AmericanPapist Comments
Ok, what is it with all these CATHOLICS that support abortion? And on such a public level. They might as well not call themselves Catholic. This is truly a disgrace. Let's pray that they have a change of heart. For their sake and that of those babies.
Wow. Putting down some serious smack on the Gov. Bishop V got it goin on.
Cardinal O'Connor refused to accept their position, writing in 1990 that Catholics who opposed the church's teachings on abortion by "advocating legislation supporting abortion, or by making public funds available for abortion ... must be warned that they are at a risk of excommunication."
"If such actions persist, bishops may consider excommunication the only option."
Sounds like a good idea to me!
John, except that supporting abortion is not currently canonically criminal, which is why none of the other pro-abortion legislators have been excommunicated. They've only instead been refused to receive holy communion, if at all.
Paul,so Cardinal O'Connor didn't know what he was talking about when he said that? Or has canon law changed?
Sean: the bishops could make supporting abortion criminal in their dioceses if they wanted to. It's not a part of universal canon law, however, at this point. Only committing abortion is.
Perhaps that's the excommunication option he was talking about.
He may have also been thinking about denial of holy communion. It's not unprecedented for a prelate to say "excommunication" when meaning "denial of holy communion under canon 915." For example, Cardinal Maradiaga last year.
It's WAY past time for excommunication. When will the bishops of Amercia finally speak with one voice and excommunicate all public figures who unabashedly support the slaughter of innocents? This nonsense of "asking" or "expecting" such apostates to refrain from Communion appears more a cop-out than anything else.
Paul, the catechism says you can be excommunicated for formal cooperation in abortion. It does not define
"formal" (at least in the Catechism). Passing laws permitting and funding abortion seem formal enough to me. At least make the charge and if they don't like it, they can appeal their case to Archbishop Burke.
I am feeling very discouraged.
John: not only can bishops "ask" or "expect" politicians to refrain, they can withhold the Eucharist from them. See canon 915. This is not the same as excommunication, as despite their obstinate public mortal sin, they still have all the other sacraments open to them, especially reconciliation, but no sacraments are open to the excommunicated. See canon 1331.
Sean: formal cooperation for legal purposes (and that's all that matters for excommunication, a legal sanction) is outlined in canon 1329. In order for the latae sententiae penalty to apply to a person who does not actually commit an abortion, they would have to have (1) conspired to commit an actual abortion, and (2) been a but-for cause in that abortion.
Otherwise, the penalty can only be imposed by judgment of a court. Even then, it may be that only conspirators are subject to the imposed penalty, so you'd have to make the argument that legislators have agreed with someone to help them commit abortions (perhaps abortionists?).
That probably could be done, but you'd need to get a bunch of canon lawyers involved. It's a lot easier to just withhold the sacrament of the Eucharist. It has the same public effect, no formal procedure, and lawyers don't get involved. It's what Abp. Burke loved to employ himself.
Actually, I don't know if Abp. Burke ever actually withheld the Eucharist from a pro-abortion politician, but he said he would many times and in my mind successfully proved that, under canon law, others should as well.
kathy:
I understand how you feel. But we must always remember that we know who triumphs in the end, no matter the outcome of this election:
The light shines in the darkness; and the darkness has not overcome it. - John 1:5
Commenting by HaloScan
