Should Boston’s Archbishop Richard Henning excommunicate Governor Maura Healey of Massachusetts?

That question has arisen this week, after Healey signed legislation that eliminates virtually all limitations on abortion in the Commonwealth, making it possible to procure an abortion for any reason, at any time up until the very birth of the child. That the new law is an abomination against the dignity of human life is self-evident. But is excommunication the appropriate response?

Nearly a dozen US states now have similar legislation, allowing for unrestricted abortion on demand. But the legislative action in Massachusetts provoked a special revulsion, particularly after Governor Healey posted photos and videos that showed her signing the bill into law, while a dozen onlooking women smiled, laughed, and cheered.

“There is something eerie about this picture,” observed John O’Sullivan, the Editor-at-large of National Review (and my former boss) in an X post. “They are applauding the deliberate killing of children at the very brink of birth who have neither done nor threaten harm to anyone. They are not reluctant. They seem conscious of acting rightly. What do THEY think they are doing? [Emphasis in original.]

Perhaps these women (and there were only women visible in the governor’s photo) were not consciously applauding the death of children, but celebrating one more in a long string of political victories for the culture of death. In practice the new law will allow only a few more abortions than were already allowed under the previous legal limits. But with this bill the Massachusetts legislature showed its utter contempt for the pro-life minority —its determination to suppress their opposition completely. That is not much more reassuring.

So the outraged response from pro-life activists is quite understandable. Kelsey Reinhart, the president of CatholicVote, spearheaded the call for Healey’s excommunication. But in fairness the governor is not solely responsible for this appalling legislation, which sailed through both houses of the Massachusetts legislature with minimal opposition, winning votes from scores of politicians who, like the governor, identify themselves as Catholics. If Healey deserves ecclesiastical censure, so do those lawmakers.

In all likelihood, Archbishop Henning — along with the other bishops of Massachusetts — will choose not to take disciplinary action, just as previous prelates have declined to discipline pro-abortion Catholic politicians for decades, allowing Massachusetts, a state that once boasted a Catholic voting majority, to become a bastion of solid political support for the abortion industry. It is noteworthy that the state’s bishops only issued a mild protest against this legislation after it had already been approved in the state’s House of Representatives, and only hours before it breezed through the Senate. Even after the governor signed the bill into law, while Archbishop Henning condemned “a grave offense against the sanctity and dignity of every person,” he did not even hint at disciplinary action.

Some years ago, when Cardinal Bernard Law presided over the Boston archdiocese and Senator Ted Kennedy led the state’s Congressional delegation, the cardinal was participating in the March for Life in Washington, DC, when he saw a group of pro-lifers holding a placard that read: “Excommunicate Ted Kennedy!” Cardinal Law turned toward the group and in loud voice suggested, “Instead of excommunicating him, why not pray for him?” No doubt it is sound pastoral advice — coming directly from the Lord’s own words — to pray for one’s enemies. But prayer and excommunication are not mutually exclusive.

Excommunication is not only a penalty — although it certainly is that. It is also a medicinal remedy, intended to bring someone to his senses. And in this case it is a way to protect the Church from scandal. The Code of Canon Law (#1397) makes excommunication the automatic penalty for performing or procuring an abortion, and a strong argument can be made (under Canon 1329) that legislators who promote legalization of the procedure incur the same penalty as accomplices. But that argument has never yet ruled the day, and like it or not, the settled practice of the Church over the years leans heavily against it.

However the Code does provide a different canonical remedy. Canon 915 stipulates that those “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.” Both the Vatican and the US bishops’ conference have repeatedly identified support for abortion as a grave matter, and public advocacy of the practices surely qualifies as “manifest.” In a 2004 article, then-Archbishop Raymond Burke, recognizes as one of the world’s leading authorities on the interpretation of canon law, concluded that bishops and indeed parish priests are obligated by canon law to withhold the Eucharist from public figures who support abortion, that “the discipline must be applied in order to avoid serious scandal, for example, the erroneous acceptance of procured abortion against the constant teaching of the moral law.”

Unfortunately Burke’s argument — which seems such a straightforward reading of Canon 915 — has never been put into practice. In the US, the debate over withholding the Eucharist escalated enough so that the US bishops’ conference formed a special committee to settle the issue. The committee was chaired by then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. Yes, that McCarrick.

The McCarrick committee sought advice from the Vatican, and received a reply from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, signed by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Regrettably, the future Pope Benedict sent his reply directly to McCarrick, who never disclosed its full contents. When the US bishops’ conference met to discuss the question, McCarrick claimed that he had Ratzinger’s support. He reported that although the CDF “recognizes that there are circumstances in which Holy Communion may be denied,” the Ratzinger letter “clearly leaves it to us as teachers, pastors, and leaders to pursue this path.” That was a gross misrepresentation of Ratzinger’s actual directive, which eventually became public a few weeks after the bishops’ meeting. In fact, Ratzinger had written that if a prominent Catholic politician is a public advocate of legal abortion, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it.” [Emphasis added.]

Guided by McCarrick’s advice, the US bishops settled a policy in which each diocesan bishop should settle, within his own jurisdiction, whether or not a public figure should be barred from Communion. “Bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action,” the bishops’ policy stated.

So today — 22 years after McCarrick’s lie was exposed — a Catholic politician who is barred from the Eucharist in one place (say, San Francisco) as a “manifest grave sinner” is welcomed to receive Communion in another place (say, Boston). If Archbishop Henning is reluctant to excommunicate the governor, he could take the simpler step of enforcing Canon 915.

From Phil Lawler in Catholic Culture