A clarification on what Pope Francis has done regarding the sin of abortion

With the publication today of the Apostolic Letter of His Holiness Pope Francis, Misericordia et misera, it seems A clarification may be necessary about what Pope Francis did with regard to the sin of abortion and the ability of priests to forgive this sin.

In the apostolic letter, the Holy Father writes:

Given this need, lest any obstacle arise between the request for reconciliation and God’s forgiveness, I henceforth grant to all priests, in virtue of their ministry, the faculty to absolve those who have committed the sin of procured abortion. The provision I had made in this regard, limited to the duration of the Extraordinary Holy Year, is hereby extended, notwithstanding anything to the contrary. I wish to restate as firmly as I can that abortion is a grave sin, since it puts an end to an innocent life. In the same way, however, I can and must state that there is no sin that God’s mercy cannot reach and wipe away when it finds a repentant heart seeking to be reconciled with the Father. May every priest, therefore, be a guide, support and comfort to penitents on this journey of special reconciliation (12).

As Pope Francis notes, abortion is an intrinsically grave evil. Hence, to willing procure an abortion is mortally sinful. However, every priest can absolve a person of this grave sin and does not - and did not - need the permission of the Holy Father to do so (as was pointed out a year ago by many).

At the same time, however, the procuration of an abortion is also a crime under canon law: "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae  excommunication" (canon 1398). Those who procure an abortion receive the censure of an automatic excommunication in order to emphasize the seriousness of this sin and crime. While every priest can absolve the sin of abortion, not every priest could lift the censure brought about automatically by the crime of abortion (cf. canon 1356 and 1357).

In the United States of America, the Bishops have given their priests the faculty (or, if you like, the permission) to lift this censure within the context of a sacramental confession. In much of the rest of the world, however, Bishops have not been so ready to grant their priests this faculty. Why, I do not know.

What Pope Francis has actually done is not grant priests throughout the world the faculty to absolve the sin of abortion (they could already do this), but rather the faculty to lift the censure of the automatic excommunication without recourse to their local Ordinary [Bishop, Vicar General, etc.].

It might seem a matter of semantics to some, but the difference is rather great and an imprecision in this matter has caused no small amount of confusion.

I think what Pope Francis has done is a very good thing and will help men and women who have procured an abortion receive the merciful love of God and reconciliation with his Church without a burdensome and uncomfortable that step that might have, in the past, felt like an unnecessary bureaucratic process.

Paprocki: Excommunication is a highly charged, feared, and misunderstood word

In his current column in the Catholic Times, His Excellency the Most Reverend Thomas John Paprocki, Bishop of Springfield in Illinois, takes a look at "one of the most highly-charged and feared words connected with the Catholic faith," and one often misunderstood: excommunication.

The Bishop explains:

Excommunication is a type of sanction known as a censure, in contrast to expiatory penalties. Expiatory penalties punish the offender for a prescribed time or an indefinite time and seek to remedy the damage or injustice done to societal values by the offense and to deter others from engaging in similar wrongdoing. In contrast, censures are considered to be "medicinal penalties," which means that they seek to persuade the offender to cease the wrongful behavior and reintegrate the person into the life of the ecclesial community. As such, censures are lifted when the offender ceases from engaging in the wrongful behavior and makes suitable reparation for damages, if necessary.

Properly understood in this way as a medicinal penalty, excommunication certainly does not expel the person from the Catholic Church, but simply forbids the excommunicated person from engaging in certain activities in the life of the church until the offender reforms and ceases from the offense. Once this happens, the person is to be restored to the fullness of participation in the life of the church. Although the remission of the censure pertains to the competent authority to determine whether the person has actually ceased from the offense, in a sense the offender holds in his or her own hand the key to the release from the censure. If the wrongful behavior ceases and any necessary reparation or restitution is made, the excommunication will be lifted; if not, it continues.

Thus, some people may be excommunicated for only a short time. For others, the excommunication may never be lifted if they do not repent and change their ways [more].

"Seen in this way," he goes on to say, "a censure such as excommunication is not at all vindictive, but may be seen as a sort of 'tough love,' just as loving parents discipline their children to teach them the difference between right and wrong."

Bishop Paprocki declares excommunication of woman who attempted ordination

Following her invalid attempt to receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders on May 5, 2014, His Excellency the Most Reverend Thomas John Paprocki, Bishop of Springfield in Illinois, has issued today Decree Declaring the Excommunication Incurred Latae Sententiae [i.e., automatically] by Ms. Mary F. Keldermans and has cautioned the faithful that "those who knowingly and intentionally participate in these schismatic activities [attempted celebrations of the Mass by Ms. Keldermans, etc.] also incur automatic excommunication."

In the weeks leading up to her attempted ordination, the State Journal-Register published a story about Ms. Keldermans' involvement with the schismatic group that falsely calls itself Roman Catholic Womenpriests, Inc., which I somehow missed altogether.

In this article, Steven Spearie writes:

What’s missing, added Keldermans, is that for so long, Roman Catholics have only heard the interpretation of Scriptures, including the story of the lost child, from male perspectives, mostly through homilies.

I suppose neither Spearie nor Keldermans is familiar with the writings of many of the female Saints of the Church, four of whom have been named Doctors of the Church.

