Journeys of a Catholic Poster Girl

Jeb on his brother’s faith–and faith in politics.

1. My Lent has been pretty…uneventful. With the show it’s hard to fit in time for everything. I’m wondering if I can do like some super-charged Lent after the show closes this weekend? I could go to Stations of the Cross this Wednesday, so I think I may do that.
2. For awhile I’ve been feeling a lot of aridity–no desire to pray, no real desire to “be holy”. Not that I’ve become a bad person or anything, but the things of the Spiritual Realm seem to be reduced to sporadic Bible Reading and nighttime prayers. Need to work on this.
3. I really do LIKE Lent. This year just seems–off. But then again, there is a great story about St. Teresa of Avila, who had many great plans for a certain Lent. But she was bedridden for the entire season. I suppose God knows how we can best serve Him, and will use any means to get our attention!
4. Catholic news: This, in Connecticut, is really appalling. S0rry, but lay people don’t get to have this much say in a diocese. Deal with it. And I believe something called the First Amendment makes this totally unconstitutional.
5. Good Lenten reading (when I actually do it): Lent and Easter with JPII and Death on a Friday Afternoon, by Richard John Neuhaus.
6. I did buy, as part of the St. Francis Project, the prayer book “Praying with St. Francis.” I do like it alot and am thinking about using it for evening prayer, instead of my Magnificat. It has morning and evening prayer, plus short articles on St. Francis, prayer in his time, and the role of prayer books. It’s published by Paraclete Press.

For this:

Sometimes you just need a little Flannery

to get right to the point.

from a letter Flannery O’Connor wrote to a friend:

The Church’s stand on birth control is the most absolutely spiritual of all her stands and with all of us being materialists at heart, there is little wonder that it causes unease. I wish various fathers would quit trying to defend it by saying that the world can support forty billion. I will rejoice in the day when they say: This is right, whether we all rot on top of each other or not, dear children, as we certainly may. Either practice restraint or be prepared for crowding.

So, this year my patron saint is St. Francis of Assisi. I chose him for a few reasons: one, he’s a saint everyone “knows”, but I thought I didn’t really know much about him, other than the rebuilding of the churches, loving animals, and stuff like that. So I thought I needed to know a bit more about him. 

Second, I am applying to Franciscan University of Steubenville to do my MA work. So I thought it wouldn’t hurt to know more about the order’s founder, no? 

I have begun, thus, to read about St. Francis. I will probably create a Google doc, like I have with my Jane project (over on the Bucket), to amass all the info. But right now I’m just reading. 

The first book I read wasn’t precisely about St. Francis, per se. It was My Life With the Saints, by James Martin, S.J.  As the title would indicate, Fr. Martin writes about the different saints that have had an impact on his life, including St. Jude, St. Peter, St. Therese, St. Bernadette, and St. Francis. 

While this wasn’t a biography, more of a personal reflection, I still learned more than I had before–about St. Francis’ family, how his father changed his name to Francis as an homage to France, the founding of the Franciscan order, and St. Francis’ love of song. Martin writes in an engaging style that makes this a fun book to read. 

The second book was a Christmas gift from my friend Richelle– St. Francis of Assisi, by G.K. Chesterton. (The link doesn’t take you to a precise copy, but it’s as good–if not better). Chesterton, with his characteristic wit and insight, gives “an introduction” to St. Francis (which is what he calls it), touching on his life, the historical period, and some good anecdotes. He says several times that his book is for beginners, or those just learning about the saint, which made it perfect for starting my project. 

A handicapped child, even if it is only one among a thousand healthy ones, has its own life to live, as a unique being, alongside that of its parents and its brothers and sisters. Why does God “allow this”? Let us beware of “glib” answers. Where the question “Why?” is concerned, only the response of solidarity can convince anyone. I, too, might have been this handicapped child. It has the same human existence and the same dignity as I do. It is a living challenge to me: Be the kind of person to me that you would wish for if you were in my place. How much love has come into the world by this painful means!

