Speaker Pelosi gets a lesson from Pope Benedict

Take note Vice President Biden, Senator Kennedy, Senator  Kerry, Senator Mikulski, Rep. DeLauro, Governor Sebelius, Mayor Giuliani, Governor Schwarzenegger and all Catholic politicians and voters who enable the abortion regime. 

Statement from the Holy See after Speaker Pelosi's audience with the Holy Father:


Following the General Audience, the Holy Father briefly greeted Mrs. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage. His  Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception until natural death, which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists, and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of development.

 

Nancy got schooled folks.

 

Read more from USAToday.com and George Weigel

 

David Schrader

 

PS. Of course, Speaker Pelosi's statement did not refer to this aspect of their meeting.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi will meet with Pope Benedict XVI

“Ardent Catholic” Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, will receive an audience with Pope Benedict XVI tomorrow. Because of her role as a Head of State (she is 3rd in line to the presidency) the Vatican will treat this as an official meeting.

Although numerous reports have been published either confirming or denying that Pope Benedict would receive Pelosi in an audience, the Holy See’s Press Office confirmed to CNA on Monday at noon Rome time, that the Holy Father will receive the U.S. representative on Wednesday at midday.

The press office made clear that the Pope will meet with Pelosi in his capacity as a head of state since the Speaker of the House is the third in line to lead the U.S., should the president and vice president be unable to do so.

 

The idea of providing Pelosi with a photo-op has disturbed a significant number of U.S. Catholics and pro-life activists.

 

In August 2008, Pelosi attempted to offer a justification for why Catholics could support abortion and remain in good standing with the Church by giving a convoluted explanation based on misquotes of Sts. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas on "Meet the Press."

 

Pelosi's pretention at reinterpreting Catholic moral and theological teaching elicited strong criticism from more than 20 U.S. cardinals, archbishops and bishops.

 

More recently, Nancy Pelosi was strongly criticized for defending the insertion of millions in spending on contraceptives into the stimulus bill. Pelosi, who says she is an "ardent Catholic," told ABC's This Week that the money spent on family planning services would "reduce costs."  Source: CNA

 

No word on a private audience. I would think the Speaker will avoid such a meeting and the smack-down she would likely receive. Sorry, smack-down might not be the most charitable word to use. What do we call it when our bishops and/or the Holy Father tell Catholic politicians  who enable the abortion regime they are wrong? Regardless, this is most likely about a photo-op for the Speaker. My hope and prayer is for the Holy Father to help begin her conversion.

 

See also LifeNews.com, RedState, and Deal Hudson

 

David Schrader

 

P.S. I wonder if Vice President Biden is piqued about the Speaker getting her picture with the Holy Father before he does.

"Conservative Catholic Grandmother"™ Pelosi Says Birth Control a Boon for the Economy

Matthew Archbold reports:

Your favorite grandmother Nancy Pelosi defended the inclusion of millions of dollars being spent on birth control in Obama's new economic "stimulus" package by claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

So that's what you are folks. You are a cost to the state and federal government. You are not a product of love, an immortal being with a soul. You are the product of a cost/benefit analysis.

Here's the exact exchange on ABC's THIS WEEK. (H/T Drudge)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

Now this just might explain why Obama and Pelosi are so vehemently pro-abortion. It's because they're so worried about the economy.

[More]

UPDATE
Video (Hat tip: American Papist):

Joe Biden channels Nancy Pelosi on Meet The Press -- another "teaching moment" for the Catholic Bishops?

Catholic Senator Joe Biden appeared on Meet The Press this morning. Revisiting the same topic he discussed with Nancy Pelosi, Tom Brokaw inquired Biden's view on the beginning of human life and the matter of abortion and what he would do if Obama sought his counsel on the subject:

SEN. BIDEN: I'd say, "Look, I know when it begins for me." It's a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I'm prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths--Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others--who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They're intensely as religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life--I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society. And I know you get the push back, "Well, what about fascism?" Everybody, you know, you going to say fascism's all right? Fascism isn't a matter of faith. No decent religious person thinks fascism is a good idea.

MR. BROKAW: But if you, you believe that life begins at conception, and you've also voted for abortion rights...

SEN. BIDEN: No, what a voted against curtailing the right, criminalizing abortion. I voted against telling everyone else in the country that they have to accept my religiously based view that it's a moment of conception. There is a debate in our church, as Cardinal Egan would acknowledge, that's existed. Back in "Summa Theologia," when Thomas Aquinas wrote "Summa Theologia," he said there was no--it didn't occur until quickening, 40 days after conception. How am I going out and tell you, if you or anyone else that you must insist upon my view that is based on a matter of faith? And that's the reason I haven't. But then again, I also don't support a lot of other things. I don't support public, public funding. I don't, because that flips the burden. That's then telling me I have to accept a different view. This is a matter between a person's God, however they believe in God, their doctor and themselves in what is always a--and what we're going to be spending our time doing is making sure that we reduce considerably the amount of abortions that take place by providing the care, the assistance and the encouragement for people to be able to carry to term and to raise their children.

