|
||
 Email this article  Discuss this article Other Articles by Cathy Caridi, J.C.L. Printer Friendly Version |
||
| Is She Excommunicated? Sanctions, Part II | ||
Recent Articles:
>>See more Canon Law articles
Canon Law
Are There Any Limitations on the Power of the Pope?
Am I Excommunicated? Sanctions, Part One
"Can You Be Refused Holy Communion if You Kneel?"
>>See more Canon Law articles
March 12, 2008
Q: There's a woman in my parish who does sidewalk counseling outside an abortion clinic. She has a lot of pro-life literature that she keeps in the trunk of her car. I looked at some of it recently and found a flyer that says that women who have abortions are excommunicated from the Church. I had never heard this before. Is this true? If so, why don't our priests preach this fact from the pulpits? Everyone should be made aware of this! — Joanne.
A: Sadly, we see here a good example of the tremendous harm that can potentially be done when persons untrained in the law attempt to cite canons out of context. The Code of Canon Law is not a how-to manual or fix-it guide, that one may simply thumb through to find a quick answer to one's legal questions. Often a canon may on the surface appear very straightforward, while in actuality it must be viewed in light of other provisions of the code which are less so.
Such is the case here. Canon 1398 seems at first glance to be completely clear-cut: one who actually procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication. If the law were this simple, the obvious conclusion would be that every Catholic woman who has an abortion is excommunicated from the Church.
But it is not this simple, because there are always many other factors that must first be applicable before any sanction, including excommunication, can be incurred. The January 25th column already discussed in some detail the fact that before any Catholic can be censured, all of the provisions of canon 1323 must be in place. The person committing an offense must be at least sixteen years old; must have full use of reason; must have full knowledge that there is a sanction attached to commission of that offense; must be acting with full freedom, i.e., without any outside force or compulsion of grave fear; and must not be acting in self-defense. If even one of these conditions is not met, a person does not incur the censure that is attached by law to a particular crime!
There are fundamental theological reasons for this. A person cannot be held morally culpable for an act that he did not freely and knowingly commit. Imagine, for example, that a man steals a car at gunpoint. This is certainly a serious crime, both legally and morally. But now imagine that the man only acts because another person is threatening to harm the man's wife unless he steals the car. The man is faced with a difficult choice, between stealing and permitting his wife to be hurt. His decision to steal the car is therefore not made with total freedom.
Or picture a different scenario: a person is handed a car-key by a friend, and asked to bring a certain car to another location. The car turns out to be stolen, but this person had no idea, and thought that he was merely doing a friend a favor!
Stealing a car is, of course, always objectively wrong — but the culpability of the car-thief would depend in great part on whether he was acting with full freedom and knowledge of the implications of his action. A thief who is perfectly free to choose between stealing and not stealing, but decides to steal anyway, is clearly more to blame than someone who is pressured by an outside force, like gang-members or hunger, to steal. And in the same vein, a person who steals without realizing it is hardly as culpable as one who does so with full knowledge. (St. Thomas Aquinas, who nearly 800 years ago discussed these concepts at length in his Summa Theologica, explained them better than I.)
Since (as we have seen many times before in these columns) canon law follows theology, the full force of a censure can never be imposed on anyone who was not fully culpable for commission of a criminal act. Canon law and Catholic theological teaching simply cannot conflict with or contradict each other!
Applying these concepts to the Catholic woman who has an abortion, we can see how truly uncommon it is for the censure of excommunication described in canon 1398 to apply. First of all, she must have reached her sixteenth birthday, so any girl who is younger when her abortion is performed is instantly excluded from this penalty. She must have full use of reason, so any woman who is mentally handicapped or has a mental illness cannot be excommunicated either.
The next criterion is almost never met: a woman must know in advance that having an abortion is punishable by excommunication. If she was unaware of that fact at the time of the abortion, she was not excommunicated. It's as simple as that.
