Nancy Pelosi kisses the ring of Benedict XVI, photo by Reuters
To keep the thread complete, here's the response from Nancy Pelosi's office regarding the American Bishops' response to her appearance on Meet The Press. (See my two earlier posts for more on this topic.)
H/T to Amy Welborn via Rocco.
“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.”
I applaud Nancy Pelosi for having her beliefs and keeping her faith strong. I think it is wonderful that she works within the Church to promote peace, social justice and other issues. I disagree however with the Church's stance on abortion. I am a devout Catholic as well. At least that is what I believe. And I also believe that no one can sit in judgement of anyone who has terminated a pregnancy. I am pro choice. I have never been in the situation where I had to chose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. Thank God. But my heart goes out to those who have been or are now in that position.
ReplyDeleteBut there are many reasons for and against terminating a pregnancy. Yes, education is a good route to follow, but I have seen the guilt and pain that many good Catholic/Christian people carry who have had abortions, and our treatment and judgements on many of these people is terribly hurtful.
It is not up to Church and State to tell me what I can do with my own body. That is between myself and God. Not others who, no matter how devout they may be, still live in glass houses.
Anna writes: "It is not up to Church and State to tell me what I can do with my own body."
ReplyDeleteThe reality is that both the Church and the state tell us in many ways what we can and can't do with our own bodies. The purpose of such state laws is the general welfare of the people. The purpose of such Church laws is to help us understand and be faithful to what God asks and expects of us.
That leaders of Church or state fail morally in their own lives or in the discharge of their duties does not some how drain the law of its rights or power. When leaders fail it certainly lessens the impact of their leadership but their errors do not nullify the laws they are appointed to uphold.
In the Christian dispensation, the ultimate tribunal of judgment is when each of us stands before God. But that is not the only tribunal. An important responsibility of the teaching Church is to clearly announce what God's Word demands of us and to encourage us to live by that word.
When the Church speaks strongly about a moral issue, there are going to be people who hear that teaching in very personal terms and whose own difficulties, memories and pain are touched by it. While sensitivity to that pain is something the Church must always take into account, it does not relieve the Church of the responsibility of speaking strongly.
Anna writes that she has "seen the guilt and pain that many good Catholic/Christian people carry who have had abortions..." Among other things, it's the Church's desire to spare individuals that guilt and pain by teaching that abortion is not the answer, precisely because an innocent life, unable to speak for itself, is also involved in the decision.
Abortion is not simply something does with one's own body, it impacts the body of another person as well.
Please know that I'm aware that posting my comment here may touch the "guilt and pain many good Catholic/Christian people carry who have had abortions..." It's not my intention to be hurtful here but rather to try to show how, in the Catholic/Christian tradition there is nothing that is "only" between God and me.
Please know that I'm aware that posting my comment here may touch the "guilt and pain many good Catholic/Christian people carry who have had abortions..." It's not my intention to be hurtful here but rather to try to show how, in the Catholic/Christian tradition there is nothing that is "only" between God and me.
ReplyDeleteWith no disrespect, but rather difference of opinion, that is precisely what is done when we place our Christian beliefs on people who have been in this particular situation. I believe that when we walk in the footsteps of others, we need to be aware of and prepared for the pain our words may cause, Even if that is not the intention.
It is a difficult position to be in when words that are meant to help can also hurt. Unfortunately, there is no simple answer here.
Sorry Concord Pastor,
ReplyDeleteI'm with anna on this particular issue. As you stated, there is an innocent life who cannot speak for themselves, but it is still my body carrying that life and whatever circumstances bring me to contemplate a termination is up to me. No one else has the right to say differently.
New York's Cardinal Eagan said it a little more bluntly yesterday:
ReplyDeleteAnyone who dares to defend that [the unborn] 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.
Anna: can you be suggesting that there are moral truths about which the Church should remain silent lest someone feel hurt by the raising of the issue?
