My Wife Procured an abortion

[tjones80]

My wife obtained an abortion many years ago and used my employer health benefits to pay for most of it and took cash from our bank account to pay the deductible. The question I have was I automatically excommunicated for her act, since she used our money and my employer health benefits?

 

[silicasandra]

If she did so without your knowledge or consent, then no. My understanding of automatic excommunication is such that the sinner (or accomplice) must be aware of the action, and its sinfulness, to be culpable (as with any grave sin.)

Most spouses share at least some money. It is generally understood that this shared money should not be used for immoral purposes. If your wife had used the money for drugs, or gambling, or prostitution, you would not be at fault, either (though if you knew it was likely it is probably wiser to keep access limited.) But most of the time there would be no reason to suspect this.

Prayers for you, your wife, and the poor child. Even if you have known about this a long time I imagine it’s still devastating.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Go and talk to your confessor about this. Don’t take the word of anyone on this forum, this is a matter that must be dealt with your confessor.

 

[april32010]

talk to your confessor

 

[Gods_Peace]

I’m sorry about that. Your in my prayers.

 

[Allegra]

That’s awful! I don’t think you can be culpable for a sin if you didn’t know about it. However, you should probably talk about the specifics of the situation with a priest.

 

[Nimzovik]

I am sooooooo sorry for your loss. This is why there needs to be a Men’s Advocacy National Organization. How** many** times have I heard this and similar stories…

How many more times does this have to happen?

 

[howareyou1]

Hi tjones80 . I’m sorry to hear that. May the Lord give you strength.

 

[Pug]

My wife obtained … and used … and took …

What did you do?

Your actions and omissions and cooperation and intent are what matter for your question. Also the extent of your knowledge of precepts and laws at the time that it happened. If you did nothing, omitted nothing, then no, you were not automatically excommunicated.

I suspect that perhaps you are thinking of something that you potentially omitted, or you would not have asked the question. I know how hard it is to not feel polluted by having to pay a bill for something illicit, even though you didn’t generate the bill yourself. Perhaps a priest could be the most soothing person to talk to, in this case.

I am very sorry about the loss of your child.

 

[crystal_waters]

My wife obtained an abortion many years ago and used my employer health benefits to pay for most of it and took cash from our bank account to pay the deductible. The question I have was I automatically excommunicated for her act, since she used our money and my employer health benefits?

How can you be excommunicated for something you didnt know about?

 

[bilop]

My wife obtained an abortion many years ago and used my employer health benefits to pay for most of it and took cash from our bank account to pay the deductible. The question I have was I automatically excommunicated for her act, since she used our money and my employer health benefits?

If you didn’t know what she was doing, how could you have sinned?

No sin, or excommunication here, but I feel horrible for your loss.

God Bless

 

[thistle]

My wife obtained an abortion many years ago and used my employer health benefits to pay for most of it and took cash from our bank account to pay the deductible. The question I have was I automatically excommunicated for her act, since she used our money and my employer health benefits?

You certainly should talk to your priest. However, that does not mean we cannot talk generally here about the topic. After all this is a forum for discussion.

If a husband knew nothing about his wife having an abortion till after then the husband has not committed any type of sin.
If the wife knew abortion was a sin of grave matter then going ahead would mean she committed a mortal sin but if she did not know it carried the penalty of automatic excommunication then she is not excommunicated.
If she didn’t know abortion was a sin of grave matter then by having one she has not even committed a mortal sin.

 

[DexUK]

If the wife knew abortion was a sin of grave matter then going ahead would mean she committed a mortal sin but if she did not know it carried the penalty of automatic excommunication then she is not excommunicated.
If she didn’t know abortion was a sin of grave matter then by having one she has not even committed a mortal sin.

I strongly disagree with this.

There is the concept of identifying what is sinful through one’s own rational intelligent thought and with recourse only to what is accepted as the ‘natural law’. It should not need the Church to tell anyone that killing another human being is sinful.

As for being unaware of the automatic excommunication even while being aware of the mortal sinfulness of the action, then it doesn’t really matter anyway: having carried out that action, the person would be in mortal sin and thereby excluded from the Sacraments until absolution. The only difference is that it takes a Bishop or a suitably delegated priest (albeit most are suitably delegated) to absolve in the case of Abortion, therefore the penitent is best advised to check the policy of the diocese during confession with the priest. Even if they do not specifically ask the question, the priest will know whether he’s permitted to absolve abortion-related sins.

