« Palin Plane Not Sold on e-bay, not for a profit, sold to GOP contributor
Joe Biden’s Take On The Republican Convention »



ArchBishop of SanFran “Invites” Nancy Pelosi 3rd in Line To Be POTUS, to “A Conversation”

September 5th, 2008
By DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, Assistant Editor, TMV Columnist

Print Print

Catholicism is rife with euphemisms, and …following the Pope’s actual intentions and motives is often reduced to a kind of Pope-omancy, interpreting a gesture or a smile as carrying volumes of unspoken information about the actual skivvy. The Church is not known for revealing the roots of its choices and decisions; nor its back-room gamblings and gambolings, so to speak.

However, being “invited’ to come speak with/ appear before the Archbishop is somewhat like being called to the Principal’s Office to, um, ‘chat.’ It is not high tea. It is not a social call, no matter how it might be spun afterward.

This, just in a few minutes ago from The National Catholic Reporter, the USA’s largest weekly online/print Catholic Newspaper, read by many whom some would call progressives, and as well as read by many that some would call conservatives.

SAN FRANCISCO — Calling recent nationally broadcast comments by U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi “in serious conflict with the teachings of the Catholic church,” Archbishop George H. Niederauer of San Francisco in a Sept. 5 statement underscored church teaching on abortion, the beginning of human life, and the formation of conscience — and invited the Catholic lawmaker “into a conversation with me about these matters.”

The statement was carried in the Sept. 5 issue of Catholic San Francisco, newspaper of the archdiocese.

Many Catholics “have written me letters and sent me e-mails in which they expressed their dismay and concern about the Speaker’s remarks,” the archbishop said, adding, “Very often they moved on to a question that caused much discussion during the 2004 campaign: Is it necessary to deny Holy Communion to some Catholics in public life because of their public support for abortion on demand?”

“The practice of the church is to accept the conscientious self-appraisal of each person” when he or she approaches for Communion, he wrote, alluding to Canon 912. He also quoted the U.S. bishops’ 2006 document, “Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper”: “…we should be cautious when making judgments about whether or not someone else should receive Holy Communion.”

However, he continued, again quoting from the 2006 bishops’ document, “If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of the church, or knowingly and obstinately repudiate her definitive teachings on moral issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain.”

You can read the rest of the article here

——–
disclosure: I’m a weekly columnist at The National Catholic Reporter online



This entry was posted on Friday, September 5th, 2008 at 6:25 pm and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, Pope, California, Vatican, Roman Catholics, Nancy Pelosi, Abortion. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 14 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    However, he continued, again quoting from the 2006 bishops’ document, “If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of the church, or knowingly and obstinately repudiate her definitive teachings on moral issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain.”

    With all due respect, this attitude really pisses me off. In fact, I used to be a deacon in my church, but no more -- and for this very reason. I could not stay silent on it, even though that is all it would have taken. And that alone is instructive. It's also sad, because it shows how narrowly the lines have been drawn. It's a long story, but let me see if I can percolate it down to its essence.

    It seems to me that the abortion issue is the least of the most. In other words, it is my opinion that ALL human life needs to be considered, not just the portion that happens before birth. I appreciate that my pastor makes attempts in that regard, attempts which I applaud and join. And I would never, ever counsel any woman (or much more preferably, any couple) to have an abortion. But by the same token I cannot, in good conscience, reject anyone who makes a different decision. The fact is, the church itself will not make a commitment, unconditional or otherwise, to the child they insist should be born if conceived. That's one thing. And it's a biggie. The other is that the church's insistence on the notion that life begins at conception is itself fairly thin on tradition. But more than that, it is inconsistent: there is no similar edicts against those who visit an invitro fertilization clinic and elect not to implant every single embryo so derived from being introduced into the mother's womb. The disconnect is remarkably obvious. And one that I cannot, in good conscience, accept. And I don't care what the freakin' pope says. If he can't close the circle in every way, shape, and form, I find it presumptuous of him to require his flock to concentrate on that least of such a large most.
    • ^
    • v
    Rico: what you wrote about in vitro isn't accurate. The Church doesn't condone in vitro fertilization at all, let alone the setting aside of some of the embryos. Have you been told otherwise?

    As far as I know, the only issue still up for debate is whether to consider the 'adoption' of frozen embryos as morally acceptable. I think on the pro side, if embryos have been created than there's an obligation to try to protect that life and bring it to fruition, but I think the con side of the argument is that the Church doesn't want to encourage the practice at all. It's hard to find a consistent line in that, really.

    Here's a reference for you on the Pope's statements:
    http://www.catholic.org/international/internati...
    • ^
    • v
    CStanley, the point I was trying to make was that the Catholic Church does not make the same kind of issue of those couples who engage in invitro fertilization and who do not ensure that all of the embryos so created are not given a chance for life. Perhaps more importantly is the other thing I mentioned -- that the church offers no guarantee, or any attempt at a guarantee, that any child born will be appropriately cared for. As with almost any church (in fact all of them I am aware of), it you decide to leave the flock you're on your own. And that, to me, strikes at the very heart of the culture wars. Think about it.

    I might add that though it affects the lesser of us on occasion, the hierarchy goes after the prominent among us. And that, to me, is not Christian. That's secular BS.
    • ^
    • v
    I think that Pelosi should gladly meet with the Archbishop.

    In that discussion, she should discuss why the American Catholic bishops have failed to forcefully condemn the tortures committed by the Bush Administration.