ReplyDeleteI don't believe Anna is suggesting that at all. I think she's worried that her writing about this, might bring some painful issues up to some people. I think Anna is trying to stand up for women and defend their choice.
ReplyDeleteWomen have abortions for all kinds of reasons: rape, carelessness, fright, uncertainty, financial reasons and simply for not wanting the baby. Anyone I know who has had an abortion, has suffered guilt, pain, and much hurt over their decision. Even though is was their choice, it doesn't make it right. A life was destroyed. That is why the Catholic church has to take a stand on this. Abortion is wrong. If they just said it's the women's choice, they would be condoning killing an unborn child. Beneath all the horror of abortion, is the grace of God. If someone sins in this way, or anyway ... and asks for God's forgiveness ... it will be forgiven and forgotten by God. This is what the Catholic church teaches us. Therefore, all forgiven sinners are welcome at God's table to receive Holy Communion. The Catholic Church also runs a program called, "Rachels Project". It's for women who have had an abortion and seek healing and forgiveness of their selves. They encourage you to name your child who is with God now, and help them to know someday, they will meet their child in heaven.
We all are sinners ... and through the grace of God ... forgivness happens.
I would like to refer your readership to your sidebar Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. The Alliance has done a superb job of working with the Democratic Platform Committee on planks concerning the abortion issue.
ReplyDeleteAs for bishops/priests refusing to allow people to receive communion, I would like to relate a story from many years ago that occurred at the church I grew up in. I had moved to Boston, so was not present for this, but my parents were. It was the era when mini-skirts were popular. An 8-year old girl in a mini-skirt went up to receive communion. The pastor refused to give her communion. With that her father and her uncle stood in front of the priest in order that no one could receive communion. The parishioners "sided" with the young girl's father and uncle and no one else received communion that day.
The Eucharist should not be used as a weapon by anyone for any reason in my opinion.
Very well stated, Mary. (And oh, how helpful it is for discussion when folks like you and Anna use screen names so we can follow the thread!)
ReplyDeleteAnna's first paragraph in her most recent comment was a quote from my own comment posted above. My question to her was in light of that - but perhaps I misunderstood her, as you suggest, Mary. In either case - thank you for your words.
"The parishioners "sided" with the young girl's father and uncle and no one else received communion that day...The Eucharist should not be used as a weapon by anyone for any reason in my opinion."
ReplyDeleteExcuse me, but wasn't that exactly what the girl's father and uncle did, use the Eucharist as a weapon? And you applaud this disruption of the service?!
I can certainly see registerin a complaint with the priest and his superiors after the fact, but the behavior was outrageous.
Concord Pastor,
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely not. I just believe that we need to see what our words can do, and the harm they inflict when we deem certain people as sinners. Or that thier actions are wrong. No one understands thier issues. What brought them to the decisions they made. That's why I make no judgement against them. but rather give them my prayers and understanding. It is not my place to judge.
Thanks, Anna - that helps me understand better what you're saying.
ReplyDeleteA question, then: would you apply this approach across the board? to all? for whatever their failings might be?
Good Question, and one I would not have to ponder. I do believe that one's own belief system can be a hard process to look at for some. I guess I would say that no, I don't look at things the same way "across the board". Although I do believe that God judges us in the end. There are certainly despicable actions that are done to children and adults as well. We certainly have seen that in the last several years. Some of these actions are done specifically to torment and ruin lives. This, I see as a different kind of justice. These things are done purposefully and without remorse. That is where I draw the line. The issue of abortion for me is the reconciliation of how and why the choice has been made, and if guilt and remorse are apparent, as I said above, I can not judge. It is a decision that is final, and what people live with after that choice deserves at least the opportunity to embrace and love them with God's grace.
ReplyDeleteThe abuse of children is not final, or usually a one time situation. It is usually done with specific ideologies of finding a child that is a target who will remain quiet and will suffer the long term effects.
For every situation there is a different belief. For me, the issue of pro choice and embracing the pain and guilt with God's grace to help the tormented souls. Not judge them.
