The Least of These

Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, who’s biblical scholarship this blog has previously noted, was a guest on Tom Brokow’s Meet the Press last weekend and presented her understanding of Catholic teaching on abortion. It seems to be lacking in factual veracity.

MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you’re looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, “Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?” what would you tell him?

REP. PELOSI: 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. And Senator–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. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…

MR. BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it…

REP. PELOSI: I understand that.

MR. BROKAW: …begins at the point of conception.

REP. PELOSI: 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. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions.

While I would not comment on her claim to be an ardent practicing Catholic which is between her and God, I really wonder what she, or her research assistant, has been studying for a long time. The Church has always called abortion an evil which is never permissible. This is true no matter what the viewpoints were of individuals over time on secondary issues.


Non-Catholic Irenaeus at Catholidoxy looks at the historical record and fisks the accuracy of Speaker Pelosi’s statement several times over:

That the doctors of the church have not been able to decide when life begins. But if she’d really studied the issue (as she expressly claims), she would know that no doctor of the church in particular and no orthodox father of the church has ever said abortion is OK, as we’ll see at great length. It’s true that some doctors and fathers and theologians of the Church raised the question of “ensoulment,” asking when an unborn baby receives a soul, and given different answers. But in Christian (as opposed to Gnostic) tradition, humans are not only souls but also bodies. And thus no Father ever, ever used the idea of later ensoulment (often borrowed from Aristotle) to excuse or permit abortion. Contrary to what Pelosi expressly says, Augustine never ever said life begins at three months In Christian tradition, until the 1960s, life was thought to begin at conception, regardless of the details certain thinkers put forth about speculative embryonic anthropology..

--------------

Amy Welborn of Charollote is Both hits the issue at it’s heart.

Over and over we are told - by bishops themselves - that their primary role in contentious situations like this is to teach.

So..TEACH.

Here you have a very prominent American Catholic, going on the record with her purported studiousness on this issue, authoritatively declaring something false about the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is what we call a teachable moment. Monday morning, the USCCB should have a press release, accompanied by a real human being - preferably a bishop - maybe even a Colorado bishop, given the location and the proximity of the press - giving a short, succinct correction of Pelosi’s statement. It wouldn’t take long. Do it right in front of where the convention is meeting.

No 501(c)(3) worries. No threats of endorsement or condemnation. Just…

Teach.

Do it over and over and over - do not let this moments pass by and the deceptions continue to rule.

Her advice is especially important because as Father John Richard Neuhaus pointed out a few years ago:

. . .when the Democrats had unequivocally become the abortion party and the Republicans unmistakably the pro-life party, it was obvious that liberal Catholics, including most bishops, had chosen, whether they knew it or not, party over principle. Under the tutelage of Cardinal Bernardin and others, consciences had been sedated, and the bishops turned their energies to writing pastoral letters on "peace and justice" issues such as disarmament and economic equality. For which they received the enthusiastic plaudits of the media. Largely because they were not talking about abortion.


But several Bishops have started have started to speak out this time.

Cardinal Egan of New York

We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.

Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Lori for National Catholic Conference

The Church has always taught that human life deserves respect from its very beginning and that procured abortion is a grave moral evil. 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 has long taught 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.


Archbishop Wuerl of Washington D.C.

. . .We respect the right of elected officials such as Speaker Pelosi to address matters of public policy that are before them, but the interpretation of Catholic faith has rightfully been entrusted to the Catholic bishops. Given this responsibility to teach, it is important to make this correction for the record.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear: the current teaching of the Catholic Church on human life and abortion is the same teaching as it was 2,000 years ago. The Catechism reads:
“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception…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.” (Catechism, 2270-2271)
The Catechism goes on to quote the Didache, a treatise that dates to the first century: “’You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.’”
From the beginning, the Catholic Church has respected the dignity of all human life from the moment of conception to natural death.

Archbishop Chaput of Denver in a letter wih the delightful title of On the Separation of Sense and State

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.

. . .

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.”

. . .

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.

And many more bishops and laity are joining the chorus.


---------------------

Perhaps in closing we should listen to the words of Jesus:

. . .I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me. 'Matt 25:42-45

I ask:

If the unborn child

even a child at the one cell stage of development,

is not the “least of these”

JUST WHO IS?




See Also:
Cause Not Harm
Criss Cross Democrats and Republicans and Abortion
And my:
Social Justice topic

Election Update - August

The Democratic Convention begins Monday. It is time to look at where we are at.