To incur excommunication, she must also not be compelled to have the abortion by grave fear. When a woman secretly has an abortion because she is afraid that her boyfriend will kill her, her husband will leave her, her parents will throw her out of the house, or any other comparably grave situation will result if her pregnancy is discovered or the baby is carried to term, she is not acting with full freedom and her culpability is lessened. Similarly, any woman who is physically forced to have an abortion against her will by a parent, spouse, or boyfriend is not acting freely and cannot be held fully culpable for the act. If she is not fully culpable, the censure is not incurred.
Questions can even be raised as to whether or not many women even fully understand what they are doing when they undergo an abortion. Nowadays, here in the U.S., there are probably few among us who have not heard horror stories about women who are coerced into having abortions by abortionists who deliberately misrepresent the medical facts. Countless women who recount their abortion experiences stress that they were told at the clinic that the unborn child is just a "clump of cells" or a "blob of tissue," and that they would never have consented to an abortion if they had known the truth! We all know that many abortionists thrive on deception and manipulation of women who generally are in an extremely vulnerable position. Women who are pressured into having abortions without full knowledge of what exactly it involves — especially those who have tried vainly to ask the abortionist for accurate information before agreeing to the procedure — are not making a free and informed decision. Their moral culpability, therefore, is not total.
Given all these caveats, is it ever possible, practically speaking, for a woman to be excommunicated for having an abortion? Of course. A woman who is Catholic, over the age of 16, aware that the penalty of excommunication is attached to this crime, fully aware of what an abortion actually entails, and completely free from outside pressures to make this choice, meets the criteria for excommunication. By having an abortion under these circumstances, it appears clear that she has willingly removed herself from communion with the Church. But one can only wonder what miniscule percentage of aborted women actually fall into this category!
Therefore, the pro-life literature that you saw in the sidewalk counselor's car is completely misleading, as it suggests that every aborted woman is by that very fact automatically excommunicated. What might be the reaction to such incorrect information on the part of a woman who is unwillingly being pulled by a family member into an abortion clinic? What of the woman who is already grieving — perhaps even suicidal — after she was pressured or tricked into killing her unborn child? To tell such women that they have been excommunicated is obviously wrong, both canonically and ethically. Far from serving as a disincentive to have an abortion, such misinformation might very well end up pushing suffering women far away from the Church and the compassion of Christ!
It would be best to urge your fellow parishioner who has this literature in her car to dispose of it. Better still, if it's possible to determine who printed it, contact them and urge them to withdraw it from circulation. (You might even wish to send them a copy of this column in support of your request.)
Church law, in accord with Catholic theology, asserts clearly that abortion is objectively a grave evil. But both canon law and theology also recognize that people commit gravely evil acts for a variety of reasons and under countless different sets of circumstances, and they cannot be treated in a monolithic manner. The provisions of the Code of Canon Law are absolutely consistent with our belief that God will, in His infinite wisdom and love, judge each of us individually, without ignoring the totality of the circumstances that lie behind our often very evil actions.
Thank you merrylamb2001,
Ms Caridi,
Let's not tell women that abortion is murder.
Rather, let's tell them they have every reason to procure an abortion because they have nothing to lose. Who says so - "a licensed canonist who practices law and teaches in the Washington, D.C."
Sorry, it is muder, it is a mortal sin, it is excommunication (almost always), they have everything to lose - the life of the child, the soul of the mother and/or every supporter of the action.
Sinners of the world unite, a canonist has spoken, if you have an excuse for your sin, there is no sin.
Catechism 2322: From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice (GS 27 # 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.
Submitted by bomeara on Thu, 03/13/2008 - 10:15am.
Hmmm, as a woman contemplates abortion, does it matter whether or not she is excommunicated? Her soul dies, the baby and soul dies, and then what? There are loopholes to not being excommunicated but the end result is that a baby is dead and a mother mourns. It would indeed be better if churches talked about excommunication - for many reasons - and the horror of abortion.
