Scots Cardinal Attacks Abortion ‘Massacres’
Current Affairs June 1st, 2007The leader of Scotland’s Roman Catholics yesterday questioned whether politicians who backed abortion should remain full members of the church, and also compared Scotland’s abortion rate to “two Dunblane massacres a day”. In a sermon marking the 40th anniversary of the 1967 Abortion Act, Cardinal Keith O’Brien attacked both the practice of abortion and pro-choice members of the Scottish parliament.
Comment: He appears to attack abortion supporters but also says “its not for me to judge”.
Anti Citizen One 1
June 1st, 2007 at 7:32 pm
“Its not for me to judge” is fairly close to the truth.
There are two instances where a Catholic is disqualified from recieving communion.
1) Ferendae Sententiae, as the result of an official sentence of excommunication levied by an ecclesiastical court. This sentence is usually preserved to those who are capable of breaking canon (church) law. And they would be tried as such. Canon law and the obligation to be tried under it is usually reserved to those who hold ecclesiastical office, and those who hold positions granted in favour by the church (i.e. a licensed catholic theologian). Although it is sometimes speculated that all Catholics who are of influence (including politicians) could be tried under the law it is almost never the case and certainly hasn’t occured for many hundreds of years.
Incidentally the Canon Law of the Catholic Church is the oldest continuing functioning legal code and system in the Western world.
2) Excommunication by Latae sententiae. Literally ‘as laid down’, in other words automatic excommunication. There are only a handful of canons that this applies to. One of them is to knowingly and wilfully participate in or procure an abortion.
Therefore the Church cannot (unless they went through an ecclesiastical court) excommunicate a pro-choice Catholic politician.
The issue remains one of conscience, and the official Church position would be if as a politician you voted pro-choice on abortion matters then it would be incumbent upon the communicant to decide whether they should be recieving communion before they have taken confession.
As one Labour MP commented, the problem with it being a matter of conscience is, “I am not a Catholic MP, but an MP who is Catholic and who represents all my constituents.”
I think Cardinal O’Brien is testing the water, perhaps even sabre rattling, but is unable to issue direct threats or total condemnation unless a ‘defined’ sin or transgression had occured.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:40 pm
So in “In 2006, there were 13,081 abortions performed”, so there were an equal number of Excommunications by Latae sententiae.
(Catholic Church: “Canon 1364 §1: an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”
Anti Citizen One: “You talkin’ to me? You talkin’ to me? You talkin’ to me? Then who the hell else are you talking… you talking to me? Well I’m the only one here.”
Slightly off topic I know but I wanted to get that off my chest)
AC1
June 1st, 2007 at 7:46 pm
(warning: author has had one or two drinks and might be more argumentative that usual)
I stand by my comment, if someone says “It’s not for me to judge” then they should not voice critisism. Criticism IS judgement!
I might quote: http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_anger_and_insults/mt05_22plk11_42p40pmt23_17.html
Anti Citizen One
June 1st, 2007 at 7:54 pm
13,081 Latae Sententae excommunications if they were Catholic. A non-catholic cannot be excommunicated.
A Latae Sententae excommunication is immediately reversed upon the sacrament of confession (with only 2 exceptions that are reserved to the Holy See)
The offences carrying Latae Sententae are:
1364, Apostasy, Heresy, Schism
1367, Desecration of the Eucharist
1370, Physical Violence against the Pope
1378, Attempted Sacramental absolution by a partner in breaking the commandment of adultery. (A priest commiting an act of adultery cannot forgive his partner sacramentally).
1382, Ordination of a Bishop without a mandate from Rome (also nullifying any further priestly ordinations carried out by the anti-bishop)
1388, Violation of the seal of confession by a confessor (the priest).
1398, Procurement of a completed abortion.
1329, being a conspirator or accessory to any of the above.
Exceptions include
1323, 1324 if the person is of minor age, is ignorant of the penalty attached to the act, or has diminished culpability due to force or fear used against them.
