The Pope Misleads on Abortion and Absolution

Tweet

This is a revised and updated version of a post I wrote last year at the commencement of the Jubilee Year of Mercy.

One of the headlines yesterday was that in his Apostolic Letter, Misericordia et Misera, Pope Francis had indefinitely extended the temporary authority of every priest to absolve the sin of abortion - the temporary authority that he had granted to them for his Jubilee Year of Mercy. This implies that priests did not have this authority before.

From the Letter:

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.

And here is one headline (from the BBC):

Pope Francis allows priests to forgive abortion

But while the original declaration and its extension have been hailed in many quarters as a sort of stunning development - an example of the Pope's new Church of Mercy in action - its actual effect in terms of the practical ability to obtain absolution for abortion was and still is . . . wait for it . . . zero.

As with many things surrounding this Pope, the reality is different from the hype.

Let's first be absolutely clear: before the Pope stepped in, all priests had the authority to pardon any sin, including abortion. This Pope did not grant them that authority. They already had it.*

The confusion is that there are certain sins that incur the canonical penalty of excommunication or excommunication later sentential - the excommunication is automatic or takes place by reason of the offense. Abortion has long been one of these sins, along with apostasy, heresy and five others, including physically attacking the Pope. Thus, while a priest could technically pardon an abortion or any other sin in the process of engaging in the sacrament, the potential penitent might not be able to receive the sacrament, as excommunication implies that the excommunicate cannot receive any sacraments including absolution.

It should be noted, however, that while excommunication is "automatic" it would only actually occur in a subset of cases meeting the requirements of canon law. A Catholic party to abortion - pregnant woman, doctor, husband or boyfriend - only incurs excommunication if, among other things, the party is sixteen or over, was not subject to physical force and knew (or was negligent in not knowing) that excommunication would result. It is arguable that the last clause would exempt many.

How might a penitent get the censure lifted in order to then receive absolution? Technically, he or she would have to go to a bishop, or to a priest who had been given the proper authority by a bishop. Here's the crucial point, however: in the United States, virtually all priests had previously been given such authority by their bishops.

In other words, in the United States, even before Pope Francis issued his two Letters, virtually every priest already had the authority to absolve the sin of abortion.

It is a matter of some debate how far this had been extended to other countries, and it's difficult to come up with a definitive answer on the question, as statistical lists on these sorts of things are not compiled. But I believe that the "tradition" of bishops designating this authority to their priests was widespread in English-speaking countries and may have been common in most of continental Europe as well. One source I spoke to claimed that it was pretty much the norm everywhere.

But even assuming there were places where it was not the norm - places where technically one still had to go to a bishop to get the censure lifted, canon law offered a "way out". According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, any priest may provisionally remove the censure if he judges that it would be "hard" for the penitent to remain in such a state until the censure was removed. Here, "hard" is usually interpreted as waiting more than 24 hours. In that sort of a case, one of the two - the penitent or priest - would then have thirty days to confirm this with a bishop or someone designated by him. And it should be noted that in the case of a priest contacting a bishop, the full anonymity of the penitent was allowed and expected.

To put it a different way, if you sought absolution on abortion from a priest who did not have the authority to lift the censure (in one of those possible places where he didn't), if the priest could not get you to a bishop or priest who had such authority within 24 hours, you would still be able to receive absolution.

I should say that as a matter of canon law, it still isn't clear whether the pope means to lift the automatic excommunication on abortion or merely grant all priests the ability to lift it. Nor is it clear whether either answer will apply only to abortion or to the other sins automatic excommunication is incurred, such as, say, striking the Pope.

After all this the reader may stop and ask, isn't this all too complicated? Shouldn't the Pope be commended for making it simple and transparent? The answer to this is that while the rules might have been somewhat complicated - it's taken me 1,000+ words to explain them - the practice was not complicated. If one had been a party to abortion, absolution had been readily or "easily" available - at least since 1983 and in many cases earlier.

The truth of the matter of course is that the real impediment to obtaining absolution for abortion has been the state of mind of the potential penitent - not desiring to obtain absolution from a priest, being afraid of it, ignorant as to its importance or whatever.

The Pope's involvement with the issue is in practice nothing more than a PR move.

One might claim that a PR move would itself not be a bad thing if it helped get more people to confession, especially for a grave sin such as abortion. But this Pope has never spent much time stressing the importance of actual confession, even in the context of discussing "mercy." Rather, we get general statements like this:

We will entrust the life of the Church, all humanity, and the entire cosmos to the Lordship of Christ, asking him to pour out his mercy upon us like the morning dew, so that everyone may work together to build a brighter future. Misericordiae Vultus.

