Church says legislators who voted decriminalization are excommunicated

[kimmielittle]

Contrary to popular myth at this Forum - the Supreme Court has declared that there is a right to an abortion under the US Constitution. ** People may think they made a mistake, but until changed it is a right under the US Constitution.**

Sorry, I don’t believe you can reference that claim.
It is NOT Constitutional Law - It is a Judicial Ruling - that is why it can be over-ruled by Supreme Court Justices without Congressional mandate…

 

[JMJSHJ]

I would really welcome Ed Peters commentary on this as he has said many times that political activity (speaking in the USA) would not constitute as participating in abortion.

 

[kimmielittle]

I would really welcome Ed Peters commentary on this as he has said many times that political activity (speaking in the USA) would not constitute as participating in abortion.

EVANGELIUM VITAE

1. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. “They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live” (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: “the midwives feared God” (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to God-to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty-that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for “the endurance and faith of the saints” (Rev 13:10).

** In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it”.98**

my bold ]

Those are the words of Pope John Paul II.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

 

[Rence]

exactly - the criminalization of abortion has led to it being declared a right. That doesn’t make it right…but it is now legitimate in the USA. So it is both legal and declared a right - the law of unintended consequences is never fun.

How much better if it were simply not a criminal act but it were socially unacceptable? Then maybe we could start to get our arms around the problem - and get people to think and stop before they do it - and not spout off platitudes that accomplish little beyond generating push-back.

Unfortunately, ever since Roe vs. Wade legalized a woman’s right to choose and have an abortion, it led to (among other things) two things: people have gotten used to having it available, and people have been trying to not only restrict abortion, but a cascade of attempts to exapand restrictions followed. The two sides are just pushing back and forth, from one extreme to the other, and the moderates want…moderation. I agree that it would have been much better to let folks’ peers pressure them into socially acceptable behavior. Now that barn has been open, not only is it going to be very difficult to get the horse back in, but today’s generation didn’t have a barn to begin with.

People can fight about it among themselves all they want, and make up false names, labels, and descriptors for it all they want, even to the point of pettiness and ad nauseum, but the fact is abortion is legal and easily accessible to anyone who wants it. It would be more productive to make people not want it.

 

[JMJSHJ]

my bold ]

Those are the words of Pope John Paul II.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

I appreciate that but he doesn’t say that those who “participate” in abortion are going to be excommunicated.

 

[april32010]

Catechism Of The Catholic Church

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,”77 “by the very commission of the offense,”78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society. (1463)

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation: (1930)
“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”80
“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined… As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."

 

[kimmielittle]

I appreciate that but he doesn’t say that those who “participate” in abortion are going to be excommunicated.

What do you think “excommunicated” means? Without or outside of Communion - Communion of The Saints - Communion of The Church ]

I was taught as a child - That I could not receive Communion with mortal sins present. I have ex-Communion [icated] ** myself.**

He does say, A Catholic can not: “take part participate ] in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it” - IDENTIFYING these actions - as mortal sins. Even worse, as intrinsic evils.

 

[edwest2]

First of all, regarding abortion, the American people were lied to. But enemy number one had to be taken out of the picture first - the Catholic Church.

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

And what about Jane Roe?

youtube.com/watch?v=T_MUUvcvjEg

Millions are dead. I invite everyone to read the following:

prolifesociety.com/prolifesociety/archives/2008/Sharpe/SharpeBabiesFuneral.aspx

Peace,
Ed

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…IDENTIFYING these actions - as mortal sins. Even worse, as intrinsic evils.

I think you have it backwards. Mortal sins are ‘even worse’ than intrinsically evil actions. All mortal sins are intrinsically evil but not all intrinsically evil actions are mortal sins. One mortal sin is enough for damnation. One intrinsically evil action doesn’t necessarily make it damnable. It’s an important distinction particularly when discussing issues such as abortion. This understanding also is key to understanding one’s culpability in participating in abortion from a legal standpoint in society.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Nice try!

Abortion is not a “moral crime” - It is an “intrinsic evil”.

Did you bother to read what I posted? I think it is pretty plain.
EVANGELIUM VITAE

1. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which **no human law **can claim to legitimize.
   vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

…]

Nice try! But I don’t believe your logic or ability to reason, is that flawed. Catholic Teaching says abortion is an intrinsic evil - that mans law can not legitimize. What law of the land ] would the purposeful taking of innocent life - then fall under?

Questions: Do you think it’s an admiral stance to purposefully use flawed logic, in an attempt to justify the killing - of the most innocent - of lives? And to do that killing as a “social convenience”? Do you believe that a person can aid and abet, another, in a commission of an Intrinsic evil? Do you believe knowingly making excuses defending ] another, aids and abets , to help propagate a crime?