It has often been commented that when it comes to a nation wide vote for anything president, all congressman, all senators, all state legislators, or even all dog catchers for the last twenty or so years the Republicans have 45% and the democrats have 45% certain, the rest is in play. This “uncommitted” 10% do not follow politics closely except after the world series in presidential election years, and usually makes their decision on what they see during the conventions and Presidential debates, often for reasons of their own rather than what the politicians and pundits say they should. The two conventions and the three debates are the critical events, and then the election itself.

The polls have been relatively stable for a long time. Averaging it out it seems that both candidates are just above the 45% minimum with Senator Obama being a point or two higher, but well with in any margin of error. Over time McCain has been gaining slightly and Obama losing slightly. The uncommitted is 7% or some days 8 %. Which way they will go is anyone’s guess but at this point I would put the edge to Obama.


Rasmussen has updated their Electoral College Projections. The last time had Senator Obama with a winning 273 votes with 38 still undecided. Now it is undecided with Ohio moving to leans Republican and Virginia and Colorado in the undecided column. Ohio, Virginia, Colorado and Pennsylvania have recently been high lighted in Jay Costs Horse Race Blog as swing states. He provides a good look at how statewide and local considerations are effecting the election. This is especially important since the Rlectoral College votes by state.

Senator Obama has selected Senator Joesph Biden to be his running mate for Vice President. A good safe choice. Senator Biden has lots of positives that will resonate with persons who will vote for Obama anyway, and lots of negatives that will resonate wih people who would never vote for Obama. Biden is to unknown to have any impact on the non-political uncommitted voters who will decide the election.




The preseason warm-ups are over, the real contest is begins Monday.

Ancient Faces

When we read and here of places far away in time and distance it is easy to forget that the people who were there are every much as human as we are. A beautiful reminder.


From the accompanying comments.

Very little portrait art survives from the ancient world. This video displays a few examples of these portraits, as recovered by archaeologists from sites such as Al Fayyum in Egypt, and Pompeii and Ravenna in Italy.

The vast majority of the portraits displayed here come from the famous 'Al Fayyum' mummies which were discovered in Egypt about a century ago. Most of these portraits date from the height of Roman power in the first century to the Empire's decline in the fifth century AD.

Other examples come from wall paintings from villas in Pompeii, or from late Roman sites at Ravenna in northern Italy


HT: Mike Aquilina at The Fathers of the Church

Senator McCain's Faith

Maeve Reston wrote an article in the Los Angeles Times on Senator McCain’s faith. Like or dislike him this is a good look at his hard won Christian faith. A short excerpt.


McCain is most comfortable talking about his religious awakening during his 5 1/2 years in captivity, where his connection to God grew stronger and he served as "room chaplain" for a small group of prisoners.

In his early life he was influenced by his "deeply religious" father, who relied on his faith in a long struggle with alcoholism. Prayer and church became an "ingrained part" of McCain's life at his high school, where he attended chapel every morning and on Sunday evenings, even after church, he says.

McCain says in those days, he was a self-absorbed rule-breaker who became a hard-partying naval aviator. It was not until after his plane was shot down over Hanoi in October 1967, he wrote in his memoir, "Faith of My Fathers," that he learned to "grasp" faith tightly. In solitary confinement, he prayed "more often and more fervently than I ever had as a free man."

"I was very slow in maturing," he said aboard his campaign plane. "I knew right from wrong; I knew the Bible; I knew the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed and the tenets of my faith. And although I neglected them, the time came that I could fall back on them as a net, as a way of salvation, literally."

Often his faith helped him "get through another minute," he said. At the same time, McCain said, he learned to be "careful not to ask God to do things that were temporal rather than spiritual."

In McCain's first talk as chaplain, he cautioned fellow prisoners not to pray for their release -- reminding them of a parable in which Jesus was asked whether it was right to pay taxes. "He held up the coin and said, 'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's,' " McCain said, recalling his lecture. "The point of my talk was we were doing Caesar's work when we went into combat, so we really shouldn't ask God" for release.

That lesson guided McCain not to pray for his own personal success. "I pray to do the right thing so I won't look back in regret or embarrassment or even shame that I betrayed my principles and my faith," he said

HT: Get Religion blog

Senator Obama's Faith

From Keith Pavlischek on First Things Blog.


From the Westminster Shorter Catechism:
Q. 14. What is sin?
A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.

