Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pope Francis on Reconciliation for Abortion (Catholic Caucus)
Crisis Magazine ^ | September 3, 2015 | EDWARD PETERS

Posted on 09/03/2015 1:38:23 PM PDT by NYer

Pope in Philippines (Ryan Lim, AP)

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.



TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Ministry/Outreach; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS: abortion; deathpanels; epa; globalwarminghoax; media; obamacare; plannedparenthood; pope; popefrancis; romancatholicism; stemexpress; zerocare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last
To: Heart-Rest
I think it's the Canon Law that's confusing, since it doesn't really define the difference between the "sin" of abortion and the "crime" of abortion. Apparently they're both mortal sins (you know what that means) but it's the "crime" which incurs the excommunication, and that would apply, generally, not to the woman but to the paid professional with the bloody knife.

I had never heard this before, and yet Peters says that "nearly all other experts" would agree with this. I found that astonishing.

Since most ordinary Catholics have no interaction with Canon Law whatsoever --- nor should they ----(unless they're involved in an annulment petition), I think it's of more interest to "experts" than to the ordinary faithful.

I'm not defending my ignorance, which on this subject is high, wide, and deep, but I'm always, always boggled by Canon Law.

21 posted on 09/03/2015 7:43:48 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice. "You must be" said the Cat,"or you wouldn't have come here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RetiredTexasVet

I think you are joking. Have you no idea what The Sacrament of Penance is like?


22 posted on 09/03/2015 7:46:19 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RetiredTexasVet

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


23 posted on 09/03/2015 7:46:45 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NYer

A very interesting article. I didn’t know there was such confusion on the issue. It seems to me though that if there is this much confusion, then Francis’s decision is all the more pastorally generous if not needed. We may (rightly) criticize him for much in these recent days but I think credit should be given where due. Francis did the right thing here, again all the more because of this evident confusion exemplified in this article. Let’s thank God for at least that. Also maybe Francis should continue this practice past the Jubilee year (and make it clear it only applies to women who had an abortion; abortionists should still consider themselves excommunicated)


24 posted on 09/04/2015 6:02:48 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Isn’t all law ultimately written for consumption by lawyers? *giggles*. Who can ever understand it BUT them?


25 posted on 09/04/2015 6:05:23 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I think the issue is further muddied here in the States, since for a while now (since JPII I believe) every priest here has already had this faculty. Bottom line nothing is changing here. Just the rest of the world.


26 posted on 09/04/2015 6:17:07 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven

My pastor, Fr.Pete, mentioned just this morning in his short sermon, that in the Diocese of Knoxville, ever since it was erected as a Diocese (which was 1989), all priests have had the faculty to absolve a repentant penitent of the sin of abortion.


27 posted on 09/04/2015 6:44:02 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice. "You must be" said the Cat,"or you wouldn't have come here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NYer
ROTFL! Where did you find this? Stuff only a Catholic could appreciate, and a welcome diversion! Loved "Rome Depot" As we speak, am looking at last Easter's palms on my mantle, and am wearing a Scapular I put together out of two worn-out ones- I have a whole box of them!

OK, on that note, as much as Crisis usually makes sense, this guy is way over any normal Catholic's head-including my own. My take, however, is this:
People who have had abortions and not confessed them, may go to any priest and receive absolution, even if the sin had been considered reserved by their local bishop. Not every bishop in the world has been allowing this, so now they need to give their priests permission to absolve this sin. It's an act of mercy in a year of mercy.

Bottom line: if you have a sin on your soul, and you're truly sorry, go to Confession and come back to the Church. Perform whatever penance is given, and stay with the Sacraments. You're still our sister, God loves a penitent heart, and we rejoice at your return!

The author sounds like a canon lawyer addressing a tribunal. A garden-variety Rome Depot Father would suffice! (Sorry, we may be merciful, but Pope-Bots do not apply!) Lol!

28 posted on 09/04/2015 7:28:58 AM PDT by Grateful2God (Those who smile like nothing's wrong are fighting a battle you know nothing about. -Thomas More)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Volunteering at a crisis-pregnancy center would possibly be a good penance a priest might give in that case.
29 posted on 09/04/2015 7:36:45 AM PDT by Grateful2God (Those who smile like nothing's wrong are fighting a battle you know nothing about. -Thomas More)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
" I'm not defending my ignorance, which on this subject is high, wide, and deep, but I'm always, always boggled by Canon Law. "

I don't know if we're the author's appropriate target audience. I'd like to hear Fr. Trugilio from EWTN, also a canon lawyer explain the "crime" issue. He's good at that (he co-wrote, "Catholicism For Dummies" one of those yellow books intended to simplify things for average people- or real dummies like me!) Again, the author sounds to me as if he's addressing his peers...

30 posted on 09/04/2015 8:00:38 AM PDT by Grateful2God (Those who smile like nothing's wrong are fighting a battle you know nothing about. -Thomas More)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
That is a capsule version of the whole thing. It also doesn't say it will end when the Jubilee year ends.
31 posted on 09/04/2015 8:10:49 AM PDT by Grateful2God (Those who smile like nothing's wrong are fighting a battle you know nothing about. -Thomas More)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Grateful2God

I agree with you there.


32 posted on 09/04/2015 8:22:50 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Contempt of a lawless court is not a criminal act, itÂ’s a citizenÂ’s duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson