The repeated, though for now misguided, calls for excommunication in these cases, and the repeated, but worth-considering, calls for withholding holy Communion in these cases share this: they spring almost completely from Catholic laity and are almost completely ignored by ecclesiastical leadership.
Fr. Dwight Longenecker is right that the fourteen Catholic senators named above who voted to prevent the government from protecting pre-born babies from the savagery of abortion have, by just this one vote (and not counting the long string of similar steps that most of these fourteen have taken before), committed a grievous moral offense. By any objective measure they have each placed their souls in mortal jeopardy.
Longenecker’s call for the fourteen to be named and held accountable by earthly means (if only to lessen the accounting they will surely owe at Judgment) is an exercise of his canonical right and probably even the duty as a member of the Christian faithful to make known his views on matters that pertain to the good of the Church—and the scandal given by prominent Catholics acting as they did here surely impacts the good of the Church (CCC 2284)—and to communicate his views to others in the Church (Canon 212 § 3).
Except to explicitate what Longenecker the priest takes for granted (but we laity need to be reminded of), that we should pray foreach senator by name, we should pursue what steps the legal, political, and ecclesiastical system provides for such sad scenarios.
But, about that ecclesiastical redress, two qualifications to Longenecker’s call need to be offered.
First, as has been explained many times, the hideous deed committed by the Bloody 14 is not, standing alone, a crime under canon law and, even if combined with other such acts as many of the Bloody 14 have taken, is not a crime for which excommunication is the penalty (Canon 1369). Specifically, voting pro-abortion is not ‘procuring an abortion’ for purposes of Canon 1398 and so no excommunication for procuring abortion applies in response to voting for it. Catholics contacting chanceries and demanding excommunications, therefore, will be noted on the “Uninformed Critics” list and comfortably ignored—this time, with some reason.
Second, a single act, again, no matter how objectively gravely sinful it is, does not trigger the duty of Catholic ministers to withhold holy Communion under Canon 915 which canon operates in the face of obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin. Catholics contacting chanceries and demanding the withholding of holy Communion, therefore, will be noted on the “They Are on to Something but have Jumped the Gun” list and un-comfortably ignored—though again with some reason.
So, what to do?
Well, do exactly what Longenecker recommends in the legal and political sphere (for that matter, in the social sphere as well), lovingly shame the Bloody 14 into realizing what they have done and, please God, into personal and public repentance of it.
About excommunication, one may of course petition Rome (or local bishops) to designate political acts such as these as canonical crimes punishable by excommunication. I think there are major obstacles to such legislation but I (and other experts, I am sure) would certainly be willing to weigh in on the possibility.
About the withholding of holy Communion, this, I have said many times, urgently needs to implemented, but not in response to a single act (for that theory is canonically doomed to failure), but rather in response to a demonstrable string of such acts taken by most of the Bloody 14 (and several others, Nancy Pelosi leaping to mind). Here, unlike the excommunication idea above, the law is already in place (Canon 915), it just needs to be applied—correctly of course, but that is not a problem in many of these cases.
The Bloody 14 case might just trigger the long-overdue application of the law.
Finally, a personal observation? The repeated, though for now misguided, calls for excommunication in these cases, and the repeated, but worth-considering, calls for withholding holy Communion in these cases share this: they spring almost completely from Catholic laity and are almost completely ignored by ecclesiastical leadership. This almost total, multi-decade disconnect between people and pastors is source of serious tension in the Church. Pray that such tension is relieved before it erupts into even more serious problems.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Edward N. Peters, JD, JCD has doctoral degrees in canon and common law. Since 2005 he has held the Edmund Cardinal Szoka Chair at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit. His personal blog on canon law issues in the news may be accessed at the "In the Light of the Law" site.
Taking apparent inspiration from Thomas Malthus’ hypothesis that there must be a “strong and constantly operating check on population for the lower races” through birth control and abortion, the new eugenicists of today are already […]
In final preparation for an impromptu camping trip, I was at the local Walmart scanning items at the self-checkout. An attendant approached to approve my beer purchase. He smiled and said, “You better stock up […]
Anna Lulis from Moneta, Virginia, (left) who works for the pro-life group Students for Life of America, stands beside an abortion rights demonstrator outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2022, after the court’s decision in the Dobbs abortion case was announced. / Katie Yoder/CNA
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 5, 2022 / 13:31 pm (CNA).