–Chirstoph Cardinal Schonborn, Chance or Purpose?: Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith (102-103)

(h/t NRO)

What Ardent Practicing Catholics Do
Correcting Pelosi.

An NRO Primary Document

EDITOR’S NOTE: Fr. John De Celles, STL, is an associate pastor at Old St. Mary’s Church in Alexandria, Va. This is his homily for the 22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time (Aug. 31, 2008), as prepared for delivery.  In last week’s Gospel we heard Jesus’ words to Peter:  I say to you, you are Peter [Rock], and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” But this week we find the incredible thing that happens right after that, as Jesus tells Peter: “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me.”  How does Peter go from being called the “Rock” of the Church to being compared to “Satan”?  First of all, see how Jesus tells Peter about the keys in response to Peter publicly proclaiming: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” But Jesus chastises Peter after Peter spoke to Him in private; Scripture says: “Then Peter took Jesus aside and began to rebuke him.” The keys relate to Peter’s public proclamation, the rebuke pertains to Peter’s private, personal words to Jesus. Also, we see that Peter’s public proclamation was about a dogma of faith: that Jesus is the Christ and Son of God. But his private rebuke was about his personal desire for Jesus’ safety: “God forbid [you be killed in Jerusalem].” And again, when Jesus gives Peter the keys, he blesses Peter for listening to God: “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.” But when he chastises Peter he says: “You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” In all this Jesus teaches us that although many Popes would be less than perfect as individuals He, Christ, would always protect them in the public proclamation of the truths of the Gospel. Because of that all Catholics are bound, by Christ, to follow the definitive teaching of the Popes, And when do not hold ourselves bound by the Pope’s teaching the gates of hell will inevitably prevail against us. Of course this can mean personal disaster: sin. But it can also mean social disaster.  For example, in the year 1839 in a document called “In Supremo,” Pope Gregory XVI reiterated the Church’s ancient teaching against slavery, specifically reproaching those who: dare to …reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples…. as if they were not humans but rather mere animals. Unfortunately, some Catholics, in particular, some American bishops — especially Southernbishops— tried to argue that the doctrine didn’t apply to American slavery, because somehow it was “different.” It seems, caught up in the prevailing attitude of the world around them, these bishops twisted the clear teaching of the popes into something that makes us sick to think of today. They fell into the trap that St. Paul warns against in today’s 2nd reading: Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God.” This, shall we say, confusion among the American bishops of course led the laity to be confused as well. And that confusion led to a terrible social disaster just a few years later, when in 1857, a supposedly “devout Catholic” named Roger Taney, writing as the fifth Chief Justice of the United States, wrote the opinion in the Supreme Court case known as Dred Scott, upholding the institution of slavery in the America. This is what happens when bishops — and priests — fail to clearly teach, or purposefully dissent from the well defined doctrine of the Church, handed on and protected by the office of Peter. The gates of hell prevail in society: slavery, the Civil War, and a 100 more years of racial oppression. But when Peter is heard and obeyed, wonderful things can happen. Almost exactly a century after the Dred Scott case, in 1956, an American Catholic bishop humbly accepted the teaching of the popes, and even in the face of the mockery and violence, refused to conform himself to the world he lived in — the world of racial segregation of the deep South. His name was Francis Rummel, the Archbishop of New Orleans, and what he did was desegregate the Catholic schools of his archdiocese. And when large groups of Catholic lay people continued try to block his efforts, after ample warning, he excommunicated their leaders. Imagine if the American Catholic bishops of the mid-1800s had been as obedient and courageous as Archbishop Rummel in implementing the teaching of Pope Gregory: if they had stood united against slavery. Maybe the Dred Scott case would have been decided the same way, but it probably would have been without Roger Taney’s help.  Now, some say if the Catholic bishops and priests in the South had actively opposed slavery they would been both marginalized and actively persecuted. Maybe. But the Prophet Jeremiah records the same problem in today’s 1st reading: “All the day I am an object of laughter; everyone mocks me.” Even so, he felt compelled to proclaim the truth — and did: “I say to myself, I will not mention him, …But then it becomes like fire burning in my heart…” Some say all southern Catholics would’ve been persecuted, or that southerners would have left the Catholic Church in droves. Maybe. But that sounds a little like Peter, when he “rebuked” Jesus because he was afraid that Jesus might be harmed in Jerusalem. And Jesus told him: “Get behind me Satan.” Didn’t Jesus tells us: Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me…. ? I wish I could say this kind of thing is all behind us, but I can’t. Of course slavery is behind us, but unfortunately, many Catholics now accept an even greater social evil. Because while it’s horrible to take away an innocent person’s freedom, it is clearly even worse to take away an innocent person’s life. And so we face the abomination of the 21st century: abortion. #more# Yet the popes in our time have taught very clearly on this as well: the Church has constantly andinfallibly condemned abortion as a grave evil — a mortal sin. From the first century teaching in the book called the Didache: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.’”To the 20 th century teaching of Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae: by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors ….I declare that direct abortion… always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.” Fortunately, virtually all the American bishops see this very clearly. Maybe they don’t all always speak up about it as they might. Still, one wonders if they imitated Archbishop Rummel, acting a bit more forcefully, if there wouldn’t be less confusion among Catholics about this terrible evil. But the bishops are not silent. This last week I counted at least 13 bishops who, in very strong and unambiguous terms, publicly condemned abortion and corrected those who support abortion. Unfortunately, or providentially, their hands were forced. They had to react to the public remarks made by a Catholic Politician,Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, as she publicly defended abortion on “Meet the Press” last Sunday. She argued “over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy.” and disingenuously sought to defend herself by twisting the teaching of the greatest theologian in the history of the Church, St. Augustine.  