Pelosi Gets Rebuked

[judgeposer]

Here's an interesting summary of the developments of Speaker Pelosi's rationalization of her pro-choice persuasion while affirming her Catholic identity.

Pelosi gets unwanted lesson in Catholic theology
Aug 28, 3:13 AM (ET)

By RACHEL ZOLLp {margin:12px 0px 0px 0px;} 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."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080828/D92R51M81.html

[Bulldog_916]

And this is why we need to elect Atheists to public office. They dont have this religious problem. They can attack abortion right issues from a completely unbiased perspective.

[gaia.plateau]

I don't think the problem is so much her being a Catholic, whilst also being pro-choice...

The bigger issues are firstly that in late-modern Western politics, and especially in the US, the intense paradigm of partisanship compels party members to conform entirely to cookie-cutter positions on every issue. The perfect archetype of this has been the label of "flip-flopper" bestowed upon John Kerry in 2004, because he was a democrat that didn't take that cookie-cutter liberal position on every issue. A politician's experience and intellect should determine their positions, not some nearly-arbitrary designation of their location upon the political spectrum.

Secondly, more broadly, and relating to the first; the increasingly prevalent global paradigm of "package deals" in regard to personal beliefs, especially in the case of public figures such as Pelosi. We don't need to start electing only Atheists to offices, because they're just as prone to bias as the religious (none are as strong in their belief as the non-believers); we need to begin allowing people to have versatile worldviews and opinions, so that a Catholic can be pro-choice or homosexual without the media spinning it into hypocrisy, or so that an Atheist can be pro-life or care about puppies.

Religion doesn't create or necessitate bias, but being socialized to have expectations and prerequisites of position and belief for ourselves and others, certainly does.

Edit: I've been agnostic since birth, for whatever context that may provide for the points I just put forth. Edited August 29, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[judgeposer]

I've interpolated my response.

I don't think the problem is so much her being a Catholic, whilst also being pro-choice...

The bigger issues are firstly that in late-modern Western politics, and especially in the US, the intense paradigm of partisanship compels party members to conform entirely to cookie-cutter positions on every issue. The perfect archetype of this has been the label of "flip-flopper" bestowed upon John Kerry in 2004, because he was a democrat that didn't take that cookie-cutter liberal position on every issue. A politician's experience and intellect should determine their positions, not some nearly-arbitrary designation of their location upon the political spectrum.

As a Catholic interested in politics, I can appreciate your observation. I have relied, as any Catholic should, on my Church to form my conscience, which means that I continue to learn, respect, and adopt the Church's moral teachings. This places me in an awkward place politically since I am on the one hand compelled to vote for candidates who uphold the sanctity of human life in its earliest form to one's natural death, who we encounter commonly among Republicans, but at the same time support candidates who uphold the principles of Catholic social thought, who we encounter commonly among independents and Democrats.

I have no problem with politicians not fitting standardized political archetypes, to be sure. I do have a problem, however, with politicians who confess, as in this case, adherence to a Creed/Church, but does not uphold that Creed or her Church's teachings.

I believe still that the common charge against John Kerry as a flip-flopper can be distinguished from what I've said in that that criticism is aimed at his alleged indecisiveness. While I can make room for a politician changing their previous persuasions, especially after he encounters new evidence or facts that would make his shift reasonable, Sen. Kerry's changes did not seem rooted in his re-evaluation of facts or evidence, nor were they reflective of an Democrat unwilling to fit the party's platform. The changes he made in his political temperament, which earned him the criticism of being a flip-flopper, seemed to arise out of political convenience. This isn't something unique to Sen. Kerry, of course.

But to resume the original point about Speaker Pelosi, we encounter a politician who attempts to commit herself to two contradictory platforms, though not unlike Sen. Kerry's supposed Catholicity and his embrace of abortion rights, her party's embrace of abortion rights and Church doctrine, which has been and remains in square opposition to that notion. My complaint, and those rebuking her now for her statements claiming some sort of permissible duality, has nothing to do with her not fitting some political archetype as much as it has to do with her trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. More simply, I do not care the Speaker Pelosi self-identifies as a Democrat who embraces abortion rights, I care that she believes and has said that she can do so while also remaining faithful to her Catholic commitments. Even more simply, I don't take her to be a "flip-flopper," I take her to be disingenuous at best.

Secondly, more broadly, and relating to the first; the increasingly prevalent global paradigm of "package deals" in regard to personal beliefs, especially in the case of public figures such as Pelosi. We don't need to start electing only Atheists to offices, because they're just as prone to bias as the religious (none are as strong in their belief as the non-believers); we need to begin allowing people to have versatile worldviews and opinions, so that a Catholic can be pro-choice or homosexual without the media spinning it into hypocrisy, or so that an Atheist can be pro-life or care about puppies.

While I bemoan with you about having our politicians fit some necessary paradigm, if what you mean, as you say, that worldviews should be versatile to allow for a pro-choice Catholic, then I believe you've misconstrued the obligation Catholics have to inform their consciences according to Church teachings.

Anyone can have an expansive and inclusive worldview as they can reasonably support. But the Catholic Church requires of its members to avail their consciences to the Church's instruction. So, a Catholic could, for instance, have any opinion on prudential matters the Church has no definitive teaching on; but one cannot profess to be Catholic while also embracing abortion rights - the two contradict. Put another way, one's worldview does not have to resemble anything preexisting, but it must be internally consistent, lest that person live and profess contradiction. Pelosi's worldview attempts to reconcile two competing positions; this means her worldview has no internal consistency.

