What is the rationale for abortion being grounds for excommunication?

[EasterJoy]

Say a victim of rape procures an abortion. The woman, and her accomplices in the abortion, incur automatic excommunication. But the rapist is not excommunicated. If excommunication is really just about “heinous offenses,” as you say, then the above situation represents a terrible injustice since the rapist’s heinous offense goes arbitrarily unpunished. This is why I think there has to be more to excommunication than you think. This is why I think the “traitor” analogy makes more sense. But, again, I am still left wondering why abortion?

The excommunicated Catholic can still come inside the church, just not receive the sacraments, just like anyone else who is guilty of a mortal sin. The rapist is obviously guilty of a mortal sin and may not have recourse to the sacraments except by confession…may not receive Holy Communion, which is what happens when one is excommunicated. The confessor will not absolve lightly, but will need to be satisfied that the rapist is contrite and resolved to amend their life. More to the point, if the rapist confesses and asserts falsely that he is contrite and has firm intention of amendment, the absolution will not be his, even if the priest says the words, because there is no absolution where there is no contrition. If he returns to the sacraments without making a good confession in true repentance, he will be guilty of sacriledge. God will not be mocked.

Also, in order to actually incur the excommunication, the person procuring an abortion had to have known that this is an excommunicable offense at the time of the abortion. So if the person willingly procuring the abortion knew it was a grave sin but not that it was an excommunicable offense, they would be guilty of a mortal sin but not excommunicated.

The question, then, is why does there need to be special permission to absolve someone who procurs an abortion when it is not necessary for other grave sins? I could offer some logical reasons, but they would be guesses. My thinking, however, is that abortion is a sin that is widely accepted even though it is taking of an innocent human life. Of all violations of that commandment, it is among the easiest to rationalize. The Church has an extra duty to make sure that the offender (or a person tempted to commit that offense) is convinced of the true nature of that sin.

 

[JReducation]

The idea behind excommunication, I think, is that some sins of a particular nature rupture formal union with the Church. In our own civil justice system, being a murderer does not make you a traitor to your country.

But it seems with abortion, the Church has deemed that it makes you a “traitor.” What is the rationale for this? It seems to arbitrarily single out abortion when you could also target rape or murder for excommunication.

I am just searching for consistency.

First of all, you’re searching for the wrong thing in the wrong place. The rationale between civil law and moral law are not always similar. In the English system, civil law is based on the rationale of the governed, not on absolute truths. In moral law, the rationale is found in absolute truths, not in the reasoning of the governed. The two systems are not comparable. American civil law is English, not moral; therefore, it is inherently
flawed, because it’s based on what the majority believe, not on what is right and wrong.

Second, the killing of a human being who is totally defenseless trumps even murder. The child in the womb is voiceless and has no social advocate to protect him or her. Even a child after birth is protected by laws and by its parents, while the child in the womb is not accorded either of those rights, the protection of the parent and the protection of society, thus making its murder even more heinous than that of a toddler. Rape does not even come close on the moral hierarchy of sin. Even though it’s a sin, it is not the taking of a life.

Third, whoever explained excommunication to you did a very poor job. There is no such a term as traitor in Canon Law or Moral Law. Traitor is a political term. Canon Law deals with governance. In this case, it says that if one commits such a heinous crime as denying the unborn the right to live without according it the protection of the parents and the state, one forfeits union with the Church, because it has been revealed to us that such killing is the highest form of injustice according to Divine Law.

Where was this revealed to us? At the crucifixion. Jesus is not accorded the protection that is the natural right of any human being. He was murdered without when his judge (Pilate) himself said, “I find no fault in this man. Take him out and crucify him yourselves.” He found no fault, but authorized the crucifixion of an innocent man. The same is done to the child in the womb. He is not at fault, but his murder is authorized by his mother.

This leads us to the next point. The vocation of every mother is to protect her child, not to hand him over to be killed. It is contrary to the natural vocation of a mother to choose between her children and select for the survival of some at the expense of another. It is also contrary to the nature of motherhood, for a mother to choose her life over that of her children. In every species, mothers often face grave danger, even death, trying to protect their young. It’s built into their instinct. To act contrary to the moral good that is instinctive is to sever your ties with those who are faithful to the moral good that is divinely revealed in nature. The Church did not cut you off, you did it to yourself.

