By receiving the body and blood while in a state of mortal sin, they have committed a sacrilege.
You are probably right, I am no scholar on such things ,but IMO (which isn’t worth crap I suppose) if a Priest or Bishop , or even a Cardinal gives the Sacraments to those he knows personally does not have the right to receive, that clergy is as guilty as the Communicant.
Of course like Obama they probably have some sort of immunity.
I like the definition of Obstinately that you put forth.
A person is warned by one kind or another of a spiritual adviser, and still persists in holding their views that abortion is OK.
Do I have it right?
“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
Thanks for the extended explanation.
What we do affects everyone.
Thanks.
This: “What what I do, not what I say.”
Should read: “Watch what I do, not what I say.”
sitetest
For the Cuomo thread today.
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.