Maybe putting this in historical context will give perspective. Imagine:
ReplyDelete1850s: "I'm personally opposed to slavery, but the Supreme Court has ruled it's constitutional in Dred Scott. I can't tell those slave owners what to do with their property."
1940s: "Some of my best friends are Japanese, so I feel terrible about those internment camps, but really, they're not like us. They don't look like us. They don't think like us. We have to protect ourselves, don't we? There's a war on!"
2001: "We shouldn't judge those 19 men who hijacked those planes. I feel sorry for the people in the World Trade Center, of course, but we have to look at the broader picture. Those hijackers must have felt there was no other way..."
Anna: Who decides which things fall under the category of "for every situation there is a different belief" and which things don't?
ReplyDeleteAnd how different can the different beliefs be? If opposite moral beliefs can exist, how can one ever come to know the truth - unless one believes that the self is the arbiter of truth - or if one believes there is no absolute truth to be known.
In my ministry I've had a number of opportunities to minister to women and men who have have made the decision to have an abortion. I believe I can honestly say I've never "judged" any of them, especially if "judged" means that I "sat in judgment of," or accused, or looked down on, or rejected them. To the contrary, I hope and I believe I've been understanding, gentle and compassionate, leading them to know how much God's mercy waits to forgive and heal them.
And all of this in spite of the fact that those who come to me come knowing that they'll be speaking with a person who believes they have made a very serious mistake.
The very thing that brings me together with such persons is their wondering about or coming to the conclusion that what they've done is wrong. It's not unusual for women and men in these circumstances to say something like, "I know abortion is wrong but..." As you might surmise, such a statement can lead to a long, fruitful conversation about faith in God, relationship to the Church, personal responsibility and accountability for one's decisions and actions.
If anything, my experience teaches me that the one who levies the heaviest "judgment" on the person who has had an abortion is - the person who had the abortion. Very often God, the Church, the priest, the pastoral counselor, and others have forgiven the person but the forgiven one finds it difficult, seemingly impossible, to forgive her or himself.
Much more can be said - and probably will be! - but for now, those are my thoughts.
I'm grateful, Anna and Mary, for your engaging in this cyber-conversation. As accurate as the quotes above from Pope Benedict XVI are, statements like those are very often not the place where the issues get sorted out. "Anonymous" provided us with one service in this discussion, Anna and Mary with another.
Concord Pastor,
ReplyDeleteGod decides in the end.
As we live on this earth, we decide and the laws of the country,and commonwealth uphold those laws. It is a very distict difference when the laws are uphels, but there is a fine line between lasw and choices. Everyone has thier own opinion. I started out this blog with my opinion and how i feel about pro choice. It is my beliefe that we have the right to chose. I do not believe that i am correct, but merely have my own opinion. Just as I believe others have thiers.
I am surprised at the comments posted since I responded. It is great to see and read the objections and pro choice differences of opinions that this subject raises.
Everyone has a right to their own opinion. I just voiced mine.
Thank you for that opportunity.
That last comment was from Anna. I posted without my name by accident.
ReplyDeleteAnna: You note that "As we live on this earth, we decide and the laws of the country,and commonwealth uphold those laws."
ReplyDeleteMy question would be: "How do God and our faith in God figure into that equation?"
What I'm suggesting is that when we reduce morality to individual choices and God's final judgment - we pave the way for chaos.
Below the surface of our disagreement on the choice question is a greater disconnect on how the moral life is determined and articulated in society (ecclesial and civil). A certain integrity in the complexities of a system for understanding morality is critical for helping individuals make individual decisions. The late Cardinal Bernadin used to refer to the "seamless garment" of morality and questions of human dignity. It seems to me that making exceptions for some decisions tears at the garment's integrity.
