American Papist has his running list of bishops who have addressed the issue of Speaker Pelosi's erroneous comments re: Catholic teaching on Meet the Press. It is dated September 4, so it does not include Archbishop Niederauer. He makes 26.
Posted on 09/06/2008 2:57:54 PM PDT by NYer
From the Bishop of the Diocese of Baker, Oregon, in the most recent issue (Sept. 5, 2008) of The Catholic Sentinel:
I certainly commend the public official for going to Saint Augustine, a great theologian and philosopher, for views on morality but Augustine’s views need to be read and adopted in context. It is highly disingenuous, deceptive and intellectually dishonest to take this ecclesial sound bite from 1,500 years ago and treat it as if it is the last definitive word on the subject. This is particularly true since Augustine himself “vigorously condemned the practice of induced abortion” despite the unavailability of accurate scientific information. Furthermore, according to Bauerschmidt, Augustine also called the use of means to avoid the birth of a child “evil work.” It would appear that the public official conveniently missed that part and thus does not allow Saint Augustine to form any part of her understanding of the evil of either abortion or contraception while boasting that this is precisely what she has done.
The spokesperson also attempted to further blur the concerns about the public official’s stand on abortion by indicating that the public official “has a long, proud record of working with the Catholic Church on many issues, including alleviating poverty and promoting social justice and peace.” I, too, could commend the pubic official for “working with the Catholic Church” on these issues but if the views on these issues are formed by the teachings of the Catholic Church, which are quite current, why does the public official seemingly work so hard to reject the teachings of the Catholic Church, as they are currently stated, regarding abortion and contraception?
If I were to think a bit more critically I would be inclined to conclude that the public official accepts the views of the Church which agree with her view and rejects those views which do not. In other words, she is not formed by either Augustine or the Catholic Church on any of these social or moral issues, but simply happens to agree on some points. This then would have nothing to do with any true conviction about the goodness, beauty or truth of the teachings of the Catholic Church but rather pure political expediency.
The spokesperson’s statement also implies that, as has often been posited by politicians of one stripe or another, because they hold and support properly Catholic views on the social issues of race, poverty, justice and peace that they should not be held accountable for their rejection of the Catholic teachings on the more direct life issues such as abortion, assisted suicide and embryonic stem cell research. This is an inappropriate and unjust application of the U.S. Bishops statements concerning a “consistent ethic of life.” This consistent ethic is sometimes interpreted to mean that life issues as divergent as capital punishment and abortion, or assisted suicide and the loss of life in the war in Iraq, are equivalent. Nothing could be further from the truth. Certainly in each of these instances, regrettably, a human life is at stake but the difference is that only in the case of abortion or assisted suicide do we deal with the direct and intentional taking of the life of a completely innocent person.
A person may work very admirably to alleviate poverty but this does not justify ignoring the greatest poverty which is the one which fails to recognize the value of life. A person may work very admirably to promote social justice but this does not justify turning a blind eye to the greatest injustice openly operative in our society which is the unjust deprivation of the pre-born of their most basic constitutional right, the right to life.
Read his entire column.
Also, I missed the August 26th statement by Most Reverend Samuel J. Aquila, Bishop of Fargo. Access it as a PDF document.
American Papist has his running list of bishops who have addressed the issue of Speaker Pelosi's erroneous comments re: Catholic teaching on Meet the Press. It is dated September 4, so it does not include Archbishop Niederauer. He makes 26.
If I were to think a bit more critically I would be inclined to conclude that the public official accepts the views of the Church which agree with her view and rejects those views which do not. In other words, she is not formed by either Augustine or the Catholic Church on any of these social or moral issues ...Pwn3d!
> highly disingenuous, deceptive and intellectually dishonest
Thank you, Bishop, for the excellent characterization of Nancy Pelosi (Bolshevick - SF, CA)
Bishop Howard Hubbard - Diocese of Albany NY
Bishop Matthew Clark - Diocese of Rochester NY
Roger Cardinal Mahony - Archdiocese of Los Angeles CA
Thanks!
