Guest Blogger, Benedict T. Nguyen
There is a lot of confusion going
on today about the Pope’s letter on the Year of Mercy, and not just from the
mainstream media either. The bulk of the confusion concerns the Pope's apparent
grant of the ability of confessors to absolve the sin of abortion.
Unfortunately, I believe some of the problem
is due to the Pope’s letter itself being somewhat confusing on this point. I have
an article that is about to come out on the ambiguities of the letter and I’ll link
to it when it does but in the meantime, the following is my take on it.
Several questions have arisen. What exactly is the Pope granting here? Aren’t priests already able to absolve sins in confession including abortion? What about the “latae sentientiae” (or “automatic”) excommunication involved with the sin of abortion under canon 1398? Understanding some canonical background and principles greatly helps to bring some clarity on this.
Prior to the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, there were some sins that were considered “reserved sins,” i.e. sins for which absolution was reserved to the bishop or to Rome. The Eastern Catholic Churches have retained this practice (see CCEO, can. 728) but the Latin Church did not retain the practice of “reserved sins” in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. The Latin Church did however retain the practice of reserved PENALTIES, that is, certain canonical penalties that in particular circumstances can only be lifted by a bishop or by Rome (see can. 1355).
Several questions have arisen. What exactly is the Pope granting here? Aren’t priests already able to absolve sins in confession including abortion? What about the “latae sentientiae” (or “automatic”) excommunication involved with the sin of abortion under canon 1398? Understanding some canonical background and principles greatly helps to bring some clarity on this.
Prior to the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, there were some sins that were considered “reserved sins,” i.e. sins for which absolution was reserved to the bishop or to Rome. The Eastern Catholic Churches have retained this practice (see CCEO, can. 728) but the Latin Church did not retain the practice of “reserved sins” in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. The Latin Church did however retain the practice of reserved PENALTIES, that is, certain canonical penalties that in particular circumstances can only be lifted by a bishop or by Rome (see can. 1355).
What many people are missing is
that abortion is BOTH a sin (contra the 5th commandment) and ALSO
carries with it the penalty of “latae sententiae” (so-called “automatic”)
excommunication (cf. can. 1398) which can only be lifted by an Ordinary, mainly
the Diocesan Bishop.
The first crucial thing to keep
in mind is that there are two distinct though related things going on here –
the SIN of abortion and the PENALTY of excommunication associated with it. The SIN of abortion must be absolved since
mortal sin is a moral condition.
However, in addition, the PENALTY of excommunication must be lifted
since it is a canonical penalty with outward juridic consequences (see can.
1331). So two things must be done for the penitent, the lifting of the penalty
of excommunication and then the forgiveness of the sin of abortion.
A second crucial point must be
kept in mind – despite the misleading term “automatic” that many use for the
excommunication, a “latae sententiae” excommunication does NOT necessarily apply
or fully apply if there are certain exempting circumstances (see can. 1323) or possibly
mitigating circumstances (see can. 1324). Furthermore, if the excommunication
has not been declared by a competent authority, the effects do not fully kick
in (see can. 1335). When we look at these
circumstances, it is rather unlikely that nowadays a Catholic woman, or another
person such as a husband or boyfriend who was an accomplice who has committed
the sin of abortion, has also incurred the penalty of excommunication. A good confessor would discern through good
questions whether or not there were the exempting circumstances of canon 1323.
Now, given all of that, if a penitent has committed the sin of abortion but is not determined to have also incurred the penalty of excommunication, a Latin priest who has the ability to hear the confession has always, since 1983, been able to absolve the sin. However, if a penitent
has committed the sin of abortion AND is determined to have incurred the excommunication,
a priest hearing that person’s confession must refer the person to the bishop
so that the bishop can lift the excommunication (cf. can. 1355.2) so that the penitent can receive sacramental absolution which he would not, under normal circumstances be able to receive if he
were still under excommunication (see can. 1323.1.2). In most dioceses in the
U.S. and in Europe, however, bishops have delegated this ability to lift the
penalty of excommunication to all priests who have the faculty to hear
confessions so that they can also immediately give them absolution from the
sin.
Since the promulgation of the
1983 Code of Canon Law, Latin Rite priests who are able to hear confessions
have always had the ability to absolve from the sin of abortion but not
necessarily the ability to lift the penalty of excommunication, unless their bishop
has allowed them to do so, which again, almost every diocese in the U.S. does already
allow. Thus, currently, in just about every diocese in the U.S. and Europe, if
a person comes and confesses the sin of abortion, the priest can both absolve the
person from the sin of abortion AND lift the excommunication if the
excommunication was in fact incurred (i.e. there were no exempting
circumstances).
We now see the problem with Pope
Francis’ letter – it clearly only grants priests the ability to FORGIVE THE SIN
of abortion and says NOTHING about the ability to LIFT THE
EXCOMMUNICATION. But even if it did,
most priests in most dioceses already are also able to lift the
excommunication. The Pope’s letter
leaves us scratching our heads as to what additionally has he granted in the
letter that most priests don’t already have the ability to do.
There are also some other unresolved
questions that the letter raises in my mind, such as whether in granting this
to ALL priests, this includes priests who are “laicized,” priests who are under
penalty of suspension or who have had their faculties revoked, etc.? Also, does the Pope’s grant (whatever it is) here
trump the ability of the local bishop to restrict a priest’s faculty to hear
confessions in these cirucumstances?
Some other questions also remain regarding
the grant of the ability to absolve sins validly and licitly to the priests of
the Society of St. Pius X but I won’t go into those here. I do raise it in my
upcoming article though.
I hope these observations can
help to clarify the misunderstandings that many are having regarding this issue
and to flag some of the problems in the Pope’s letter. It is also my hope that
Rome comes out with some clarifications on this soon.
Benedict Nguyen, M.T.S.,
J.D./J.C.L., D.Min (ABD)
Canonical Counsel &
Theological Advisor
Diocese of Corpus Christi, TX