U.S. Catholic voters are split on the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, but a majority agrees that abortion should be restricted and that there should be at least some protections for the unborn child in the womb, according to a new EWTN News/RealClear Opinion Research poll.
The court’s June 24 ruling in the Mississippi abortion case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization upended 49 years of nationwide legalized abortion and freed states to regulate abortion as they see fit.
When asked whether they agreed or disagreed with Roe being overturned, 46.2% agreed, 47.8% disagreed, and 6% said they weren’t sure.
Catholic voters were similarly split on whether they are more or less likely to support a candidate who agrees with Roe’s dismantling: 42% said they were more likely, 41.9% said they were less likely, and 16.1% were unsure.
At the same time, the poll results point to apparent inconsistencies in Catholic voters’ positions on abortion.
While nearly half of Catholic voters in the poll said they disagreed with Roe being overturned, a large majority (86.5%) said they support some kind of limit on abortion, even though Roe and related abortion cases allowed only narrow regulation at the state level. The breakdown is as follows:
26.8% said abortion should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother;
19.8% said abortion should be allowed until 15 weeks when the baby can feel pain;
13.1% said that abortion should be allowed only during the first six months of pregnancy;
9.9% said that abortion should be allowed only until a heartbeat can be detected, and
9.1% said that abortion should be allowed only to save the life of the mother.
Of special note for Catholic pro-life leaders, only a small minority of Catholic voters — 7.8% — were aligned with the clear and consistent teaching of the Catholic Church that abortion should never be allowed.
On the other end of the spectrum of abortion views, 13.4% of Catholic voters said that abortion should be available to a woman at any time during her pregnancy.
The poll, conducted by the Trafalgar Group from Sept. 12–19, surveyed 1,581 Catholic voters and has a margin of error of 2.5%. The questionnaire was administered using a mix of six different methods, including phone calls, text messages, and email.
The poll’s results echo surveys of the general U.S. population on abortion. A Pew Research Center survey from March found that 19% of U.S. adults say abortion should be legal in all cases, while 8% said it should be illegal in all cases. More recent Gallup data from May found that 35% of U.S. adults say abortion should be legal under any circumstances while 13% said it should be illegal in all circumstances.
The Pew Research Center data also looked at Catholic adults. Thirteen percent said abortion should be legal in all cases, while 10% said it should be illegal in all cases.
A previous EWTN News/RealClear Opinion Research poll released in July found that 9% of Catholic likely voters said abortion should never be permitted and 18% said that abortion should be available at any time. The poll similarly showed that a majority of Catholic voters (82%) support some kind of restriction on abortion.
Confused about what Roe said?
The poll’s results came as little surprise to Catholic pro-life public policy experts such as Elizabeth R. Kirk.
“This study confirms a phenomenon we have known for some time, i.e., that there is an enormous disconnect between the scope of abortion practices permitted by the Roe regime and what abortion practices Americans actually support,” Kirk, director of the Center for Law and the Human Person at The Catholic University of America, told CNA.
Kirk, who also serves as a faculty fellow for the Institute for Human Ecology and research associate and lecturer at the Columbus School of Law, noted the finding that nearly 42% of Catholic voters said they are less likely to support a candidate who agrees with Roe being overturned.
“At first glance that suggests that many Catholic voters wanted to keep Roe in place,” she said. “Yet, the study also reveals that 86.5% of Catholic voters want some type of restriction on abortion access.”
Why the inconsistency? “Most people do not realize that Roe allowed states to permit unlimited abortion access throughout the entire pregnancy and made it difficult, or even impossible, to enact commonsense restrictions supported by the majority of Americans,” Kirk observed.
“Many people who ‘support Roe’ actually disagree, unknowingly, with what it permitted,” she added. “All Dobbs has done is return abortion policy to the legislative process so that the people may enact laws which reflect the public consensus.”
Mass-goers more strongly pro-life
The new poll, the second of three surveys of Catholic voters tied to the midterm elections on Nov. 8, shows that the opinions of Catholic voters on abortion and other issues vary depending on how often respondents attend Mass.
Only a small portion of those who attend Mass at least once a week said that abortion should be allowed at any time: 0% of those who attend Mass daily, 1% who attend more than once a week, and 8% of those who attend weekly support abortion without restrictions. In contrast, 57.5% of Catholic voters who attend Mass daily, 21.5% of those who attend more than once a week, and 15.6% of those who attend weekly say abortion should never be permitted.
In addition to respondents’ apparent confusion about what Roe stipulated, the poll suggests that many Catholic voters don’t fully understand what their Church teaches about abortion.
Less than one-third of Catholic voters who said they accept all Church teachings (31.1%) said that abortion should never be permitted, and 5% who profess to fully accept the Church’s teachings said abortion should be permitted at any time.
Overall, 32.8% of respondents reported attending Mass at least once a week, with another 30.7% attending once a year or less. Only 15% agreed that they accept all of the Church’s teachings and live their lives accordingly, with another 34.5% saying they generally accept most of the Church’s teachings and try to live accordingly.
Pew Research Center also looked at how Mass attendance factors into Catholics’ views on abortion. Among those who attend Mass at least once a week: 4% said abortion should be legal in all cases, and 24% said it should be illegal in all cases, Pew found.
Strong support for pregnancy centers
The poll asked Catholic voters about a variety of other topics including abortion limits, Holy Communion for pro-abortion politicians, conscience protections for health care workers, and pro-life pregnancy centers.
EWTN
Among the findings:
Catholic voters are prioritizing other issues above abortion. Only 10.1% of Catholic voters identified abortion as the most important issue facing the nation, falling behind inflation (34.2%) and the economy/jobs (19.7%) and tying with immigration. At the same time, a higher percentage of Catholic voters chose abortion than crime (8.7%), climate change (8.1% ), health care (6.8%), K–12 education (1.7%), or religious freedom (0.8%).
About half of Catholic voters (49.3%) disagreed that Catholic political leaders who support abortion publicly and promote policies that increase abortion access should refrain from taking Communion, while 36.7% said they should refrain.
A majority (67.4%) of Catholic voters said they support public funding for pro-life pregnancy centers that offer pregnant women life-affirming alternatives to abortion, while 18.3% said they did not favor using tax dollars for this purpose.
A comparable majority (61.8%) said that political and church leaders should be speaking out against the recent attacks and acts of vandalism on pregnancy resource centers.
When asked about conscience protections for health care workers that would allow them to opt out of providing “services” such as abortion, a majority of Catholic voters (60.7%) said that health care workers should not be obligated to engage in procedures that they object to based on moral or religious grounds. Conversely, 25.3% said that health care workers should be obligated to engage in procedures that they object to based on moral or religious grounds.
Work to be done
What is the takeaway from the latest poll, where abortion is concerned?
“This polling shows that Catholics, like the overwhelming majority of Americans, support commonsense protections for women and the unborn,” Ashley McGuire, a senior fellow with The Catholic Association, told CNA.
“It also affirms other recent polling that found Americans by strong numbers support the work of pregnancy resource centers in providing women facing crisis pregnancies with a real choice and the chance to thrive as mothers despite difficult circumstances,” she noted.
EWTN
At the same time, McGuire added, “This new polling is also a reminder that more work needs to be done in catechizing Catholics on foundational Church teaching in support of vulnerable life in all stages — an effort that is continually undermined by Catholic politicians in the highest echelons of power who use their platforms to advocate for extreme abortion policies in direct violation of Church teaching.”
Nearly all of those surveyed (99.2%) said they plan to vote in the midterm elections on Nov. 8.
What about, say here in Massachusetts, all four bishops writing a passionate letter to Senator Ed Markey expressing sincere disappointment in his vote while explaining the spiritual seriousness of casting a vote against curtailing abortion and then copying and distributing this letter to every Catholic parish in Massachusetts with the firm instruction it be read at Mass?
If they tried that (first of all the sun would fall from the sky when the earth stops spinning on its axis) I’m sure the pope would call them culture warriors or some other snide insult and completely undermine them anyway… so what’s the point?
What a shame the Magisterium does not take the initiative and make a public and/or pulpit statement describing the offensive action and what procedures the public should take in light of what considerations the Church will undertake to protect innocent life and the risk proponents are taking relative to the practice of their faith. The Magisterium is called to SERVE the faithful by definition of its members. (Original comment)
Gee, I guess I’m “relieved” that Edward Peters feels our ‘concern.’
But Pelosi and the late Chappaquiddick Kennedy did vast amounts of legislative work to build the abattoir of abortion. Hundreds of votes from committee to floor. Decades of work.
Not pervasive enough? Not obstinate enough?
I acknowledge a canon lawyer’s knowledge in this.
But does Edward Peters understand, thoroughly, the depth that these legislators and their company have fought to make abortion possible?!?