A canonist is a lawyer, and lawyers debate. They split hairs. Every human has the right to belong to its parents, and a woman who has aborted has every right to still belong to her heavenly father. Women need to be reached, before and after pregnancy. No one is even looking to see what is happening as women, who once would not have been bombarded and tempted with so many opportunities, and when they are pregnant - who is there for them? Planned Parenthood presents themselves to 'help' them
Submitted by deirdrew on Thu, 03/13/2008 - 3:12pm.
This really does seem like moral relativism to people. When bishops allowed priests to pardon the sin of abortion, did the rates go up?
Submitted by deirdrew on Thu, 03/13/2008 - 3:14pm.
If I had had an abortion, and was grieving over my lost baby and my sin, I would want to be told clearly that what I had done was gravely contrary to the moral law. I wouldn't want anybody to mince their words with me.
Then.........I could rejoice that God, the ever-loving father of the parables, wants me back in his arms through sacramental confession.
I agree with you deirdrew
Submitted by elkabrikir on Thu, 03/13/2008 - 6:27pm.
I believe there is a misinterpretation of the intent of the article. I didn't read this as a promotion of abortion. Rather, it was an explanation that canon law is not as simple as some in the pro-life movement make it out to be. I can't find in the article anywhere where the author suggests that people should not be told that abortion is a grave sin and contrary to moral law. It states that they should be told they have been automatically excommunicated when they may not have been. We should be concerned about it also, because it may be contrary to the truth.
Remember that charity is one of the theological virtues, also. Many of the postings to this page are sorely lacking in it.
Submitted by whiteke1 on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 1:16pm.
WOW you people who have posted these criticisms are scary. But I should thank you because you've given me new insight into the crowd that wanted to stone the woman caught in adultery. Probably they thought that they had as much right to an opinion as Jesus had. But Jesus didn't just have an "opinion," he had the TRUTH. Nowadays the Catholic Church teaches the truth, and if you're Catholic you don't have the right to a contrary "opinion." If you can show that anything in the article is factually false, that Canon Law doesn't say that, or the Pope or St. Thomas didn't say that, then you should tell us. And in the process please tell us all what your credentials are that give you the authority to correct them. The fact is, you want the Church and Canon Law to say something other than it does. You just don't LIKE what it says. So you attack the messenger.
You sure sound like a bunch of Cafeteria Catholics to me. Very sad. I'm glad that when I die I will be judged by Jesus and not by you!
Submitted by Clare with no i on Mon, 03/17/2008 - 7:30am.
Instead of getting angry at Ms. Caridi lets look for the tasks implied by the question and her answer...
The whole exchange shows that we need pastors of souls to clearly explain Church teaching and any attendant sanctions so that the faithful can understand just how seriously the Church takes this issue.
- First proper catechesis to make sure the faithful understand
- Second any penalties explained
- Third probably a primer on the basic conditions attached to any penalty (and the pastors may as well throw in mortal versus venial sin since few seem to understand that either)
I do have a further question about canon law - if there are extenuating circumstances that lessen guilt or may negate penalties - who is the judge of whether those conditions validly exist?
Surely the person in question cannot be the objective judge?
For example in the case of "pressure" - what does that mean - a subjective feeling of possible financial? loss of status? embarassment?
Who decides? Is there not a provision that the establisher of a law is the valid interpreter of the law's applicability?
I may not be a canon lawyer but my (military officer) mind would suggest that the only morally sound thing to teach is that this act carries the penalty of excommunication and that any Catholic who procures one must seek recourse to the confessional/authority who can lift the excommunication and allow that authority to judge relative culpability.
The alternative is that people will probably simply excuse themselves (after all it is less stressful and we all like believe that we basically meant well even if the result wasn't so good) and go about oblivious or willfully ignoring a very serious canonical penalty.
In Christ,
John Scotto
Submitted by ScottoFamily on Wed, 04/02/2008 - 1:23am.
