Show the mothers compassion: Excommunicate the politicians
		
By Pete Vere
web posted December 22, 2003

Over the past couple months, much has been written about an
impending crackdown threatened by Catholic bishops against
politicians who support abortion. Of course the usual suspects
within the persistently vegetative media are crying "separation of
Church and State" and "the Church has no business speaking out
on political issues." This seems rather strange given that, as Rod
Dreher recently blogged, these media pundits currently voicing
their outrage are the same folks who denounce Pope Pius XII
for not speaking out strongly enough against Hitler's numerous
atrocities during the Second World War.

As a political commentator and a canon lawyer – that is one who
practices law within the Catholic Church's internal legal system –
I have always had a few reservations about canon 1398. This is
the canon that states: "A person who actually procures an
abortion incurs a latae sententiae [automatic] excommunication."
the canon states. Do not confuse my reservations as support for
abortion. I am in complete agreement with the Catechism of the
Catholic Church which teaches that abortion "is gravely contrary
to the moral law" as well as an "abominable crime" (2271).

Yet my experience in ministry has taught me that most women
who abort their child act under some sort of emotional, mental
and/or psychological duress. Despite what many feminists claim,
I seldom come across an abortion that is freely chosen – that is,
chosen without coercion from some outside individual or
organization. Sometimes this pressure comes from a boyfriend
who refuses any responsibility for the pregnancy. Other times,
parents seek a quick fix for their teenaged daughters. "Get rid of
it or get out of the house!" is, sadly, the execution decree of all-
too-many grandchildren.

But even more reprehensible, in my opinion, is the coercion a
distraught pregnant mother finds among the very women's
organizations that claim to uphold her freedom of choice. As my
friend Mark Shea often reminds me, abortion is the principle
sacrament of liberal secularists. Therefore, a woman often
discovers when dealing with feminist pregnancy crisis centers that
her choices do not include bringing the child within her womb to
full term.

Because abortion is a traumatic choice often made under duress,
the woman is left in need of the Church's help and compassion.
For once her child is dead, the woman will find neither help nor
compassion from the abortion industry. Alone and ashamed, the
perception of canonical censures only further drives these
women away from the Church in their time of need. This
obviously compounds the problem.

What these women need is Christ's healing touch in the
confessional, as well as sustained pastoral support from
organizations like Project Rachel. This is the approach Christ
took with Mary Magdalen's adultery: He did not excuse the sin,
but He did not turn away the sinner. He invited her to repentance
and forgiveness.

Nevertheless, I feel no such compassion toward those who profit
– whether financially or politically – from abortion. As a canonist,
I firmly believe in the use of canonical censures to combat this
intrinsic evil. While the Church cannot impose her religion on the
state, she can and should determine who is welcome within her
membership. The right to religious freedom and freedom of
assembly are intrinsic to every free and democratic society.

If a politician cannot in good conscience support the Church's
teaching on human life, then the politician is certainly politically
free to renounce God and serve Caesar. Excommunication is
simply an ecclesiastical penalty which deprives a Catholic of his
or her right to fully participate in the Church's religious practices.
Excommunication does not deprive a politician of his or her
political rights – the excommunicated Catholic politician is still
free to stand for political office in a general election.

Thus canonical censures should be aimed where they are most
deserved. In reflecting upon the carnage wrought by the culture
of death over the past thirty years, the Church must strengthen
and enforce canonical censures against the so-called "Catholic"
politicians who continue to support and protect the right to
execute children within the womb.

Now some political activists argue that the Church already
provides for the excommunication of pro-abortion politicians.
They refer to canon 1329, §2, which states: "In the case of a
latae sententiae penalty attached to an offence, accomplices,
even though not mentioned in the law or precept, incur the same
penalty if, without their assistance, the crime would not have
been committed, and if the penalty is of such a nature as to be
able to affect them..."

Unfortunately, the canonical situation is somewhat more complex
than this. For the participation of pro-abort Catholic politicians in
the abortion racket is indirect. The politicians and lawyers draft,
legislate and uphold laws that permit abortion. Most do not,
however, directly participate in the abortion as would a doctor,
nurse or abortion referral agency. Therefore the automatic
excommunication envisioned by canons 1329 and 1398 does not
apply to Catholic lawyers and politicians who support abortion.
For in keeping with the principle of canon 18, "Laws which
prescribe a penalty [...] are to be interpreted restrictively."

Nevertheless, a competent authority within the Catholic Church
may use other means to impose excommunication upon Catholic
politicians who support abortion. This is in addition to various
lesser ecclesiastical penalties the Church may impose. At the
very minimum, the Church can and should prohibit these
politicians from receiving Holy Communion – the Church's most
sacred act. In fact, any bishop may invoke canon 1399 to do so.
"Besides the cases prescribed in this or in other laws," the canon
states, "the external violation of divine or canon law can be
punished, and with a just penalty, only when the special gravity
of the violation requires it and necessity demands that scandals
be prevented or repaired."

Now other canon lawyers might object to my interpretation,
arguing that reception of Holy Communion is a right of every
Catholic. However, the Church in no way views this right as
absolute. As canon 223, §2 states: "Ecclesiastical authority is
entitled to regulate, in view of the common good, the exercise of
rights which are proper to Christ's faithful." One is hard pressed
to see how it serves the common good to permit Catholic
politicians who support abortion to go unchallenged. If the
Church is to remain consistent in her moral teaching, abortion
destroys the common good in that it destroys human life. And the
right to life is the very right upon which all other rights, as well as
the common good, are based.

Moreover, canon 912 states: "Any baptized person who is not
forbidden by law may and must be admitted to Holy
Communion." In short, canon law provides an exception for to
the right to receive Holy Communion, namely, for those who are
forbidden by ecclesiastical law. Canon 915 clarifies one such
exception as follows: "Those upon whom the penalty of
excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and
others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be
admitted to Holy Communion."
 
In the end, plenty of canons permit a competent Church authority
to deny Catholic politicians who support abortion from receiving
Holy Communion. What the bishops in North America need is
the public will to stand up to politicians and enforce this
proposed course of action. Undoubtedly, some will denounce
such refusal of the sacraments as too severe. Yet what is the
alternative? For according to the Catechism of the Catholic
Church, through abortion "irreparable harm [is] done to the
innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the
whole of society" (2272).

Pete Vere, JCL is a canon lawyer and a Catholic social and
religious commentator from Sudbury, Ontario. He now writes
from Florida, where he and his family enjoy no state income tax
along with life within walking distance of the Gulf of Mexico. His
work has been published in numerous Canadian and American
Catholic publications.

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com