For the record, and summarizing the bishops’ responses: this is a load of bunk. Now, it is true that St. Augustine did wonder when the soul entered the body of the baby, andguessed that that occurred at about 3 months gestation. But 2 things to remember. First, Augustine lived in the 4th century and worked with 4th century biology: he had no clue about the development of the fetus. So he thought the soul entered the baby’s body sometime around the “quickening” — when the mother first feels the baby begin to move. But a careful reading of Augustine shows that he knew he was only guessing and working with limited science, and that if he had today’s science he would have agreed with the clear conclusion of medical science today that the embryo is alive at conception.  Second, even so, Augustine, like all the Fathers, condemned abortion from the first moment of conception, not merely after quickening. It’s true that there was a greater penalty for abortions committed after the quickening, but that was mainly because in those days, before the marvel of ultrasound, the movement of the baby was when there was absolutely certainty that the baby was alive. And with greater certainty comes greater culpability.  Finally, even if there was “a controversy” in the past, which is there was not, there can is nocontroversy today. Again, turn to Peter, and see the absolutely unambiguous language of John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae that I quoted earlier, and that Pope Benedict XVI quotes over and over again in his writings: “direct abortion…always constitutes a grave moral disorder.” And consider John Paul’s equally unequivocal words later in that same document: Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is … a grave and clear obligation to oppose them … [I]t is therefore never licit to … “take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.” In other words: it is always a grave or mortal sin for a politician to support abortion. Now, some will want to say that these bishops—and I— are crossing the line from Religion into to politics. But it was the Speaker of the House who started this. The bishops, and I, are not crossing into politics; she, and other pro-abortion Catholic politicians, regularly cross over into teaching theology and doctrine, And it’s our job to try clean up their mess.  But there’s something more than that here. On Sunday, before the whole nation, she claimed to be an “ardent, practicing Catholic.” Imagine if someone came in here and said “I’m a mafia hit man and I’m proud of it.” Or “I deal drugs to little children.” Or “I think black people are animals and it’s okay to make them slaves, or at least keep them out of my children’s school.” Are these “ardent practicing Catholics”? No, they are not.  And neither is a person who ardently supports and votes to fund killing 1 to 1.5 million unborn babies every single year. Especially if that person is in a position of great power trying to get others to follow her. Someone, for example, like a Catholic Speaker of the House, or a Catholic candidate for Vice President of the United States, or a Catholic senior Senator who is stands as the leading icon his political party. Like the proud and unrepentant murderer or drug dealer, they are not ardent Catholics. They are, in very plain terms, very bad Catholics. But the reason I say all this is not because I want to embarrass them or even correct them — they’re not even here. It’s because of you. Because back in the 1850’s when Catholic bishops, priests, and politicians were either silent or on the wrong side of the slavery debate, they risked not only their souls, but the souls of every other Catholic they influenced. I cannot do that, and Iwon’t do that. Some would say, well Father, what about those people who support the war in Iraq, or the death penalty, or oppose undocumented aliens, Aren’t those just as important, and aren’t Catholic politicians who support those “bad Catholics” too?  Simple answer: no. Not one of those issues, or any other similar issues, except for the attack on traditional marriage is a matter of absolute intrinsic evil in itself. Not all wars are unjust — and good Catholics can disagree on facts and judgments. Same thing with the other issues: facts are debatable, as are solutions to problems. But some things leave no room for debate. One of these is that it is always gravely evil to enslave human beings as if they were animals. And another is that it is always gravely evil to kill an innocent human life being — particularly the unborn. So, as Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to the American bishops just 10 months before he became Pope Benedict XVI: There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion…. Now, all this is not about bashing a politician, or about politics. And it’s not about telling you how to vote. Its about the truth and the teaching of Christ and his Church. About learning from the terrible mistakes of the past in order not to repeat those mistakes today. It’s about warning you against following those who would lead you to believe that you don’t have to love your neighbor because she’s still in her mother’s womb. It’s about following Christ in perfect union with his Church and his Pope, even when it’s difficult, even when it means picking up your cross.  As we enter more deeply into the mystery of Christ’s Cross and Resurrection in this Holy Mass, let us pray for ourselves, and for one another, and for our leaders in the Church and in public life. That each one of us may never conform ourselves to this age, but may be transformed by the renewal of our minds, always discerning the will of God. That we may be true followers of Christ, and in the most honest sense of the words, “ardent practicing Catholics.”