To you, Is purposefully targeting an innocent and then killing them - an intrinsic evil?
THAT is the question - that no matter how much flawed logic one uses…it comes down to. AND there is no escaping it!

It appears you’ve mistaken my intent in asking the questions I did. I’m not trying to justify anything. I’m sincerely trying to understand the RCC’s position.

Based upon the article quoted by the OP, it seemed to me as though the Bishop was saying that the legislators had excommunicated themselves for decriminalizing abortion. Maybe the article was poorly written or poorly translated or maybe I just didn’t get it, but that’s the sense I took from it.

I know that a Catholic can excommunicate themselves for participating in an abortion, but I was not aware that an excommunication can result from simply voting to remove the criminal sanctions resulting from abortions.

There are reasons why I don’t think such a basis for excommunication exists.

I can easily imagine a staunch pro-life Catholic – who opposes all forms of abortion for any reason – who would also oppose applying criminal sanctions to women who had procured an abortion. Why might they oppose such sanctions? For one thing, any penalty involving jail time would inflict even more harm upon her other children (if she had any) by taking their mother from them and would likely negatively impact that family from then on, as prison time is wont to do to any family. IIRC, Frank Pavone is one such Catholic.

So again, if the RCC teaches that anyone who votes for the decriminalization of abortion, per se, is subject to some ecclesiastical sanction for doing so, I’d like to see the documentation.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Nice try!

Abortion is not a “moral crime” - It is an “intrinsic evil”.

Did you bother to read what I posted? I think it is pretty plain.
EVANGELIUM VITAE

1. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which **no human law **can claim to legitimize.
   vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

…]

Nice try! But I don’t believe your logic or ability to reason, is that flawed. Catholic Teaching says abortion is an intrinsic evil - that mans law can not legitimize. What law of the land ] would the purposeful taking of innocent life - then fall under?

Questions: Do you think it’s an admiral stance to purposefully use flawed logic, in an attempt to justify the killing - of the most innocent - of lives? And to do that killing as a “social convenience”? Do you believe that a person can aid and abet, another, in a commission of an Intrinsic evil? Do you believe knowingly making excuses defending ] another, aids and abets , to help propagate a crime?

To you, Is purposefully targeting an innocent and then killing them - an intrinsic evil?
THAT is the question - that no matter how much flawed logic one uses…it comes down to. AND there is no escaping it!

It appears you’ve mistaken my intent in asking the questions I did. I’m not trying to justify anything. I’m sincerely trying to understand the RCC’s position.

Based upon the article quoted by the OP, it seemed to me as though the Bishop was saying that the legislators had excommunicated themselves for decriminalizing abortion. Maybe the article was poorly written or poorly translated or maybe I just didn’t get it, but that’s the sense I took from it.

I know that a Catholic can excommunicate themselves for participating in an abortion, but I was not aware that an excommunication can result from simply voting to remove the criminal sanctions resulting from abortions.

There are reasons why I don’t think such a basis for excommunication exists.

I can easily imagine a staunch pro-life Catholic – who opposes all forms of abortion for any reason – who would also oppose applying criminal sanctions to women who had procured an abortion. Why might they oppose such sanctions? For one thing, any penalty involving jail time would inflict even more harm upon her other children (if she had any) by taking their mother from them and would likely negatively impact that family from then on, as a criminal record is wont to do to any family. IIRC, Frank Pavone is one such Catholic.

Also, as a practical matter, ask yourself this rhetorical question. How much support do you think the pro-life movement would lose if it started pushing for criminal penalties for women in addition to limitations on abortion?

So again, if the RCC teaches that anyone who votes for the decriminalization of abortion, per se, is subject to some ecclesiastical sanction for doing so, I’d like to see the documentation.

 

[cornbread_r2]

It doesn’t exist…at least in the form that anything says the criminal penalties imposed for abortion must be the same as the criminal penalties imposed for murder of a child or adult. The Catechism is also suitably vague on what exactly must be done within the criminal justice system…if anything.

Thanks

 

[JMJSHJ]

Update here:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/uruguay-bishops-clarify-statement-on-excommunication-of-lawmakers-favoring-abortion/

The Uruguayan bishops’ conference has explained recent statements regarding Catholic lawmakers who voted to legalize abortion in the country, saying they are not excommunicated if they voted in favor of abortion.

I hope this law gets revised because I believe that one can be “direct” in many ways.

 

[Suudy]

If it is, what criminal act should women be charged with for having an abortion?