I can understand your position and interpretations. However, I am having a difficult time getting my point across as to the differences and distinctions, which I believe are many. Perhaps it becomes clearer when I put it this way. There are Universal laws in our country by which we are expected to uphold. If we don't, we are arrested and judged when we break these laws. But, when it comes to the Church's moral stance, they are not against the law, therefore our choices are our own.
ReplyDeleteI still don't think I'm getting to the point I offer, but perhaps this helps to understand a little better. I wish I could be more articulate in what I mean to say.
If the words come to me, I shall pass them on. Right now I have a mental block which is quite frustrating. I know what I want to say, but I just can't seem to bring the words to fruition. I guess I'll just have to stick to what i have said previously, and hope people can at least understand my opinions on some level.
Dear Anonymous August 27 5:30 PM,
ReplyDeleteI do not understand how you came to think that I "applauded" the actions of the father and uncle of the 8-year old girl who had been refused the Eucharist by her pastor because she was wearing a mini skirt. I just read my comment again and cannot see how you came to this interpretation.
Anna,
ReplyDeleteConsider that you are pitting your admittedly confused beliefs against the carefully considered conclusions of saints and theologians --
That the teaching about abortion has been consistent since the beginning of the church, two thousand years ago --
That the doctrine is based on Scripture, derived in part from some of the most beautiful verses of the Old and New Testament (God knit us in our mother's womb; John the Baptist leaped with joy in his mother's womb) --
Remember the warning of Jesus about the consequences of doing harm to innocent children.
And if you do not know when life begins, isn't it better, moral, to err on the side of life?
Anna: Actually, I think I do understand what you're saying when you write:
ReplyDeleteThere are Universal laws in our country by which we are expected to uphold. If we don't, we are arrested and judged when we break these laws. But, when it comes to the Church's moral stance, they are not against the law, therefore our choices are our own.
- and that's what I'm questioning.
The Church has many moral positions which are not against the civil law. There is no civil law against living a sexually promiscuous life. There is no civil law against abusing alcohol in the privacy of one's home. There is no civil law against harboring hate in one's heart for one's neighbor. There is no civil law against marrying and divorcing multiple times. There is no civil law against amassing a fortune and ignoring the needs of the poor.
The Church, however, has moral teachings and laws (based on scripture and tradition) in opposition to all these things. If I break these laws I will not be arrested - but I will have sinned, or have run the risk of sin. My culpability may be modified by my personal circumstances but as a Catholic Christian there is a moral law to which I am held accountable by God.
Free will leaves the person of faith the option of obeying or disobeying such laws, but not the option of making such a choice with impunity.
Again, Anna, thank you for this give and take: I believe many others may be benefiting from it.
Anonymous: I don't believe Anna was saying her beliefs are confused - I believe she was saying she was having a difficult time expressing them as clearly as she would like.
ReplyDeleteConcordPastor said...
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: I don't believe Anna was saying her beliefs are confused - I believe she was saying she was having a difficult time expressing them as clearly as she would like.
Thank you Concord Pastor, you said exactly how I feel. And I do on err on the side of life. But I don't feel we can judge a person who chooses to terminate a pregnancy without the knowledge of why they chose to take that route. I just believe that all people make choices, good and bad, but I don't believe that they should be considered sinners across the board. We haven't walked in their shoes.
Thank you Concord Pastor for understanding the difficulty I am having in putting words to my feelings. I have expressed a lot here within this blog, but I still find fragmentation in what I am trying to say. Perhaps I have said too much withing this particular blog, but I have strong beliefs and I appreciate the opportunity to express them.
Thank you and I believe that is the end for me here. I appreciate all the other bloggers and their comments. I embrace differences of opinions and the opportunity to reflect on my own as well as others.
After all, isn't this what it is all about?
"I embrace differences of opinions and the opportunity to reflect on my own as well as others... After all, isn't this what it is all about?"
ReplyDeleteNo. Not for everyone.
I can't pass this by.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that it is not OK to have differeces of opinions?
I think Anna is right in her comment. This blog is here for us to share our thoughts, whether they are the same as our own or not.