The human mother who chooses to allow her child to be killed is acting contrary to natural law either because she has no love for this child, which is a heinous sin. A mother who has no love for her child is an unnatural mother. Or she allows the murder of her child because she does not believe that it’s a child. In this case, she is acting on flawed understanding of life.

Every rational human being has a moral duty to inform himself before making such a moral decision. Physicians and Planned Parenthood are not theologians nor are they interested in moral absolutes. That’s not the place to go for an answer to a moral question. The place for a Catholic to go to ask moral questions is to the Church. A Catholic who chooses to avoid that route in order to inform his or her conscience and proceeds to complete an abortion, has cut himself off from communion with the faithful, by his or her own choice. The Church has not cut you off. You cut yourself off.

Excommunication is only applicable if the person knows that there is a penalty of excommunication and if the person chooses to complete an abortion. An adolescent who is coerced by her parents or by fear is not acting freely. She is not choosing to cut herself off from the community of believers. She has no desire to kill her child. She has a desire to avoid that which she fears. The act is gravely sinful, but her culpability is significantly diminished.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[nordskoven]

Why aren’t chemical abortifacients, birth control pills and morning after pills, sufficient to incur excommunication?

 

[Pug]

Why aren’t chemical abortifacients, birth control pills and morning after pills, sufficient to incur excommunication?

If I got pregnant by some extreme twist of fate and then used a chemical abortifacient to kill the child, I would consider myself excommunicated. The canon doesn’t specify that deliberate chemical abortions are excluded.

But birth control is not included because there is no canon in canon law saying there is excommunication for birth control. The pope can change what canon law says if he wants.

 

[JReducation]

If I got pregnant by some extreme twist of fate and then used a chemical abortifacient to kill the child, I would consider myself excommunicated. The canon doesn’t specify that deliberate chemical abortions are excluded.

But birth control is not included because there is no canon in canon law saying there is excommunication for birth control. The pope can change what canon law says if he wants.

This is correct.

Any completed abortion leads to excommunication. The means is not important.

Contraception is not a completed abortion. It’s not an abortion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Gorgias]

Contraception is not a completed abortion. It’s not an abortion.

On the other hand, some contraception is abortifacient – that is, it acts not by preventing conception, but by acting after conception (for example, by preventing an embryo from attaching to the uterine wall. In such a case, the action may properly be described as abortifacient and not contraceptive. As an example, ellaOne is said to have both contraceptive and abortifacient effects…

 

[iloveangels]

Why aren’t chemical abortifacients, birth control pills and morning after pills, sufficient to incur excommunication?

Because many people don’t understand the science, all around. They are often abortifacient rather than simply preventative of sperm and ovum uniting. You are correct.

Perhaps the catch is because a person using them could not know, without proof, in which cases they were and in which cases they weren’t. It is sometimes possible for women to conceive and bear children all the while taking the pill, which comes as a complete shock to them as you might well imagine. [It probably takes a certain lack of mental acuity for this to happen, but I digress. It has been known to happen.]

The main Catholic objection to the pill, IUD etc, however, is something else. They are lumped together with condoms and other non-chemical methods and the objection is to birth control in general. That’s how this is approached and taught.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I am bumping this thread to let everyone know that I am still seeking for an answer to my question. When I find an answer, I will be sure to make another post in this thread.

In short, I would like to know why abortion is an excommunicable offense. If there is not any principled explanation, it would seem that the Church is making an arbitrary moral stand. Why abortion and not murder? Why abortion and not _____? In other words, our critics are right to note the inconsistency in excommunicating a woman who procured an abortion and not her rapist. Or the doctor who aborted the unborn child and not the fiend who abused and murdered a young boy. Without a principled explanation, we open ourselves up to these outrageous inconsistencies.

I am suret that there is an explanation, I just need to find it.

