|
Published: August 27, 2008
She misrepresented teaching of Church
US bishops react to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s remarks to Meet the Press on abortion
Statement issued by US Conference of Catholic Bishops
WASHINGTON --Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine, have issued the following statement:
 In the course of a “Meet the Press” interview on abortion and other public issues on August 24, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion.
In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, "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." (No. 2271)
In the Middle Ages, uninformed and inadequate theories about embryology led some theologians to speculate that specifically human life capable of receiving an immortal soul may not exist until a few weeks into pregnancy. While in canon law these theories led to a distinction in penalties between very early and later abortions, the Church’s moral teaching never justified or permitted abortion at any stage of development.
These mistaken biological theories became obsolete over 150 years ago when scientists discovered that a new human individual comes into being from the union of sperm and egg at fertilization. In keeping with this modern understanding, the Church teaches that from the time of conception (fertilization), each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person, beginning with respect for the fundamental right to life.
(Editor’s Note: At the end of their statement, the bishops referred readers to three USCCB documents: "The Catholic Church is a Pro-Life Church;" “Statement on Responsibilities of Catholics in Public Life;” and “Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper: On Preparing to Receive Christ Worthily in the Eucharist.”)
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 12:18 AM By Central Valley
Did they send this statement to all the California Bishops? If not, they need to. Glad to see Cardinal Rigali, a southern California native speaking up. Will his classmate at the concrete cathedral do the same??? Don't hold your breath.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 4:56 AM By Fr. M.P.
It's good to see the few Bishops speak the Truth in the public square.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 7:38 AM By BobM
Good reactive first step. Now ... when will we see Rigali and Lori on Meet the Press? I'll mark my calendar.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 9:54 AM By Elizabeth
Now with all 'due respect' we need not only their words....
BUT ACTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:34 AM By Rachel
Well, that's pretty cool. Now the question is, what other news outlets picked up this story?
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:54 AM By Sherry
Nancy Polosi is an ardent Catholic? I know that American Catholics have lower standards than Roman Catholics.....but we NEED to be clear about what is right or wrong....I was taught that MURDER is never right regardless of what Christian religion one belongs to.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:56 AM By GK
I think Pelosi is just reflecting the hierarchy vs. people division within the Catholic church. The Hierarchy has made it very clear that abortion and contraception are never OK. However, the people of the church use both abortion and contraception at about the same rates as the rest of the US and Canadian population. So they clearly agree with Pelosi.
The hierarchy continues to say "we make the rules" and "we don't care what Catholics think, only what we think!", and the pews continue to empty out......
GK
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 11:34 AM By Pax Christi
It's great to see Pelosi's medieval thinking get slammed from bishops left and right. She and others of her ilk must be feeling like the Egyptians when the Red Sea suddenly came crashing down on them!
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 12:30 PM By Dr. Karlson
Science has not discovered or said when a person comes into being. The so-called "modern understanding" equating a biological entity ("the union of sperm and egg at fertilization") with personhood is not science. It's simply one of many possible definitions. Science would as well support restrictions of personhood to born entities or to those with brain activity, or to any number of material definitions.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 1:29 PM By Synaxarion
Justin Cardinal Rigali is right to uphold as Catholic the universal norm against directly killing preborn infants, however early their stage of development. The good Cardinal is right again on the self-contradictory character of Catholic politicians deliberately misrepresenting the Catholic Church's positon on the subject of abortion. Incidentally, however, the USCCB, I notice, tends to draft muddled documents. For example, it seems to me that the USCCB's use of the indefinite article *a* in a document entitled "The Catholic Church is a Pro-Life Church" (see above) derogates from the singularity of the Catholic Church as the one true Church founded by Christ. "[A] pro-life Church" along with all the other pro-life "churches"? ~ To be sure, wise, practical cooperation with all pro-lifers is the perogative of the laity, but not in the context of an ecclesiological relativism according to which the Catholic Church is but "a... Church" rather than "the Church"-- however much other (schismatic) "churches" are pro-life. No, not even for sake of (a misapprehension of) the pro-life movement is the claim that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church dispensable.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 1:55 PM By Diana
GK
Catholic Doctrine on abortion and contraception have been around forever!! You can't be a practicing Catholic and receive the sacraments if you don't abide by the laws of the church!! Nancy Pelosi certainly doesn"t reflect my views or those of my friends. By the way,we have no trouble filling the pews at our church every Sunday!!!!
