The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Pope's meeting with Pelosi 'both/and'
Feb. 23, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi smiles during a ceremony at the Italian legislature in Rome Feb. 16. (CNS photo/Max Rossi, Reuters)
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionANALYSIS
Pope Benedict XVI's much-awaited encounter this morning with U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, perhaps the most prominent pro-choice Catholic in America, amounted to a classic Vatican “both/and” exercise, striving to balance the demands of external diplomacy and internal church discipline.
By meeting Pelosi, Benedict signaled that he wants lines of communication to remain open with the new American leadership, even if the Vatican has deep differences with its policies on the “life issues.” The Holy See is a sovereign state with diplomatic relations with 177 states around the world, which, among other things, means the pope can’t always act like the head of a special interest group.
Yet by issuing an unusual public statement after the session with Pelosi -- which insisted that all Catholics, including legislators, are obliged to work for the defense of human life from conception to natural death -- the pope also made clear there will no let-up in the pressure on pro-choice Catholic politicians to change their ways.
While the Vatican typically puts out brief declarations after the pope meets with a head of state, encounters with lower-level officials are generally considered private. Doing so in this case thus suggests that the pope wanted to make a point.
Benedict XVI spoke briefly with Pelosi and members of her entourage at the close of his regular Wednesday General Audience this morning in Rome.
Benedict’s willingness to meet Pelosi had frustrated some pro-life Catholics in the States, who felt it was untoward for the pope to grant a “photo op” to a politician who drew a rare public rebuke from the U.S. bishops last summer after suggesting on “Meet the Press” that the church’s position on abortion has been fluid and ill-defined.
“Over over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition,” Pelosi said, referring to when life begins. She said the position that life begins at conception had arisen within the last “fifty years, or something like that.”
A late August letter from Cardinal Justin Rigali, chair of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William Lori, chair of the Committee on Doctrine, bluntly asserted that Pelosi had “misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic church against abortion.”
In the run-up to the encounter, Judy Brown, the president of the ardently pro-life American Life League, issued a statement asserting, “The only photo-op I hope to see out of Rep. Pelosi’s meeting with the Holy Father Wednesday is the House Speaker in the confessional line.”
Exacerbating this drumbeat was a rumor circulated on some pro-life web sites that Benedict would be presenting Pelosi with some sort of award – speculation that was quashed early this week by the Vatican spokesperson, Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi.
Facing criticism about mixed signals, the Vatican issued its statement immediately after the meeting broke up.
“His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death,” it read, “which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.”
Not only was it unusual to issue a statement after a meeting with an official who’s not a head of state, routine Vatican declarations after diplomatic meetings also generally sum up the range of issues discussed rather than concentrating on a particular point.
In that sense, the statement can only be read as a rejection of Pelosi’s statements last summer, and, in general, of her argument that it’s acceptable for Catholics in public life to take a pro-choice position.
Seen through the lens of Vatican diplomacy, this combination of public welcome and after-the-fact rebuke covered all the bases. Whether it will leave activists and partisans in any camp fully satisfied, however, is another question.
Pelosi was in Rome as part of a six-day visit to Italy, meeting with various Italian officials as well as American servicemen and women. Pelosi is also reconnecting with her own roots, as her paternal grandfather was born in the Italian region of Abruzzo and her grandmother in Liguria. On Monday, the Italian Chamber of Deputies presented Pelosi with her grandparents’ birth certificates to commemorate her visit.
It is illogical for a
It is illogical for a Catholic in public life to take a pro-abortion position. However, it is entirely reasonable for a Catholic in public life to agree with people who believe that illegal abortion is a greater evil than legal abortion.
The problem is that Nancy Pelosi actually believes that it is a woman's right to choose to have an abortion rather than that it is a woman's right to be protected from the hazards inherent in illegal abortion.
The point is that she simply does not speak about the issue the way she should in order to provide leadership to those individuals who would happen to look to the legal system and government for their moral guidance. Instead, she repeats the cliches of those feminists whose pro-abortion rhetoric is nothing more than social weakness posturing as feminine assertiveness.
