When I heard the news last year that former senator and presidential candidate Bob Dole had just died, my initial reaction was surprise: I had assumed he had already been dead for years. Similarly, when I learned a few days ago that San Francisco Archbishop Cordileone has banned Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi from receiving communion in his archdiocese, my only surprise was in learning that he hadn't already done it years ago.
The US bishops are famously not united on how to deal with pro-abortion politicians. I'm pretty sure that my boss, Cardinal Cupich, is not one to impose this canonical penalty; goodness knows, if he was so inclined, he could pick and choose from a number of potential targets in Chicago. Wilton Gregory, the archbishop of Washington DC, where Pelosi lives while Congress is in session, already has made it clear he will not ban pro-choice Democrats from the communion line. And Pope Francis has indicated that he is not one to pull the trigger on enforcing that canon.
My own view, in brief: I think the connection between abortion advocacy and communion can be extremely complex. But it doesn't seem possible to argue that Pelosi hasn't run afoul of what the church teaches. I'm not upset that she's been banned. To put it as plainly as possible: in my view, she's deserving of the measure. But it's probably not one I would have imposed. I would put it on her to do the right thing. And I'd look for opportunities to invite her to a change of heart.
As I understand it, Cordileone has claimed that is his purpose. So far, it doesn't seem to be working.
This is not news. It is only another opportunity for cultural warriors on all sides to engage in verbal riots.
ReplyDeleteIt has been very clear all along that the archbishop wanted to do this. He wanted to do it with the bishops behind him. That failed. Neither the bishops together nor the Pope were willing to join him. It would take almost heroic virtue for him at this point to NOT do this. However, we as Christians, and especially anyone who is a bishop, are in fact called to heroic virtue.
Make no mistake this is a political not a spiritual act. He has no concern for all the Democrats (Catholics and others) that see this as political act. In fact, this act will likely be the final straw that results in many giving up on the institutional Church. Does he really think he will past the final judgement?
His political constituency consists of those Catholics (bishops, priests, deacons, and laity) who are either openly or secretly rejoicing that Pelosi has gotten her just punishment. So, he, a bishop of the Church, is by this very act fomenting strife and division among Catholics across the country.
With Greenleaf I believe that we as servant leaders should follow only those whom we discern as servant leaders. What would real servant leadership look like in this time when Roe is likely to be overturned with the possibility the cultural wars will become more violent and destructive of both Church and State?
For the Archbishop I would find true servant and spiritual leadership in an appeal to abandon the culture wars of denigrating each other for our different views and trying to impose our wills on each other by laws. It is time to creating an ecclesial, social, and political culture of life supporting unborn children and their parents.
Greenleaf thought the John XXIII Vatican II Catholicism of his day had great promise for America. He said the only problem was Catholics do a good job of making clear what we oppose but a poor job of articulating the positives that we are for.
I hold Pelosi to the same high standard as I hold the archbishop. She too has failed to meet the challenge of the present moment; she like the archbishop is just responding to her political following rather than being a servant leader of the nation.
However, Pelosi has the opportunity to be the spiritual leader that the archbishop has failed to be. She could become that spiritual leader of both the American Church and Nation if she just proposed and with all her political skills tried to pass legislation that gave to full financial support to both parents and their unborn children from here on out. e.g., guaranteed health care, education, housing, job support etc. In other words, no reason not to have and raise a child. In fact, much reason to want to have children to guarantee your own future.
Pelosi should invite all the bishops and all the pro-life politicians as well as all Democrats to join here in this challenging vision of the future. Does anyone have the heroic virtue to take this path?
Jack, I agree with most of what you wrote, l but I’m not sure what you mean by this - In fact, much reason to want to have children to guarantee your own future. . Could you explain?
DeleteI am suggesting that we make increased support available to parents from now on if they have children, i.e., the support is target on new children rather than on children in general or parents in general.
DeleteThey would likely result in more parents deciding to have children. If at present parents don't have healthcare, they would have healthcare as soon as mother became pregnant. There would likely have to be a "pre-existing conditions" clause.
I’m still confused. Should healthcare for the working poor only be available if they choose to have children? Why a “ pre- existing condition “ clause”? All Americans should have access to affordable healthcare regardless of pre-existing conditions.