All of those complict in the abortion process,meaning those you cited above are commiting a grevious mortal sin,only through the Sacrement of Reconciliation,and resulting absolution can any of them be back in communion with the Catholic Church

 

[choose_to_love]

@permanentmarker: you received the correct explanation already. Abortion is excommunicable because it is intended to be medicinal, to “wake up” the actor or its advocates to the truth that the matter is truly serious. No one seeks to advocate rape, incest, etc., so there is no need for the Church to make a public, if you will, consequence. Everybody “gets” that. But, as noted earlier, there are many who advocate for the liciety of abortion, so the Church draws attention to it to reinforce that it is not licit.

 

[sdeco]

I would like an answer to this question as well. None of the answers have been satisfactory.

I’ve always been very pro-life, but I’ve never understood why abortion is an excommunicable offense, whereas other forms of murder are not. So if a woman has an abortion, she is automatically excommunicated, but if she gives birth to the baby and kills it after it’s born instead, she is NOT automatically excommunicated?! I would actually argue that killing a baby after it’s born is worse than an early abortion, since the born baby has more awareness and can feel pain. I don’t think acknowledging this in any way diminishes the wrongness of abortion.

Some people have said that abortion incurs automatic excommunication in order to draw attention to its wrongness, because a lot of people in our society don’t realize it’s wrong, whereas most people realize that killing a born baby is wrong. But if 1ke is right and abortion has always been an excommunicable offense throughout the history of the church, this argument doesn’t make sense, because abortion has not always been legal in every time and place, and there weren’t always as many people who thought it was OK in every time and place.

I’ve always thought abortion was as bad as other forms of murder, but I don’t see why it’s worse.

Isn’t that what pro-choicers do - draw arbitrary lines depending on the location of the baby? According to them, killing the child is OK when it’s in the womb but not OK when it’s outside the womb. Why does the church draw a similar arbitrary line and say killing your child while it’s in the womb means you’re excommunicated, but killing your child outside the womb means you’re not?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In short, I would like to know why abortion is an excommunicable offense. If there is not any principled explanation, it would seem that the Church is making an arbitrary moral stand. Why abortion and not murder? Why abortion and not _____?.

Abortion is not the only way to be excommunicated. One could also be excommunicated for murder if one obstinately maintained that murder was OK. The only difference is the automatic nature of the excommunication in the case of abortion. I think you make too much of the fact that it is automatic since one can also be excommunicated for many other positions - after some deliberation. Also you make too much of the fact of excommunication as distinct from “merely” being in the state of mortal sin. In both cases salvation is denied if you die that way and in both cases redemption is possible if one repents. So the Church does not make a huge arbitrary moral distinction. She makes a distinction but it is neither huge nor arbitrary.

 

[kbwall]

The excommunication is to remind us how great of a sin it truly is. Excommunication for rape and/or murder are unneccesary, since everybody knows that these are terrible things to do. No sane human being needs to be reminded of the gravity of rape or murder. However, the way society condones abortion and passes it off as not murder, then we do need to be reminded of the gravity of such a situation.

 

[EasterJoy]

The excommunication is to remind us how great of a sin it truly is. Excommunication for rape and/or murder are unneccesary, since everybody knows that these are terrible things to do. No sane human being needs to be reminded of the gravity of rape or murder. However, the way society condones abortion and passes it off as not murder, then we do need to be reminded of the gravity of such a situation.

Right. It is not as if there is anyone who believes that those who commit rape or murder could receive Holy Communion without repentance and sacramental confession. The difference is whether, when the sin is absolved, the priest can also automatically re-admit the person to the sacraments.

In practical terms, the difference between offenses leading to automatic excommunication and other mortal sins is that a bishop must give special permission for a priest to lift the excommunication when he absolves the sin of procuring an abortion. Again: the person procuring the abortion is only excommunicated if he or she was aware that excommunication was the penalty for the offense, or there is no excommunication to lift. If the person was aware that the sin was grave, it is still a mortal sin, but they also have to be aware when they procured the abortion that they were liable to excommunication by doing it.

IOW, the penalty of excommunication is attached not because the offense is worst kind of mortal sin, but because there is a far greater danger of a believer contemplating the offense but believing the sin to be less serious than it is. When society is becoming permissive of this mortal sin or that, even denying that there is anything wrong at all in doing it, then the Church needs to be able to leave no question about the gravity of the sin. Once a Catholic learns that a particular offense requires excommunication, there is no question about the level of gravity involved, no matter what anyone in the secular world says.

