First off, let me remind you that I am a Catholic and will probably be one until the end of my days. I have not been a perfect Catholic, or even a very good one, but the teachings of the Church in Rome have always been integral to the trim of my moral compass. You can imagine my surprise then, when I read the news that Pope Francis had authorised priests to <a href=”http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/21/europe/pope-francis-absolve-abortion/”>forgive abortions</a>.
<h4>Forgiveness</h4>
For as long as I can remember, abortion has been considered by the Church as a moral sin, a grievous one that, when committed, resulted in automatic excommunication. It was, in fact, characterised by Pope John Paul II as murder, echoing centuries of Catholic tradition. What few people know, however, was that even this view did not render the sin of abortion as unforgivable. In 1983, John Paul II essentially created some sort of a distinction, updating canon law to hold that abortion could be forgiven, but that the penalty of excommunication could only be lifted by a bishop. In other words, someone who procured and/or performed an abortion could have that moral debt erased, but still be shut out from the Church. For those who view the concept of “forgiveness” as being necessarily unconditional, this can be confusing. It would help, perhaps, to see it in non-religious terms.
A couple of days ago, there was a big deal about Robin Padilla receiving an <a href=”http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2016/11/15/Duterte-Robin-Padillla-absolute-pardon.html”>absolute pardon</a> from the President, right? Padilla was convicted for the crime of illegal possession of firearms, which resulted in him being sentenced to a 21 year prison term. He, however, soon received a conditional pardon from then President Fidel V. Ramos which, in effect, relieved him of the prison term but which did not extend to restoring his political rights. So, he didn’t have to be in prison anymore and could “rejoin” society, as it were, but he couldn’t vote or be voted for. In other words, his debt to society was considered repaid, but he couldn’t entirely be a part of that society again. When Duterte extended the absolute pardon, however, his political right were restored and now he becomes a “full” member of society once again, able to vote and run for office. In the same way, the moral debt of abortion could be erased, but the one so punished would still be denied “full” reconciliation with the Church, until a bishop lifted the excommunication – extending, in other words, an absolute pardon.
And this is where Pope Francis’ recent pronouncement makes the most difference. Now, the Pope is saying that priests can both forgive AND restore full membership to Christ’s Church, no longer requiring the intervention of a bishop.
This is significant in many ways, but most importantly in it’s psychological effect on women.
Abortion, in and of itself, is a traumatic experience for the woman. The censure of the Church simply adds to the psychological torture abortion inflicts. The woman does not merely have to deal with the knowledge that she knowingly terminated a living human; she must also be denied the purely psychological comfort of her religion, believing that she has lost the right to a peaceful afterlife.
For the non-religious, this is all nonsense. But to the faithful, this separation from God can be a deeper anguish, a more insidiously brutal punishment than anything the laws of men can inflict. In order to relieve the woman from this torture, two things had to happen: she had to be forgiven by a priest and un-excommunicated by a bishop. The first step is difficult enough, considering that priests adhere to the Church’s view that abortion is repugnant; getting a bishop to lift the excommunication can often be downright impossible – requiring years of appeals and really, the prospect of having to re-litigate the original decision to abort. Imagine having to go through all of that again. Now imagine being told that you <em>don’t</em> have to.
This has led to much praise being heaped on Francis and the more forgiving Church he is forging, and rightly so. While I do not necessarily agree with people who seek to use the Church’s condemnation of abortion as a basis for their pro-life stance – human laws should not be based on religious injunctions as a matter of first principles – I can nevertheless see how difficult it can be to separate the two. Francis’ pronouncement simplifies matters tremendously, knocking the wind out of the sails of those who hold up the Church’s condemnation as a model for how laws should operate.
<h4>No room for relativism?</h4>
However, I <em>do</em> wonder about how far this new policy extends, in terms of forgiveness.
IN 2015, at about the time of the beginning of the Church’s Year of Mercy (8 December 2015 – 20 November 2016), Francis was quoted as having said that the the mercy of God could not be withheld from the repentant.
<blockquote>”The forgiveness of God cannot be denied to one who has repented.”</blockquote>
The key word there, to my mind, is “repentance.”
The website Catholic Online, in it’s <a href=”http://www.catholic.org/clife/lent/story.php?id=35835″>Lenten Reflection</a>, describes “repentance” in this way:
“But what does it mean to truly repent? The Greek word for repentance that is used in the Gospel is metanoia, which literally means “to change one´s mind.” <strong><em>This “change” of “mind” necessarily entails a profound interior conversion in which we firmly turn from worldly darkness, and embrace a new way of life as Christ´s disciples.</em></strong> Thus repentance is not merely to know of Christ, nor is it a matter of picking and choosing—with an intellectual arrogance—some aspects of our Lord´s teaching while coldly rejecting others; rather, it is a union of mind, heart and soul to the Person of Christ. To repent is to die to Christ, discarding our former way of life in favor of the Way, Truth, and Life that is Christ himself.”
Shorn of the high-flown metaphors and what-not, repentance is here defined as changing your mind about what you did; accepting it as wrong, as opposed to simply regretting that you did it. In similar vein, the Catholic Dictionary at catholicculture.org defines repentance as:
“Voluntary sorrow because it offends God, for having done something wrong, together with the resolve to amend one’s conduct by taking the necessary means to avoid the occasions of sin. To repent is to be sorry for sin with self-condemnation. ”
Otherwise said, you have to feel bad for doing what you did and, at moment of repentance, accept the thing as wrong in and of itself.
As with many Catholic doctrines, this language leaves very little room for relativism, which is to say the belief that an act can be wrong or right depending on the circumstances of its commission. To be repentant for an abortion means, therefore, to accept that the act of abortion itself – regardless of why it was procured – was wrong and should not have been performed.
This very strict view does not sign up perfectly with the modern conception of abortion as a necessary evil, much less as a course of action that can be taken purely as a matter of preference, regardless of surrounding circumstances. More to the point, this Catholic definition of repentance appears to me to keep forgiveness out of reach for those who do not actually condemn abortion <em>per se, </em>not just their own. Into this category, I would think, falls many who identify themselves as pro-choice.
<h4>What mercy?</h4>
Might absolute pardon then also still be unavailable to those who believe that the abortion was not wrong, but necessary for whatever reason?
If my reasoning holds water, then Francis’ pronouncement – while certainly an act of surpassing kindness and mercy – is actually beneficial to only a very small segment of those who continue to be haunted and tortured by the act of abortion. What comfort then, does the Church offer to everyone else?