Confession has virtually disappeared as a regular or even occasional practice for most Catholics. One suspects that the Pope's quasi-New Age effusions are not helpful in getting anyone to confide their worst secrets to some old man in a priest's collar.

So, it's a PR move, but a PR move to stress the goodness and mercy not of God, but of this Pope, and to implicitly condemn the "old" or "traditional" Church (in other words the eternal Catholic Church).

"The old Church wouldn't forgive abortions. But now, under my leadership, things are different."

That's a lie.



*It was not always this way. Though priests have always had the general ability to pardon even the gravest of sins - i.e. murder - there used to be a subset of grave sins where absolution was remitted exclusively to the Pope or bishops. In other words, to get it you had to go to a higher up. The sin of striking the Pope, for example, was in this category. In the old days, you couldn't just walk into a confession booth and obtain absolution for that, though you could obtain absolution for "common" violence or murder. However, according to current canon law there are no sins in this category. Any priest may technically pardon any sin, including abortion.

The Pope, Abortion and Forgiveness

Tweet

One of the headlines yesterday was that in honor of the upcoming Jubilee Year of Mercy, Pope Francis has granted to every priest the authority to absolve the sin of abortion, at least for the Jubilee year. The implicit subtext is that priests did not have this authority before. The relevant text is reprinted at the end of this post.*

While this declaration has been hailed in many quarters as a sort of stunning development--an example of the Pope's new Church of Mercy in action--its actual effect in terms of the practical ability to obtain absolution for abortion is . . . wait for it . . . almost zero.

Why do I say that?

Because priests could do it anyway.

Or to put it differently, as with many things surrounding this Pope, the reality is different from the hype.

Let me start to explain what I mean by going back a step. Technically, all priests today have the authority to pardon any sin including abortion. It wasn't always this way. Though priests have always had the general ability to pardon even the gravest of sins--i.e. murder--there used to be a subset of grave sins where absolution was remitted exclusively to the Pope or bishops. In other words, to get it you had to go to a higher up. The sin of striking the Pope, for example, was in this category. In the old days, you couldn't just walk into a confession booth and obtain absolution for that, though you could obtain absolution for "common" violence or murder. (Laugh away, non-Catholics, I find it a bit funny too.)

However, according to current Canon Law there are no sins in this category. Any priest may technically pardon any sin, including abortion.

But there is a catch. Currently there are certain sins that incur the canonical penalty of excommunication or excommunication latae sententiae--the excommunication is automatic or takes place by reason of the offense. Abortion is one of these sins, along with apostasy, heresy and five others, including physically attacking the Pope (once again, "common" murder is not included but striking the Pope is--laugh again, non-Catholics). Thus, while a priest could technically pardon an abortion, in practice that would be impossible in the case of the potential penitent being an excommunicate, as excommunication implies that the person cannot receive any sacraments including absolution.

It should be noted, however, that while excommunication is "automatic" it would only actually occur in a subset of cases meeting the requirements of Canon Law. A Catholic party to abortion--pregnant woman, doctor, husband or boyfriend--only incurs excommunication if, among other things, the party is sixteen or over, was not subject to physical force and knew (or was negligent in not knowing) that excommunication would result. It is arguable that the last clause would exempt many.

How would the penitent get the censure lifted in order to then receive absolution? He or she would have to go to a bishop, or to a priest who had been given the proper authority by a bishop. Here's the crucial point, however: in the United States, virtually all priests have been given such authority by their bishops.

In other words, in the United States, virtually every priest already has the authority to absolve the sin of abortion.

It is a matter of some debate how far this has extended to other countries, and it's difficult to come up with a definitive answer on the question, as statistical lists on these sorts of things are presumably not compiled. My tentative conclusion is that the "tradition" of bishops designating this authority to their priests is widespread in English-speaking countries and may be common in most of continental Europe as well. One source has claimed that it is pretty much the norm everywhere.

Let's assume however, that there are places where it's not the norm--places where technically you still have to go to a bishop to get the censure lifted. Even here, however, current Canon Law offers a "way out". According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, any priest may provisionally remove the censure if he judges that it would be "hard" for the penitent to remain in such a state until the censure was removed. Here, "hard" is usually interpreted as waiting more than 24 hours. In that sort of a case, one of the two--the penitent or priest--would then have thirty days to confirm this with a bishop or someone designated by him. And it should be noted that in the case of a priest contacting a bishop, the full anonymity of the penitent is allowed and expected.

To put it a different way, if you sought absolution on abortion from a priest who did not have the authority to lift the censure (in one of those possible places where he didn't), if the priest could not get you to a bishop or priest who had such authority within 24 hours, you would still be able to receive absolution.

The 24 hours requirement is why towards the top of this post I wrote almost zero instead of zero.

