The Audacity of Pro-Abortion Rhetoric

Pelosi, like Satan, quotes Scripture for her own purposes. From Dr. Miller at Crisis:

Indeed, when he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger, specifically addressed this issue in a 2004 memorandum ironically entitled “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion.” He stated, with the approval of Pope John Paul II:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Pelosi then wrapped herself in the mantle of the Gospel of Matthew. She stated that the parable of Chapter 25 was “the agenda of the Church and is rejected by many who side with them on terminating a pregnancy.” She means that many who oppose “terminating a pregnancy” reject Christ’s teachings in the parable of the sheep and the goats, unlike herself. She is fond of explaining her ability to respect the views of others, an ability rooted in her upbringing, coming from “a large, pro-life, American Catholic family.”

However, when it comes to opposition to abortion she stated, “I don’t respect foisting it on others.” And she believes the Catholic Church is doing exactly that. Pelosi, along with other pro-abortion Catholic politicians, including Joseph Biden, treat the Catholic teaching on abortion as a kind of quirk of Catholicism—that the Catholic condemnation of abortion as an inherent evil, as an act of injustice toward another is mere religious, sectarian confessionalism—private religious belief that cannot be imposed on others.

Of course, they don’t feel that way when it comes to other social justice issues embraced by the Church with which they do agree! Indeed, Catholic social thought is based ultimately on natural law that transcends religious belief—laws based on the nature and dignity of the human person which therefore have a universal significance and application.

Pelosi launched into a criticism of Archbishop Cordileone—that he “is vehemently against LGBTQ rights”; that “in fact he led the way in some of the initiatives, the initiatives on the ballot in California.” Undoubtedly, Pelosi is referring to Cordileone’s support for California’s Proposition 8, a failed 2008 ballot initiative, eventually ruled unconstitutional, that attempted to ban “gay marriage” and dared to define matrimony as a bond between one man and one woman. Pelosi thinks Catholic bishops should support same-sex “marriage” contrary to the teaching of Jesus and the Church which they have a God-given responsibility to proclaim and defend.

Getting back to abortion, Pelosi states that the reversal of “privacy and precedent is very dangerous and not consistent with the Gospel of Matthew.” Here is where the audacity of the Pelosi pro-abortion rhetoric reaches its apex. She believes she can, and with complete impunity, connect opposition to legalized abortion with opposition to the Gospel of Matthew—most specifically having in mind the parable of chapter 25!

Such a connection is gross and, frankly, idiotic. What is most concerning is that she believes she can make such a statement at all! After all, Pelosi, at least indirectly, claims that support for the “right-to-privacy” as it applies to the choice of abortion is consistent with the Gospel of Matthew!

Let’s look at the parable upon which Pelosi believes she stands. It is a parable unique to Matthew’s Gospel. Jesus, seated on His royal throne, now judges the nations as He separates the human population into sheep on His right side and goats on His left. To those on His right, Jesus exclaims that they will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven: “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, I was ill and you comforted me, in prison and you came to visit me.” (Read more.)

From Phil Lawler at Catholic Culture:

Canon lawyers disagree on whether Church law requires other bishops to honor Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone’s “Notification” barring Speaker Nancy Pelosi from Communion. But the logic of the matter is unavoidable. Other prelates—most notably Washington’s Cardinal Wilton Gregory—cannot ignore the challenge.

The Washington archdiocese, in its first effort to avoid the question, issued an official statement: “The actions of Archbishop Cordileone are his decision to make in the Archdiocese of San Francisco.” While certainly true in itself—Archbishop Cordileone does indeed make the decisions in the San Francisco archdiocese—that statement subtly implies that the decisions are not binding elsewhere. Thus the statement continues: “Cardinal Gregory has not instructed the priests of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington to refuse Communion to anyone.”

But just across the Potomac river from Washington, Bishop Michael Burbidge of Arlington, Virginia, announced that he would honor the San Francisco decision, because the disciplinary action imposed by Archbishop Cordileone “is not limited to just a geographical area.”

So the bishops, along with the canon lawyers, disagree. As I observed earlier this week the Vatican “is not very likely to resolve that question any time soon.” But if other bishops are not obligated by Church law to support Archbishop Cordileone, are they not obligated by logic and by pastoral necessity?

Archbishop Cordileone is Nancy Pelosi’s bishop, the pastor of the archdiocese in which she lives. After multiple attempts to admonish her, he has reluctantly reached the conclusion that she must not receive Communion—because by doing so she imperils her own salvation and causes public scandal. To be sure, he made that decision in San Francisco. But the danger to her soul and the danger of public scandal do not magically disappear when she leaves the geographical confines of that archdiocese, to take her post in the nation’s capital.

Under any ordinary circumstances, different dioceses within the Catholic Church accept each other’s pastoral decisions, just as different American states honor each other’s actions under the “full faith and credit” clause of the US Constitution. If you plan to marry in another diocese, the pastor will require a letter from your own diocese, certifying that you are free to marry; and if Diocese A says that you are not free to marry, Diocese B will not allow the wedding,

So now Diocese A (San Francisco) has determined that Nancy Pelosi is not qualified to receive Communion. Can Diocese B (Washington) reach a different decision? This is not a question on which policies may differ, from one locale to another. The underlying facts of the case (not to mention the clear language of Canon 915) demand a constituent response. Has Speaker Pelosi “obstinately persist[ed] in manifest grave sin,” or not? Her pastor, who is presumed to have the best knowledge of her case and thus given the authority to judge, says that she has, and therefore must be barred from the Eucharist. (Read more.) 

Also from Phil Lawler:

For that reason the Code of Canon Law enjoins us (#916):

Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass or receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to sacramental confession…

Moreover, in the case of Catholic politicians who support abortion, the peril to the individual’s soul is not the only consideration; there is also the matter of public scandal. And because some unrepentant sinners might ignore the Church’s pastoral warning, Canon 915 gives pastors the duty of preventing public scandal:

Those…who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

We are all sinners, in need of the spiritual healing that the Eucharist offers. But there are distinctions to be made. Most of us are ashamed of our sins. While we fall short of the Church’s high standards, we do not call press conferences to applaud gravely sinful actions. So even if we receive the Eucharist unworthily, we do not thereby scandalize our neighbors, and our priests are not complicit in our sin.

Archbishop Jackels makes the familiar argument that a true pro-life politician would not only oppose abortion—that “protecting the earth, our common home, or making food, water, shelter, education and health care accessible, or defense against gun violence… these are life issues too.” But again a few crucial distinctions should be made.

• First, not all political issues are of equal moral importance; pollution is not as serious as the slaughter of the innocent.
• Next, most political issues require prudential judgments, on which good people can legitimately differ. There is a broad range of opinion on how best to protect the environment, or furnish adequate nutrition to the poor, or educate children. Differences of opinion on those prudential judgments cannot be compared with rejection of fundamental moral principles, such as “Thou shalt not kill.”
• Finally there is that important question of public scandal. There are no prominent Catholic politicians openly applauding the rape of the environment, or proposing to deny health care to the needy, or supporting gun violence. But there are prominent Catholic politicians supporting the slaughter of unborn children.

If Archbishop Jackels is right, then Canon 915 is meaningless and should be removed from the Code of Canon Law. But it is not easy to make that argument at a time when canon law is routinely ignored—even by Pope Francis, who has the power to change it. (Read more.)

Share