Even our friend Rev. Reese of America fame says politicians should leave theology to…theologians.  

Politics can be treacherous. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi walked on even riskier ground in a recent TV interview when she attempted a theological defense of her support for abortion rights.

Roman Catholic bishops consider her arguments on St. Augustine and free will so far out of line with church teaching that they have issued a steady stream of statements to correct her.

The latest came Wednesday from Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik, who said Pelosi, D-Calif., “stepped out of her political role and completely misrepresented the teaching of the Catholic Church in regard to abortion.”

It has been a harsh week of rebuke for the Democratic congresswoman, a Catholic school graduate who repeatedly has expressed pride in and love for her religious heritage.

Cardinals and archbishops in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York and Denver are among those who have criticized her remarks. Archbishop George Niederauer, in Pelosi’s hometown of San Francisco, will take up the issue in the Sept. 5 edition of the archdiocesan newspaper, his spokesman said.

Sunday, on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program, Pelosi said “doctors of the church” have not been able to define when life begins.

She also cited the role of individual conscience. “God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions,” she said.

Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi, said in a statement defending her remarks that she “fully appreciates the sanctity of family” and based her views on conception on 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.’”

But whether or not parishioners choose to accept it, the theology on the procedure is clear. From its earliest days, Christianity has considered abortion evil.

“This teaching has remained unchanged and remains unchangeable,” according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. “Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.”

The Rev. Douglas Milewski, a Seton Hall University theologian who specializes in Augustine, said Pelosi seems to be confusing church teaching on abortion with the theological debate over when a fetus receives a soul.

“Saint Augustine wondered about the stages of human development before birth, how this related to the question of ensoulment and what it meant for life in the Kingdom of God,” Milewski said.

Questions about ensoulment related to determining penalties under church law for early and later abortions, not deciding whether the procedure is permissible, according to the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities.