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 2:04 PM By Julie c.m.
Dr. Karlson, I don't know what kind of doctor you are if you don't understand that life begins at conception. Perhaps you could you please kindly tell us the "many possible definitions" of when a person comes into being? If you hold a different understanding other than life begins at conception, you are not in line with Catholic Church Teaching. If you are a Catholic, you need to change your mind about "the union of sperm and egg at fertilization" as simply being one possibility of personhood to: Life begins at conception. Julie c.m.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 2:31 PM By Pax Christi
Your statements indeed are true, Dr. Karlson. We then should proceed with caution and presume the embryo from the moment of conception is a human being with inalienable rights given to the rest of us. Folks like Pelosi who would go ahead and shoot at a rustling bush under the assumption that there is a deer in it rather than a fellow hunter time and again spin their way out of culpability. Fr. Frank Pavone illustrates this at: http://tinyurl.com/5oyd6t
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 2:38 PM By Rick DeLano
Dr. Karlson:
"The so-called "modern understanding" equating a biological entity ("the union of sperm and egg at fertilization") with personhood is not science. It's simply one of many possible definitions"
Well, I suppose anything is "possible", Doctor. However, if one wishes to be scientific, then one ought to derive one's definitions from empirical observations, rather than metaphysical suppositions, at least insofar as possible, yes?
For example, we have in George Weigel's recent blogpost a quote which informs us that "an embryology text widely used in American medical schools, 'The Developing Human,' is not so reticent about the science involved: 'Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatazoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell—a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.'
Now, Doctor, that last sentence ought to be read three or four times to assist you in differentiating between hard scientific facts, and the metaphysical hand-waving we see you engaging in below:
Dr Karlson:
"Science would as well support restrictions of personhood to born entities or to those with brain activity, or to any number of material definitions. "
Cheers!
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 2:55 PM By Papamac
Sorry to burst your balloon, the people of the Church who you state use Pelosi's arguement on Abortion, or on the Sodomites are NOT people of the Church. They are people who defy the teachings of Jesus Christ, they are people who claim it is just wonderful to defend a womans right to have her baby butchered while in the womb. or as Hussien Obama has argued it is also ok to butcher it after it is born if the baby just happens to be born alive in defiance of the womans wishes. These are people who have seperated themselves from the BODY OF CHRIST. These are people who desperately need our PRAYERS. They claim to be Catholic, they are in name only whether they attend Mass regularly, receive the true body of Christ as the nutcase from San Fran does, it does not make them Catholic, just HERETICS. DR KARLSON, you do not state what kind of a doctor, but you make it apparent that any excuse to butcher a baby will be just fine with you, your reasioning has about as much creditability as Pelosi's claim to being a ardent Catholic. MAY GOD BLESS
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 2:56 PM By Dan
" However, the people of the church use both abortion and contraception at about the same rates as the rest of the US and Canadian population. So they clearly agree with Pelosi. " GK, I would like to see the proof of this assertion. For instance, we know many people might list themselves as Catholic even though they have stopped the practice of their faith. How many people who attend weekly Mass agree with Pelosi? Those numbers, I would hope, would show a much stronger agreement with the Magisterium. As in my response to Scott in another post, I would say the bishops are concerned about the hemmoraging of the flock from the pews. This brings up a question I have for you -- is there a greater exodus of Catholics in those diocese known for fidelity to the Magisterium? I am thinking of Lincoln, Nebraska for one, or Denver, Colorado, for another.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 3:45 PM By Synaxarion
What is the present situation? William Donohue, the president of the Catholic League for Religious Rights, has, I believe, brought us up-to-date. "On August 24," Bill Donohue writes, "[House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi contested the fact that the Catholic Church has always been unquivocally opposed to abortion. After being roundly criticized by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and many individual bishops--led by Denver Archbishop Charles Caput--as well as ten Catholic congressmen, the Catholic League et al., Pelosi's office admitted yesterday [August 26] that 'Catholic teaching is clear that life begins at conception.' Unfortunately, after this confession of ignorance, the [Pelosi] statement continued by offering the quip that 'many Catholics do not subscribe to that view.' The release also said that she shared the view of St. Augustine on the subjects of abortion and ensoulment." Reliance on Augustine, however, is a non-starter. "Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Melbourne, Australia, wrote in his 1997 book, _Issues of Faith and Morals_, that St. Augustine 'believed that the embryo was ensouled at 46 days. Nevertheless, he also believed that it was gravely wrong to kill a formed or unformed fetus." The universal norm--which is as norm of reason--remains the same: Every living human body is a person, no matter at what stage of development; indeed, at no matter what stage of embryogenetic development (contra Dr. Karlson).