Senator Biden can be commended for his opposition to public-funding for abortions (incidentally, a view which his Presidential running mate supports), but to characterize opposition to abortion as the "imposition of a religious judgement on everybone else" is absolutely false. As George Weigel noted in response to Senator Kerry's use of the same "reluctance to impose my religious opinion" defense in the 2004 election:

... suggesting that this is something analogous to the Catholic Church trying to force everyone in the United States to abstain from eating hot dogs on Fridays during Lent is simpy false. ... You don't even have to believe in God to engage [the pro-life position] because it's a position rooted in basic embryology and in basic logic, and anybody can engage that."

Once again, we are greeted with the curious spectacle of a defiant "pro-choice" Catholic politician appealing to 13th century comprehensions of human development (or rather fourth century BC, since Aquinas's views were based on Aristotle) -- in opposition to the Catholic Bishops' appeal to advancements in human embryology by modern science! While it may be a "matter of faith" for Biden, recognizing that human life begins at "conception" is surely no great obstacle for scientists -- nor American citizens in general.

* * *

Curiously, as Princeton professor Robert P. George noted on the role of religious authority in debates on public policy, it is pro-choice advocates who typically want to transform the question into a “metaphysical” or “religious” one:

It was Justice Harry Blackmun who claimed in his opinion for the Court legalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973) that “at this point in man’s knowledge” the scientific evidence was inconclusive and therefore cold not determine the outcome of the case. And twenty years later, the influential pro-choice writer Ronald Dworkin went on record claiming that the question of abortion is inherently “religious.” (See Ronald Dworkin, Life’s Dominion (Alfred A. Knopf, 1993).) It is pro-choice advocates, such as Dworkin, who want to distinguish between when a human being comes into existence “in the biological sense” and when a human being comes into existence “in the moral sense.” It is they who want to distinguish a class of human beings “with rights” from pre-(or post-) conscious human beings who “don’t have rights.” And the reason for this, I submit, is that, short of defending abortion as “justifiable homicide,” the pro-choice position collapses if the issue is to be settled purely on the basis of scientific inquiry into the question of when a new member of homo sapiens comes into existence as a self-integrating organism whose unity, distinctiveness, and identity remain intact as it develops without substantial change from the point of its beginning through the various stages of its development and into adulthood.

As Catholics we believe in the sanctity of human life -- but this is not to say that the pro-life position can be seriously engaged by anybody.

In "Christian Conviction and Democratic Etiquette (First Things March 1994), Weigel explains:

How are we to make our case to those who do not share that prior religious commitment, or to those Christians whose churches do not provide clear moral counsel on this issue? And how do we do this in a political-cultural-legal climate in which individual autonomy has been virtually absolutized?

The answer is, we best make our case by insisting that our defense of the right to life of the unborn is a defense of civil rights and of a generous, hospitable American democracy. We best make our case by insisting that abortion-on-demand gravely damages the American democratic experiment by drastically constricting the community of the commonly protected. We best make our case by arguing that the private use of lethal violence against an innocent is an assault on the moral foundations of any just society. In short, we best make our case for maximum feasible legal protection of the unborn by deploying natural law arguments that translate our Christian moral convictions into a public idiom more powerful than the idiom of autonomy.

And to think that the Democrats were hoping the abortion debate would somehow "fade away" this election? -- Thank you, Senator Biden, for providing a clear illustration of why Catholics cannot be silent.

Related

• "Abortion poisions everything including reason", by Jeff Miller (Curt Jester).
  
• Ongoing coverage by Thomas Peters @ American Papist
  
• "Dumb and Dumber" Creative Minority Report
  

Archbishop Niederauer responds to Nancy Pelosi's misrepresentation of Catholic teaching; invites her to "converse"

San Francisco Archbishop George H. Niederauer addressed recent comments made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the September 5th letter of Catholic San Francisco, the official paper of the Diocese of San Francisco. [Click here for the full text of Archbishop Niederauer's letter to Nancy Pelosi].

