Why aren't pro abortion politicians excommunicated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter imo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

imo

Guest
I mean, how can these politicians who actively and continually support abortion legislation, mainly the more extreme ones, and considers themselves Catholics are not excommunicated?! They are clearly ignoring a fundamental Catholic doctrinal point and actively acting to undermine it publicly. It seems one of the most obvious and unquestionable situations for the application of excommunication, but almost nothing comes from the Holy See. It is just unbelievable for me. If the Church doesn’t apply the appropriate penalties when people unequivocally break her commandment, the message it may appear to pass is that all this is not that important, it is just some old bureaucratic archaic rule, not the murder of millions of innocent babies that become reality by the signatures of this “Catholics”.
 
Last edited:
Denying them Holy Communion doesn’t make them change their behavior. Excommunication probably won’t either.

Excommunication is supposed to be a wake-up call for someone to straighten up, fly right and return to the Church. They don’t think they’re doing anything wrong, and public excommunications would probably just give them a big martyrdom card to play.

Also, we don’t excommunicate people just because they are sinful Catholics or because they’re not the type of Catholics you think should be part of the Church.
 
Last edited:
No, that’s not what excommunication is. By your definition, everybody who sins habitually or takes a position on some issue at odds with the Church teaching is somehow not in communion with the Church. I know this version of “in communion with the Church” is popular on some traditionalist websites and forums, but it’s a misuse of the term.

You can read about what excommunication is, here:

 
Last edited:
Can. 1398 A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.
 
Penal laws in the code are to be interpreted very strictly. “Procure a completed abortion” refers to only three people:
  1. The one paying for the abortion
  2. the one performing the abortion
  3. the one seeking the abortion
And only if they are aware that it carries a penalty and freely choose to do so anyway. Merely supporting abortion on principle or voting for it doesn’t qualify here.

-Fr ACEGC
 
Irrelevant?!!! So the woman that seeks one abortion is excommunicated but the legislator who makes possible to millions to do it is in communion with the Church? Nice reasoning.
 
No, she just understands Canon Law better than you do. She’s reasoning correctly according to how these laws get applied.
 
imo said:
Irrelevant?!!! So the woman that seeks one abortion is excommunicated but the legislator who makes possible to millions to do it is in communion with the Church? Nice reasoning.
Click to expand...
Under the canon you cited, yes. What you’re saying is like saying it’s unfair that a thief doesn’t get thrown into jail under a murder charge since he committed a crime. Now, there may be a case under canon 915, but that’s a different canon.
 
Last edited:
Well at least can we agree that supporting the murder of millions of babies is a mortal sin?

And, really, trying to differentiate the doctor that cuts the woman from the legislator that signs the law seems a very pharisee reasoning that doesn’t seem compatible with Jesus way of teaching.
 
imo said:
And, really, trying to differentiate the doctor that cuts the woman from the legislator that signs the law seems a very pharisee reasoning that doesn’t seem compatible with Jesus way of teaching.
Click to expand...
They can still be denied holy communion per canon 915. So what’s the problem here? Canon law is exactly what the name says: it’s law. It’s a legal system. It involves very precisely defined terms. You can’t say someone is violating something a law doesn’t say nor is meant for because that’s not what the law says.
 
Fauken said:
Now, there may be a case under canon 915, but that’s a different canon.
Click to expand...
It would seem that Can. 915 would allow the politicians to be denied Holy Communion if they were seen as “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” by supporting abortion.
And indeed some priests and bishops deny them Holy Communion.

But Can. 915 doesn’t permit excommunication for “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin”.
And thus we don’t see politicians getting excommunicated.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
It would seem that Can. 915 would allow the politicians to be denied Holy Communion if they were seen as “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” by supporting abortion.
And indeed some priests and bishops deny them Holy Communion.

But Can. 915 doesn’t permit excommunication for “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin”.
And thus we don’t see politicians getting excommunicated.
Click to expand...
Excommunication, no, but there is still a punishment they can incur for their support of abortion.
 
imo said:
supporting the murder of millions of babies is a mortal sin?
Click to expand...
I think that’s a bit of an oversimplification. A mortal sin is a particular act. So “supporting abortion,” depending on what that looks like, might consist of a habitual pattern of various mortal sins. But we can’t be excommunicated, thank God, for abstract things.
imo said:
differentiate the doctor that cuts the woman from the legislator that signs the law seems a very pharisee reasoning that doesn’t seem compatible with Jesus way of teaching.
Click to expand...
No, the law is meant to be interpreted strictly precisely so that Pharisaical interpretation doesn’t result in everyone who ever has positive thoughts about abortion getting excommunicated. There’s a huge difference between enabling something by legislating for it and actually doing it.

When we have discussion about pro-life matters, we really need to do it rationally, to argue well. To come out firing and in such a condemnatory way about things you clearly don’t understand very well doesn’t really help the cause. Do your homework.
 
There’s a difference between excommunication and not being able to receive communion.

One who publicly supports abortion, by voting for it or vocally advocating for it, should not receive communion. They are not automatically excommunicated by the Canon you cited. You don’t seem to grasp the difference.
 
imo said:
And, really, trying to differentiate the doctor that cuts the woman from the legislator that signs the law seems a very pharisee reasoning that doesn’t seem compatible with Jesus way of teaching.
Click to expand...
One can see why excommunication is reserved for the very concrete and final acts associated with abortion, and not various levels of enabling acts. Legislation is often not black and white - meaning the matter in debate is not simply to approve or disapprove of abortion. To codify what legislative position earns excommunication and what does not might not be straightforward.
 
Read what is said:

Archbishop Eamon Martin, who succeeds Cardinal Sean Brady next year, said that legislators who supported abortion were excommunicating themselves.

“You cannot regard yourself as a person of faith and support abortion,” he told the ‘Sunday Times’. "If a legislator comes to me and says, ‘Can I be a faithful Catholic and support abortion?’ I would say no. Your communion is ruptured if you support abortion.

“You are excommunicating yourself. Any legislator who clearly and publicly states this should not approach looking for communion.”
 
And the Bishop, all due respect to him, is not accurately stating what is in the law, unless he’s going to excommunicate everyone to whom that applies. He’s being imprecise, which leads to confusion.

Excommunication is a technical term for a very particular kind of punishment. Doing something which makes him ineligible to receive communion is not the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top