> highly disingenuous, deceptive and intellectually dishonest
Thank you, Bishop, for the excellent characterization of Nancy Pelosi (Bolshevik - SF, CA)
You need to bone up on excommunications. The majority of excommunications are 'latae sentiae' meaning the person excommunicates themself (ex: the women who have themselves ordained priests). Otherwise, the church constantly seeks to educate the individual in church teachings and call them to repentance.
Pelosi needs to 'wake up' to the truth of abortion, fully acknowledge it as a mortal sin and ask our Lord to "be merciful to me, a sinner" for her support of this evil blight on society.
Speaker Pelosi, The Cafeteria is CLOSED!
BEND — It is not possible this week to write about things related to the Catholic Church without making special note of the comments of a high-ranking U.S. official regarding abortion. This official, drawing from the rich tradition of the teachings of Saint Augustine, implied that he would have permitted abortion up to three months after conception. As has been well reported by others, Saint Augustine was working from the defective science of his day and he was trying to reconcile what he understood from science with the philosophical views of his day. It should be noted that Saint Augustine died in 430 AD.
In order to give a fair treatment of Augustine’s view I turn to an entry by John C. Bauerschmidt, Abortion, in Augustine Through The Ages: An Encyclopedia. He writes:
“Abortion: Augustine, in common with most other ecclesiastical writers of his period, vigorously condemned the practice of induced abortion. Procreation was one of the goods of marriage; abortion figured as a means, along with drugs which cause sterility, of frustrating this good. It lay along a continuum which included infanticide as an instance of ‘lustful cruelty’ or ‘cruel lust.’ Augustine called the use of means to avoid the birth of a child an ‘evil work:’ a reference to either abortion or contraception or both.”
According to a spokesperson, the public official’s “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) Clearly Augustine believed, according to the science of his day, that the “body” of a pre-born child “lacked sensation” and from this he concluded that the child likewise lacked a human soul. Since the creature in the womb of its mother seemed to lack both sensation and soul, at least until the 40th day after conception, he had questions about the full humanity of the child. If Augustine had access to ultrasound images or if he had seen the film, “Silent Scream,” he would have had no doubt about whether the child “lacked sensation.”
Precisely because of the lack of scientific precision, Augustine distinguished between a vivified and unvivified fetus, (a fetus before or after ensoulment). Since he could not conceive of an ensouled person without sensation, he concluded that the abortion of a “pre-vivifed” fetus, while a grave evil, could not be considered, in the strict moral sense, a murder.
I certainly commend the public official for going to Saint Augustine, a great theologian and philosopher, for views on morality but Augustine’s views need to be read and adopted in context. It is highly disingenuous, deceptive and intellectually dishonest to take this ecclesial sound bite from 1,500 years ago and treat it as if it is the last definitive word on the subject. This is particularly true since Augustine himself “vigorously condemned the practice of induced abortion” despite the unavailability of accurate scientific information. Furthermore, according to Bauerschmidt, Augustine also called the use of means to avoid the birth of a child “evil work.” It would appear that the public official conveniently missed that part and thus does not allow Saint Augustine to form any part of her understanding of the evil of either abortion or contraception while boasting that this is precisely what she has done.
The spokesperson also attempted to further blur the concerns about the public official’s stand on abortion by indicating that the public official “has a long, proud record of working with the Catholic Church on many issues, including alleviating poverty and promoting social justice and peace.” I, too, could commend the pubic official for “working with the Catholic Church” on these issues but if the views on these issues are formed by the teachings of the Catholic Church, which are quite current, why does the public official seemingly work so hard to reject the teachings of the Catholic Church, as they are currently stated, regarding abortion and contraception?
