No sanction for Spanish king signing abortion law

Should the Spanish king imitate the Belgian monarch and resign temporarily while Parliament signs the law in in his place?
Should legislators tell the bishops to stop meddling in their politics and shove their host where the sun never shines?
Should they separate themselves from the bishops and strip them of their income tax exemption?
Should they not remind them that "women tempted to abort or who have already aborted will NEVER find mercy and comfort in the Catholic community. As a repressive institution, the church does not understand their problems and will not cease to demean and discriminate against them.

No one, no matter their rank in the hierarchy, really has the authority to excommunicate a believer and follower of Christ from His Church. I wouldn't worry too much if a Bishop excommunicated me because I know that a very large segment of the Catholic hierarchy have participated in criminal behavior by the way they mishandled the sexual abuse of children. They lost their authority over The People of God and our first allegiance is to Christ and not the corrupt and decaying imperial hierarchy who do not act like His disciples. Refusing Catholics the right to come to Christ's table is not a right the bishops should have and in my opinion they really do not have. They can not use the Eucharist as a political tool. This is wrong and this is never acceptable. Christ would never say "get away from my table."

B16 loses another. No one takes seriously someone who dresses and thinks they are living in the 14th century. He fiddles while the Church burns around him.

As long as the king does not speak at any cathlic university, it shouldn't be an issue. ;)

Perhaps Juan Carlos should show some backbone and make an 'old school' power play. Use it as an opportunity to dissolve parliament and declare himself an absolute monarch. I wonder when the last time he read Machiavelli was?

"Bishop Martinez said the bishops "have excommunicated no one," but those who actively supported the law have seriously separated themselves from the church and should not receive Communion."

Oh my, and all these years I beleived that anyone who is separated from the church and cannot receive communion was excommunicated. I wonder where I got that idea?

No more do bishops excommunicate anyone after a proper canonical trial. Instead, bishops simply declare to the press that people have excommunicated themselves and therefore should not receive Communion. It is a cop-out for the bishops and, by and large, is ignored by the alleged miscreant and everyone else. It has become a joke like most episcopal pronouncements.

good morning,

And yet we wonder why the vast difference between Catholic theololy and reality, why overtime it has led to disillusionment among the laity, and an ever greater number of Catholics leaving the Church!

take care

Moral casuistry to an absurd extreme.

"The devil made me do it, i.e., sign the act into law."

If the good king really opposes abortion, he should refuse to sign the legislation and allow the parliament to deal with his refusal.

Boy-o-boy, the extent to which Catholic bishops will go to protect their cozy relationships with earthly sovereigns!

This 21st-century king should take his example from the Lord, the King of kings.

No wonder our Catholic hierarchs continue to lose moral credibility.

A clarification with regard to the Belgian king Baudouin: when he stepped down on April 3, 1990, he was not sure that he would be reinstated after a couple of days, meaning that he was ready to risk his throne. I think he was a good example of what it means to follow a well in/formed conscience, including the respect for those who did not share his own position.
The Belgian legislation on abortion is particular in the sense that it does not give any content to the 'state of emergency' of the pregnant woman: the statement of the woman that she is in a state of emergency and therefore requests an abortion is itself the state of emergency required by the law - very individualistic. This a very different from the German law which contains through the 'Schwangerschaftskonfliktberatung' (counseling with regard to a pregnancy experienced as a conflict) a relational approach. The system suffered from the official Catholic Church pulling out of these counselings at the end of the century, because it was labelled as cooperation in evil. Luckely, most of the valuable work was taken over by Catholic laity under the name Donum vitae (http://www.donumvitae.org/).

Jan Jans (a Belgian citizen)

His Majesty, King Juan Carlos, is in a unique constitutional situation, one in which Presidents of the United States would never find themselves. Constitutionally, his signature is required on the law, His Majesty does not have the constitutional authority to refuse to sign, as a President does. Thus, it is a situation that is closely similar to those of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II of England, and His Majesty, the King of Belgium.

If His Majesty could work out a similar compromise as the late King Baudouin of Belgium (in which the King, citing a legal impediment, abdicated the Throne of the Belgians for a period of twenty-four hours, during which time a Council of State, acting in the authority of the King, give the law constitutional recognition; twenty-four hours later, the King stated that the impediment was ended and he resumed the Throne), that would be wonderful (assuming such a mechanism exists in the Spanish Constitution). If not, HIs Majesty is required to sign the law.

However, as Robert Blackburn pointed out in his excellent work, "King and Country: The Politics of the Monarchy in Britain Today", the signature of the King should not be considered an approval of the bill itself (as it is in democracies such as France and the United States). Rather, since the bill presented to him will have gone through the proper channels and procedures in the Spanish Parliament and as such is assumed to be law (even though, technically it remains for the King to sign it), His Majesty's signature should be seen, not as granting approval of the bill, but rather of certifying that the process has been completed.

Thus, it could be seen not as much as a question of legislating or passing a law, but rather as of certifying that the Parliamentary and constitutional procedures have been followed and the law in question has met all the necessary criteria for a law. In this way, His Majesty is doing little more than acting as a judge of the constitutional process, rather than acting as a legislator; it would be clear then that His Majesty's signature is dramatically different from the votes of the members of Parliament.

Granted, it is a fine line, but politics, particularly in the case of a Constitutional Monarch such as His Majesty King Juan Carlos, more often than not is a gray area.

The relevant question here is whether the old abortion law was actually enforced and how. If the old law had no impact, the Bishops can be safely ignored with regard to the reception of Communion. If the old law was enforced and enforcement was repressive, causing harm and maternal death, as well as upset due to the power of the state to investigate natural miscarriage (a power that state should not have - although one which is necessary if you want to actually go after abortion through the criminal law), then dropping it is about the power of the state, not the moral issue of abortion.

Since the deaths of the right-wing dictators Franco and Salazar, and the accession of John Paul II, the church has utterly lost power in the formerly ultra-catholic iberian peninsula. this is always in the background of rome's increasing heavy-handedness in the areas where she is still somewhat strong.