I'm not at all sure with the current state of catechesis whether most Catholic women seeking abortion know the gravity of what they are doing. However, when I was in college I certainly knew one Catholic woman who did. When we first got to know each other she was a virgin. Over the course of that summer she began having sex with her new boyfriend. She carefully explained to me why, as a Catholic, she couldn't use birth control because that would compound the sin. She also explained to me that she could never ever have an abortion because while what she was doing was wrong, an abortion would result in excommunication. Well, two years later she found herself pregnant, and she had an abortion. The result was devastating to her emotionally. I haven't seen her in years, but the last time I did she was still unreconciled with the Church, and still haunted by that. I was a Protestant Christian at the time, and it was the beginning of the Jesus movement. She and her then husband had watched hippies getting baptized in the ocean in California and it had an impact on her. However, she was very clear that while she was impressed with what was happening, that she could never be anything but Catholic. I'm pretty sure she felt that door was closed to her. I certainly didn't know enough about the Church to advise her how to correct things.
I pray for her because I know that there was a longing in her heart from the first day I knew her for a relationship with God that was centered in the liturgy that she knew as a little girl. Part of what pulled her away from the Church initially was the fact that the liturgy no longer seemed as sacred once it was changed. Now, I'm not blaming her abortion on Vatican II or the priest in her parish who didn't do a good enough job transitioning his congregation. I'm simply stating what she told me. She knew that skipping her Sunday obligation was wrong, I think she even knew it was part of the slippery slope that found her having sex, using drugs, and eventually aborting her baby. It's just that now from the prospective of a convert, I simply wish that she had shared her heart with an informed Catholic rather than with an uninformed Protestant. At that moment I was unable to help her with my words. I hope I now help her with my prayers.
However, she, and I suspect many, of my generation certainly did know the gravity of having an abortion. They knew it, they chose it anyway, and whether they were less culpable because they did it for fear of their parents' reaction to a pregnancy, many of them have continued to live with the results of the guilt at the gravity of what they did. I certainly can't begin to guess the number of women in our churches who have had abortions. I know that I personally know at least 7 women (ranging in age from their 40's to their 70's) who had at least one pregnancy (in one case it was several) abortions. Those are not women I met when I was working in the crisis pregnancy center years ago. Those are women I simply knew in my private life, some were Catholic, some were not. One of them (brought up with no faith) is now a vibrant Catholic, most of them I haven't had contact with in years (so I don't know the state of their faith life), but the shadow of the abortion hung over every one of them who hadn't been reconciled with the Church the last time I saw them. In at least one case it hung over the young father as well.
The pamphlet may be the wrong way to approach these women, but the fact is that they will end up carrying the guilt of the abortion, and probably will end up far away from the graces of the sacrament for a long time, unless someone is able to either help them see the gravity of what they are doing and convince them to carry their baby, or is able to show them the path back to grace. One of the problems with this sort of argument is that it either cements people in their notion that the woman has committed an unforgivable sin, or it allows people to find justification for thinking that the abortion wasn't quite that serious in their particular case. Sadly, no matter what the canonist will argue, the woman herself is apt to take little comfort in the legal technicalities. Others around her may, her parents may, her boyfriend may, her friends may even try to convince her, but she probably will still accuse herself more severely. Even more sadly is the fact that being told you just incurred excommunication may drive you further from the healing solution.
It may well be a mistake for lay people to try to interpret canon law. However, sometimes canonists in their attempt to clarify things can offer up excuses about mitigating circumstances that don't ring as true to the people involved as the more simplistic reading of the canon. It is for this reason that we have so many people believing that they are entitled to a decree of nullity. They have read all the tortured readings of the law by canonists and think they fit in one of them. Sadly, if their case gets referred to Rome they will probably discover that their case doesn't fit. Sometimes the simple reading may miss nuances, but sometimes the nuances are simply an effort to avoid the simple reading.