Augustine was “quite clear on the immorality of abortion as evil violence, destructive of the very fabric of human bonds and society,” Milewski said.

Regarding individual decision-making, the church teaches that Catholics are obliged to use their conscience in considering moral issues. However, that doesn’t mean parishioners can pick and choose what to believe and still be in line with the church.

Lisa Sowle Cahill, a theologian at Boston College, said conscience must be formed by Catholic teaching and philosophical insights. “It’s not just a personal opinion that you came up with randomly,” she said.

Catholic theologians today overwhelmingly consider debate over the morality of abortion settled. Thinkers and activists who attempt to challenge the theology are often considered on the fringes of church life.

However, there is a rigorous debate over how the teaching should guide voters and public officials. Are Catholics required to choose the candidate who opposes abortion? Or can they back a politician based on his or her policies on reducing, not outlawing, the procedure?

The U.S. bishops addressed this question in their election-year public policy guide, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.”

They said that voting for a candidate specifically because he or she supports “an intrinsic evil” such as abortion amounts to “formal cooperation in grave evil.”

In some cases, Catholics may vote for a candidate with a position contrary to church teaching, but only for “truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences,” according to the document.

It is a complex discussion. The Rev. Thomas Reese, senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, has some advice for candidates who seek to join the debate: Stick to politics – and support programs that truly help reduce the number of abortions.

“It is a big mistake,” Reese said, “for politicians to talk theology.”

Yes, this is long, but read the whole thing!

As always, my favorite online priest, Fr. Z, is on the Pelosi case:

GOP demands Pelosi apology for abortion comments

By Bob Cusack

Posted: 08/27/08 01:24 PM [ET]

DENVER —House Republicans are demanding that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) apologize for her recent comments on abortion, saying they “mangle Catholic Church doctrine.” 

The letter comes just a day after Archbishop Donald Wuerl, for the second time in a week, [second time?  Where?  When? What?] slapped down the Speaker’s theological explanation for her support of abortion rights.

Pelosi, a Catholic, said on Sunday’s edition of “Meet the Press” that the moment of conception has long been an issue of controversy in the Catholic Church. In a highly unusual move, Wuerl publicly corrected Pelosi on doctrine, and New York Archbishop Edward Cardinal Egan said he was “shocked” by her comments. 

Egan said, “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. … 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.”

Now, a group of 19 Catholic Republican House members are also expressing their outrage. In a letter sent to Pelosi, they write, “[Y]our erroneous claim about the history of the Church’s opposition to abortion is false and denigrates our common Faith.”

They point out that in 1679, the Church unequivocally said it is in “an error for Catholics to believe fetuses do not have a soul.”

The Republicans’ letter concludes, “To reduce the scandal and consternation caused amongst the faithful by your remarks, we necessarily write to you to correct the public record and affirm the Church’s actual and historical teaching that defends the sanctity of human life. We hope that you will rectify your errant claims and apologize for misrepresenting the Church’s doctrine and misleading fellow Catholics.”

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly issued a statement Tuesday in which the Speaker stood by her comments. He said that not all Catholics believe that life begins at conception and cited St. 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.”

Wuerl blasted Pelosi’s statement, saying the “philosophical discussion of St. Augustine’s time is not relevant today.” [Not sure about that.  I think it isentirely relevant.  What Augustine has to say is helpful and we haven’t, I suspect, gotten to the bottom of what he was really struggling with… but I’ll get to that eventually.  What is important is that Augustine’s teachings are not the equivalent of the modern Magisterium.]

In his statement, Daly also said, “The Speaker agrees with the Church that we should reduce the number of abortions. She believes that can be done bymaking family planning more available, as well as by increasing the number of comprehensive age-appropriate sex education and caring adoption programs.” [That is greater distribution of contraceptives, most of which are abortifacients and also of invasive sex-education.  Speaker Pelosi should review The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality.]

Asked for comment on the House Republican letter, Daly referred to Tuesday’s statement.

