Journeys of a Catholic Poster Girl

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.” 

And assorted notes.

From the Corner:

Popes Must Speak Out for Peace [Michael Novak]

That is what popes are intended to do — they are to represent Christ, the Prince of Peace, in a world that is and has always been a maelstrom of passions, conflict, and wars. Popes have sometimes been warlike, but that ill becomes their office, and nearly always causes lasting repugnance.

That is why in 2003 many Americans who believed that the war in Iraq was justified, also believed that it was very good for Pope John Paul II to oppose the war. The pope should not be, and should not even be allowed to seem to be, a proponent of war, especially of a war with so many complex religious tendrils, and with so many centuries of conflicted history. It was right and just for Pope John Paul II to oppose the war.
The role and munus (office, burden, duty) of the presidents of nations are different. Presidents must make a probable judgment about the long-run implications both of inaction and action, and about what in the long run will have been the most creative path for them to have taken. These are excruciating judgments, for they usually involve long-run costs, discouragements, and difficulties. Many of us of a certain age remember the long sacrifices and costs of World War II.

This background is important to grasp, since Pope Benedict XVI will almost certainly judge that he is duty-bound to call for the violence in Iraq to cease. The edge of his words will be felt more sharply here, where he delivers them, than among Al Sadr and his Shia militias, who are now causing so much of the violence in three cities in Iraq. The Shiites militias very much want the Americans will stop fighting, and to depart.

The pope may also continue saying, as he has often in the last year, that the religious freedom and dignity of every person in Iraq must be protected, and minority populations (in this case, one of the oldest continuous Christian communities in the world) must be especially respected. He may repeat his deep conviction that violence is contrary to the nature of God.

Benedict XVI may also wish the future of democracy and the rule of law in Iraq to flower fully, and to be long-lasting. He may express the hope that these will bear good fruit for justice and human dignity throughout the Middle East, and all around the world.

The pope is not primarily a political player, and yet the cultural and moral power of his words and actions may this week well have long political consequences. On the record, we are entitled to have confidence in Benedict’s bravery, balance of mind, and concern to do his duty.

Fr. Neuhaus in yesterday’s WaPo:

edict is not a showman, as many – intending praise or blame – said his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, was. Benedict is a priest and professor who finds himself in the unexpected position of being pastor of a universal church of 1.2 billion people. This visit to America is a pastoral visit, and he will do what good pastors do: teach, encourage, and gently correct where necessary. The best way to understand Benedict is to listen carefully to what he says.

Many who claim to be perplexed by Benedict wonder how the harsh doctrinal “enforcer” under John Paul II can reinvent himself as the benign father of the family of the faithful. (The word “pope” has its origins in “papa.”) No reinvention is necessary. Those of us who have known him for many years, recognize in Benedict the invariably gentle manner of the learned and intellectually curious Joseph Ratzinger. If there is a surprise in these first three years, it is that Ratzinger, who very much wanted to retire to his scholarly pursuits, seems to enjoy being pope.

Key to understanding the man is that he is much more of an Augustinian than a Thomist. Of all the great doctors (i.e. teachers) of the Catholic intellectual tradition, the fifth century St. Augustine and the thirteenth century St. Thomas Aquinas are the great lights by which most schools of thought are defined. To be sure, there are Augustinian Thomists and Thomist Augustinians, and the distinctions often have more to do with sensibility than substance. Put all too roughly, Thomists are devoted to a systematic presentation of unchanging principles of reason, while Augustinians are given to a discursive account of the complexities of mind and heart in pursuit of the right ordering of love to the truth, and ultimately to absolute truth, who is God.

Perhaps the best known words of Augustine are these: “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.” Benedict’s first encyclical (teaching letter) is titled Deus Caritas Est – God is Love – in which Thomas gets one footnote to dozens from Augustine. Benedict recently said at the funeral of a friend, “Christianity is not an intellectual system, a collection of dogmas, or a moral system. Christianity is an encounter, a love story, an event.”

In Benedict’s telling, it is in the first place the story of God’s unqualified love for and commitment to the human project. He speaks frequently of Jesus Christ as “the human face of God.” While the Church says “no” to this and “no” to that, every “no” is in the service of a much greater “yes.” Against a sometimes dry intellectualism or restrictive moralism, Benedict presents the way of Christ as a high adventure of mind and heart toward the transcendental realities of the good, the true, and the beautiful. In sum, Christianity is an invitation to say “yes” to God’s “yes” in Jesus Christ.