As it is, abortion does carry latae sententiae excommunication. Foreknowledge of such is not a prerequisite for it to be valid.

Also, those without whose assistance a violation of the rules prescribing latae sententiae excommunication would not have been committed are also excommunicated automatically in the same way - i.e. in the case of abortion, the doctors, those paying for it - and who do so knowingly, the nurses without whom the operation cannot take place, etc.

Canon law link on latae sententiae : vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4W.HTM

The long and the short of it is this: If the original poster willingly and knowingly allowed his money to be used to procure an abortion then he is equally culpable and equally excommunicated unless and until he receives absolution from a suitably authorised priest.

If there was no knowledge in advance of the abortion that it was to take place or his wife went explicitly against his wishes (and essentially spent that ‘joint’ money without authorisation) then the original poster is NOT excommunicated.

In any case, I hope and pray that the original poster and his wife come to terms with this, seek counselling if needs be and are able to be absolved where necessary so that they can come back into full communion with the Church.

 

[thistle]

I strongly disagree with this.

There is the concept of identifying what is sinful through one’s own rational intelligent thought and with recourse only to what is accepted as the ‘natural law’. It should not need the Church to tell anyone that killing another human being is sinful.

As for being unaware of the automatic excommunication even while being aware of the mortal sinfulness of the action, then it doesn’t really matter anyway: having carried out that action, the person would be in mortal sin and thereby excluded from the Sacraments until absolution. The only difference is that it takes a Bishop or a suitably delegated priest (albeit most are suitably delegated) to absolve in the case of Abortion, therefore the penitent is best advised to check the policy of the diocese during confession with the priest. Even if they do not specifically ask the question, the priest will know whether he’s permitted to absolve abortion-related sins.

As it is, abortion does carry latae sententiae excommunication. Foreknowledge of such is not a prerequisite for it to be valid.

Also, those without whose assistance a violation of the rules prescribing latae sententiae excommunication would not have been committed are also excommunicated automatically in the same way - i.e. in the case of abortion, the doctors, those paying for it - and who do so knowingly, the nurses without whom the operation cannot take place, etc.

Canon law link on latae sententiae : vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4W.HTM

The long and the short of it is this: If the original poster willingly and knowingly allowed his money to be used to procure an abortion then he is equally culpable and equally excommunicated unless and until he receives absolution from a suitably authorised priest.

If there was no knowledge in advance of the abortion that it was to take place or his wife went explicitly against his wishes (and essentially spent that ‘joint’ money without authorisation) then the original poster is NOT excommunicated.

In any case, I hope and pray that the original poster and his wife come to terms with this, seek counselling if needs be and are able to be absolved where necessary so that they can come back into full communion with the Church.

You are wrong. Foreknowledge of the violation of Canon Law IS a prerequisite.
If you don’t know a sin of grave matter carries automatic excommunication then you are NOT excommunicated by committing the sin.
Also, if you do not know abortion is a sin of grave matter then you do not commit a mortal sin by having one because the 3 conditions for a mortal sin have not been satisfied.

Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:

1° has not completed the sixteenth year of age;

2°** was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance**

3° acted under physical force, or under the impetus of a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or if foreseen could not avoid;

4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;

5° acted, within the limits of due moderation, in lawful self-defence or defence of another against an unjust aggressor;

6° lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the provisions of can. 1324, §1, n. 2 and 1325;

7° thought, through no personal fault, that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in nn. 4 or 5.

 

[fremaochris]

I’m sorry about that. Your in my prayers.

 

[DexUK]

Thistle, you have misquoted the Canon Law you rely on for your argument.

The correct quote is ** a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;**

Committing a sin, or to be of material assistance in its commission, where that sin is contrary to the natural law and, which by its very nature is obvious, should be deducible by human reason alone. This is settled Catholic teaching (likewise there are sins related to ‘rules’ of which is required foreknowledge in order for sinfulness to be present).

It can very reasonably be described as negligent, before carrying out a self-evidently ‘natural law related’ sinful act, for a Catholic not to to seek to understand what the moral requirements are as specified by the Church one has been educated in. Therefore the exception for ignorance cannot be satisfied. Given that Abortion is not exactly unknown, nobody in a position of assisting one or procuring one could be said to be unaware of the Church’s stance on the matter. Negligence in finding out, at the time, what one’s own Church demands is simply not an excuse.

In any case, this is all entirely academic (and is actually in response to a reply rather than the original post). The excommunication, if it does exist, would be lifted the moment the absolution was granted anyway. And obviously, in the case of the original post, if the wife procured the abortion without the knowledge or agreement of the husband, then the husband did NOT sin but was sinned against.