Here the reader may stop and ask, isn't this all too complicated? Shouldn't the Pope be commended for making it simple and transparent? (Though, we should note that the Pope has done this only for the Jubilee Year. After that we go back to the regular rules.) The answer to this is that while the rules might be somewhat complicated--it's taken me 1,000+ words to explain them--the practice is not. If one has been a party to abortion, absolution has always been readily or "easily" available, or, more accurately, has been available at least since 1983 and in many cases earlier.

The truth of the matter of course is that the real impediment is not some 24 hour waiting period that would apply in only a small minority of cases anyway, but the state of mind of the potential penitent--not desiring to obtain absolution from a priest, being afraid of it, ignorant as to its importance or whatever.

The Pope's announcement was, to put it simply, a PR move.

Do not misunderstand. I do not mean to imply that that's necessarily a bad thing. Clearly, it would be a good thing--a hugely good thing--if it succeeded in persuading more people to seek absolution from the sin of abortion than otherwise would have. I admit to being skeptical here, however. Confession--or what is now called "reconciliation"--is regularly practiced by only a small minority of Catholics. That those who do not regularly practice it sort of "hold it out as a last resort" for grave sins such as abortion, is doubtful, I think.

This is not to blame laypeople. Most churches minimize the importance of confession and minimize the time allotted to it--"5:45-5:50 on Saturday evenings or by appointment". And in most cases these days you're not going into a booth and whispering anonymously to a priest behind a screen, you're expected to sit face to face with Father X--the nice fellow who shakes your hand at the end of Mass every week and knows your family--or perhaps walk together with Father X to a booth where you will then go through the motions of anonymity. To put the effect of this sort of thing in perspective, the Church officially defines masturbation as a mortal sin. Technically, you can go to hell for it, even if you do it once. According to the Church, you must obtain absolution for it. But how many people want to sit in an armchair across from Father X and tell him about that at 5:45 on a Saturday evening?

Some have argued that the Pope has been loud and clear in stressing the importance of confession. I do not think that is the case. While he does on occasion mention the importance of the sacrament, the context of it is such that its mention will go right past those who most need to be convinced of its importance.

Even if the Pope's announcement was a PR move in the cause of, say, stressing God's goodness or mercy in general, that too might be good. And there is precedent for it.

But those who are wise as serpents in these matters might look on it in another way: It's a PR move to stress the goodness and mercy not of God, but of this Pope, and to implicitly condemn the "old" or "traditional" Church (in other words the eternal Catholic Church) of being, well, mean.

(I should note that the sub-headline to many stories on the Pope's announcement plays exactly into that--"traditionalists" were "dismayed" at the Pope offering an "easy out" to such a grave sin. Given the stress by traditionalists on confession, that's almost a complete inversion of the truth.)

If the Pope were truly interested in saving those who were prisoners of mortal sin, he would call all non-Catholics to convert (you need to be a Catholic, obviously, to receive the sacrament of absolution) instead of implying that it doesn't matter and condemning those who think it does--"proselytism is solemn nonsense...the most important thing is to journey together towards the good."

If the Pope were truly interested in reminding his flock of the necessity of confession, he would ask all Catholics to go and go regularly, and require that his bishops and priests make it more readily available. Announce it from the pulpit often, allot more time to it, put the confession booths back or stop storing hymnals in them and so on.

If the Pope were truly interested in offering absolution to those who were a party to abortion, he would implore them to see a priest today, not wait until the start of his own Jubilee Year on December 8.

What was that about a waiting period?

And if the Pope truly wants those who were parties to abortion to take their need for absolution seriously, he wouldn't have so obviously bent over backwards to qualify or minimize their culpability as he did in his letter (see below).

Mercy requires first recognizing the sin, not giving excuses for it. That's the point of mercy, after all. If you didn't do anything wrong (or anything really wrong), you don't need it.

-----------------------------

*Here is the relevant passage from the Pope's letter, released yesterday:

One of the serious problems of our time is clearly the changed relationship with respect to life. A widespread and insensitive mentality has led to the loss of the proper personal and social sensitivity to welcome new life. The tragedy of abortion is experienced by some with a superficial awareness, as if not realizing the extreme harm that such an act entails. Many others, on the other hand, although experiencing this moment as a defeat, believe that they have no other option. I think in particular of all the women who have resorted to abortion. I am well aware of the pressure that has led them to this decision. I know that it is an existential and moral ordeal. I have met so many women who bear in their heart the scar of this agonizing and painful decision. What has happened is profoundly unjust; yet only understanding the truth of it can enable one not to lose hope. The forgiveness of God cannot be denied to one who has repented, especially when that person approaches the Sacrament of Confession with a sincere heart in order to obtain reconciliation with the Father. For this reason too, I have decided, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to concede to all priests for the Jubilee Year the discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it. May priests fulfil this great task by expressing words of genuine welcome combined with a reflection that explains the gravity of the sin committed, besides indicating a path of authentic conversion by which to obtain the true and generous forgiveness of the Father who renews all with his presence.