So, while agree that our worldviews should be more elastic, a worldview that attempts to reconcile two exclusive conclusions renders such a worldview untenable.

[clibinarius]

I'd be more cynical here. The main problem I have isn't that she's misrepresenting theology-everyone makes mistakes, after all (this isn't a slight at infallability. I'm not referring to the pope or starting a debate on that. I was referring to what most can agree regardless of faith represents what amounts to just about 100% of the population, or 99.999999985%-which, for the sake of arguement, we'll say that the extra 0.000000015% is him) on occasion.

The problem here is that Ms. Pelosi doesn't understand yet another thing, then arrogantly claims she does. This to me is up there with "Natural Gas isn't a Fossil Fuel" (Thanks, Nancy). To me this isn't about theology (For the record, I don't know whether or not to define myself as pro-choice or pro-life)-No, I'm not a Catholic, so I can't debate theology too effectively, either. To me this is more of a "What the fuck is she thinking?" type of thing. Its just, any idiot-and I mean literal idiot here rather than just a derogatory word-that's ever heard of the Catholic Church can say that, regardless if it believes what it says, knows that the church is unambiguously against any type of intentional interference with the reproductive system morally for the pursuit of sex. With this statement, I'll use as an example that I'm not sure if the Catholic Church opposes the use of birth control in terms of regulating symptoms of disease, such as Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome. What Pelosi did was essentially say that the Catholic Church DEFINITELY would approve of such a use, without knowing the facts. The only difference is, this is a much trickier issue than she got wrong.

Someone who says that we should have atheist politicians demonstrates that they are as intolerant as the supposed intolerances of the religious by the way. Demanding that people give up their beliefs is no different than what you accuse those of any faith would do. This is why people who believe too much in their own infallability shouldn't be politicians.

Next she'll come out and say that Theodore Roosevelt was a Democrat. Watch.

[Bulldog_916]

Part of my thought on this was from a joking perspective, but part of it is from a real perspective. The joking part of me knows this will never happen because this nation is so deeply rooted to its religious beginnings. Why do you think we have to swear on a Bible to get into public office? And if we choose not to we are somehow castigated by the religious element for our refusal.

The other part of it was a real feeling because I'm sick of religion in general. I hear "there are no more faithful than the faithless" a lot. Personally, I think it's bullshit. I dont know what happens to me when I die. No one else does either. Not your minister, not the silly book you read, not the Dali Lama, not Mahatma Ghandi, not Tom Cruise, not Buddha, no one. You cant tell me for sure that there is a Heaven or a Hell. I'm open to the idea that there may be a God, but that openness will never be more than that until God himself publicly comments on this matter. The Bible was written by men with the knowledge they had at the time, that's all there is to it. If it was really written by an omniscient, infallible being, it would transcend time and humanity. But it simply doesnt. The thought that God himself would talk to primates on this pitiful little planet is just too crazy to grasp.

As far as Nancy Pelosi goes, she is a strong woman, and in being so, it opens her up to great scrutiny. I think you are right, she shouldnt talk out of her ass in cases that she doesnt completely understand. But she does that sometimes, as do most politicians.

[SimplexCoda]

And this is why we need to elect Atheists to public office. They dont have this religious problem. They can attack abortion right issues from a completely unbiased perspective.

While i do realize that you were partially joking, I do have to say, I dont think we can blame her reaction on religion. I my self am an evangelical Christian. While I may not feel that abortion is a necessary thing, that does not mean that I have the right to make others feel the same as I do. While I do not want to see abortions, I can not take another persons right to choose that option in a pregnancy.

[judgeposer]

And this is why we need to elect Atheists to public office. They dont have this religious problem. They can attack abortion right issues from a completely unbiased perspective.

While i do realize that you were partially joking, I do have to say, I dont think we can blame her reaction on religion. I my self am an evangelical Christian. While I may not feel that abortion is a necessary thing, that does not mean that I have the right to make others feel the same as I do. While I do not want to see abortions, I can not take another persons right to choose that option in a pregnancy.

The argument that one should not force his morality on another is, ultimately, unsustainable--we do it all of the time. Not that doing it all of the time gives it legitimacy, but rather, we must do it all of the time in order to produce a cohesive and rule-bound society. It remains a brute fact of our society that we have collectively construed some behavior as morally impermissible. Several in our society would like to legalize a host of behaviors the majority of our society finds morally reprehensible. Similarly, most law is the result of legislated morality. Procedural rules of the law aside, laws regarding murder, robbery, property, family, really a legion of personal areas of life, find themselves forced to submit to defined moral codes and laws. To refuse to say whether another should have as a right the decision to terminate a pregnancy begs the question of whether (and on what sort of things) can society define as morally (and legally) permissible.

Speaker Pelosi, though not on the occasion referenced in the article I shared, but in other instances, along with many other law and policy makers, have offered this argument in defense of their refusal to legislate morality when those same law and policy makers have no hesitation to make illegal other morally reprehensible behavior (often for the reason that the behavior is, alone, morally reprehensible). Our society, and thus our government, has always been in the business of defining its law according to its morals. While we can debate whether this is legitimate to begin with, it remains nontheless necessary and common.