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 4:39 PM By Anne T.
Thank you, Cardinal Rigali. This is why "Catholics" such as Pelosi never get my vote.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 4:53 PM By JLS
Dr. Karlson, the most significant transition in the process is the moment of fertilization ... because prior to that moment, there was nothing, and at that moment there is everything. Science includes the act of intellect ... hint hint.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 6:04 PM By Synaxarion
In reply to JLS: You are a right that Dr. Karlson, in his biological reductionism, makes the mistake of leaving out "the act of intellect" by which we understand that *conception* is the very beginning of human life. But then you write: "[P]rior to that moment [namely, the moment of conception], there was nothing, and at that moment there is everything." No, prior to conception there is something: namely, the possibility--the real possibility--that "the union of sperm and egg in ferttization" will take place. This possibility is not "nothing" but rather something: something real precisely as real possibility. Do we not speak generally of a real possibility of impregnation? To be sure, the conceptus, the earliest stage of embryogenesis, is a living human micro-body. As all reality is, the conceptus is created *ex nihilo* (out of nothing), that is, by God out of nothing, but quite specifically, in the created order itself, the conceptus is *pro-created* by the pro-creating couple. Pro-creating couples do not create "out of nothing"; to say that there was "nothing" "prior to" the conceptus as "pro-created" is to overlook the procreative process itself.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 6:29 PM By Jack
There are countless conceptions of "life". Which one is correct? Different scientists and different theologians propose different conceptions. But only those conceptions which are limited to objective physical determination can be verified by science. Conceptions of the human person as "created in the image and likeness of God" and "endowed with a spiritual and immortal soul" are not verifiable within the scope of science. Scientists can perhaps test what Catholic teaching calls "qualities of the person" such as "the sense of initiative and responsibility." But again, no zygote has demonstrated those qualities. Maybe in the future scientists will develop more sensitive tests.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 8:26 PM By Vitam
It is obvious and irrefutable that life begins at conception(fertilization) and the strange attempts by liberal visitors to this blog to muddle the issue are absurd. This is not something that people in reality argue against. The sideline issues and complicated morass these people bring up is a BABBLE OF LIBERAL ANTI-LIFE TONGUES.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 8:40 PM By Anne T.
Oh, come on people. The sperm is alive before conception but is not a human being yet. That is one of the reasons why the Church forbids the deliberate wasting of the seed (sperm) in sodomous acts, etc. because life is sacred. When the egg and sperm unites, a new human being (human life) begins. That is scientific fact. I am sixty-six years old, and every book on pregnacies given to pregnant mothers (who want to keep their child) tells one that. The only doctors who deny it are abortionists.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 8:41 PM By GK
Someone asked about my source for my "catholics get abortions at the same rate as non-catholics in the US" statement. Here is the quote:
"Another way of looking at it: while Protestant women make up about 54% of the population, they account for only 37% of the abortions. Catholic women make up 31% of the population and account for 31% of the abortions."
You can read the whole article here:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/63/story_6301_1.html
or if you want a more catholic spin on the same study:
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/catholic_women_and_abortion.htm
As for my "emptying out the pews" statement, I know of several diaseases that are closing churches (or combining them). I know of none that are building new churches.
GK
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 9:34 PM By Dan
Once again, GK, my questions went unanswered. Among those 31% you say are Catholic, how many are serious communicants? It is meaningless to me that someone labels themselves Catholic but does not practice the faith. As such the 31% (and the protestant 37%0 are meaningless figures.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:37 PM By JLS
Synaxarion, Dr. Karlson is not writing scientifically, but on a more "creative" level, and that is where I tried to engage him. An "all or nothing" literary device is effective in highlighting what is most important in a complex issue. Before fertilization there is no human life in the set of one female reproductive cell and one male reproductive cell; at the moment they meet and a biological dynamic takes place, then there is a new human life, which previously did not exist ... this is everything with respect to that event. It's comparable to a man and woman (in the sense of romance) falling in love ... prior to this they had nothing; upon this moment, they have everything. Technically speaking, this would make no sense, Synaxarion; however, in reality it is the essense of what sense is. Even the Three Musketeers knew this in their heart of hearts: "All for one, and one for all": Without this fraternal love, there is nothing among these characters; but with the brotherly love (of which Jesus says, "No greater love has man than to lay down his life for his brother") there is everything. And finally, St Peter will say, "Do you deserve nothing or everything"? The point, Synaxarion, is that this point is so fine that no angels can stand or let alone dance on it.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 11:30 PM By Anne T.
