Catholic House Republicans to Pelosi: Correct the Record

Speaker of the House of Representatives
H-232, The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Speaker Pelosi,

On the Sunday, August 24th, broadcast of NBC’s Meet the Press, you stated “as an ardent, practicing Catholic, [abortion] is an issue that I have studied for a long time.” As fellow Catholics and legislators, we wish you would have made a more honest effort to lay out the authentic position of the Church on this core moral issue before attempting to address it with authority.

Your subsequent remarks mangle Catholic Church doctrine regarding the inherent sanctity and dignity of human life; therefore, we are compelled to refute your error.

In the interview, Tom Brokaw reminded you that the Church professes the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. As stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being” (2274).

To this, you responded, “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.” Unfortunately, your statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of Catholic teaching and belief regarding abortion.

From the Apostles of the first century to Pope John Paul the Great “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 2271).

Thus, your erroneous claim about the history of the Church’s opposition to abortion is false and denigrates our common Faith. For example, during the reign of Pope Innocent XI in 1679, the Church unequivocally stated it is an error for Catholics to believe a fetus does not have a soul; and confirmed the teaching that abortion constitutes an unjustified taking of innocent human life.

To reduce the scandal and consternation caused amongst the faithful by your remarks, we necessarily write 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.

Respectfully,

Thaddeus McCotter

Steve Chabot

Virginia Foxx

Phil Gingrey

Peter King (NY)

Steve King (IA)

Dan Lungren

Devin Nunes

John Sullivan

Pat Tiberi

John Boehner

Phil English

Jean Schmidt

Jim Walsh

Jeff Fortenberry

Michael McCaul

Paul Ryan

Walter Jones

Mike Ferguson

Archbishop Chaput Admonishes Nancy Pelosi

ON THE SEPARATION OF SENSE AND STATE: A CLARIFICATION FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE CHURCH IN NORTHERN COLORADO

To Catholics of the Archdiocese of Denver:

Catholic public leaders inconvenienced by the abortion debate tend to take a hard line in talking about the "separation of Church and state." But their idea of separation often seems to work one way. In fact, some officials also seem comfortable in the role of theologian. And that warrants some interest, not as a "political" issue, but as a matter of accuracy and justice.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a gifted public servant of strong convictions and many professional skills. Regrettably, knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them.

Interviewed on Meet the Press August 24, Speaker Pelosi was asked when human life begins. She said the following:

"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. . . 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."

Since Speaker Pelosi has, in her words, studied the issue "for a long time," she must know very well one of the premier works on the subject, Jesuit John Connery's Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective (Loyola, 1977). Here's how Connery concludes his study:

"The Christian tradition from the earliest days reveals a firm antiabortion attitude . . . The condemnation of abortion did not depend on and was not limited in any way by theories regarding the time of fetal animation. Even during the many centuries when Church penal and penitential practice was based on the theory of delayed animation, the condemnation of abortion was never affected by it. Whatever one would want to hold about the time of animation, or when the fetus became a human being in the strict sense of the term, abortion from the time of conception was considered wrong, and the time of animation was never looked on as a moral dividing line between permissible and impermissible abortion."

Or to put it in the blunter words of the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

"Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder."

Ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the Christian tradition overwhelmingly held that abortion was grievously evil. In the absence of modern medical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the unborn child might be animated or "ensouled." But none diminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong.

Of course, we now know with biological certainty exactly when human life begins. Thus, today's religious alibis for abortion and a so-called "right to choose" are nothing more than that - alibis that break radically with historic Christian and Catholic belief. Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it - whether they're famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.

The duty of the Church and other religious communities is moral witness. The duty of the state and its officials is to serve the common good, which is always rooted in moral truth. A proper understanding of the "separation of Church and state" does not imply a separation of faith from political life. But of course, it's always important to know what our faith actually teaches.

+Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver
+James D. Conley
Auxiliary Bishop of Denver

Nancy Pelsoi Fires Back At President Bush

After George Bush's criticisms of the Democratic-controlled Congress, Nancy Pelosi said yesterday that the President has been 'a total failure.' While I don't disagree with her assessment of the President, I am terribly amused by the fact that according to a poll (of nearly 85,000 people) that I just voted in, 54% of polled American citizens think that Nancy Pelosi herself—as Speaker of the House—has been 'a total failure.'

Now if someone would just remind her how far out of step she is with the Catholic faith she professes in regard to her political responsibilities, support of contraception, and the ordination of women—in other words, tell her she's 'a total heretic'—then everything should be in order.