After expounding upon the fundamentals of Catholic teaching on abortion, Niederauer moved on to address the issue of reception of the Eucharist by a Catholic politician who supports abortion on demand. He concludes his letter to Pelosi thus:

Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and my predecessor as Archbishop here in San Francisco, wrote in 2004: "No bishop is eager to forbid members of his flock from receiving the precious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, who invites us into communion with Himself and his Body, the Church, as grace and salvation." In that same year, the U.S. bishops acknowledged that pastoral sensitivity, and they endorsed the following approach to this question of denying Holy Communion: "Given the wide range of circumstances involved in arriving at a prudential judgment on a matter of this seriousness, we recognize that such decisions rest with the individual bishop in accord with the established canonical and pastoral principles. Bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action. Nevertheless, we all share an unequivocal commitment to protect human life and dignity and to preach the Gospel in difficult times." From that statement I conclude that it is my responsibility as Archbishop to discern and decide, prayerfully, how best to approach this question as it may arise in the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

I regret the necessity of addressing these issues in so public a forum, but the widespread consternation among Catholics made it unavoidable. Speaker Pelosi has often said how highly she values her Catholic faith, and how much it is a source of joy for her. Accordingly, as her pastor, I am writing to invite her into a conversation with me about these matters. It is my obligation to teach forthrightly and to shepherd caringly, and that is my intent. Let us pray together that the Holy Spirit will guide us all toward a more profound understanding and appreciation for human life, and toward a resolution of these differences in truth and charity and peace.

Thomas Peters (American Papist) has been covering this story in depth and provides some background details to the confrontation, as well as his analysis of Niederauer's letter.

Count me a bit disappointed -- Steven D. Greydanus commmented:

Archbishop Niederauer demurred in February 2007 that Pelosi's stance on abortion was something he hadn't "had a chance to talk to her about" yet.

Eighteen months later, it took a direct misrepresentation of Catholic tradition on global TV, a spokesman's flip-off to the USCCB and half the American bishops coming down on Pelosi to jump-start that long-delayed conversation, or at least to spark an invitation.

But hey, better now than never, right?

"Pelosi-Gate" covered by major media; CNN "imposes blackout"

Catholic bloggers (and bisohops) have been on this story for the past week, but the mainstream news outlets are finally catching up. Some major coverage so far:

• Pelosi gets unwanted lesson in Catholic theology, by Rachel Zoll. Associated Press.
  
• Pope Pelosi at the Gate, by Kathleen Parker, Washington Post.
  
• Pelosi’s abortion comments provoke Catholic criticism Reuters.
  

FoxNews devoted an entire segment of their 'Special Report' program to the story.

Unfortunately, as NewsBusters observes, CNN placed a total news blackout on Nancy Pelosi’s misrepresentation of Catholic teaching and history on abortion and the subsequent reaction from several prominent Catholic bishops and from pro-life politicians.

You would think when eleven (and counting) bishops of the Catholic Church single out the Speaker of the House by name in a public rebuke on abortion, it would warrant a mention.

More on the Bishops' Taking Pelosi To Task

Here is a good overview of the reactions of various bishops rightly pointing out that Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was flat wrong in telling the national media that the Catholic Church is uncertain about the point where life begins. The pro-abortionists like to repeatedly raise the mantra that we do not know when life begins. That is scientifically false. It is clear that life begins at fertilization. But, for the sake of argument, let us for the moment say that we are uncertain about the precise point when life begins. Common sense logic--not anything abstruse--still comes down on the side of no abortions at all. Here is the simple analysis that even a child can follow (but maybe not a politician with national ambitions in the Democratic Party):

1. Life is sacred. (If you are talking with an atheist, you can slightly alter this assertion as follows: Life is deserving of robust special protection.)

2. If there is doubt if life is present, resolve any doubts in favor of protecting life because life is sacred and deserving of robust special protection.

The rebuttable presumption is that life begins at fertilization. The burden of proof is on those who wish to abort to rebut that presumption. Since life is sacred and deserving of special protection, the burden of proof is not on the Church to prove that life does indeed begin at fertilization. Those who wish to risk taking life have the burden of proof. They must shoulder the burden of proving that there is no life present. They have not and cannot meet this burden of proving that life does not begin at fertilization. In fact, as the science of embryology makes use of new technological advances, the more precise and clearer evidence of early fetal development strengthens the presumption that life does begin at fertilization. Given this lack of proof that life does not begin at fertilization, pro-abortionists then turn to semantics and simply try to change the definition of life that is worthy of life. The Nazis took this same semantic approach when they labeled their alleged "racial and/or genetic inferiors" as life unworthy of life. The pro-abortionists are not in good company. They have made the American legal system follow a Nazi-like way of thinking about human life. What an irony that association is after all the sacrifices made to defeat the Nazis in World War II.

P.S. By the way, I have posted two comments responding to recent vigorous criticism of a prior post I wrote adding character and fortitude to the list of non-negotiable Catholic principles to be used in evaluating candidates. See this link and this link (you will have to click "comments").

Pelosi's dispute with U.S. Bishops escalates; repudiates Church's teaching authority

Via Amy Welborn, Brendan Daly, Nancy Pelosi’s spokesman issued a statement::

The Speaker is the mother of five children and seven grandchildren and fully appreciates the sanctity of family. She was raised in a devout Catholic family who often disagreed with her pro-choice views.