Matthew Archbold on Catholic Comic Book Superheroes

Tweet

"Justice isn't a sin, Father." "No, but vengeance is."

This is a great piece by a great Catholic writer. I never knew there were so many Catholic superheroes. Well, I knew there were many Catholic superheroes but not that kind...

Read the entire article at National Catholic Register. To entice you, I'm going to excerpt the first paragraph of each one:

Daredevil - There's a new Netflix show about the superhero Daredevil, who happens to be Catholic. And there's been a lot of discussion about how Catholicism is portrayed in the series...For those of you who don't know, Daredevil is like weaponized spandex. He's a bit...complex. He's blind but somehow he knows how to fight crime. He's a public defender and a vigilante. He's a vigilante and he's Catholic. And he can afford expensive suits but seems to like wearing spandex more. Hey, don't judge. There's a lot going on in this guy's life. His mom abandoned him in a Church and later became a nun. But don't worry she comes back sometimes and saves him. Sheesh. Forget about Daredevil I want to watch the exploits of the mother Nunja. (Yup. I just gave her that name.) 

Huntress - Her real name is Helena Rosa Bertinelli. With a name like that how could she be anything but Catholic, right?...On the plus side, she wears a cross pretty prominently. But if I'm being honest, she does tend to leave a pretty substantial body count behind however but nothing a little confession couldn't take care of. She's like Batman with less clothes and only half the morals. Even Batman thinks she's a little rough on criminals. Do you know how nasty you have to be to make Batman consider telling on you? 

Night Crawler -Sure he looks kind of demon-y (demon-esque?) but that's only because his father may have been...well...a demon. So there's that. But hey, he's inked up with all sorts of Christian tattoos and that stuff doesn't just rub away. That's a commitment. And he's been known to pray for his fellow X-Men. He speaks pretty openly about his faith which would be a great evangelistic tool if people weren't horrified at his visage. He's like Quasimodo with ninja skills. 

Gambit - Gambit is Catholic. He's not always...shall we say...a letter to the law type though. He gambles quite a bit. His superpower seems to consist of being able to throw exploding playing cards at people as well as wearing a headband and not being mocked for it. He doesn't even really have enough superpowers to warrant wearing a mask. It's pretty rare that someone says, "If only we had Gambit here." It's more like, "Hey Gambit's here too. So after we defeat these bad guys maybe we'll play some cards." But Gambit did once steal the "Cross of Redemption" from a bunch of mobsters and returned it to the Vatican. That's some major points right there, right? And then I think he played cards with an archbishop, a canon lawyer, and two deacons. 

The Punisher - If Francis Castiglione were punishing himself as a way of atoning for his own sins that would be one thing. However, Francis Castiglione doles out punishment to others like it's his job. And it kinda' is because he's The Punisher. As a youngster, he was studying to be a priest but gave it up because he found it too difficult to forgive those who did evil. And that's not a great trait for a priest unless you want penance to be headlocks and broken kneecaps. It is however an excellent qualification for being "The Punisher." So you see, we all have to find our niche in Catholicism. 

Hellboy - Going big with nurture over nature, this storyline sees a baby demon abandoned as an infant in a Church and raised by a devout Catholic. So the baby demon grows up to be a rosary-carrying trench coat wearing horn shaving demon who carries a rosary with him in the same pocket as his grenades. In an interesting way if you think about it, Hellboy is castigated and dismissed by the same world he is struggling to save. That's a pretty Catholic theme, right there.

Many post-Vatican II priests are nothing but glorified social workers. Not even glorified. If they believe in anything, it's sympathy. Big whoop. I can get that from my bartender.

But Traditionalist priests are different. How do I know? It's because they have a sort of Bat Belt. They have a cross, a rosary, holy water, oil to anoint the sick and the dying and, for all I know, a swiss army knife. Everyday for a few minutes during Mass, they become Christ. Unlike anyone else, they (through Christ) have the power to forgive any sin. If that's not being a superhero, nothing is.

The priest who catechized me and married me told us a story about physically stopping an assault by a drunken man on a defenseless woman. (If you knew him and had met him, you would know his story was true.) He laid the guy out on a car hood after wrestling away his razor. But if the drunken guy had asked for it, my priest would have been ready with the oil.

Why would anyone want to be a celibate social worker? Why would anyone not at least see the attraction in becoming a superhero?