The GOP members who signed the letter are: Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.), John Boehner (Ohio), Steve Chabot (Ohio), Virginia Foxx (N.C.), Phil Gingrey (Ga.), Peter King (N.Y.), Steve King (Iowa), Daniel Lungren (Calif.), Devin Nunes (Calif.), John Sullivan (Okla.), Patrick Tiberi (Ohio), Phil English (Pa.), Jean Schmidt (Ohio), Jim Walsh (N.Y.), Jeff Fortenberry (Neb.), Michael McCaul (Texas), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Walter Jones (N.C.) and Mike Ferguson (N.J.).

 

• • • • • •

Catholic dissenter and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi thinks she can use a 1500 year old sound bite from St. Augustine (+430) to confound the clear teaching of the Catholic Churchon when human life begins.

We need a public retraction from the Speaker.

And she really needs to stop with the St. Augustine thing.

Find out what St. Augustine really says about abortion and when fetuses are ensouled or vivified.

Remember:

1) Augustine’s writings, while important, are not equivalent in authority to the formal teaching of the Catholic Church.

2) We know more today about embryology than people did in the 5th century.

3) Ignorant as they might have been about biology, 5th century Christians still believed abortion was evil.  

Consider that the

USCCB

the

Cardinal Archbishop of New York
Cardinal Archbishop of Philadelphia
Archbishop of Washington DC (go fam!)
Archbishop of Denver

all issued statements to correct and redress the falsehoods about Catholic doctrine on the beginning of human life stated on network television pro-abortion Catholic Speaker of the House of Representatives.

I cannot imagine this would have happened even two years ago.

 

So you know how some people (like, OK, me) occasionally say they’d like to hear the bishops speak out on this pro-choice Catholic politicians taking communion thing? 

Well, thank God, they finally have, in response to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) theological stupidity.

What the Speaker said, on Meet the Press: (emphasis and comments mine) 

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 (that would be St. Thomas Aquinas, not St. Augustine).  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.

(we’ll forget the fact that she confused St. Augustine with St. Thomas Aquinas for one minute)

And I guess 70 AD is, um, 50 years ago. (this link also has a video! and h/t dad for the linkage)

Well apparently this travesty of theology could not go unremarked upon by the higher-ups. So:

First, from my cousin (family love flying high right now). Here’s the press release

The following statement is from Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl: 

On Meet the Press this past Sunday, August 23, 2008, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made statements regarding the teaching of the Catholic Church, human life and abortion that were incorrect. 

Speaker Pelosi responded to a question on when life begins by mentioning she was Catholic. She went on to say, “And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition…” After Mr. Tom Brokaw, the interviewer, pointed out that the Catholic Church feels strongly that life begins at conception, she replied, “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.”

We respect the right of elected officials such as Speaker Pelosi to address matters of public policy that are before them, but the interpretation of Catholic faith has rightfully been entrusted to the Catholic bishops. Given this responsibility to teach, it is important to make this correction for the record.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear: the current teaching of the Catholic Church on human life and abortion is the same teaching as it was 2,000 years ago. The Catechism reads: 

“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception…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.” (Catechism, 2270-2271)

The Catechism goes on to quote the Didache, a treatise that dates to the first century: “’You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.’”

From the beginning, the Catholic Church has respected the dignity of all human life from the moment of conception to natural death. 

And then, from Cardinal Egan in NYC: (h/t Corner)

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

I guess the real key to getting an episcopal reaction is to go on National TV and really, really flub up Catholic theology. 

I also liked Archbishop Chaput’s call for V-P candidate Biden not to receive communion. 

As Archbishop Chaput said, “BE CATHOLIC.” You have to take what the Church believes hook, line and sinker if you’re going to be Catholic, the way we’re supposed to be, if our faith is our “North Star” (Arch. Chaput). You can’t just muddle the theology and hem and haw to try to make it support your position if it doesn’t. 

#mce_temp_url#, in his homily last night (as reported by KLO)

The message? BE CATHOLIC. Don’t “pretend.”