“After she was elected to Congress, and the choice issue became more public as she would have to vote on it, she studied the matter more closely. Her views on when life begins were informed by the views of Saint Augustine, who said: ‘…the law does not provide that the act [abortion] pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation…’ (Saint Augustine, On Exodus 21.22)

“While Catholic teaching is clear that life begins at conception, many Catholics do not ascribe to that view. The Speaker agrees with the Church that we should reduce the number of abortions. She believes that can be done by making family planning more available, as well as by increasing the number of comprehensive age-appropriate sex education and caring adoption programs.

“The Speaker has a long, proud record of working with the Catholic Church on many issues, including alleviating poverty and promoting social justice and peace.”

In sum:

• Pelosi appreciates the sanctity of the family, but not the unborn;
  
• She's unabashedly pro-choice
  
• She appals (again) to uninformed and inadequate theories about embryology from the Middle Ages, never mind the testimony of modern science and the fact that her Church has consistently taught, from the beginning, the moral evil of every procured abortion
  
• On the contrary, the Bishops should support Pelosi's quest for expanded access to contraception
  
• But really, who gives a damn about the unborn? -- She's for "social justice", so it's ok.
  

As one commentator at Amy's noted,

Perhaps more significant than her endorsement of abortion and contraception, is Ms. Pelosi’s outright rejection of the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church.

Chronological Timeline of Nancy Pelosi's Remarks (Courtesy of American Papist):

• 8/24 - Morning: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi makes numerous uninformed and false claims about the Catholic Church's 2,000-year teaching on abortion in her Meet the Press interview
  
• 8/24 - Evening: numerous Catholic and conservative blogs criticize Pelosi
  
• 8/25 - Afternoon: Abp. Chaput publishes “On the Separation of Sense and State: A Clarification for the People of the Church of Northern Colorado", becoming the first bishop to publicly correct Nancy Pelosi on authentic Catholic teaching.
  
• 8/25 - Late Afternoon: Ten Catholic members of Congress respond to Pelosi [AmericanPapist Scoop]
  
• 8/25 - Early Evening: The US Bishops respond to Pelosi in a special press release posted to the main page of the USCCB's website
  
• 8/25 - Late Evening: Abp. Wuerl of Washington DC also corrects Pelosi
  
• 8/26 - Early Morning: Associated Press and political blogs note the bishops' statements
  
• 8/27 - Early Afternoon: Cardinal Egan issues the strongest condemnation yet of Pelosi
  
• 8/27 - Mid Afternoon: Pelosi's diocese of San Francisco opts to issue a USCCB reprint (but Rocco Palmo informs us that "Archbishop George Niederauer will publish a 'lengthy commentary' on Pelosi's comments in a column for the next edition of the archdiocesan weekly, Catholic San Francisco."
  

Has There Ever Been Such a Strong Condemnation of the "Pro-Choice" Position from a Catholic Prelate?

STATEMENT OF HIS EMINENCE, EDWARD CARDINAL EGAN CONCERNING REMARKS MADE BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008. What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.

We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.

Edward Cardinal Egan
Archbishop of New York

August 26, 2008

(emphasis added)

Cardinal Justin F. Rigali & William E. Lori respond to Nancy Pelosi

Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine issued a statement posted to the main page of the website of the U.S. Catholic Bishops:

In the course of a “Meet the Press” interview on abortion and other public issues on August 24, 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion.

The Church has always taught that human life deserves respect from its very beginning and that procured abortion is a grave moral evil. In the Middle Ages, uninformed and inadequate theories about embryology led some theologians to speculate that specifically human life capable of receiving an immortal soul may not exist until a few weeks into pregnancy. While in canon law these theories led to a distinction in penalties between very early and later abortions, the Church’s moral teaching never justified or permitted abortion at any stage of development.

These mistaken biological theories became obsolete over 150 years ago when scientists discovered that a new human individual comes into being from the union of sperm and egg at fertilization. In keeping with this modern understanding, the Church has long taught that from the time of conception (fertilization), each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person, beginning with respect for the fundamental right to life.

More information on the Church's teaching on this issue can be found in our brochure "The Catholic Church is a Pro-Life Church". PDF | Text

• Statement on Responsibilities of Catholics in Public Life
  
• “Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper”: On Preparing to Receive Christ Worthily in the Eucharist

We'd like to thank Archbishop Chaput for his outstanding letter, and to Cardinal Justin F. Rigali and Bishop William E. Lori for stepping up so quickly. It's our fervent hope that this will establish something of a trend in Bishops' responses to "pro-choice" Catholics who publicly misrepresent and repudiate Catholic teaching.

Update! Not to be outdone, Archbishop Wuerl of the Archdiocese of Washington issues a statement.

Update! - Cardinal Egan of New York City piles on.

Now, perhaps a little something from Pelosi's home diocese?