Marie, If you check Church
Marie,
If you check Church history carefully you will see that Ms. Pelosi has much merit in her view point. Also if you check the science of embryology you will see that scientist agree with her that it is impossible to know just when life begins. Maybe the Church will one day listen to those who have the more creditable leadership and certainly the Speaker of the House like so many unregognized women in Catholicism is a proven leader!
George, The Church revised
George,
The Church revised its position based on scientific information. The best scientists can do is to say that they do not have the answer to when life begins. This is because they are scientists. They simply cannot include speculations about ensoulment and personhood in their findings. Their conclusion must by definition be incomplete.
If people are looking to scientists for the answers to these concerns, then they are looking in the wrong place. Instead of interpreting the scientists position on the matter as persmission to ignore the Church's position, people should recognize that the limitations under which the scientists operate make them no authority relative to the organization which Nancy Pelosi by her membership endorses as representing God's will on earth.
Mrs. Pelosi is a proven leader, of course, but on the matter of Catholic theology and the individual's relationship with God, she is no authority and, therefore, no leader.
Dear Marie, It is funny
Dear Marie,
It is funny Marie, you are stating exactly what Mrs. Peolosi said that caused all the uproar. It is impossible to determine when life begins. Yet so many on theses boards claim that science tells us it is at conception. Also several of our more vitriolic Bishops say that science says that life begins at conception. Of course the more important points have been made to you, Marie, many times in the past. Why would God allow over 60% of his creation with personhood and souls simply to not implant into the Uterus. This makes no sense at all and is why the teachings about both BC and stem cells make no sense. Until the Bishops listen to what scientist are observing and comment sensibly, they continue to loose both a sense of authority and reality.
Michelle 22, Especially if
Michelle 22,
Especially if you do not believe in God and souls, then the obvious answer as to when life begins is conception, since that is when each of us began to be alive. The matter becomes morally complicated when people see the fetus as they do the other creatures of the earth, which do not have souls and over which human beings have God-given dominance. Then people like Nancy Pelosi can argue that this is not a fully human being and so not deserving of the kind of reverence we experience when the baby takes its first breath.
I am not convinced that there is valid scientific proof that over 60% of fertilized human eggs never implant. I have yet to be shown any. I believe this is reasonable scientific speculation regarding what is happening in the case of many infertile couples, but that it is not substantiated as being the case with couples of normal fertility.
Furthermore, contraception that prevents conception is, in my opinion, a completely moral approach to reducing the incidence of abortion. In addition, my understanding of the function of birth control pills is that they suppress ovulation. I see no reason to consider them abortifacient, especially given that I know of people who conceived while using birth control pills resulting in the births of healthy babies.
My opinion on the matter of contraception does not agree with the position of the Catholic Church on the matter. This is because the Church does not take its position based on science or what can reasonably be expected of ordinary people who have not had the privilege of encountering Catholic teaching. Rather it bases its opposition to contraception on what it perceives to be the right relationship between God and human beings.
In that relationship, human beings desire to do the will of God. In so doing, they refrain from sexual activity unless they are willing to bring forth new life. Their perspective is the same as that expressed by Kahlil Gibran: "Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself. They come through you but not from you, And though they are with you yet they belong not to you."
Given that I believe that the beginning of each new person is the egg that contains all the instructions necessary to form that person, my opinion is that any egg that could be implanted and grow into a human being is off limits for experimentation and intentional destruction. I further believe that the fertilized egg likely does contain the soul, which in many cases is shortlived on this earth. But even if it does not contain a soul, it is intended to, and so I believe it should be revered to the same degree that we revere the bread and wine which conveys Christ's body and blood.
Marie, I have read several
Marie,
I have read several article in "Science" that disagree with your belief. More than 60% of fertilized eggs (actually the articles call them multi cellular blastocysts or blastocoels) never implant our uteruses. Apparently over the past 30 years the embryologists have discovered that more than 50% of the time we ovulate from not one but both ovaries. They have sown in several ways that most of these structures never implant. The easiest way to see this is to just do the math.
I think it makes little sense that our Great God would infuse a soul into so many structures that just pass through our bodies. I think this is very good evidence that the discoveries of stem cells to help us figure out disease is inspired by the Spirit. I can understand how some might want to act more conservatively, but to not consider what is in fact happening in science is not excusable either. I think the Bishops use their rather big ego's to convince others not out of authoritative consideration but out of authoritarian (false) belief. These men even become one issue politicians because they are fearful of not so much when the soul is present but they are fearful of being seen as wrong.