This Augustinian pope has a very high estimate of human reason, and in his United Nations address this week I expect he will address the rational grounds for commitment to human rights and the dignity of the human person. Reason was also the centerpiece of his “controversial” lecture at Regensburg University in September, 2006, where he challenged Muslims to recognize that the use of violence in advancing religion is “to act against reason and therefore to act against the nature of God.”

A constant theme of Benedict’s is that, when rightly understood, there is no conflict between religion and science, faith and reason, heart and mind. Theories to the contrary, he contends, are both unreasonable and de-humanizing because they fail to offer an adequate account of the limits, possibilities, and complexities of the human experience. His message is one of prophetic humanism.

This week Benedict will be addressing many issues, both those internal to the Church and those related to the culture and the world. To understand Benedict, listen to what he says, and listen most closely to what he says about what it means to be a human being fully alive. ++++++++++

Father Richard John Neuhaus is editor in chief of First Things, the monthly magazine of religion, culture, and public life.

And, from Newsweek, two opposing stories:
George Weigel
And this.

I have finally finished St. Augustine’s Confessions. Whew. I have to say that the last four books were a bit slow going, since he switches to theology, as opposed to the story of his life, which had been in the nine preceding books. But it was much better this time around (thank you, Good OUP Translantion!) and I am glad I have read it (again).

…from the third.
I’m talking about St. Augustine and his Confessions.
Most people that are into classical/theological lit have heard of it. A few of us have read it in its entirety. I tried once, and failed miserably. I just didn’t get it. What was everyone raving about?
Now I know. It’s been two years since I last tried to read it, and now, armed with a new translation, I have discovered the incredible wisdom and richness of Augustinian prose.
Augustine is far from a ivory-tower saint. This is a guy who dabbled with women (having a child with one of them), calling himself a “slave of lust”, while being engaged to a girl (and I do mean girl; he had to wait until she was 12 to marry her. He was over 20 by this time.). He stole, caroused, got drunk, and pursued many other activities familiar to twenty-first century frat boys. His mother, St. Monica, certainly earned her “St.” with him as a son. He left Hippo to go to Rome and Milan, teaching rhetoric to support his high living lifestyle.
Yet, somehow, God found him (in no small matter due to his mother’s unceasing prayers), he became a Christian, and, eventually, Bishop of Hippo (in North Africa).

I haven’t finished this re-through yet, but I am enthralled. This should be required reading. (Nerdy book note: PLEASE get the translation I linked to above, if you’re going to read this. It is readable, elegant and VASTLY superior to the other one I tried, which I believe was published by Signet.)

Late have I loved you, beauty so old and so new; late have I loved you. And see, you were within and I was in the external world and sought you there, and in my unlovely state I plunged into those lovely created things which you made. You were with me, and I was not with you. The lovely things kept me far from you, though if they did not have their existence in you, they had no existence at all. You called out and shattered my deafness. You were radiant and resplendent, you put flight to by blindness. You were fragrant, and I drew in my breath and now pant after you. I tasted you, and I feel but hunger and thirst for you. You touched me, and I am set on fire to attain the peace which is yours. (Book X, 38)

I’ve been reading Chesteron’s Orthodoxy, and I thought I’d share some of my favorite passages (thus far):

The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.

The lunatic’s theory explains a large number of things, but it does not explain them in a large way.

How much larger your life would be if your self could become smaller!

A Christian is only restricted in the same sense that an atheist is restricted. He cannot think Christianity false and continue to be a Christian; and the atheist cannot think atheism false and continue to be an atheist.

The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest spec of spirtualism or miracle.

Materialists and madmen never have doubts.

Mysticism keeps one sane.

But the cross, though it has at its heart a collision and a contradiction, can extend its four arms for ever without altering its shape. Because it has a paradox in its center it can grow without changing. The cross opens its arms to the four winds; it is a signpost for free travellers.

What we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. …a man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth.

We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication tables. We are in danger of seeing philosophers who doubt the law of gravity as being a mere fancy of their own.

Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.

In the act of destroying the idea of Divine authority we have largely destroyed the idea of that human authority by which we do a long-division sum. With a long and sustained tug we have attempted to pull the mitre off pontifical man; and his head has come off with it.

I am still as much concerned as ever about the Battle of Armagedoon; but I am not so much concerned about the General Election [E note: well, not me, so much...]

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.

One may understand the cosmos, but never the ego; the self is more distant than any star.

Remember..that to be breakable is not the same as to be perishable.

It may be that our tragedy has touched the gods, that they admire it from their starry galaxies, and that at the end of every human drama man is called again and again before the curtain.

[T]he materialist, like the madman, is in prison; in the prison of one thought.

This cosmos is indeed without peer and without price; for there cannot be another one.

[T]he proper form of thanks to it is some fore of humility and retraint.