Nancy Pelosi and Pro-Choice Catholics

I'm a Catholic Democrat. I'm for most liberal ideals of compassion and second-chances. I'm for the little guy (that includes the unborn). I do believe in the primacy of conscience. The Catholic Church whose faith I profess believes that we all must follow our conscience—though conscience is not just a personal preference or feeling as many leftist Catholic Democrats will say. I was recently pleased to see an Archbishop in Kansas reprehending the Catholic Democratic Governor for her pro-choice position and vetoing legislation that would restrict access to abortion.

But greater than she, as a problem, is Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, the highest ranking Catholic in public office—second in line to the presidency. She remains a challenge for proponents of Catholic orthodoxy in America, particularly for politicians in their unique call to unify their faith, moral convictions, and political responsibilities. Pelosi has manifestly rejected this call. The dichotomy between her stance as a radically pro-choice liberal Democrat and her professed Catholic faith is quite clear. She said that during the Democrats' first 100 hours in office, she planned to tackle expansion of embryonic stem cell research. She’s Catholic?

Despite her public dissent, Pelosi has continuously been honored amongst Catholics even to the point of being given the privilege to speak at Catholic commencement ceremonies and receive praise despite her abortion rights advocacy. She has received praise from Archbishops, been welcomed on Catholic campuses, and even participated in a Mass celebrating her election with people well aware of her pro-choice position, given the Eucharist by a priest—a Jesuit, in the instance of her "celebration" Mass—known for championing dissent based on conscience, an ill-conceived conception of conscience, as acceptable.

This is a serious issue for the Church. And what is even more despicable is that there are Cardinals, Bishops, and priests who know the severity of this crisis and refuse to reprehend Catholic politicians committing scandals by denying them communion. Denying people communion has just become an empty threat. John Kerry, the 2004 presidential candidate for the Democrats was seen receiving Holy Communion, post-election, even when his publicly professed positions contrary to Church teaching are known. Perhaps, a person can change their mind and reconcile with the Church. Kerry has not made any public retractions and continues to vote in favor of legalized abortion, in favor of embryonic stem cell research, and against marriage.

The same treatment is given to Nancy Pelosi, unfortunately. Pelosi, God bless her, is not struggling with the Church’s teaching, she isn’t trying to restrict abortion or work to protect life within the constraints of the current U.S. laws. She flat out rejects the Church’s teaching. She is unapologetically in support of abortion rights. She has a 100% NARAL pro-choice voting record.

She is an issue and so are all other Catholic dissidents in the public square. I’ll admit I am more biased against Pelosi because I believe (right or wrong) that she’s not even a good Democrat. Her bias toward Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in the past primary season despite her being a “neutral” uncommitted superdelegate has been, in my opinion, ridiculous. Using her high ranking office, for months, she basically endorsed Obama behind a very thin veil and it won him many superdelegates. If a Catholic had to choose between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, Clinton would by far win the Catholic vote—she did in all the primaries. Why would a Catholic back a politician (Obama) who supports not only legalized abortion, but not giving medical care to babies that survive abortions and leaving them to die in utility rooms?

It goes without saying, if this woman, a public figure, who undermines Church teaching though she professes to be a Catholic, if she isn’t publicly challenged head on, by the Bishops, by the rest of us, by lay Catholics, then every day decisions on how to be faithful Christians in the midst of the complexities of our professions are compromised—surely the evil we do isn’t as grave as advocating abortion. Pope Benedict XVI addressed the matter in the document, Worthiness to Receive Communion: “Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.”

Fundamentally, the problem with Pelosi and pro-choice Catholic politicians is only a manifestation of a greater problem. Catholics in public life who facilitate abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, and gay marriage are not in “full communion” with the Church. Hence, they should not receive communion. This idea of “conscience” as a means to any sort of behavior based on personal preference is senseless. We have somehow reached a point, I think, where a Bishop would certainly reprehend a priest for denying communion to parishioners who are not willing to abide by Church teaching on, say, contraception or observe the Church’s laws on marriage. Yet, I imagine it would be these same Bishops who have ignored the problem with priests abusing children—denying it and failing to address the issue head on.

What is that we fear? Perhaps, they believe a schism in the Church would potentially leave her in ruin. Where would that leave us? God forbid Bishops actually upholding the truth of the Gospel. God forbid Catholics living a virtuous, chaste life in imitation of Christ Jesus in marriage, priestly and religious celibacy, or unmarried chastity. If my opinion matters (I’m sure it doesn’t), we need to cut back on laxity, improve catechesis, and preach the truth and not compromise the Gospel for the sake of our comfort in our sins.