Michelle 22, Doing the math
Michelle 22,
Doing the math is not the appropriate way to draw a conclusion on something so controversial. Ovulating more than was thought does not necessarily mean that these eggs encounter sperm at the appropriate point for fertilization to occur. I would be interested in reading even one of the articles that you feel is conclusive on the matter.
Not a lot of what God does, never mind would do, makes sense. There is no way to prove that each and every blastocoel that does not develop into a born human being is lacking a soul. Millions of people die, children die, fetuses die, and yet we do not conclude that the vast number of deaths indicates that these particular ones have no souls.
In our lifetimes without any sign from God that this was against His will people experimented upon and harvested hair, teeth, and skin from other human beings. However, we do not conclude therefrom that it must have been the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that was leading them on. Why should we come to this conclusion about human blastocoels, particularly when we know that stem cell research that does not use embryos has been much more forthcoming?
"Marie", re you comment upon
"Marie", re you comment upon Pelosi: "......on the matter of Catholic theology and the individual's relationship with God, she is no authority and, therefore, no leader."
Really, "Marie", Pelosi doesn't have any authority about the individual's relationship with God? What would Luther have to say about that I wonder?
This is the arrogance of authoritarianism: the assertion that a isolated, insular, privileged herd of males may so demean & dismiss other people's experiences of God, their own sexuality and their lives.
You, "Marie" have as much creditbility as the hierarchy.
Oh, and re. the Pope and Pelosi: I don't wonder why Pope Ratzinger took the opportunity to try to humiliate anther Catholic woman. I wonder that Pelosi bothered to meet with him.
Please, "marie" don't use
Please, "marie" don't use Kahlil Gibran to justify the strange interpretation of human sexuality fostered by insulated, privileged hierarchal males who don't have committed intimate relationships with other people.
I doubt Kahlil Gibran was referring to the "purpose" of sexuality in this line. It was a plea for parents to not strangle their children's lives & oppress their souls.
A goal the isolated, privileged males of the catholic hierarchy would do well to remember as they play at representing "Holy Mother Church."
Dear anonymousi (can't you
Dear anonymousi (can't you make up name(s) that would protect your anonymity?),
Your disappointment with my perspective would be greatly enhanced by your refraining from insulting the male heirarchy of the Catholic Church. For one thing, I was raised as a Lutheran and educated in Lutheran parochial school. Therefore, I come to my conclusions on my own, not out of obedience to authority.
For another thing, Nancy Pelosi cannot claim to speak from the authority of the Catholic Church any more than I can, which I do not do. Yet she calls upon theology that is primarily spiritual musing in order to claim to contradict present day Catholic teaching which has taken science into account. She is intentionally misrepresenting Catholicism to the rest of the world as I believe you are misrepresenting the Lutheran faith at this point.
Also, my quoting of Kahlil Gibran is to offer a shorthand interpretation of how Catholicism views the relationship between parents and offspring. All children are the children of God entrusted to our care, just like the earth is God's creation, entrusted to our care. However, we do not have God-given dominance over our children because they are not the creatures of the earth. They are individual souls in relationship first and foremost with God.
Finally, it may be somehow comforting for you to lump the entirety of the Catholic clergy into a group of isolated, privileged males. However, in my experience, most of them try to defend against becoming what the attention and obedience of so many parishioners tempts them to become. This in itself may create unfortunate situations, but it certainly has nothing to do with the truth of what the Church is teaching regarding the sanctity of life.
God Bless Pope Benedict XVI
God Bless Pope Benedict XVI
God Bless Pope Benedict XVI
God Bless Pope Benedict XVI
The job of science is to
The job of science is to tells us when life begins.
Today, with ultrasounds and DNA, it's rather obvious, at conception. That "60% of fertilized eggs never implant" is irrelevant to when life begins.
The job of philospoghy and religion is to tell us what it means.
Is all human life valuable? Science cant answer that.
Are all men created equal? Science can only say that some people are taller than others, but that isnt what we're talking about by "equal".
Why is tehir suffeing? Why do so many die? Science cant say why. It can only count the numbers.
Post new comment