 

[CleverUserName]

I have given birth to 4 children and lost two to miscarriage; and I have known many women who have had abortions and I can tell you with absolute certainty that there is nothing remotely conceivably more violating of a woman body and soul than that heinous act so calmly termed abortion.

To compare it to rape is offensive beyond words.

God made us (mothers) to love our babies and made our babies to love us; we feel this love right from conception but when it’s our first, that feeling of “other” inside us can be terrifying. (By my second, I was able to recognize that love growing inside me for what it was).

The women I know who have had abortions spend the rest of their lives looking at other children that might be the age of their baby that they allowed to be killed. The many who have confided in me are truly haunted and tormented by their decisions. I have met only one who claimed that she “felt nothing” or was “content” with her decision; in a way this violates even more.

The baby is given no pain killer before it is chopped up into little bits while it is residing in the most sacrosanct place in the world: the womb. The most innocent of innocents is horribly, painfully murdered in that place we used to be able to call “safest”. We can no longer say: safe as in the womb; or comfortable as in the womb.

Abortion is an attack on society as a whole. It eliminates all the children that would have been able to go to the childless. It eliminates all of the children that would have grown into functioning adults. It creates this false idea that “the poor” need to be exterminated; among countless other false theologies that are rammed down our throats in the public school system. I, myself was very “pro-choice” until I actually had a baby growing inside me. We change as women when we become “mother” (even those who cannot give birth, but adopt). To remove from the picture the very reason for that change; violates our whole being body and soul on a level that is incomprehensible.

I’m not belittling rape. It is a crime of greater magnitude than our justice system allows; but to compare rape to abortion is *not *like comparing apples to oranges; it’s like comparing apples to ecosystems in its magnitude and complexity.

The hypocrisy you are intuiting regarding rape and abortion should more be directed at our justice system. That is: why do we (as a society) think it is a “good thing” to kill the most innocent person in the perpetration of a rape, yet not the rapist himself?

I could expound further, but I’ve probably lost most of the quick readers as it is.

-Carol

You didn’t lose me. God bless you for your passion.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’ve always thought abortion was as bad as other forms of murder, but I don’t see why it’s worse.

Not to diminish other kinds of murder, but for an entirely vulnerable and innocent person to be murdered by the bidding of his own mother, not to mention to have it done by someone trained to save and protect human life…in terms of the offense itself, without taking into account what might lessen culpability in some specific case, that’s not just worse. That’s a* lot *worse.

But no, it would be hard to argue that abortion is worse than infanticide, excepting that you’ll have a hard time finding anyone softpedalling whether or not infanticide is wrong. If that were the case, then infanticide, too, would undoubtedly carry the penalty of excommunication. I think that is where the difference comes in: that is, that this is an offense whose gravity tragically needed to be articulated by the Church even to the faithful in no uncertain terms.

 

[iloveangels]

Abortion is not the only way to be excommunicated. One could also be excommunicated for murder if one obstinately maintained that murder was OK. The only difference is the automatic nature of the excommunication in the case of abortion. I think you make too much of the fact that it is automatic since one can also be excommunicated for many other positions - after some deliberation. Also you make too much of the fact of excommunication as distinct from “merely” being in the state of mortal sin. In both cases salvation is denied if you die that way and in both cases redemption is possible if one repents. So the Church does not make a huge arbitrary moral distinction. She makes a distinction but it is neither huge nor arbitrary.

Yes, and this isn’t drawn out very well for people. It’s not arbitrary, but to many people, it looks arbitrary.

 

[CleverUserName]

I always thought of excommunication as analogous to treason in civil law .

I think this is the core of your problem.

People far better versed than I have responded to the error in this analogy, but you keep repeating it anyway. I think that as long as you think of it this way, you’ll never be fully satisfied by any of the answers you are given.

I agree with the posters that said it’s important to understand fully what the Church means by excommunication, and all of the details therein.