Or does only the one wielding the metzenbaum forceps has blood on his hands?
… the fourteen Catholic senators named above who voted to prevent the government from protecting pre-born babies from the savagery of abortion have, by just this one vote (and not counting the long string of similar steps that most of these fourteen have taken before), committed a grievous moral offense. By any objective measure they have each placed their souls in mortal jeopardy. …
a single act, again, no matter how objectively gravely sinful it is, does not trigger the duty of Catholic ministers to withhold holy Communion under Canon 915 which canon operates in the face of obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin.
Does not “the long string of similar steps that most of these fourteen have taken before” amount to “obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin”?
The state simply has no authority whatsoever to “legalize” the murder of innocent humanity. Caesar has claimed for himself authority over innocent human life that belongs to God alone. We are not to render unto Caesar that which belongs to God.
To convey approval of Caesar’s usurpation of God’s authority by allowing government officials who are known by all to be staunch and longstanding advocates of “legal” murder to receive the Eucharist, amounts to burning incense to Caesar; it is blatant idolatry; it is a particularly sacrilegious, ritualistic public display of the transfer of the primary allegiance of the bishops from Christ to Caesar.
This will eventually be the death of genuine Christianity in the United States if it isn’t stopped.
If any of these politicians are “practicing” Catholics they should be socially shunned by their fellow parishioners (which association probably happens only rarely) and publicly confronted.
Well, let’s look at this from a ‘New Church’ post VII point of view.
These senators and all those that came before them were only voting to allow others to have religious freedom. After all, if abortion is not against one’s own conscience, one must be free from coercion right? Isn’t that in essence the whole theme of church-state policy since DH? Wouldn’t Pope Francis prefer allowing these senators and the abortionist also to continue receiving communion while they are ‘accompanied’ to a better way which they may never attain? and isn’t that what the church has been doing since 1973 anyway?
So, to some it may LOOK like cowardice to avoid confrontation, but in reality, it’s the ‘new Pentecost’ in action.
Let’s look at it this way: Dedicate your next Rosary to the ending of abortion AND to the grace of contrition for these and other ‘Catholic’ politicians who have chosen political gain over one of the most sacred tenants of their – OUR faith.
These bloody 14, Pelosi, Kerry, the Kennedy clan, Biden, the Cuomos, Hillary’s running mate whose name I have (thankfully) forgotten, ad infinitum, ad NAUSEAM
While busily attending to the technical apparatus of canon law, Peters seems oblivious to the reality that the Bloody 14 are not parties merely to a single and isolated act but rather have years and even decades of involvement in such acts, including repeated legislative votes and innumerable public election positions and statements. Of course pertinacity exists and is objectively ascertainsble. I am stunned st the myopia or even spiritual blindness that prevents recognizing that excommunication and denial of Communion are not only canonically possible but also in fact ecclesially urgent and indispensable.
The beginning of the article brings up a point that is very telling against the Church hierarchy. That is that the burden of upholding Church teaching has been unceremoniously dumped into the laps of the laity.
*
We need a frank discussion about Apostolic Succession. Who has the controlling authority to bind and loosen? Who has been given the Keys to the Kingdom? How many priests, bishops, and cardinals actually speak with the clarity of voice and written word as did the Apostles? Who are the shepherds? I wonder how much of the current talk about the universal priesthood of the Church laity is a way for some members of the Magisterium to outsource the Apostolic duties that belong to them alone? Does authentic Apostolic Succession exist in the modern Church, or are we Apostolic in name only?
The Bishop in the diocese of each of these people should 1) Contact each of them privately and inform them that as long as they continue with this conduct they should not present themselves for Holy Communion and then 2) Instruct the priests and Eucharistic Ministers in each parish to withhold Holy Communion to them should they ignore the Bishop’s orders, which they probably will. (If any of them should use the odious phrase “speaking truth to power” – pass go and do not collect $200.)
This, in turn, should cause the excrement to hit the air circulator – immediately. The press will almost certainly go off on a separation-of-Church-and-state rant, so the Bishop should have a statement ready to go. Part of that statement should emphasize that he told these people essentially this – You are free to do what you want to do, and these are the consequences.
Meanwhile we the laity should remember that throughout Church history, reform in the Church has almost always begun WITH the laity.
Readers of this piece posted today by Dr. Peters would, I think, benefit from a joint reading with the America article. Also, we would derive even more benefit from his explanatory commentary on the Grisez piece.
