G
Gorgias
Guest
Just looked up the canon. Among other things, c.1323 says:
So, although negligence comes into play, you’re right that ignorance prevents imposition of a penalty (such as excommunication).
Thanks for the reminder!
Thanks for the reminder!
S
Sbee0
Guest
No problem, that’s what I was told too. But they would certainly still be in mortal sin.Sbee0:
Just looked up the canon. Among other things, c.1323 says:
So, although negligence comes into play, you’re right that ignorance prevents imposition of a penalty (such as excommunication).
Thanks for the reminder!
G
Gorgias
Guest
Actually, if they were invincibly ignorant of the fact that abortion is a grave sin, such that the excommunication wouldn’t apply, then it also wouldn’t be a mortal sin – it’d be considered venial only.
B
buc_fan33
Guest
Please be EXCEEDINGLY careful in posting this. While objectively true, it subjectively applies in virtually no case whatsoever. Without looking up the relevant canon, the person must be at least 16, not under duress or even perceived duress (e.g. an angry parent), aware that the crime of abortion carries with it the penalty of excommunication, and when in doubt, the assumption is always in favor of the person. Souls can be gravely harmed (even to the point of giving up hope and turning to despair) by thinking that they have been excommunicated when, in fact, they have not been.
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
The absolution would be granted at the initial confession, not at a later date.
If there was a question of a penalty which the priest could not usually remit, then the later step of returning to that priest would have applied. But, even there, the priest, in the context of confession, could remit the penalty. This later “let’s meet again” encounter was not actually to remit the penalty but more of a “you are certainly not under any penalty anymore” sort of thing. (Refer to canon 1357).
With Pope Francis’ decision regarding this, no priest would have to ask the penitent to come back for a “you are certainly not under any penalty anymore” meeting.
Dan
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
The age limit for “automatic penalties” is 18. That’s c. 1324, I believe. It says something like “a minor who has completed 16 years” is not subject to automatic penalties. (Somebody under 16 years is subject to no penalty.)
Dan
B
buc_fan33
Guest
Yes…1323=16 and under, no penalty; 1324=16-18 penalty is tempered. My overall point is that people like to remind us that “abortion=excommunication” without providing any context and potentially causing someone to incorrectly believe that he/she has been excommunicated, when in fact, he/she has not been. I’ve even heard priests who should know better do this.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
Having said that, if it cannot be spoken that this offense carries such a grave canonical consequence, how will anyone know that the penalty is that grave?
Honestly, do you really think it applies in “virtually no case whatsoever”? That’s a bit extreme, too.
Yes, though: anyone who learns about excommunication needs to be taught at the same time that the condition is fully reversible, and is meant in the way that denying food to someone with a serious belly wound is meant.
Last edited:
B
buc_fan33
Guest
Yes, I do honestly believe that it applies in virtually no case whatsoever.
P
PetraG
Guest
Why would you think that? Do you think all women who get abortions are ignorant of this precept?
Or do you really believe that no one ever gets an abortion except under duress?
How can someone call themselves “pro-choice” if they believe women seeking abortions are virtually always under duress? If you’re under duress, you’re not making a choice. You’re being compelled. Why should such a grave evil be legal if civil legality just makes it easier to force women into doing it, which is what they are virtually always doing? That’s rather outrageous, isn’t it? Being “pro-choice” wouldn’t be standing up for women’s rights. It would be throwing women under pressure under the bus by giving them only a grave evil as a way to cope with the outside forces pressuring them to not to go to term with their pregnancies. (“You don’t really want an abortion, but we’ll at least see to it that you get one in a setting that won’t kill you or render you sterile.” “Oh, gee, thank you. I still feel I’m getting this done under pressure, because without the pressure I wouldn’t choose this, but I’m so thankful for this ‘choice’ you’re giving me…”)
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
You do realize buc_fan is a priest, right? And likely has significant experience with people in this situation?
Z
Zach
Guest
An I missing something here? Is abortion no longer penalized by excommunication? It was posted earlier that it is not, yet there is still debate going on here over the issue.
G
goout
Guest
The moral gravity of the matter and excommunication are two related but separate issues.
It’s like someone not paying any taxes which is morally reprehensible, but they might not be afoul of the law pertaining to it.
That’s a matter for lawyers.
It’s like someone not paying any taxes which is morally reprehensible, but they might not be afoul of the law pertaining to it.
That’s a matter for lawyers.