According to Ms. Keldermans, being a priest is "being a prayer leader in the community." In a certain sense, she is correct, though certainly not in the way she thinks. The Second Vatican Council taught:

Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the Eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. But the faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the Eucharist. They likewise exercise that priesthood in receiving the sacraments, in prayer and thanksgiving, in the witness of a holy life, and by self-denial and active charity (Lumen Gentium, 10).

This sharing in the common priesthood of the faithful is received in Baptism (cf. Lumen Gentium, 26).

I find it curious that "When Keldermans finally pursued the Womenpriests route," as Spearie writes, "she did so under an assumed name, fearing repercussions." A conviction of being called by God that must hidden seems to indicate it isn't actually from God.

Within the article, there is no mention of Ms. Keldermans wanting to absolve sins, or anoint the sick, or bury the dead, or witness weddings, or even baptism children or adults. There is not even a mention of her desire to celebrate the Eucharist, only to be "a leader of prayer." I know lots of Catholic who are leaders of prayer; some of them are priests, and many more are not. Parents are leaders of prayer in their families; teachers are leaders of prayer in their classrooms; coaches are leaders of prayer in their locker rooms, on their fields, and on their mats; countless lay men and women are leaders of prayer at their places of work, at Bible studies, in support groups, and in random encounters throughout the day.

She claims it isn't a protest, though she admits, according to Spearie, that "the final straw, she said, was hearing gays and lesbians being demonized as “morally intrinsic” and being told who to vote for by church officials." It should not be noted that the Church does not in fact call gays and lesbians as "morally intrinsic" or tell people for whom to vote. Both Spearie and Keldermans should do their homework more carefully.

Ms. Keldermans was warned about the consequences of her planned attempt at the reception of Holy Orders. She disregarded these warning and went through with her plannings, knowing the consequences.

Likely enough, Bishop Paprocki will soon be hearing from many angry people who refuse to accept the teachings of the Church, teachings which she has not made herself but which she has received from Jesus Christ. Please be certain to keep Bishop Paprocki, and those who work closely with him, in your prayers.

You might consider making use of some of these links to better understand what an excommunication is and isn't:

• Excommunication! An interview with canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters by Carl E. Olson

• Strong Medicine: Canon Law and Excommunication by Pete Vere

• Excommunication? Hah! What Is It Good For? by Jimmy Akin

• Failing to name error because of some kind of fear of offending the person in error is neither compassion nor charity, by Bishop Robert Vasa
• Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (On reserving priestly ordination to men alone), by Pope Saint John Paul II
•  
  knowingly and intentionally participate in these schismatic activities also incur automatic excommunication - See more at: http://dio.org/communications/press-releases/358-statement-from-bishop-thomas-john-paprocki-regarding-attempted-ordination-and-invalid-masses.html#sthash.qrsQfw3N.dpuf

knowingly and intentionally participate in these schismatic activities also incur automatic excommunication - See more at: http://dio.org/communications/press-releases/358-statement-from-bishop-thomas-john-paprocki-regarding-attempted-ordination-and-invalid-masses.html#sthash.qrsQfw3N.dpuf

Does excommunication send one to hell?

Jimmy Akin, the great Catholic apologist who seems to know a good deal about everything, has posted a video in which he answers the above question:



It's always a little odd to see the faces behind the voices.

What is excommunication?

The Most Reverend Robert Vasa, Bishop of Baker, recently discussed excommunication in his column in the Catholic Sentinel.

His Excellency notes that an excommunication is

a declaration, based on solid evidence, that the actions or public teachings of a particular Catholic are categorically incompatible with the teachings of the Church. It is intended primarily as a means of getting the person who is in grave error to recognize the depth of his error and repent. A second reason, while somewhat secondary but no less important, is to assure the faithful who truly are faithful that what they believe to be the teaching of the Church is true and correct. Allowing their faith to be shaken or allowing them to be confused when Catholics publicly affirm something contrary to faith or morals, seemingly without consequences, scandalizes and confuses the faithful. This is no small matter. The Church, and particularly bishops, have an obligation to defend the faith but they also have an obligation to protect the faithful. We do not generally see the dissidence of public figures as something that harms the faithful but it has a deleterious effect upon them.

Seeking to further clarify what it means to declare someone excommunicate, the Bishop used an old metaphor of the Bishop as a spiritual doctor:

This declaration no more causes the excommunication than a doctor who diagnoses diabetes causes the diabetes he finds in his patient. The doctor recognizes the symptoms and writes the necessary prescription. Accusing the doctor of being a tyrannical power monger would never cross anyone’s mind. Even when the doctor tells the patient that they are “excommunicated” from sugar it is clear that his desire is solely the health of his patient. In fact, a doctor who told his diabetic patient that he could keep ingesting all the sugar he wanted without fear would be found grossly negligent and guilty of malpractice.

In the same way, bishops who recognize a serious spiritual malady and seek a prescription to remedy the error, after discussion and warning, may be required to simply state, “What you do and say is gravely wrong and puts you out of communion with the faith you claim to hold.” In serious cases, and the cases of misled Catholic public officials are often very serious, a declaration of the fact that the person is de facto out of communion may be the only responsible and charitable thing to do.

Failing to name error because of some kind of fear of offending the person in error is neither compassion nor charity. Confronting or challenging the error or evil of another is never easy yet it must be done.