Archbishop Chaput responds to Nancy Pelosi

Catholic News Agency reports that In a statement eloquently titled “On the Separation of Sense and State,” the Archbishop of Denver, Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., and his Auxiliary Bishop James D. Conley harshly criticized Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, for giving a confusing view of the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion, during a Sunday interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press"

Click here to download Archbishop Chaput's full rebuttal to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It's so good, I trust the Archbishop will understand my inclination to post it in full:

To Catholics of the Archdiocese of Denver:

Catholic public leaders inconvenienced by the abortion debate tend to take a hard line in talking about the "separation of Church and state." But their idea of separation often seems to work one way. In fact, some officials also seem comfortable in the role of theologian. And that warrants some interest, not as a "political" issue, but as a matter of accuracy and justice.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a gifted public servant of strong convictions and many professional skills. Regrettably, knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them.

Interviewed on Meet the Press August 24, Speaker Pelosi was asked when human life begins. She said the following:

"I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition . . . St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose."

Since Speaker Pelosi has, in her words, studied the issue "for a long time," she must know very well one of the premier works on the subject, Jesuit John Connery's Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective (Loyola, 1977). Here's how Connery concludes his study:

"The Christian tradition from the earliest days reveals a firm antiabortion attitude . . . The condemnation of abortion did not depend on and was not limited in any way by theories regarding the time of fetal animation. Even during the many centuries when Church penal and penitential practice was based on the theory of delayed animation, the condemnation of abortion was never affected by it. Whatever
one would want to hold about the time of animation, or when the fetus became a human being in the strict sense of the term, abortion from the time of conception was considered wrong, and the time of animation was never looked on as a moral dividing line between permissible and impermissible abortion."

Or to put it in the blunter words of the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer:
"Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder."

Ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the Christian tradition overwhelminglyheld that abortion was grievously evil. In the absence of modern medical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the unborn child might be animated or "ensouled." But nonediminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong.

Of course, we now know with biological certainty exactly when human life begins. Thus, today's religious alibis for abortion and a so-called "right to choose" are nothing more than that - alibisthat break radically with historic Christian and Catholic belief.

Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it - whether they're famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.

The duty of the Church and other religious communities is moral witness. The duty of the state and its officials is to serve the common good, which is always rooted in moral truth. A proper understanding of the "separation of Church and state" does not imply a separation of faith from political life. But ofcourse, it's always important to know what our faith actually teaches.

+Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.

Archbishop of Denver

+James D. Conley

Auxiliary Bishop of Denver

Nancy Pelosi professes ignorance of human reproductive biology; Amy Welborn notifies U.S. Bishops of a "teaching moment"

Nancy Pelosi was on Meet The Press today and engaged in what I'm going to refer to as a "Joe Biden" moment -- namely, when a Catholic politican suddenly loses his grasp and professes his sudden and complete ignorance of elementary human reproductive biology:

MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you’re looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, “Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?” what would you tell him?

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…

MR. BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it…

REP. PELOSI: I understand that.

MR. BROKAW: …begins at the point of conception.

REP. PELOSI: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions. That’s why we have this fight in Congress over contraception. My Republican colleagues do not support contraception. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must–it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think. But that is not the case. So we have to take–you know, we have to handle this as respectfully–this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been–and I’m not saying Rick Warren did, because I don’t think he did, but others will try to.

For the record, Mr. Brokaw repeats a very elementary mistake here, in that the question from Pastor Warren was not "When does life begin" but "at what point does a baby get human rights"? -- Two very different things, and the fact that many politicians and journalists have professed an inability to answer the first is indeed, worrisome.

With regards to Rep. Pelosi's answer, Amy Welborn refers us to Catholidoxy, who sets Pelosi straight on not only what Augustine thought, but what the Bishops have actually taught concerning this matter.

To which Amy Welborn adds, justifiably so:

Over and over we are told - by bishops themselves - that their primary role in contentious situations like this is to teach.

So..TEACH.

Here you have a very prominent American Catholic, going on the record with her purported studiousness on this issue, authoritatively declaring something false about the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is what we call a teachable moment. Monday morning, the USCCB should have a press release, accompanied by a real human being - preferably a bishop - maybe even a Colorado bishop, given the location and the proximity of the press - giving a short, succinct correction of Pelosi’s statement. It wouldn’t take long. Do it right in front of where the convention is meeting.

No 501(c)(3) worries. No threats of endorsement or condemnation. Just…

Teach.

Do it over and over and over - do not let this moments pass by and the deceptions continue to rule.

Paging Archbishop Niederauer ...

In an interview on C-SPAN that aired on Sunday, Pelosi was asked about how some church officials have raised objections about whether former presidential contenders -- such as Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) -- should receive communion.

Pelosi, a Roman Catholic whose district includes most of San Francisco, said she has not encountered such difficulties in her church.