If I were to think a bit more critically I would be inclined to conclude that the public official accepts the views of the Church which agree with her view and rejects those views which do not. In other words, she is not formed by either Augustine or the Catholic Church on any of these social or moral issues, but simply happens to agree on some points. This then would have nothing to do with any true conviction about the goodness, beauty or truth of the teachings of the Catholic Church but rather pure political expediency.
The spokesperson’s statement also implies that, as has often been posited by politicians of one stripe or another, because they hold and support properly Catholic views on the social issues of race, poverty, justice and peace that they should not be held accountable for their rejection of the Catholic teachings on the more direct life issues such as abortion, assisted suicide and embryonic stem cell research. This is an inappropriate and unjust application of the U.S. Bishops statements concerning a “consistent ethic of life.” This consistent ethic is sometimes interpreted to mean that life issues as divergent as capital punishment and abortion, or assisted suicide and the loss of life in the war in Iraq, are equivalent. Nothing could be further from the truth. Certainly in each of these instances, regrettably, a human life is at stake but the difference is that only in the case of abortion or assisted suicide do we deal with the direct and intentional taking of the life of a completely innocent person.
A person may work very admirably to alleviate poverty but this does not justify ignoring the greatest poverty which is the one which fails to recognize the value of life. A person may work very admirably to promote social justice but this does not justify turning a blind eye to the greatest injustice openly operative in our society which is the unjust deprivation of the pre-born of their most basic constitutional right, the right to life.
Dear Fathers, Deacons, Diocesan Staff, Catholic Charities Staff and Seminarians,
As many of you are aware the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, made comments this past Sunday on "Meet the Press." Her comments on the subject of abortion and Catholic teaching were misinformed. By her statement in a public manner she has created confusion in regard to Catholic teaching. People of good will who have studied the present day Catholic teaching as given in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, John Paul II's Encyclical, The Gospel of Life, and have read the fathers of the Church, can easily recognize the flaws in her remarks on the teaching of the Church concerning when human life begins. The right to life from conception is the pre-eminent social justice and human rights issue of our time. As your bishop, I have the responsibility to present to you the authentic teaching of the Church, to correct the misinformation she has given, and finally to warn you that those who oppose the true teaching are not in good standing with the Church.
Archbishop Chaput, and his auxiliary, Bishop Conley, of Denver, issued a statement yesterday concerning the matter. I fully support their statement. Rather than crafting my own statement when an excellent one exists, I want you to read carefully the attached statement. It speaks the truth about the teaching of the Church on when human life begins.
The Christian teaching on abortion throughout history is unchanged. Human life from the moment of conception is to always be respected, treated with dignity, and protected. Catholics who support so called abortion rights support a false right, promote a culture of death, and are guided by the “father of lies” rather than by the light and truth of Jesus Christ. Out of respect for the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Church, any Catholic who supports abortion rights has placed himself or herself outside of visible unity with the Church and thus should refrain from receiving Holy Communion. Catholics have a responsibility to study the teaching of the Church on human life and when life begins. This teaching is affirmed by revelation and is a basic truth of natural reason. I ask all of you in your presentations, teaching, or preaching to state the truth of this teaching in an unequivocal manner.
I pray that each one of us may continue to build a culture of life and that our nation may return to the truth that our forefathers recognized. A truth enshrined in the Declaration of Independence is that there are certain rights which are self-evident, bestowed by the Creator, and are inalienable. Those rights are “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Unless the right to life is guaranteed, the pursuit of liberty and happiness is severely frustrated.
May our Lord fill you with His peace.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Samuel J. Aquila
Bishop of Fargo
Is there any chance at all that that will happen? Pelosi's archbishop (in San Francisco) has just released a letter in which he refers to all the thousands of emails he has received and the pressure that has been put upon him about her statements, highly commends her for her support for the social policies of the Church (I guess to the tune of thousands of dollars) - then corrects her on abortion and invites her to come in for a talk with him.
It looks to me as if he just released that letter as a means of tamping down the pressure from lay Catholics in his area and is just hoping that this will all blow over.