Dr. Peters teaches us that “… voting pro-abortion is not procuring an abortion for purposes of Canon 1398 …”. I assume that this is an example of supporting a “best possible choice” under the existing circumstances. (How difficult it must be for a [politician] to enter the kingdom of heaven. Still I do understand that prudent decisions must be made in this fallen world, in hope that they may represent small steps to the right end.)
But Dr. Grisez clearly and logically argues another point of view about “voting pro-abortion”, particularly about the consequences of such votes, which we might rather not think about. He encouraged us to think about it.
I’m not Catholic, so I don’t understand. Should these acts not violate cannon law, they are surely amoral, which I would think does violate cannon law. Would a refusal to repent be cause for excommunication? I’m honestly ignorant.
Dr Peters,
So, ‘voting’ pro-abortion is not the same as ‘procuring’ an abortion, and the voter is not to be held culpably accountable for the numerous deaths of the innocents his vote is seeking to “legally” facilitate? Would not the voter render himself/herself complicit in every subsequent murderous act to which their vote would give legal sanction? Such a voter betrays the faith and lays challenge to the mind of Christ Himself Who warned, “It would be better for persons who would bring harm to a child, that they have millstones hung around their necks and that they be cast into the sea.” (Matthew 18:6) These people are not of the faith. Pray for them that they might yet find it before it is too late. They should certainly not be admitted to receive Holy Communion. Alan
What about, say here in Massachusetts, all four bishops writing a passionate letter to Senator Ed Markey expressing sincere disappointment in his vote while explaining the spiritual seriousness of casting a vote against curtailing abortion and then copying and distributing this letter to every Catholic parish in Massachusetts with the firm instruction it be read at Mass?
Excellent idea. If such were to happen it is a virtual certainty that the excrement would surely hit the air circulator.
Thanks for the colorful addition.
I just called the Senator’s office in Bangor and was told that she is a practicing Catholic, which was news to me.
If they tried that (first of all the sun would fall from the sky when the earth stops spinning on its axis) I’m sure the pope would call them culture warriors or some other snide insult and completely undermine them anyway… so what’s the point?
What a shame the Magisterium does not take the initiative and make a public and/or pulpit statement describing the offensive action and what procedures the public should take in light of what considerations the Church will undertake to protect innocent life and the risk proponents are taking relative to the practice of their faith. The Magisterium is called to SERVE the faithful by definition of its members. (Original comment)
Well, technically, okay.
Gee, I guess I’m “relieved” that Edward Peters feels our ‘concern.’
But Pelosi and the late Chappaquiddick Kennedy did vast amounts of legislative work to build the abattoir of abortion. Hundreds of votes from committee to floor. Decades of work.
Not pervasive enough? Not obstinate enough?
I acknowledge a canon lawyer’s knowledge in this.
But does Edward Peters understand, thoroughly, the depth that these legislators and their company have fought to make abortion possible?!?
Or does only the one wielding the metzenbaum forceps has blood on his hands?
Why do we even bother any more? Just close it up. It’s such a joke. Gotta love that New Pentecost though.
This article just shows that Catholic sacramental discipline is dead and buried. Anything goes.
Does not “the long string of similar steps that most of these fourteen have taken before” amount to “obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin”?
The state simply has no authority whatsoever to “legalize” the murder of innocent humanity. Caesar has claimed for himself authority over innocent human life that belongs to God alone. We are not to render unto Caesar that which belongs to God.
To convey approval of Caesar’s usurpation of God’s authority by allowing government officials who are known by all to be staunch and longstanding advocates of “legal” murder to receive the Eucharist, amounts to burning incense to Caesar; it is blatant idolatry; it is a particularly sacrilegious, ritualistic public display of the transfer of the primary allegiance of the bishops from Christ to Caesar.
This will eventually be the death of genuine Christianity in the United States if it isn’t stopped.
If any of these politicians are “practicing” Catholics they should be socially shunned by their fellow parishioners (which association probably happens only rarely) and publicly confronted.
Well, let’s look at this from a ‘New Church’ post VII point of view.
These senators and all those that came before them were only voting to allow others to have religious freedom. After all, if abortion is not against one’s own conscience, one must be free from coercion right? Isn’t that in essence the whole theme of church-state policy since DH? Wouldn’t Pope Francis prefer allowing these senators and the abortionist also to continue receiving communion while they are ‘accompanied’ to a better way which they may never attain? and isn’t that what the church has been doing since 1973 anyway?