"I think some of it is regional," she said, "It depends on the bishop of a certain region and fortunately for me, communion has not been withheld and I'm a regular communicant so that would be a severe blow to me if that were the case."

-- Nancy Pelosi, on C-SPAN. (Via Curt Jester | The Deacon's Bench).

On that note, Nancy Pelosi's legislative record on abortion.

Update - Via Jeff Miller, an interview with Nancy Pelosi's pastor Monsignor Joe Brenkle of St. Helena in San Francisco:

California Catholic Daily: "So you can throw abortion out the window because you don't like Bush and the war?"

Brenkle: "No, but you put up with the imperfections of politicians. Nobody is perfect."

California Catholic Daily: "Have you ever discussed her positions on abortion and homosexual marriage with her?"

Brenkle: "I have not had an opportunity to do so."

California Catholic Daily: "Do you allow her to come to Holy Communion after the Church has taught that manifest public sinners who are unrepentant are to be denied Holy Communion?"

Brenkle: "The Church has never taught that."

Something in the water in San Francisco?

Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians to Receive Communion at Papal Mass [UPDATED]

Brian Saint-Paul reports at InsideCatholic:

Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry intend to receive Communion at a public, fully-televised Papal Mass? Recall the letter that then-Cardinal Ratzinger sent to the U.S. bishops on the subject of pro-abortion Catholic politicians just prior to the 2004 election.

Here's the relevant section:

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4).

Given that these are the words of Benedict himself and hardly secret, it looks like Pelosi and Kerry are trying to make a statement. Tacky.

(emphasis added by Brian)

Deal Hudson responds:

Regarding the Mass at National's Stadium today this how pro-abort Catholic politicians like Pelosi and Kerry will receive Holy Communion.

These politicians have what are called "advance" work done. They will make sure they know who the priest will be assigned to their section -- this priest will be well aware of who is in the line coming for the Eucharist. These arrangements will be made through the Archdiocese of Washington.

There will be no doubt, no hesitation -- very likely a television camera will be trained on Pelosi, Kerry, et al as they take Communion, and millions of people will be watching.

It will not only be a "statement," as described by Brian, it will also be a public relations coup of the highest order for the Democratic Party, an end to the threat of Canon 915 .

Why? They will have received Communion at a Mass celebrated by Benedict XVI.

My Comments:
I'm not sure what I think of this. Politicization of the Eucharist during the papal visit (either by those pro-abortion politicos who present themselves for Communion to, perhaps, make a "statement" or by those who loudly object to their doing so) is unfortunate. I do know that I am particularly unconcerned about whether these politicians receiving Communion during a Papal Mass is a "public relations coup of the highest order for the Democrat Party". Who cares which party is benefited by such things? Partisan politics is completely irrelevant in such a matter.

I'm more concerned about whether public reception of Communion by those who publicly dissent from Church teaching provides an occasion for scandal to the faithful, and creates the impression that the Church's teachings are "optional" - that, as one commenter at InsideCatholic puts it, "one can [publicly] dissent from the Magisterium teaching on abortion and other issues, and still remain in good standing with the Church."


UPDATE
From The Hill:

Pelosi takes Communion at papal Mass

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she felt very comfortable taking Communion during the Mass celebrated by Pope Benedict XVI, who has said supporters of abortion rights should not receive Communion.

“Communion is the body of the people of the church coming together,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference after returning from the Mass. “I feel very much a part of that.”

***
Staffers said Pelosi received Communion during the service, but not from the pope himself.

[More]

Deal Hudson on "Pelosi in the Jesuit Tradition"

Deal Hudson asks:

Last Saturday Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi delivered the commencement address at the University of San Franciso.

Pelosi received the customary honorary doctorate from Fr. Stephen Privett, S.J. who is infamous for having shut down the St. Ignatius Institute, at least in the form it existed under Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.

The Archbishop of San Francisco participated in the ceremonies and lent his praise to the pro-abortion Speaker and resident of his archdiocese. . . .

Whatever happened to the USCCB's own proclamation that Catholic institutions should not honor or provide platforms for Catholic pro-aborts?

In a pre-emptive move ahead of likely House action, President Bush vowed Thursday to veto any measure allowing federal funding for abortions or for any organization that encourages them as a means of family planning:

“I am concerned that this year the Congress may consider legislation that could substantially change federal policies and laws on abortion, and allow taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life,” Bush said in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). . . .

Bush sent his letter before the House considers a bill to fund the U.S. Agency for International Development. Republicans are concerned Democrats will use the measure to roll back a law prohibiting the agency from giving money to nongovernmental agencies that “perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning” in other countries.

The spending subcommittee on foreign operations, chaired by Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), will consider changing the current law, signed in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan and referred to by its opponents as the “Global Gag Rule.” Bush extended the prohibition shortly after taking office.

“I will veto any legislation that weakens current federal policies and laws on abortion, or that encourages the destruction of human life,’’ Bush said in his letter.

(Via Deal Hudson).

Fr. John Malloy writes an "Open Letter to Nancy Pelosi"

Fr. John Malloy, pastor of Saints Peter and Paul Church in San Francisco, penned this “Open letter to Nancy Pelosi,” which was recently published in the parish bulletin. California Catholic Daily reprints the letter with Fr. Malloy's permission.

Archbishop Donald Wuerl: Helping Pelosi Get Away with Murder

LifeSiteNews' carries a disappointing story on the new Archbishop of Washington Donald Wuerl, who has decided to pursue a path of steadfast faithfulness to . . . . imitating the scandalous complacency of his predecessor Cardinal McCarrick towards "pro-choice Catholic" legislators. LifeSiteNews reports:

Perhaps it was a bad omen when at the installation Mass for the new Archbishop of Washington Donald Wuerl last June, pro-abortion Democratic Senator John Kerry was given Holy Communion and caught on camera in the act. During the entrance procession, Archbishop Wuerl shook hands with Kerry and Senator Ted Kennedy. (see coverage)

Now, Archbishop Wuerl, who replaced Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, has said publicly that he would not discipline or direct priests to deny communion to pro-abortion Catholic politician Nancy Pelosi who was just made speaker of the House of Representatives.

When California Catholic Daily reporter Allyson Smith inquired during an interview as to whether Wuerl planned to "discipline her at all for being persistent and obstinate about supporting abortion and same-sex marriage," Wuerl responded, "I will not be using the faculty in that, in the manner you have described."

See also Amy Welborn's extensive coverage of the Pelosi / Wuerl scandal, in which she comments:

I think what Archbishop Wuerl and others fail to understand is the impact of things like this on the lay Catholic who is struggling to be a faithful disciple in the world. The message that is sent by silence is strong, in terms of the lay apostolate in the world, in terms of the unity of faith and life.

Nancy Pelosi is not "struggling" with the Church's teaching on abortion, trying to work for the protection of unborn human beings within the constraints of the current U.S. law. As we noted before, she is unapologetically, strongly supportive of abortion-rights and unborn children don't even enter into her radar (publicly, at least) as human beings. . . .

But resting on Archbishop Wuerl's statements alone, which do not indicate that there's anything problematic about Nancy Pelosi's way of living a Catholic life, and which, I admit, simply might be an expression of a reticent style that only answers the questions posed, I'll just say this again.

If this woman, engaged in a public role, very publicly works against the teachings of the Church to which she professes a very public tie isn't publicly challenged by even one of the primary teachers of the Church - the bishops - the rest of us - lay Catholics, living and working in the world, every day facing decisions on how to be faithful disciples of Jesus in the midst of the complexities of our professions, some of us who really suffer because of the things they refuse to do because of their fidelity to Christ - we get a message.

And the message we get is that - it doesn't matter. Do whatever you want.

* * *

Note to Archbishop Wuerl -- here's an excerpt from a noteworthy memo from then-Cardinal Ratzinger to your predecessor ("Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion — General Principles" L'espresso, June 2004):

. . . Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

Earlier this month, The National Abortion Rights Action League commended self-styled "Catholic grandmother" Nancy Pelosi for championing "pro-choice values" for nearly 20 years -- a pretty consistent -- or obstinant -- record on abortion, wouldn't you agree?

* * *Observing the complacency of the bishops to discipline Michael Liccione wonders What is our problem?:

People being what they are, there must be a measure of "organization"—buildings, offices, procedures, finances, programs, and the like—if the Church is to do her work. But after a certain point, the instinct for institutional self-preservation outweighs the desire for evangelical credibility.

Beneath all the legalistic mumbo-jumbo about bishops' rights to differing "pastoral styles," this is why learned, doctrinally orthodox bishops such as Wuerl allow Catholics in public life who facilitate abortion, gay marriage, and embryonic-stem-cell research to remain in ostensibly "full communion" with the Church. Beneath the facile and fallacious clichés about "conscience," this is why most bishops would discipline a priest under them who started denying the Eucharist to parishioners aware of, but staunchly unwilling to abide by, the Church's teaching on contraception. Some of those bishops are ones who for too long failed to discipline child molesters and remained in denial about that problem; the reasons for each policy are closely related. Beneath the apparently flexibility and sophistication of "the internal forum," this is why many so many priests incorporate, as a matter of course, divorced people who have remarried without annulment into parish life on the same level as other Catholics who have adhered, at great cost to themselves, to Church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. For the most part, the hierarchy are terrified that schisms, be they de facto or de jure, would reduce the Church to institutional rubble. And let's be clear: such rubble is exactly what would we'd get if they got serious about challenging people to follow Christ in the pelvic area.