I don't think I have seen a post that has offered so many responses. I think that is precisely what it is meant to do. I'd like to see more people responding to posts.
Just curious, anonymous ... why is this not for you? I too, would think the comments of this blog, would contain opinions of what is posted. Why else would we have comments?
ReplyDeleteI do believe human life begins at conception. I do not agree that the Church has always taught this; scientific study over the centuries eventually revealed the processes of embryonic development. Further, there can be reasons for a pregnant woman's feeling overwhelmed by the prospect of a new child, and these reasons can affect her decision even if she believes abortion is the taking of a life. Please let us not judge her.
ReplyDeleteI have never myself had an abortion; however, I was once so afraid to have another child whom I truly believed we could not possibly support that I came close to praying for my own death, feeling that my husband would easily remarry and find another mother for our other children. Logic of course persuaded me that it would probably not please God for me to pray for death while carrying another life, who would die as well, and that I had a responsibility to stay with our other children.(I had had some wild idea it wouldn't be as bad if I died too!) So I never did acually offer that prayer, and we managed to support the family (with difficulty).
I also believe that there are those who do not believe they are taking a life by early abortion. Should I conclude that they are simply selfish? I don't want to conclude anything about any pregnant woman.
I believe Humane Vitae went down the wrong road. Catholics have mostly ignored prohibitions against artificial contraception, and this has probably avoided a terrible dilemma for many women.
Maeve: I believe what you will find in the history of Church teaching is that there have been debates regarding the moment of "ensoulment" of a fetus. However, even in those times, the Church taught that abortion was always a serious sin, before or after the moment of ensoulment.
ReplyDeletePlease see my comment above (Aug 27, 10:21 PM) regarding "judgment."
Thanks, Maeve, for continuing the conversation here.
The following recent statement from the USCCB (in response to the Pelosi interview) may be of value in this thread:
ReplyDeleteWASHINGTON--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, have issued the following statement:
In the course of a “Meet the Press” interview on abortion and other public issues on August 24, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion.
In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law." (No. 2271)
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 teaches 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.
Dear CP,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your attempt to unmuddy the waters, which are crystal-clear of course to you; I do however feel that the bishops' second paragraph is not a masterpiece of clarity, especially the sentence I quote below:
"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."
Does this mean that there would be a difference in penalties but not a difference in the actual degree of sin?
Please remember I am NOT promulgating abortion; I am simply stating that we cannot infallibly read the souls of others.
Thank you for your patience.
Maeve: I'm not a canonist and so I cannot give a precise response to your question about "difference in penalties."
ReplyDeleteAbortion has, however, since the earliest days of the Church, been considered a very grave sin.
You are 100% correct in saying that we cannot infallibly read the souls of others.
We cannot infallibly read the souls of child molesters or of Church officials who failed to halt them in their tracks. We cannot infallibly read the souls of drug pushers or those who provide alcohol for underage drinkers. We cannot infallibly read the souls of slum lords or the owners of sweat shops in the third world. We cannot infallibly read the souls of parents who beat their children, nor of the grandparents who beat those parents when they were young. We cannot infallibly read the souls of gangland hit men. We cannot infallibly read the souls of muggers who accost elderly people on the street. We cannot infallibly read the souls of spouses who are unfaithful to their wives or husbands. We cannot infallibly read the souls of gossips who destroy their neighbors', relatives' or colleagues' reputations. We cannot infallibly read the souls of war mongers or terrorists.
We cannot infallibly read the soul of any person. All we can read is their observable actions - and the harm such actions might bring to them or to others.
To observe that some actions are in violation of God's Word and Church teaching and to urge God's people to live in accord with Christian morality is not to suggest that anyone can infallibly read the souls of those who offend against those teachings.
It's the Church's responsibility both to proclaim the moral truth and to minister pastorally and sensitively to those who transgress it.
Thank you, Maeve, for continuing the discussion.
Thank you, CP, for your patience and knowledge!
ReplyDelete