W
Weserthy
Guest
No, it is still punishable by excommunication. It’s just easier to get it lifted now; all it requires is going to confession.
I don’t know enough to comment on if it applies in “virtually no case whatsoever”. I do know that there have been a couple of prominent cases over the last decade or so that resulted in the excommunication of people for abortion, or authorizing one. There was a young woman who made news when Benedict was Pope and was excommunicated for getting an abortion (don’t remember where she was from, maybe South America somewhere). There was also a female religious who authorized an abortion at a Catholic hospital in the U.S. that was excommunicated maybe about 8 or 9 years ago (she eventually confessed and had it lifted). There might be more recent examples, but I don’t know about them off the top of my head.
There are some who would argue similar things about committing a mortal sin, that it is almost impossible for someone to commit a mortal sin because of a lack of true, complete understanding of the act, or never being fully culpable because of stress, lack of willpower, mental illness, etc. I don’t believe in that line of reasoning, but it’s become a more popular opinion over the last several decades.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
“In virtually no case whatsoever” is an awful lot of the time, particularly when you live in a country in which almost 1/3 of all women will seek an abortion by the time they are 45 years old and most Catholic women are well-educated.
More to the point, though, his contention is that people aren’t excommunicated when they do something with excommunication as a penalty if they didn’t know that was the penalty, and yet he’s cautioning against telling people about the penalty.
In other words, yes, it is very important to clarify that you are not excommunicated for something if you honestly didn’t know the offense carried excommunication as a penalty when you did it. It is important to say that abortion is not an exception.
It is a little weird to not want to tell people how serious the offense is before they commit it, though, let alone to say that the penalty of excommunication applies “in virtually no case whatsoever” (Italics: mine) and finding that statement itself needs no clarification.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
Clarification: Are you saying that that in practice nobody is ever excommunicated lata sententia for anything?
A
Ash1
Guest
If you do have this mortal sin or you know anyone that has done this, confess to any “Catholic Priest” right away. We don’t when we will die or when is the second coming of Christ, go confess your sins no matter how big or small. Remember you want to be in Gods grace. It doesn’t have to be to a bishop. Any Catholic Priest has authority to confess sins.
B
buc_fan33
Guest
No. What I’m saying is that people with virtually no training in canon law ought not make definitive statements on the matter. It’s the very definition of the blind leading the blind. Im not coming at this from the standpoint of some sort of quasi-elitism. Rather, I’m coming at it from the standpoint of a pastor. Obviously, I can’t say any specifics, but suffice it to say that I and every priest I know has absolved the sin of abortion in the confessional. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had women tell me that they were sure they were going to hell because of this sin and because they heard once that it carries with it an automatic excommunication.
In other words, people only hear half of the story and it keeps them from God’s mercy. Excommunication (and any canonical penalty, really) is first and foremost medicinal. It’s imputed in order to bring a straying member back to the faith, not keep the person away. I’m 100% pro-life to the core. But the constant emphasis on the gravity of this sin without in the same breath emphasizing God’s mercy has probably deprived countless women (and men) from approaching confession because they believe they have committed the unforgivable sin.
Furthermore, as an aside, when there is a discrepancy or ambiguity about how to interpret a canon, the assumption is always in favor of the individual.
In other words, people only hear half of the story and it keeps them from God’s mercy. Excommunication (and any canonical penalty, really) is first and foremost medicinal. It’s imputed in order to bring a straying member back to the faith, not keep the person away. I’m 100% pro-life to the core. But the constant emphasis on the gravity of this sin without in the same breath emphasizing God’s mercy has probably deprived countless women (and men) from approaching confession because they believe they have committed the unforgivable sin.
Furthermore, as an aside, when there is a discrepancy or ambiguity about how to interpret a canon, the assumption is always in favor of the individual.
Last edited:
A
Asinner
Guest
Alright, I’m going to defend myself a little here and say that I don’t think I gave just half of the story. I mentioned the excommunication, and I mentioned the lifting of the excommunication. Plus the thread topic is all about absolution.
P
PetraG
Guest
True. Besides, in this topic it is now kind of a moot point since Pope Francis has given all priests the faculties to absolve the sin of abortion, just as they have the faculties to absolve the sin of murdering an adult–is that correct? It does not make the sin less grave. It just means that reconciling with God and the Church is handled in a way the Pope has decided is more pastorally appropriate than, say, handling the matter of attempting what the Church clearly teaches to be an impossible ordination to the ministerial priesthood. Is that in the ballpark of correct?
Last edited: