Pope Francis on Reconciliation for Abortion (Catholic Caucus)

Crisis Magazine ^ | September 3, 2015 | EDWARD PETERS

[NYer]

Abortion has long sat in the middle of a three-street ecclesial intersection, namely, those of Sin, Crime, and Sanction. The meeting of any two of these factors would make for a perilous perch but the confluence of all three is fraught with opportunities for confusion. At the risk of serious over-simplification, let me sketch the basic situation and then address Pope Francis’ comments thereon.

1. Abortion has always been recognized as a sin and a grave sin at that. Like other grave sins the path to reconciliation is basically by sacramental Confession.

2. Like some (but not all) sins, abortion has long been treated as a crime under canon law. As is true of other crimes, however, a host of legal factors must be considered in determining whether one who has become involved in the sin of abortion is also guilty of the crime of abortion. Not all persons sinning in this regard are guilty of the crime.

3. The canonical sanction levied against those canonically guilty of the crime of abortion has long been excommunication (a surprisingly complex institute), and latae sententiae (or, automatic) excommunication at that (ironically, a complex procedure for incurring and living under certain censures). I have long held that the automatic character of certain sanctions in the Church does more juridic and pastoral harm than good these days, but I won’t debate that matter here.

This already-complex intersection of sin, crime, and sanction has, I am sorry to say (sorry, because I think the canon law on abortion is too complex to meet some urgent pastoral needs facing us), been further complicated by at least two factors: first, an easy-to-overlook procedural change in the abortion crime norm itself, namely from 1917 CIC 2350 to 1983 CIC 1398, whereby the former express limitation that only “ordinaries” could lift the excommunication for the crime of abortion was dropped, introducing confusion as to whether and if so how the sin of abortion (which was too casually identified with the crime) could also be absolved by priests; and second, due to another easy-to-overlook change in the abortion canon (matre non excepta), a powerful argument exists (to which I subscribe) that excommunication for the crime of abortion cannot be automatically incurred by pregnant women (as opposed to abortionists themselves) if the penal law of the Church is applied according to its express terms. Thus, upon noting that there are zero examples of women being formally excommunicated for their abortion, this second factor, if correct (and I think it is) means that no women (again, as distinguished from blood-soaked abortionists) have been excommunicated for abortion at least since the 1983 Code went into effect.

Now, given the inherent complexity of the law itself in this area, the disputes about that law among qualified experts, and the pervasive ignorance of canon law among rank-and-file faithful brought about by 50 years of ecclesiastical antinomianism, no wonder people are confused about what Pope Francis’ recent statement means. I’m confused, if perhaps less so than some others.

Francis writes: “For this reason too, I have decided, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to concede to all priests for the Jubilee Year the discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it.” Canon law is not mentioned and we must parse such implications as best we can.

A) I think the pope’s statement reflects a mistaken assumption, common among those who were trained under the 1917 Code, that priests with normal faculties for Confession still cannot absolve from the sin (let alone from the crime) of abortion. I and others, however, hold that all priests with faculties can absolve from this sin. The pope’s comments resolve this debate admirably (at least for the period of the Jubilee Year) as I happen to think it should be resolved.

B) The pope’s statement seems to assume that the sin of abortion and the crime of abortion are concomitant realities. I, however, and I’ll wager nearly all other experts, hold sin to be distinguishable from crime, and that this crime is rarely, if ever, committed by women (again, as opposed to abortionists). Now, nothing in the pope’s comments addresses the crime of abortion though maybe he intended to address the crime as well as the sin (I cannot imagine that Francis meant to leave women in peril of excommunication for their abortions—though I stress again that I do not think women are excommunicated for undergoing abortion). But, plainly, the pope’s text itself does not address the crime of abortion or its canonical consequences and so I see no change in canonical discipline in this regard. If, by the way, the pope’s text does address the crime of abortion, then it seems to allow abortionists to have their excommunications—sanctions much more likely to have been incurred under current canon law—addressed as well. Maybe Francis intends that outcome though he speaks exclusively of women suffering in this regard and not of abortion profiteers. Perhaps Rome will clarify this point.

Et poenae latae sententiae delendae sunt.

[NYer]

CATHOLIC CAUCUS

I think the pope’s statement reflects a mistaken assumption, common among those who were trained under the 1917 Code, that priests with normal faculties for Confession still cannot absolve from the sin (let alone from the crime) of abortion. I and others, however, hold that all priests with faculties can absolve from this sin

Given the enormous media attention to this, I felt the article was worth posting.

Catholic ping!

[oblomov]

"Pope Francis"

[NYer]

RELATED

Laughing at media coverage

[redgolum]

When this broke the other day, I wondered what the fuss was about. I don’t like the current Pope for many reasons. This however didn’t seem that radical. The person still must confess and receive absolution. I assumed I missed something, and this article means I pretty much had it.

[Tax-chick]

Thank you. That was an informative article.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It looks like neither Ed Peters not the Canons themselves clearly define the difference between the sin of abortion and the crime of abortion. That being the case, Peters says the Pope is doing the right thing because he's reiterating what the Canons actually say, which is that a post-abortion woman who is repentant can have this grave sin absolved in the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession).

I don't have even an iota of evidence for this, but I suspect that's how it's usually handled anyway.I've simply never heard of anybody who had to go through a separate procedure to get an excommunication lifted--- and I've known several post-abortion women who are now pro-life activists and who speak publicly about their experiences.

[SunkenCiv]

Francis writes: "For this reason too, I have decided, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to concede to all priests for the Jubilee Year the discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it.'

[Tax-chick]

a post-abortion woman who is repentant can have this grave sin absolved in the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession).

I expect most lay people don't know there's any other possibility.

[dirtymac]

Reminds me of an old joke/statement in that when the answer to a question is obviously yes, you ask the question ‘is the Pope Catholic’. However, now I am beginning to wonder what the answer is.

[RetiredTexasVet]

I think Comrade Pope might want to consider setting up a “drive thru” Sin-Away holy water shower for sinners. At the entrance each applicant identifies their sin (abortion, queer/freak/perverted sex, abortion doctor or staff, being a Progressive, etc.) and pays a fee per sin. At station 2, the sinner reads the appropriate apology. At station 3, the sinner is subjected to a 2 minute holy water shower which will wash away the sin previously identified and paid for. Since many sinners may have committed multiple sins they may be required to perform the procedure multiple times. The Sin-Away showers are only warranted for a week.

[NYer]

This is a Catholic Caucus thread. Are you a Catholic?

[NYer]

This is a Catholic Caucus thread. Are you a Catholic?

[Mrs. Don-o]

In reference to the question covered by this thread -— the absolution of the grave sin of abortion through repentance and sacramental Confession -— the Pope is following highly traditional Catholic teaching. Pastorally, this is best practice and canonically -— as canon lawyer Ed Peters says -— he’s right on target.

[Tax-chick]

“We don’ need no steenkin facts.”

[Heart-Rest]

I liked non-Catholic Rush Limbaugh’s comment about this the other day. He said that if this is a good thing, and involves the mercy of God, why is it only for one year?

[Grateful2God]

Thank you for posting- have to read thoroughly later: a confusing issue, isn’t it?

[piusv]

This already-complex intersection of sin, crime, and sanction has, I am sorry to say (sorry, because I think the canon law on abortion is too complex to meet some urgent pastoral needs facing us), been further complicated by at least two factors: first, an easy-to-overlook procedural change in the abortion crime norm itself, namely from 1917 CIC 2350 to 1983 CIC 1398, whereby the former express limitation that only “ordinaries” could lift the excommunication for the crime of abortion was dropped, introducing confusion as to whether and if so how the sin of abortion (which was too casually identified with the crime) could also be absolved by priests; and second, due to another easy-to-overlook change in the abortion canon (matre non excepta), a powerful argument exists (to which I subscribe) that excommunication for the crime of abortion cannot be automatically incurred by pregnant women (as opposed to abortionists themselves) if the penal law of the Church is applied according to its express terms.

Even Ed Peters admits: more confusion. The 1983 Canon Law is to church discipline as Vatican II is to traditional Catholic teaching. Just some more confusion.

[Mrs. Don-o]

This is a way to focus attention on one theme and than another, because you can't focus on everything all the time. That's why there'll be a "year" on Divine Mercy and "year" of Evangelization and a "year" on Vocations to the Consecrated Life and so forth. This is the on-ramp into a Year of Jubilee, and the "open door of pardon" is both solidly traditional and completely appropriate.

As canon lawyer Ed Peters says here, the route to reconciliation has always been repentance and sacramental Confession: actually nothing has changed. It's just getting a big underline. Good. Good for every penitent heart.

[Heart-Rest]

In the article above, Mr. Peters plainly says "...no wonder people are confused about what Pope Francis’ recent statement means.   I’m confused, if perhaps less so than some others."

One thing that is certain, in his confusing message, Pope Francis said, "...I have decided, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to concede to all priests for the Jubilee Year the discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it."

The truth is, to concede to all priests for the Jubilee Year" means "to concede to all priests for the Jubilee Year".   Declaring something general like a "Jubilee Year of Mercy", is quite different from permitting a specific faculty to a specific group of people (priests) for a specific length of time.

What Mr. Limbaugh was saying, was that, ostensibly, that permission Pope Francis was "conceding" to all priests to be able to grant pardon and absolution to those post-abortive women (and men), and to lift their excommunication, was a good thing, and Mr. Limbaugh was then asking why the Pope didn't say something like "from now on", as opposed to "for the Jubilee Year". That would have underscored his point just as well, and would not have provoked such universal confusion, even among Canon lawyers.

(Teresa Tomeo has had some priests on her last few shows who I believe she said were Canon-law experts, and they had a slightly different take on this subject relating to former and current practices in the U.S., describing them as possibly differing from the situation with bishops/prists in other countries, regarding the 2-step bishop/priest process of lifting an excommunication, and granting absolution for abortions. You might want to try to find archived copies of her past couple of programs to listen to their interpretations of the Pope's confusing pronouncement.)

God's mercy, of course, does not come in one-year limited segments, and, as the Bible says over and over and over again, His mercy endureth forever.   That clear, simple message from God should never be obscured by confusing clerical statements and pronouncements.