So, to some it may LOOK like cowardice to avoid confrontation, but in reality, it’s the ‘new Pentecost’ in action.
Let’s look at it this way: Dedicate your next Rosary to the ending of abortion AND to the grace of contrition for these and other ‘Catholic’ politicians who have chosen political gain over one of the most sacred tenants of their – OUR faith.
These bloody 14, Pelosi, Kerry, the Kennedy clan, Biden, the Cuomos, Hillary’s running mate whose name I have (thankfully) forgotten, ad infinitum, ad NAUSEAM
In reality, the hierarchy has a share in their guilt because they let them think they what they’re doing is alright.
While busily attending to the technical apparatus of canon law, Peters seems oblivious to the reality that the Bloody 14 are not parties merely to a single and isolated act but rather have years and even decades of involvement in such acts, including repeated legislative votes and innumerable public election positions and statements. Of course pertinacity exists and is objectively ascertainsble. I am stunned st the myopia or even spiritual blindness that prevents recognizing that excommunication and denial of Communion are not only canonically possible but also in fact ecclesially urgent and indispensable.
The beginning of the article brings up a point that is very telling against the Church hierarchy. That is that the burden of upholding Church teaching has been unceremoniously dumped into the laps of the laity.
*
We need a frank discussion about Apostolic Succession. Who has the controlling authority to bind and loosen? Who has been given the Keys to the Kingdom? How many priests, bishops, and cardinals actually speak with the clarity of voice and written word as did the Apostles? Who are the shepherds? I wonder how much of the current talk about the universal priesthood of the Church laity is a way for some members of the Magisterium to outsource the Apostolic duties that belong to them alone? Does authentic Apostolic Succession exist in the modern Church, or are we Apostolic in name only?
The Bishop in the diocese of each of these people should 1) Contact each of them privately and inform them that as long as they continue with this conduct they should not present themselves for Holy Communion and then 2) Instruct the priests and Eucharistic Ministers in each parish to withhold Holy Communion to them should they ignore the Bishop’s orders, which they probably will. (If any of them should use the odious phrase “speaking truth to power” – pass go and do not collect $200.)
This, in turn, should cause the excrement to hit the air circulator – immediately. The press will almost certainly go off on a separation-of-Church-and-state rant, so the Bishop should have a statement ready to go. Part of that statement should emphasize that he told these people essentially this – You are free to do what you want to do, and these are the consequences.
Meanwhile we the laity should remember that throughout Church history, reform in the Church has almost always begun WITH the laity.
On Friday I followed a link (provided at thecatholicthing.org) to an article, written some years ago, for America magazine by Dr. Germaine Grisez. The article can be accessed using the thecatholicthing link or at http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/494/article/catholic-politicians-and-abortion-funding.
Readers of this piece posted today by Dr. Peters would, I think, benefit from a joint reading with the America article. Also, we would derive even more benefit from his explanatory commentary on the Grisez piece.
Dr. Peters teaches us that “… voting pro-abortion is not procuring an abortion for purposes of Canon 1398 …”. I assume that this is an example of supporting a “best possible choice” under the existing circumstances. (How difficult it must be for a [politician] to enter the kingdom of heaven. Still I do understand that prudent decisions must be made in this fallen world, in hope that they may represent small steps to the right end.)
But Dr. Grisez clearly and logically argues another point of view about “voting pro-abortion”, particularly about the consequences of such votes, which we might rather not think about. He encouraged us to think about it.
I’m not Catholic, so I don’t understand. Should these acts not violate cannon law, they are surely amoral, which I would think does violate cannon law. Would a refusal to repent be cause for excommunication? I’m honestly ignorant.
Dr Peters,
So, ‘voting’ pro-abortion is not the same as ‘procuring’ an abortion, and the voter is not to be held culpably accountable for the numerous deaths of the innocents his vote is seeking to “legally” facilitate? Would not the voter render himself/herself complicit in every subsequent murderous act to which their vote would give legal sanction? Such a voter betrays the faith and lays challenge to the mind of Christ Himself Who warned, “It would be better for persons who would bring harm to a child, that they have millstones hung around their necks and that they be cast into the sea.” (Matthew 18:6) These people are not of the faith. Pray for them that they might yet find it before it is too late. They should certainly not be admitted to receive Holy Communion. Alan