We ow[e]…an obedience to whatever made us.

Book I’m reading: Salt of the Earth

Books upcoming:

• Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton
• Confessions, St. Augustine (yes, again, in a better translation!)

From Magnificat (with some of my own additions):

Elizabeth Ann Bayley Seton was born on August 28, 1774, in New york City, to a wealth and distinguished Episcopalian family. She was baptized in the Episcopal faith and was a faithful adherent to the Episcopal Church of England. Her mother died when she was a child and her father was a physician. In 1794, Elizabeth married businessman William Seton, and they raised five children in New York City. Her husband suffered a catastrophic business failure which forced the family to sell their home and depend on the kindness of relatives. William contracted tuberculosis and Elizabeth and Anna, one of their daughters, accompanied him to Leghorn, Italy, where he sought a cure. Sadly, he died there, and Elizabeth and Anna went to live for a time with the Felicci family, wealthy Italians who were friends of William’s. Impressed by their deep faith, Elizabeth decided to convert to Catholicsm upon her return to America. She made her professsion of faith in 1805, much to the displeasure of her family. At the behest of Bishop John Carroll, Elizabeth established the her Catholic school in Balitmore in 1808, which was open to all students regardless of their family’s ability in pay. In 1809 she founded the Daughters of Charity in Emmitsburg, Maryland. Her two boys were educated at Mount St. Mary’s and joined the American navy. Elizabeth lost two of her daughters, Anna and Rebecca, to tuberculosis. Her daughter Katherine survived. Her community spread to New York state, and as far as St. Louis, before she died on January 4, 1821. She was declared a Saint (the first American-born) by Pope Paul VI on September 14, 1975.

From St. Elizabeth’s writings:

O Father, the first rule of our dear Saviour’s life was to do your will. Let his will of the present moment be the first rule of our daily life and work, with no other desire but for its most full and complete accomplishment. Help us to follow it faithfully, so that doing what you wish we will be pleasing to you.

Lord Jesus, who was born for us in a stable, lived for us a life of pain and sorrow and died for us upon the cross; say for us in the hour of death, “Father, forgive,” and to your Mother, “behold your child.” Say to us, “This day you shall be with me in paradise.” Dear Saviour, leave us not, forsake us not. We thirst for you, Fountain of Living Water. Our days pass quickly along; soon all will be consummated for us. To your hands, we commend our spirits, not and forever. Amen.

St. Elizabeth Ann Seton is one of my favorite saints. I’ve seen the movie A Time for Miracles many times, and it helps butress my own feeling of vocation. In my ideal life, I would like to be her–married to a man she loved, children, a nun, a foundress, a teacher, etc. Her life was hard, I know. But still, she encompassed every part of a woman’s life in a truly unique way.

In grade school my parents took us to Emmitsburg to see St. Elizabeth’s home and school. You can still see the original school house she and the sisters used. St. Elizabeth is buried on the property, along with her children. It is a beautiful and peaceful place.

Some links:

On her life

Seton shrine in NYC (lower Manhattan)

The Emmitsburg Shrine (National shrine)

I don’t normally make resolutions (because I can never keep them, ha), but I found this at the Anchoress, and it seems like something worth incorporating into daily spiritual life. So maybe saying this (and trying to live it!) can be my resolution!

Daily Decalogue of Pope John XXIII

1. Only for today, I will seek to live the livelong day positively without wishing to solve the problems of my life all at once.
2. Only for today, I will take the greatest care of my appearance: I will dress modestly; I will not raise my voice; I will be courteous in my behavior; I will not criticize anyone; I will not claim to improve or to discipline anyone except myself.
3. Only for today, I will be happy in the certainty that I was created to be happy, not only in the other world but also in this one.
4. Only for today, I will adapt to circumstances, without requiring all circumstances to be adapted to my own wishes.
5. Only for today, I will devote ten minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul.
6. Only for today, I will do one good deed and not tell anyone about it.
7. Only for today, I will do at least one thing I do not like doing; and it my feelings are hurt, I will make sure no one notices.
8. Only for today, I will make a plan for myself: I may not follow it to the letter, but I will make it. And I will be on guard against two evils: hastiness and indecision.
9. Only for today, I will firmly believe, despite appearances, that the good Providence of God cares for me as no one else who exists in this world.
10. Only for today, I will have no fears. In particular, I will not be afraid to enjoy what is beautiful and to believe in goodness. Indeed, for twelve hours I can certainly do what might cause me consternation were I to believe I had to do it all my life.

Happy New year, everyone! I hope 2008 brings all of you peace and joy in Our Lord Jesus Christ.