GK, even if your statistics are correct, and there is doubt about that, remember this: the majority killed Socrates, the majority killed Christ, the majority killed St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher. Does that make them right?
|
Posted Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:37 AM By Synaxarion
In reply to JLS at 10:37: Isn't theology a science, as St. Thomas teaches? Indeed, isn't theology "the queen of the sciences"? As queen, doesn't theology take into account the data of the other sciences, sciences ranging from philosophy to biology? So why don't you engage Karlson (despite his misunderstanding of embryology or perhaps because of this misunderstanding) on a scientific basis? Why must you resort to mere "literary devices"--your "all or nothing" device doesn't work at any level--to refute the easily refutable Karlson?
|
Posted Thursday, August 28, 2008 8:41 PM By JLS
Synaxarion, you are not going to get anywhere on your present tack of assigning everything to the domain of science.
|
Posted Friday, August 29, 2008 5:44 AM By Fr. M.P.
Much of what is said as "science" is merely opinion and speculation, and is not known for sure. How stars and galaxies form is one example, and there is a total disagreement between the mainstream gravity based people and the electrical universe people. So we really don''t know - what is in textbooks is current assumptions. No more than that. Many times it is based on an agenda, like the so-called "gay gene" idea. What is known for sure is that at the moment of conception a new life, a new person with unique DNA, is created. Then God infuses the soul into that new little person. Centuries ago men didn't know about that physical process, as in the time of St. Augustine. But the Church knew the answer relative to life from the beginning, without the "help" of material science. True science never disagrees with faith, but false science does, like darwinism.
|
Posted Friday, August 29, 2008 1:18 PM By Bill
In science, everything is ultimately open to question and reinterpretation forever. And that includes even the most basic and fundamental theories. What constutes a "person" is not established by science. So the claim that "science knows for sure that a person begins at conception" is not science but ignorance of science. For one, science doesn't know anything, whether it be "for sure" or otherwise. Science is not an entity that knows anything. It's an imperfect process of investigation for understanding used by imperfect people.
|
Posted Friday, August 29, 2008 1:38 PM By JLS
In the story of Jacob, one chapter reveals how God taught him the science of gene pooling, ie breeding livestock for specific traits!!!
|
Posted Friday, August 29, 2008 4:02 PM By Jessica R.
Ms. Pelosi was obviously improvising what she considers to be the church position on abortion during the "Meet The Press" interview. She forgot all about what Pope John Paul II had to say about abortion and the culture of death agenda that has been supporting and advancing the killing fields on the unborn of America. The current Pope Benedict XVI has also spoken firmly against abortion. Did anyone on "Meet the Press" challenge Ms. Pelosi's false claim and total fabrication on the position of Church or was she allowed to babble nonsence with no challenges?
|
Posted Sunday, August 31, 2008 1:29 PM By Bill
Gee! Bill, so the law of gravity is not for real, and science isn't SURE you and I are human.
|
Posted Sunday, August 31, 2008 5:22 PM By JLS
Gravity is a fact, not a scientific theory. Make sure you know your facts, before you theorize about them.
|
Posted Sunday, August 31, 2008 11:29 PM By Anne T.
JLS, I was being sarcastic. Bill was implying that "life begins at conception" is not a fact when it is--just as the law of gravity is, and we are human is.
|
Posted Tuesday, September 02, 2008 7:20 AM By JLS
Anne T., then it was not Bill who posted "Gee! Bill"? Mystery solved :)))
|
Posted Tuesday, September 02, 2008 10:43 PM By Anne T.
Oh! my, I did that twice within two days, JLS. I put Victoria's name in for mine the other time. Slap my hands! So sorry.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
|