    Pelosi should ask why the American Catholic bishops have failed to forcefully to condemn the unjust and illegal war in Iraq. Why are they silent regarding the other Catholics in the Bush administration who instigated and still support this travesty?

    She should also question the Archbishops why they ignore the growing destruction of the American middle class by the Bush Administration's economic policies. The American Catholic bishops should also be confronted with their lack of concern regarding the destruction of the American Constitution and the subversion of our civil rights.

    In addition, Pelosi should ask the Archbishop what he did specifically to stop the abuse of Catholic youths by criminal priests. What did the Archbishop do to bring his other bishops to justice when they enabled perverted priests to abuse children.

    Lastly, Pelosi should demand that the Archbishop publicly ask the entire Catholic congregation for forgiveness. That should be the conversation held with the Archbishop.

    The American Catholic bishops have long ago lost the moral high ground.
    • ^
    • v
    It's a little bit of political drama, isn't it? The Archbishop calls the catholic senator to his office. Well, it is fraught with political implication and consequence. Be careful! Votes could be lost in an election year! It pits the secular/scientific/and woman's rights crowd against the fundamental/Religious/strict interpretative crowd. Any congregation asked to stand if they use contraceptives or have had an abortion, would likely stay seated lest they undergo a shaming group process. They don't ask it because they have known for a long time what the answer would be. I am assuming agreement here, that Catholic females are forced to be hypocritical toward their faith. That is, most do take some form of contraceptive and many have had an abortion.

    That hypocracy is carried forth in CONTINUUMS comments which I fully agree with. It was embarrassing to me to see the pope hobnob with Pres. Bush, laughing and cajoling each other. Where does the catholic church stand vis-a-vis Israel-Palestine, child molestation, war, torture, rendition, habeas corpus, etc, etc.

    Maybe the Democratic party should call on the Pope to ask for church support in these matters.
    • ^
    • v
    Rico, I've never known the Church to 'make an issue' over any particular woman who may have had an abortion (as they shouldn't), so I certainly wouldn't want any scarlet letters to be put on people who have had in vitro procedures done.

    And regardless of the point that you were trying to make, I commented on what you actually wrote- which was that the pope has refused to take a stance on in vitro. Apparently what you are now saying is that the US bishops aren't uniformly accepting the ban on in vitro- but whether or not the bishops follow Rome's authority is a separate issue from whether or not the Vatican is logically consistent in its moral teachings, no?

    As for caring about the babies who result from unwanted pregnancies, my personal experience is different from yours, apparently- my parish is intensely involved with activities to do just that, having started and supported a crisis pregnancy center. If you think that those activities are important (I agree that there is such a moral responsibility) then perhaps you could discuss that with your pastor. Obviously a guarantee, as you mention, isn't possible- any more than it's possible to feed, clothe, or provide shelter for every needy person in society, but we are called on to do our best.
    • ^
    • v
    On the story itself, and the criticism from some commenters, I really don't understand why it's considered acceptable for the Speaker to have spoken out on a moral teaching of the Church, and spoken incorrectly on that teaching. Just as we worry about Church leaders getting too involved in politics, our government officials shouldn't be publicly commenting on what a church's teaching should be. Separation of church and state works both ways, and I don't see how anyone can expect a church leader to sit silently while a high official of the US government makes a statement that casts judgment on what the church teaches on a moral matter, and gives incorrect information about the historical understanding of the matter.

    continuum: here are some statements that pretty forcefully object to the Iraq War:
    http://www.usccb.org/bishops/iraq.shtml
    http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?I...

    As for the different reactions of the Church on other issues of social teachings, Ed Morrissey did a good piece on that when Pelosi first opened this can of worms and these criticisms first started:
    http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/07/more-on-t...
    • ^
    • v
    Actually CStanley, the point I am trying to make is that, IMO, one should focus on the "most" -- the big picture, the whole of human existence -- not on the "least" -- one particular issue -- and amplify it to distortion without recognition of the whole. My mention of invitro fertilization was meant as an example of another issue with similar moral implications, if not worse (as it is a situation where embryos are created with the all but certain foreknowledge that some will be destroyed). And yet IVF doesn't attract nearly the same kind of moral outrage that the abortion issue does. Yes, I am aware that the Catholic Church does not condone IVF. But the point is they do not target it, its advocates, or its practitioners in the same way as they do abortion. At least I have never heard of any church official warn that they will deny the eucharist to any public official who does not advocate against it.

    To cite another example, the Catholic Church is also as firmly against any form of artificial contraception as it is abortion. At least they're supposed to be, because that edict was contained in Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical. I mention this example primarily because I believe that is the document Pelosi was referring to in this exchange:

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

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

    REP. PELOSI: I understand that.

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

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

    Pelosi was incorrect when she stated that the church's view that life begins at conception began 50 years or so ago. However, Paul VI's encyclical did reinforce the opinion, among others. And Pelosi is correct that St. Augustine (a Catholic saint, mind you), along with other moral philosophers over time, had different opinions. She is also correct that Paul VI's encyclical also proclaimed opposition to all forms of contraception as part of the church's official doctrine. And yet, as is the case with invitro fertilization, I have never heard of any church official warn that they will deny the Eucharist to any public official who advocates in favor of contraception. But if they were seriously concerned about being consistent across the board, they should. And that is essentially the point of view Mr. Kmiec was expressing in the HotAir post you linked to. I agree with him. If that makes me (and him) a heretic in the eyes of the Catholic church, so be it. But I think it's fair to ask that the Catholic church apply their principles and rules evenly, and consider the big picture in its entirety, before they start casting stones.