I have a cat who is a foodaholic. My Ms. Pelosi's illogic that would make my cat fooda catholic just because I can realign the letter.
“did he just call Speaker Nancy Pelosi a “Cafeteria Catholic” or didn’t he?”
I think he called her a Hell-bound heretic.
“As a Catholic, I have been trying to put into words my thoughts about the whole “Social Justice” thing.”
The concept of “social justice” is of and from Satan.
Christians are called to charity, mercy, and love.
The minute you term the acts that should arise from these virtues a matter of “justice,” you have given the government a license to send men with guns to enforce them.
The quality of mercy (and charity, and love) is twice blessed. “It blesseth him that gives, and him that receives.”
Government-enforced redistribution of resources in the name of “social justice” is twice damned. It harms him that gives, and demeans him that receives.
Where you find charity, mercy, and love, there also is Our Lord.
Where you find “social justice,” there also is Satan.
As a fellow Catholic, I think this is an excellent point.
Fantastic! She has been asking for it for years. I’m so glad they’re stepping out & supporting each other.
ping
Thanks for that list. I will check it periodically. I knew what I had was incomplete.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, under fire from U.S. bishops for comments she made about abortion, accepted on Friday an invitation from the Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco for a private talk.
Pelosi said in a letter to Archbishop George Niederauer that she'd "welcome the opportunity for our personal conversation and to go beyond our earlier most cordial exchange about immigration and needs of the poor to Church teaching on other significant matters."
...While Pelosi's letter said she was interested in speaking about "church teaching on other significant matters," it did not mention abortion specifically. Her spokesman has defended her comments, saying in a previous statement that the congresswoman "fully appreciates the sanctity of family."
(See my commentary on Abp. Niederauer's letter here.)
Okay, let's examine these scant details. There's no mention of a date, and if there were I'd imagine it would have made it into the story. As the story notes, there is no reference to abortion (why beat around the bush like that?). And we don't have a copy of the actual letter.
At least she has obligated herself to eventually having the meeting. That's something.
And in completely unrelated news, the Associated Press also reports:
A light earthquake has rattled the San Francisco Bay area. The U.S. Geological Survey's preliminary report put the quake at a 4.0 magnitude. The temblor hit just after 9 p.m. and could be felt throughout the region. There were no immediate reports of damage.
Hmm, I wonder when Abp. Niederauer found out he might actually have to follow through on his offer?
update: Diogenes also takes a look at what this episode means.
That was very good. We got it from our priest this evening, hopefully it will be pointed out in a lot of Masses this weekend.
Thank you for posting the names and links! As expected, the more ‘progressive’ bishops have remained silent.
I don't recall any official document sanctioning governments to enact social programs on behalf of the Catholic Church. Perhaps I missed it. Would appreciate a link. Thanks!
“I think the world would be a better place with a big Church and a small government.”
Depends on which Church or church...or ecclesial group.
Economic Justice for All
Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy
U.S. Catholic Bishops, 1986
http://www.osjspm.org/economic_justice_for_all.aspx
123. More specifically, it is the responsibility of all citizens, acting through their government, to assist and empower the poor, the disadvantaged, the handicapped, and the unemployed. Government should assume a positive role in generating employment and establishing fair labor practices, in guaranteeing the provision and maintenance of the economy’s infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, harbors, public means of communication, and transport. It should regulate trade and commerce in the interest of fairness [74]. Government may levy the taxes necessary to meet these responsibilities, and citizens have a moral obligation to pay those taxes. The way society responds to the needs of the poor through its public policies is the litmus test of its justice or injustice. The political debate about these policies is the indispensable forum for dealing with the conflicts and tradeoffs that will always be present in the pursuit of a more just economy.
Government should assume a positive role ..