* * *At least one reader of Deal W. Hudson is contemplating civil disobedience in the event of witnessing another "pro-choice Catholic" profane the Eucharist:

If these "Catholic" politicians keep persisting in walking up the communion aisle, why can't the communicants in their seats stand up and stop them by merely standing in their way much like that young man in Tiannamen Square before the tanks?

Nancy Pelosi and Company have run over innocent life long enough.

* * *

Lastly, Fr. Neuhaus on "ambivalence and resolve about Roe (First Things' "On the Square" - January 19th, 2006):

When the aforementioned Nancy Pelosi orchestrated a four-day gala in Washington celebrating her familial, ethnic, and—very explicitly—Catholic identity, people were alert to what would be said by the new archbishop of Washington, Donald Wuerl. He said nothing. Part of the festivities was a Mass at Trinity College, a Catholic institution in Washington. The celebrant of the Mass was Father Robert Drinan, a Jesuit who, more than any other single figure, has been influential in tutoring Catholic politicians on the acceptability of rejecting the Church’s teaching on the defense of innocent human life. Asked by a reporter, Archbishop Wuerl responded that Fr. Drinan has “faculties” in Washington, meaning he is authorized to celebrate the sacraments. That was it.

Also recently, Edward Cardinal Egan of New York gave a rare television interview in which he was persistently asked whether the pro-abortion position of Catholic politicians, notably Rudolph Giuliani and outgoing governor George Pataki, posed a problem for him. He just as persistently said he refused to be drawn into politics and answered, “They are my friends.” But of course he was making a statement of momentous political consequence, in that he seemed to be saying, as far as he is concerned, that the Church has no problem with pro-abortion politicians. It is understandable that Catholics and others have drawn the conclusion that, for both Wuerl and Egan, bishops of the two most prominent sees in the country, rejecting the Church’s teaching on the human dignity of the unborn child is not a big deal.

Related "Must Read" Posts:

• A father’s responsibility to his children, by Domenico Bettinelli.
  

• Barbara Kralis issus A plea to the Pope for help and encourages a letter-writing campaign on the part of outraged Catholic laity.
  

"Pro Choice Catholic" Pelosi - A New Challenge to the Church

• Didn't Take Long, by Deal W. Hudson:

  I guess it didn't take long for the dichotomy between Speaker Pelosi's professed Catholicism and her Liberal politics to rear its ugly head. A key legislative initiative she plans to tackle during the Democrats "first 100 hours" is to expand embryonic stem cell research. According to a press release from Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, this vote is scheduled for next Thursday, January 11.

  
  
• Pelosi gets her "celebration tour" Mass, despite pro-life resistance - Thomas Peters (American Papist) relays news from Philadelphia's The Evening Bulletin:

  Despite the appeals from a conservative pro-life group to prevent Speaker of the House-elect Nancy Pelosi from making a political appearance at a Mass at Trinity Washington College, Archbishop

  Donald Wuerl permitted the pro-abortion Democrat to use the Mass as a centerpiece of her "celebration" tour.

  More reaction from Judie Brown of the American Life League: Pro-Abortion Pelosi Insults Catholic Faith Human Events Online January 2, 2007. Mrs. Brown was a strong voice in the 2004 presidential elections, calling Cardinal McCarrick and other bishops to task for their lukewarm treatment of "pro-choice Catholic" candidate Senator John Kerry.
  

• Nancy-Palooza - good coverage of Pelosi's self-congratulatory promotional tour @ Amy Welborn's Open Book, in which is provided Nancy Pelosi's Record on Abortion. Amy questions:

  Will the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church let itself be played? Will it allow Nancy Pelosi to "celebrate" her Catholic roots as an act of obvious, frank political manipulation to get ethnic Catholics to start thinking Democrat again? Or will the leadership of this Church swallow its instinctive institutional self-protectiveness and pride, consider the spectacle of a Catholic who has achieved a position of political power, trumpets her Catholic identity, but is viciously indifferent to the plight of the weakest and most helpless in our society and say...Hmmm. Something wrong here. Maybe we should...do something? Maybe?

  Must-read post.
  

• Which leads the Curt Jester to wonder if the new Speaker for the House suffered a concussion as a result of her crashing through the marble ceiling.
  

Like the 2004 presidential campaign of Senator Kerry, the term of Speaker Pelosi provides Catholics with a brand new challenge. In the words of Deal Hudson:

As I read through the postings of the past few days and caught up on recent news after my long winter's nap, I was suddenly struck with a feeling of deja vu all over again, as Yogi Berra would say. . . .

What rang familiar to me was like presidential candidate John Kerry, we now have one of the highest ranking U.S. officials -- the third person in succession for the presidency behind the president and vice president -- who claims to be Catholic while ardently supporting a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda. And like the Kerry presidential run, the Church will have a tremendous opportunity to remind her and the nation how dramatically contrary this agenda is to the Catholic's primordial teachings on life and family.