From the Baltimore Catechism:
Q. 278. What is actual sin?
A. Actual sin is any willful thought, word, deed, or omission contrary to the law of God.

From Senator Obama:
Q. Do you believe in sin?
OBAMA: Yes.
Q. What is sin?
OBAMA: Being out of alignment with my values.

H T: Against the Grain

-------------

The quote from Senator Obama is taken from a 2004 interview with Christina Falsani, AKA God Girl, the religion editor of the Chicago Sun Times and reposted on her blog. It is a very good look at Senator Obama’s genuine and serious faith. Whether you think his comments are those of a new Messiah or deserving of Bell, Book and Candle it is a good look into the heart of the man who may well be the next president.

Oshkosh 2008 AirVenture

I went to Oshkosh AirVenture was held last month. The show is sponsored by the Experimental Aircraft Association located at Oshkosh Wisconsin and is one of the premier air shows in the world. I had a great time




A racing Rocket plane. Rocket Plane’s have two options engine on and engine off. The plane would come in fast and do some maneuvers than turn the engine off and become a glider as it went around for another turn. This is the first for the Racing Rocket League at Oskosh which hopes to make this a NASCAR style sport.




This ultra light plane was doing “touch and goes” before the show.


And of course Acrobatics.



More


Julie Clark


And more.


Debbie Rhin-Harvey




I’ll post some more later or you can see more pictures here.

The Hour of Europe Tolls Again

BUT ARE EUROPEAN POLITICIANS UP TO THE TASK?

So asks Anne Applebaumin the July 28, 2008 edition of Slate.


“This is the hour of Europe."

Way back in 1991, when an otherwise forgettable foreign minister of Luxembourg infamously pronounced that sentence, it seemed to portend great things. It meant that in the post-Cold War world, Europeans, not Americans, would resolve the conflicts that were about to become the Bosnian war—and maybe a lot of other things, too. He was wrong.

Snip

In a very real sense, 2009, not 1992, truly will be the "hour of Europe." By that, I mean that if the chancellor of Germany, the prime minister of Great Britain, and the president of France—backed by their counterparts in southern Europe, Eastern Europe, and Scandinavia—were to walk into the White House on Jan. 21 and propose serious, realistic, new contributions to, say, the war in Afghanistan, the reconstruction of Iraq, the nuclear negotiations with Iran, and perhaps even climate change, the White House would listen.

Or perhaps I should put it more strongly: Not only would the White House listen, the new administration, Democratic or Republican, would immediately offer the Europeans the "leadership" and "partnership" they so often say they desire.

snip

In fact, I'll wager I could find a dozen future members of either administration who would roll out the red carpet and greet them like envoys of a fellow superpower if the Europeans so desired.

Yet at the same time, I'd also wager that I could not find a dozen current members of any European government who have even thought about coming up with any ideas at all. This is the hour of Europe—but do the Europeans even know it?





Whether they know it or not this is a defining hour.

Since the end of the Cold War the US has been maintaining order in Europe’s backyard even though Europe, if it decided to commit the resources, could do it. However the US does this it’s way and not to specifications (good, bad, or indifferent) of Europe. This is complicated by Europe taking a lead in soft power activities so there is a serious discontinuity in general Western policy in the area.

After the withdrawal form Iraq and Afghanistan, it will be politically impossible for a US President of either party to send a large expeditionary force anywhere for at least ten years, and even longer to the Middle East, baring circumstances so extreme we don’t want to discuss them.

But the US is slowly executing a policy of withdrawal from Europe and it's back yard, especially since George W Bush came to office. While lost in the back and forth of the Middle East activities the permanent US presence in European area is much reduced and approaching nominal. Western policy in Europe's back yard will be European or there won't be any.

If they take Applebaum’s suggestion and come up with any sort of reasonable proposal for a joint policy it will be accepted without too much quibbling over details. Such a policy would cover much more that the Middle East but define exclusive and joint roles so both are happy with areas of primary concern. At a later point, a US President of either party will have more confidence; I think they will find the negotiations harder, especially to protect there interest in areas of stronger US influnce. But if nothing is done in ten years the US will be happy to give verbal support any reasonable activity they undertake, but if it is not part of an ongoing partnership they won't get much else. If they do not come up with a good plan, with or without US participation, events may drive Europe into a corner from which the US may not want to (or even can not) help.


It is their hour, but are European politicians up to the task?