As I read it, this is a recommendation and one that makes perfect sense. The Catholic Church continues to do outreach to the poor but it helps when government also does its share. The problem, as I understand, is when Church organizations accept government funding at which point the government is then empowered to make demands on the organization. The one example that comes to mind is Catholic Charities adoption program where the government in England and in the state of Massachusetts now dictate that homosexuals have an equal right in adopting available children. Is this what you were referring to as well?
This policy statement goes on to say:
124. The primary norm for determining the scope and limits of governmental intervention is the “principle of subsidiarity” cited above. This principle states that, in order to protect basic justice, government should undertake only those initiatives which exceed the capacities of individuals or private groups acting independently. Government should not replace or destroy smaller communities and individual initiative. Rather it should help them contribute more effectively to social well-being and supplement their activity when the demands of justice exceed their capacities. These does not mean, however, that the government that governs least, governs best. Rather it defines good government intervention as that which truly “helps” other social groups contribute to the common good by directing, urging, restraining, and regulating economic activity as “the occasion requires and necessity demands” [75]. This calls for cooperation and consensus building among the diverse agents in our economic life, including government. The precise form of government involvement in this process cannot be determined from abstract. It will depend on an assessment of specific needs and the most effective ways to address them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you read Catholic forums, etc you can see the interpretation of this is that a Catholic should vote for the candidate that will use the governments resources to carry out the social responsibilities of the church. I do not think that is what the Bishops intended, and my point is that they haven’t clearly communicated that voting for a pro-abortion candidate is not acceptable just because that candidate will also enact legislation to help the poor etc, and they have allowed a situation to evolve where it is far too easy to pay taxes and vote and not take any responsibility for the outcome. They also have given up the ability to manage the results to protect and advance the role of the church.
There should be clear teachings and guidance on this, and my point is that by “copping out” and saying the government can handle everything , the voter can “feel good” about their choices, even though they have facilitated evil.
Just read any forum discussion about Universal health care (which you know will come with paid abortions etc) Democrat Catholics use this as the main reason that they support pro-abortion candidates.
I say take the issue off the table and have the Church take responsibility for these issues ( poverty ,health care etc) and as a result I think the Church should work to prevent the government from getting involved, because as these issues are determined to be he responsibility of government, the Church loses influence and funding in the actual practice, which is how you end up with government financed abortion, or anti- family policies, or in the extreme , anti-religion policies being bundled in with the social programs.
The interesting thing is the Bishops got it right when they said . “in order to protect basic justice, government should undertake only those initiatives which exceed the capacities of individuals or private groups acting independently. “
I propose that the current menu of “social justice” programs enacted by the federal government would not exceed capacities of the church if our tax dollars weren’t sent to the government in the first place.
This is why I think a responsibility has been abdicated.
AN this is how you end up with elected officials like Nancy Pelosi who are doubly dangerous ; they are misinformed regarding the role and responsibility of the church vs government , and are willing to use the power of the government to tax and redistribute wealth to do things that private organizations should be doing, and in so doing think they are being good Catholics.
Yes ,Those are examples, I think we are defining this better- it’s hard for me to explain it simply- the statement “acting through their government” is where things go off the track I think.
and to take your example further, if Catholics vote for Obama, because “he will help the poor” and he facilitates legislation to create a “right” of homosexual marriage, for example, that is getting the bad with the good. And the Catholic community has given up any input into the execution of these ideals because they have empowered the government, through their vote, to act on their behalf.
I think the goals would be better accomplished if the money , power and oversight remained with the private organization.
Nicely stated.
Yeah, Shakespeare is so good that sometimes he even spills over on people who quote him.
“The Catholic Church continues to do outreach to the poor but it helps when government also does its share.”
Better to cut taxes and leave it all to the Church. Government messes up everything it touches.
NYer, my dear, Mahony?!? Do you need to ask? I know, you are an optimist, and that’s good.
I’m expecting Mahony’s statement the same day as my own courageous archbishop, the bankruptcy king, Vlazny. Around the time hell freezes over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.