Kissling may get book deal and speaking tour after all
I guess you could say Frances Kissling, who dared The Church to excommunicate her for her pro-abortion advocacy, and I have something in common- neither of us knew anything about excommunication latae sententiae. First Things explains how and why Catholics who advocate for abortion actually excommunicate themselves.
The issue of excommunication persists, however, because canon law treats abortion much more severely than most other kinds of wrongdoing. It imposes on the canonical crime of procuring an abortion a so-called latae sententiae excommunication (canon 1398). An excommunication latae sententiae attaches to the offender merely because he has performed the prohibited action and without any judicial action by the Church—indeed without any further action by anyone whatsoever. The penalty is imposed automatically, or, as an American lawyer might say, by operation of law. Ecclesiastical authority will, at most, take note of the fact that the wrongdoer has incurred the penalty.
Hence, when Catholic politicians violate the canon, the Church should declare openly that they have incurred the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae.
Note to Ms. Kissling - best wishes on your book deals and safe travels on your speaking tour.
Update: (Important comment left by Jeff Miller/ Curt Jester) - Unfortunately I think he misrepresents the Canon. No Canonist has extended the Canon on “Procuring” an abortion to those who vote to make it law. Rome has not interpreted this Canon this way. If they did there would never had been any talk about giving pro-abortion politicians Communion since those who are excommunicated automatically are not allowed Communion.
Canonist Ed Peters who is quite reliable has posted on this multiple times on his blog.
The Pope was asked a question about the Mexican bishops and excommunicating pro-abortion politicians. So far these Bishops have not in fact excommunicated anybody, but if they did the Pope would be totally behind them because they certainly can. The real issue is not whether they incurred an automatic excommunication, but the fact that under Canon law they should in fact be denied Communion for this.
.jpg)
Unfortunately I think he misrepresents the Canon. No Canonist has extended the Canon on “Procuring” an abortion to those who vote to make it law. Rome has not interpreted this Canon this way. If they did there would never had been any talk about giving pro-abortion politicians Communion since those who are excommunicated automatically are not allowed Communion.
Canonist Ed Peters who is quite reliable has posted on this multiple times on his blog.
http://www.canonlaw.info/2007/05/legislating-in-mid-air-possible-but-not.html
The Pope was asked a question about the Mexican bishops and excommunicating pro-abortion politicians. So far these Bishops have not in fact excommunicated anybody, but if they did the Pope would be totally behind them because they certainly can. The real issue is not whether they incurred an automatic excommunication, but the fact that under Canon law they should in fact be denied Communion for this.
Comment by Jeff Miller — May 30, 2007 @ 10:25 am
Thanks Jeff.
Comment by shelray — May 30, 2007 @ 10:33 am
Speaking of latae sentetiae Call To Action’s hammering at Bp. Bruskewitz’ door again, this time with a PETITION! With a Thousand Signatures! I didn’t realize that you could get a dispensation from an excommunication by a petition. Or maybe not..
Comment by St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse — May 30, 2007 @ 11:33 am
Does the excommunication apply to abortion to save a woman’s life/health? Or in severe circumstances?
I.E. I find out I have an ectopic pregnancy. I flush it out with a drug or operate early enough to save the tube (direct abortion) rather than wait for the tube to infect and take the whole thing out (indirect abortion).
Or if I’m carrying a baby so severely deformed its little bones are ripping into my uterus, or something has gone so wrong that the child is going to die in utero and damage my body in the process, so I get an abortion before the damamge to me is done, rather than wait until I have to get a hysterectomy.
Is abortion in these circumstances also an excommunicable offense?
Just curious. Because I may be in that position someday, and I’ll need to know if I’ll have to go to confession afterward and get an excommunication lifted.
Comment by Anon — May 30, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
I find out I have an ectopic pregnancy. I flush it out with a drug or operate early enough to save the tube (direct abortion) rather than wait for the tube to infect and take the whole thing out (indirect abortion).
life of a child vs. a fallopian tube?
I’m carrying a baby so severely deformed its little bones are ripping into my uterus, or something has gone so wrong that the child is going to die in utero and damage my body in the process, so I get an abortion before the damage to me is done, rather than wait until I have to get a hysterectomy?
life of a child vs a body part?
Is abortion in these circumstances also an excommunicable offense?
You should probably speak to a priest.
Thanks
Comment by shelray — May 30, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
Anon -
I will assume that your question is sincere and so will take the time to respond. I am happy to hear that you recognize that it is a child that you would be killing to guard your health or protect your life.
The first thing I might mention is that removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion even though it results in the death of the baby…that is as long as the procedure does not directly kill the baby but simply removes him from the tube where he is not supposed to be.
Another observation is that even supposing that the circumstances you present do in fact threaten the consequences you suggest and that directly and purposefully taking of the baby’s life is the only possible option in these cases (all of which I do not grant as certain) one must recall that one may not do evil that good can come from it. Once you deny the fundamental principle that murder (the purposeful taking of an innocent life) is evil and can never be permitted, then you essentially accept the same principle as those of Nazi Germany and Communist totalitarian regimes such as existed in the former Soviet Union and exists today in China, you simply may disagree on the arbitrary criteria which futilely attempts to limit the consequences of denying the principle. In other words, if human beings have the authority to decide which human beings deserve the protection of law and which do not then we have no moral basis for judging, for example, the holocaust as a moral evil. Rather, the most we can say that we disagree with their choice of values. In fact, there can be no real evil if there are no moral absolutes.
One does not alway have good choices in this fallen world. Sometimes there are illnesses in which one has no medical treatment, sometimes (but I would say this is very rare) one has no morally licit treatments even though medicine may offer a medically possible treatment. In these cases, one has the choice to respond in love or to take the selfish route (i.e. one that rejects the order of God’s creation which is the same thing as rejecting His love because the former arises from the latter). The route that leads to human happiness and joy is to respond in love and accept the physical consequences of doing the morally right thing.
Finally, while it is laudable that you would want to remain in communion with the Church, I still have to say that in your statement about confession you seem to misunderstand the significance of morality and the moral life. It is not a matter of choosing between freedom and law. This is a false dichotomy. Rather the moral life is a matter of understanding the way God has created the cosmos (with His perfection as its archetype) and what that means for human happiness and fulfillment. When one listens to and obeys the moral law what he is doing is responding to God’s gift of life in trust and love. Therefore, whatever the physical or other type of suffering to which this sometimes might lead, the result will be a more perfect character, greater joy, and a closer communion with God in Christ.
The presumption of deciding to do grave evil with no repentance or firm purpose of amendment reflects a turning away from God with no intention to return to Him. Thus, one cannot receive God’s mercy when one continues to reject it by putting his own will ahead of God’s love and so your trip to confession in this state would be to no purpose.
Comment by David — May 30, 2007 @ 7:58 pm