 

[CleverUserName]

Abortion is not the only way to be excommunicated. One could also be excommunicated for murder if one obstinately maintained that murder was OK. The only difference is the automatic nature of the excommunication in the case of abortion. I think you make too much of the fact that it is automatic since one can also be excommunicated for many other positions - after some deliberation. Also you make too much of the fact of excommunication as distinct from “merely” being in the state of mortal sin. In both cases salvation is denied if you die that way and in both cases redemption is possible if one repents. So the Church does not make a huge arbitrary moral distinction. She makes a distinction but it is neither huge nor arbitrary.

YES!

Excellent and succinct points, all of them.

 

[fred_conty]

Here is another post that has given the way excommunication should be used and understood.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=628337

To incur the excommunication, the person much meet certain criteria

a. They must be in communion with the Catholic Church. You can’t excommunicate someone who is not inside in the first place.

b. The individual must know that the penalty is excommunication. The Church has never imposed excommunication on unsuspecting souls. Just because the Church has said that excommunication is automatic, does not mean that everyone knows this or understands what an excommunication is. You folks have to remember that if you’re on this thread, it’s because you know something about Catholicism and you’re interested in knowing more. But you must be careful not to project your knowledge and your desire to understand, on others. Not everyone has the same knowledge or the same desire.

The Church is a merciful mother. She does not impose penalties on those who do not understand them. The purpose of an excommunication is medicinal. Giving someone this medicine, without their knowledge has no chance of achieving the desired effect, which is to rattle the person back to his or her senses.

c. As has already been said, the Church does not excommunicate children.

d. Finally, abortion is a very delicate subject. I know, because that’s what I do for a living. No, I do not perform abortions. I run the pro-life ministry to fathers for an entire diocese. Nine out of the 10 people whom I see are not excommunicated. The pressure to abort is almost crippling. These young people often find themselves in situations where they have no idea which side is up, because everyone around them is feeding them horrifying thoughts about how hellish their lives will be if they have this baby. At some point, these young people buckle, because there is no one there to give them any hope.

That’s why I run this ministry for the young men and not so young. If I can get to them before the mothers of their children have an abortion, I can usually alleviate the fear and hopelessness that overcomes them. Many women will back down, if the father steps up to the plate.

I wish that more Catholics would focus less on the penalties and canons around abortion and focus more on the conditions that lead to abortion. Threatening with an excommunication has very little effect when your parents are telling you that you have blown your future, when your friends are telling you that the boy who got you pregnant is sleeping with another girl, when the girl who is carrying your child is sleeping with other boys making you want to walk away, because your not sure if you’re the father.

When you’re an immigrant, unemployed, don’t have medical insurance and have several children, carrying a child can be terrifying. You need someone who understands and who promises you to be there and offer you the material and emotional assistance that you need. Which is what our ministry offers. We walk with the fathers as their brothers, from the moment that they discover that they are fathers until the child is 24 months old. If you alleviate the anxiety, the poverty, and present the other side, that there is hope for the parents and the child, then you can prevent many abortions.

The word excommunication means something to those who would never have an abortion in the first place, people like you.

Finally NEVER NEVER tell anyone that they or someone they know are excommunicated, because they had an abortion, especially not on an internet thread. Unless you ask all of the right questions, you have no way of knowing. To many people, especially younger people, who have had abortions, with no knowledge about excommunications, suddenly being told that they are outside of the Church translates into, “You’re not wanted.” The reaction is one of anger and resentment, because they don’t know how to cope with the guilt and what they perceive as rejection. This is the kind of information that must be shared by someone who knows how to do it and will follow-up with the healing process.

Post Abortion Sydrome is very serious. Telling someone, whom you don’t know, that he or she is excommunicated can be just the thing that this person needs to finish pushing them over the edge.

The best answer to this question is to say that there are times when the person is excommunicated and times when he or she is not. The thing to do is to approach either a priest who knows something about abortion or the diocesan pro-life office. Every diocese has one with very well trained people to answer this and other related questions correctly.

 

[Mickey]

The canons of the Orthodox Church consider abortion as premeditated murder and all those who participate in the procedure – that is, those who perform, promote, prescribe, advocate, support and undergo abortion – as murderers. For the penitent, excommunication of periods up to ten years are still prescribed – the same as for any repentant murderer.