Why aren't pro abortion politicians excommunicated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter imo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
”Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin said he does not want to see the sacrament of communion being used “for publicity reasons” by anybody in the debate…”

”His comments came after Coadjutor Archbishop of Armagh, Eamon Martin, warned that politicians who knowingly introduced legislation “aiding and abetting abortion” should not approach a priest looking for communion.”

Both positions are right.
 
There’s a difference between actually committing a homicide and merely “supporting” it. Whatever that would mean.
 
edward_george1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is why there should be no automatic excommunications. It’s too ambiguous. Better to have those cases handled one at a time so there’s no doubt.
 
If you had a time machine to go back and excommunicate the politicians who made abortion legal, that is one thing.

Now, it is the established law of the land, all 50 states.

Listen to Father @edward_george1
 
imo said:
Archbishop Eamon Martin, who succeeds Cardinal Sean Brady next year, said that legislators who supported abortion were excommunicating themselves.
Click to expand...
imo said:
Archbishop: “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.
Click to expand...
He is not addressing the operation of the (Canon) law in this statement. He appears to be using the word to describe a separation from what it means to be a “faithful catholic”.
 
Last edited:
One thing which can be applied is the parable of the wheat and tares. Allow them to grow together and the reaper will sort them for either reward or fuel for the fire. (Matthew 13)

There must also be factions, so that those who are approved may be made apparent. (1 Corinthians)

That is not the only solution, as the Church has the power of excommunication for a reason. However, due to the sheer number of unfaithful Catholics these days, the Church would be doing little else. It may yet come to that point, but not yet. The denial of communion to some is perhaps the beginning of the labor pains.
 
Rau said:
He is not addressing the operation of the (Canon) law in this statement. He appears to be using the word to describe a separation from what it means to be a “faithful catholic”.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is the usage of the term “excommunicated” or “not in communion with the Church” that I see all the time on other websites. Canon law doesn’t work that way, and this causes much confusion.
 
Making something illegal and/or punishing people for certain actions does not always work.
I prefer a positive proactive approach.
Counseling those who are doing something wrong is more likely to get a positive outcome.
 
Zach said:
Why get all caught up with canon law? As far as I’m concerned that’s for the clergy and the lawyers. I’d rather memorize the Psalms and other biblical books than care about any canon law.
Click to expand...
I applaud you for having good and clear priorities. At the same time, I think we can all agree that a society’s law should protect and promote the values of that society. As such, we should all have at least a theoretical concern with the law and care whether or not our fellow citizens are obeying it.

Dan
 
Fauken said:
Excommunication, no, but there is still a punishment they can incur for their support of abortion.
Click to expand...
Technically, canon 915 is not a penal norm and so it does not refer to or result in “punishment.”

Dan
 
@imo

Some articles worthwhile you’re time to read them, from Dr. Edward Peters Canon Lawyer JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap. whose blog is called “In Light of the Law”. I think these will help you to better understand the application of canon law in these situations.

About those Bloody 14 January 31, 2018

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 The case for applying Canon 1398 to politicians is very weak

Sunday, November 23, 2008 Canonical options for dealing with Catholic legislative support for FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act)

Canon lawyers are dubious about the prospects for excommunication of Catholic politicians who support abortion, but other disciplinary measures are available. 2013

Denial of the Eucharist to pro-abortion Catholic politicians: a canonical case study 2013

The latest excommunication call January 23, 2013

An appropriate response to Gov. Cuomo’s latest abortion push January 25, 2013
 
Last edited:
Others have said basically this but I will add my own perspective. I think we can benefit by maintaining a distinction between these different ideas: “excommunication”, “public worthiness to receive Holy Communion”, and “not in communion with the Church.”

Excommunication is a rather rare penalty that can only be incurred or imposed in those situations detailed in canon law. I don’t know of any politician who has been excommunicated due to legislative acts. We are certainly free to think that canon law should say, for example, “anyone in a position of civil authority who formally and materially supports abortion is subject to a just penalty.” But, it doesn’t say that now and the canon on abortion does not apply to politicians and legislators (for legislating).

Excommunication as a penalty includes a prohibition on receiving the Sacraments but is more than that. It is primarily (although not exclusively) meant to correct the offender and bring him/her back to the authentic practice of the faith.

Public (un)worthiness to receive Holy Communion is a separate and distinct issue even though it meshes with excommunication in regard to reception of Communion. A person can be not excommunicated but still be clearly unfit to receive Communion (and/or some other Sacrament).

A person can do certain things or profess certain beliefs that clearly show that he/she is not thinking with the Church and/or is not a “practicing Catholic” or is “not in communion with the Church.” All the way from never attending Mass to vandalizing a statue of the Lord to tearing up a picture of the Pope on live tv to…you name it. These are all bad and can show that a person is “not in communion” with the Church.

Sometimes, “not in communion” and “excommunication” are used interchangeably, even occasionally by high ranking prelates. Nevertheless, excommunication (as a legal reality) is not the same as this “not in communion.” A person can be a “bad Catholic” and commit any number of serious sins yet still not be excommunicated. That has always been the case and always will be.

Dan
 
Last edited:
acanonlawyer said:
I applaud you for having good and clear priorities. At the same time, I think we can all agree that a society’s law should protect and promote the values of that society. As such, we should all have at least a theoretical concern with the law and care whether or not our fellow citizens are obeying it.
Click to expand...
Thanks for broadening my perspective. I got an alert saying my post was flagged and removed for being off topic, so It seems I was out of sync with the flow of the thread.
 
Zach said:
hanks for broadening my perspective. I got an alert saying my post was flagged and removed for being off topic, so It seems I was out of sync with the flow of the thread.
Click to expand...
Huh. Well, I didn’t flag it. I’m a free speech sort of guy.

Dan
 
In not saying you did. I’m a free speech guy too. It’s ok though. Just like the Church has rules so does this forum.
 
Last edited:
@imo

I’ve seen it mentioned in the past (maybe it was Cardinal Dolan?) that he’s leery of excommunicating pro-choice Catholic politicians and then having them parade it around as a badge of honor. Let’s not forget that grave sin is still grave sin. As far as canonical excommunication, there are specific requirements for it and I remember a canon lawyer saying that those requirements must never be read loosely or we went up burning down half the village and not actually helping anything.

Anyway, pro-choice Catholic politicians seem to be a gradually dying breed. Many of the younger ones are “spiritual” or “non-religious”. I have a tendency to think of apostasy as a lesser evil to pro-choice Catholic, but that might be my own emotions speaking. I’m a stickler over internal consistency and people that do the half-in half-out dance with their religion have always confused me and probably always will.

In sum, we are morally obliged to pray for the conversion of sinners. We must be hopeful that the cause of life will continue to gain ground.

Peace.
 
Last edited:
TK421 said:
I’ve seen it mentioned in the past (maybe it was Cardinal Dolan?) that he’s leery of excommunicating pro-choice Catholic politicians and then having them parade it around as a badge of honor.
Click to expand...
Yeah, like I said in Post 2, it makes them martyrs. They would have all the headlines, “My family’s been going to this church since 1945 and now I’ve been thrown out simply because I try to represent all my constituents including the ones who aren’t Catholic, and I can’t in good conscience force my Catholic views on everybody” blah blah blah.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top