Canon 1331.1 also lays sole responsibility for the observation of an excomminication upon the excommunicant. The Church does not declare them excommunicated and the sacraments may be administered to them in good faith if the minister is unaware of the excommunication being in place.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Criticism can mean judgement, but that is not how I meant it. I meant it as: Analysis, Observation, Interpretation.
What I mean is he did not offer a direct edict, he did not threaten excommunication.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Arguably he did not need to. You stated the canon law that automatically excommunicates people procuring “a completed abortion” and any “conspirator or accessory” to that action (i.e. voters and MPs/MSPs). He hinted at that when he said they “must consider their consciences and whether or not they can approach the altar to receive holy communion”.
AC1
June 1st, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Furthermore just to be really picky (as we ethicists must be) the practise of abortion in this country is in general technically in a grey semi-legal sphere. The spirit of the original law is not being followed. The intent of the law was abortion for cases where disability physical/mental would occur to the child. Disability physical/mental would occur to the mother. Death to one or both is at risk (abortion is an acceptable option in this case to the Catholic church). The ‘wellbeing’ of the mother or the child is seriously in danger post-natal.
This last one was meant in cases where the mother was liable to murder her child, or commit self-harm. ‘Wellbeing’ is now being interpreted as ‘convenience’.
This is what in ethics we call ‘procedural deterioration’ where legislators have an ideal practise in mind, but where the reality of such practise (especially in cases of a taboo liberalising law) are likely to deteriorate in its day to day application.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:07 pm
You are correct he did not need to voice his criticism as it would make no difference to the outcome in canon law. I think it was meant as a timely reminder to legislators that the law is in the eyes of the Catholic Church wrong, and in the eyes of a number of ethicists seriously flawed. By voicing his appeal to Catholic legislators he is reminding them that the sense of ‘justice’ that propelled them into politics was (hopefully) the same sense of ‘justice’ that their faith had inspired in them.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:12 pm
I doubt very much that many if any MP’s or MSP’s were around when the abortion act was originally promulgated. So they are exempt (I would say) from being guilty by accessory. But it is an observation that if the law comes back to parliament for debate at some point (for whatever purpose) they should examine their conscience well before choosing their course of action.
I don’t see anything wrong in saying that.
Or in saying that any Catholic MP that votes pro-choice is in dissent from their faith, a faith that (of they were confirmed) they had publicly assented to.
To act against your publicly declared principles is an act hypocrisy.
They could of course have publicly renounced their faith. Different matter entirely. Except I guess that would still render them excommunicated for schism/heresy/apostasy!
June 1st, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Intereting comments #7 and #8. Regarding comment #9, its not like the MPs just sit and wait for debates to happen – they do control that too! (They could ban it if they wanted to.)
A quote from Cardinal O’Brien that made my day: “I can’t change the teachings of Jesus Christ. I can’t change the 10 Commandments. That’s what I’m ordained to teach and to preach: ‘Thou shalt not kill.”
For observers: http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/05/31/the-paragon-of-animals/#comment-64
AC1
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Very funny! This just proves the inadequacy of the english language in such matters. I think if you asked the Cardinal what he meant by ‘thou shalt not kill’ he would almost certainly agree with my definition. In fact I’m certain of it, it was the definition that Augustine put to it.
Unfotunately english is littered with the assumptions that people know exactly what we are talking about. Perhaps all debate ought to be conducted in ancient Greek, at least then there can be no ambiguity about definitions when each word and concept has so many structural varieties.
The word ‘word’ has near 150 different inflections in greek.
English is what Wittgenstein means by ‘language going on a holiday’.
Re: 9 yes MP’s could proactively seek to ban abortion, and this is perhaps part of what the Cardinal is saying. ‘Are you trying hard enough?’
But retroactive legislation on what is called ‘permissive’ laws is very difficult. Once a boundary has been crossed it can be near impossible to reverse it by voluntary means. ‘Illegal abortions’ are not viable alternatives for legislators.
June 2nd, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Incidentally the Archbishop of Cardiff has waded into this debate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6714557.stm
He says that a politician who favours abortion should not come forward to recieve communion. But they would not be refused communion as they were not excommunicated.