 

[thistle]

Thistle, you have misquoted the Canon Law you rely on for your argument.

The correct quote is ** a person who without negligence** was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;

Committing a sin, or to be of material assistance in its commission, where that sin is contrary to the natural law and, which by its very nature is obvious, should be deducible by human reason alone. This is settled Catholic teaching (likewise there are sins related to ‘rules’ of which is required foreknowledge in order for sinfulness to be present).

It can very reasonably be described as negligent, before carrying out a self-evidently ‘natural law related’ sinful act, for a Catholic not to to seek to understand what the moral requirements are as specified by the Church one has been educated in. Therefore the exception for ignorance cannot be satisfied. Given that Abortion is not exactly unknown, nobody in a position of assisting one or procuring one could be said to be unaware of the Church’s stance on the matter. Negligence in finding out, at the time, what one’s own Church demands is simply not an excuse.

In any case, this is all entirely academic (and is actually in response to a reply rather than the original post). The excommunication, if it does exist, would be lifted the moment the absolution was granted anyway. And obviously, in the case of the original post, if the wife procured the abortion without the knowledge or agreement of the husband, then the husband did NOT sin but was sinned against.

In the first place a person has to know any act they commit is of grave matter otherwise they have not even committed a mortal sin by committing it and consequently do not incur any penalty attached if they had committed a mortal sin.
Second, even if they know they have committed a mortal sin they are NOT excommunicated if they did not know such a penalty was attached to that sin.

Like you I used to think every Catholic must know that abortion is a sin of grave matter but I have found many who were totally ignorant of that and living in a country where half the population lives below the poverty line I don’t see many wasting money to buy a CCC to learn all the Church teachings when they have a hard time surviving each day.

 

[thistle]

From apologist Father Charles Grondin:

Excommunication is a medicinal penalty of the Church. Its purpose is not necessarily to obtain justice or satisfaction but is meant to awaken an individual’s conscience to repentance (canon 1312 & 1331). Excommunication can either be imposed by the competent authority (usually a Bishop) through a canonical process or it can be imposed by canon law itself when certain actions take place. This last one is called latae sententiae or “automatic” excommunication. Automatic excommunication happens when someone commits an act that is specifically punished in canon law by a penalty of automatic excommunication.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law attaches the penalty of automatic excommunication to the following actions: Apostates, heretics, and schismatics (canon 1364); Desecration of the Eucharist (canon 1367); A person who physically attacks the Pope (canon 1370); A priest who in confession solicits another to violate the 6th commandment (canon 1378); A bishop who consecrates another bishop without Papal Mandate (canon 1382); A priest who violates the seal of the confessional (canon 1388); A person who procures an abortion (canon 1398); Accomplices who were needed to commit an action that has an automatic excommunication penalty (canon 1329)

In order for the penalty to be considered to apply certain conditions must be met (canon 1323). The individual must: be at least 16 years old, know that their action was a violation of Church law, have acted freely without threat of force or grave fear, have the use of reason, and not have acted mistakenly.

Unless the canon reserves removal of the penalty to the Holy See then the local Ordinary can remit the excommunication or he can delegate that authority to the priests of his diocese (which most bishops do in the case of abortion).

By and large automatic excommunications are not known to the public. Unless the individual committed the action in a public manner which would cause the local Ordinary to issue a statement about the automatic excommunication, then the burden is on the offender to confess the sin and seek the removal of the penalty.

An excommunicated person is not to receive the sacraments. However if they do so in violation of the law, the sacraments are valid. An excommunicated person who marries has illicitly but validly received the sacrament. In such circumstances the grace of the sacrament would be of no effect since the person is in a state of mortal sin. In the case of confession the sacrament would be invalid because all mortal sins must be confessed for a valid confession (Catechism #1456) and if the individual withholds their action(s) which incurred automatic excommunication they’d be withholding a mortal sin.

The odds that someone could be automatically excommunicated and not know it is extremely unlikely. In order to be under the penalty the individual needs to have known at the time of their actions that their actions were a violation of Church law and have committed the actions intentionally with malice (canon 1321), thus someone who is unsure most likely is not under the penalty. Considering how few actions would lead a layperson to incur automatic excommunication and of those few actions how serious they are, it is doubtful that someone would unknowingly be under the penalty. And, once again, given the seriousness of the actions an individual in good faith would have confessed the sin in confession and the priest would have advised them accordingly.