It seems every time somebody talks about the criminalization of abortion, it is assumed that the woman would be the target of prosecution. I think this is wrong.

I say women are most often the least culpable with regard to abortions. What motivates most women to seek out abortions? According to the pro-“choice” lobby, it is not an arbitrary choice nor used as a form of contraception. Rather, it is motivated out of some sort of fear, such as financial hardship or fear of discovery (such as a parent or spouse).

Given the three requirements for mortal sin (grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent), only one party to an abortion has all three. Even if the woman fully understands that an abortion is a willed death of an innocent human being, they are more likely lack full consent because of their fear and anxiety. The abortionist, however, has full knowledge (what MD would not know that a fetus is a human being) and full consent.

I’m all for charging the abortionists with a crime, and I don’t think murder is unreasonable. As for the women involved, unless it can be demonstrated that they understood what was going on and did so with full consent, I think they should be, at most, given some sort of probation.

 

[BobCatholic]

Please reference an RCC teaching that holds that abortion must be treated the same as the criminal act of murder. IIRC, very, very few pro-life supporters go so far as to say that women who have abortions should be charged with murder.

• Emphasis always mine unless otherwise indicated.

I see, so the woman alone is performing the act of murder? Or is there someone else who is actually performing the act of murder?

Please understand who is the perpetrator here. The one who is unconscious or the one who has the knife?

 

[Burdensome1]

I see, so the woman alone is performing the act of murder? Or is there someone else who is actually performing the act of murder?

Please understand who is the perpetrator here. The one who is unconscious or the one who has the knife?

These are not impossible questions. Murder cases are tried every day in these United States, concerning situations more complicated than this. If the law regarded an unborn person as a person and prosecuted the people who killed such a person, guilt and punishment would be meted out as appropriate based upon the law and relative culpability…like in every murder case involving more than one perpetrator. The legal system is not broken as concerns murder…just the definition of what constitutes a victim.

 

[OriginalJS]

Sorry, I don’t believe you can reference that claim.
It is NOT Constitutional Law - It is a Judicial Ruling - that is why it can be over-ruled by Supreme Court Justices without Congressional mandate…

If you study constitutional law, you will find that the great body of that law is made up of judicial rulings and decisions. In the case of abortion, the court found and relied on a constitutional right of privacy. Those who disagree argie that the constitution itself contains no language about a right of privacy. I’m mystified where you are going with the “congressional mandate” language.

 

[epan]

If you study constitutional law, you will find that the great body of that law is made up of judicial rulings and decisions. In the case of abortion, the court found and relied on a constitutional right of privacy. Those who disagree argie that the constitution itself contains no language about a right of privacy. I’m mystified where you are going with the “congressional mandate” language.

I think that Doe V. Bolton addressed the privacy issue. Roe V. Wade reiterated the privacy issue, but also determined when the “personhood” of the fetus allowed it Constitutional protection. The Catholic (and other Christian groups) view is that those protections should occur at the time of conception, and should be measure by when life exists, rather than when a fetus is viable outside the womb.

 

[BroomWagon]

If you study constitutional law, you will find that the great body of that law is made up of judicial rulings and decisions. In the case of abortion, the court found and relied on a constitutional right of privacy. Those who disagree argie that the constitution itself contains no language about a right of privacy. I’m mystified where you are going with the “congressional mandate” language.

Most experts, whatever their leaning see this as more of a states rights issue or something else though and not the right of privacy if this was what was argued and I’m not sure about that. That may be your own opinion. I haven’t heard that.

Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court’s result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. Shortly after the Roe v. Wade decision, Professor John Hart Ely, now Dean of Stanford Law School, wrote that the opinion “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a “right” so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born. Yet that is what the Court ruled.

old.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp

It’s not in the constitution.

We might as well say that parents have the right to do with their children in the privacy of their home.

 

[epan]

Most experts, whatever their leaning see this as more of a states rights issue or something else though and not the right of privacy if this was what was argued and I’m not sure about that. That may be your own opinion. I haven’t heard that.

old.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp

It’s not in the constitution.

We might as well say that parents have the right to do with their children in the privacy of their home.

In Doe and Roe, both. The US Supreme Court ruled that the individual right to privacy trumped any state’s right to interfere with a woman’s private decision. Not sure where you got your info. Just read the decision, or go to Wikipedia, which has a good page on Roe V. Wade.

BTW, the sodomy laws in Texas were recently overturned, even by this conservative court, on privacy grounds. A neighbor had complained of an argument and possible gunshots. The police broke into an apartment and found two men in bed together. The men were charged under the sodomy laws. The Court struck down the entire Texas law on privacy grounds.