DeleteAnne,
DeleteSome pro-life people would like to declare that the fetus is a human person at conception with all the rights of being human. I don’t think abstractions like rights to life, or abortions, healthcare, education, etc. are very useful. I prefer concrete laws that give the equivalent of rights but can be changed as circumstances change.
(Too much emphasis on rights makes the State into a religion and the Supreme Court into a religious like arbiter of the true and the good rather than an interpreter of the laws and the Constitution.)
I am simply saying that from the date the law goes into effect everyone that is born after that would have certain guarantees, e.g., healthcare, food, shelter, education through college. Their parents would also be given certain guarantees, e.g., a job etc. that are necessary to raise those children.
We would be doing what “conservatives” want namely emphasizing the importance of the unborn and families, but we would also be doing what “progressives” want namely having social institutions supported by government that support the unborn and their parents through child raising, which I would define as the end of college education.
We would be building this new “culture of life” one birth at a time. That gives us a lot of room to tinker with the policies that support it. Yes, we will be radically transforming our society but in “baby” steps.
These policies would likely have two effects.
First anytime a pregnancy occurs, it will be viewed as an opportunity rather than a burden. When people can support children, it seems to me that the natural instincts to have children will prevail. My prediction is that the birth rate will go up because people will be less inclined to have an abortion, and the need to regulate abortion by law will diminish.
Second people will be motivated to conceive children, again because children are an opportunity rather than a burden. Again, population will grow.
The policies that I am suggesting will in a positive way accomplish the goals which church authorities have articulated only in negative fashion by prohibiting abortion and contraception.
The policies that I am suggesting will help very much in dealing with the aging of our population hopefully through a slow "baby boom."
It should also reduce the tension over immigration since native born citizens will be having more children.
Of course, the policies to do this will be very complex, needing much expertise, and providing much room for debates and compromises, which are what democracy is about.
Whether deserving or not, if she caved in at this point she might just as well resign, because her career as a Democrat would be over. There are those who would say it should be someone else's turn anyway. But she has certainly been dedicated, and has held the House Democrats together through some pretty tough storms I do wish the Democratic Party wasn't so much in thrall to pro-choice politics.
ReplyDeleteI get the impression of Nancy Pelosi that she is of the persuasion that she wouldn't have had an abortion herself (she is the mother of five kids) but has fought for the right of others to make their own choice. Apparently that isn't enough to keep her off her bishop's persona non grata list.
I have said before that I think it is an abuse of the Eucharist to use it either as a cudgel or a carrot.
As far as I know ...
ReplyDeleteNancy Pelosi has not ever had an abortion, has not urged anyone to have an abortion, has not performed an abortion, has not driven anyone to an abortion.
Nancy Pelosi is not, as far as I can see, pro-abortion.
Nancy Pelosi has said publicly that she supports Roe and is against overturning Roe. That means only that she is against legalizing the punishment of women who have abortions or of doctors and medical staff who perform or participate in abortions.
Being against overturning Roe does not strike me as equivalent promoting abortion or denying any church teaching.
The Pope says he would not exclude Pelosi from communion, but neither is the Pope going to tell Bishop Cordileone that he can't.
Clearly, the Church heirarchy is not united on how to deal with pro-Roe politicians. Neither is the Church hierarchy united on how to respond to women who fall into other sins that fall under the "openness to life" category, as I can attest personally.
I certainly am not qualified to say which responses will ultimately best preserve Church teaching and make for more humble and contrite Catholics.
As for politics ...
Archbishop Cordileone's exclusion of Pelosi comes at the end of her very long political career in which she has always supported Roe. So his move strikes me as less about Pelosi and more about making the Pope look soft on abortion than anything else.
Well, he’s not a cardinal, so I guess he isn’t actively running for pope. He’s part of the cabal that wants to bring down Francis, a group that last summer was almost publicly planning the funeral and next conclave. Maybe he’s trying to cement his role as one of the king-makers in the next conclave so that he can lobby for whatever job in the Vatican he’s hoping for, along with a red hat to go with it.
Delete"Nancy Pelosi is not, as far as I can see, pro-abortion."
DeleteI guess it depends on what is meant by "pro-abortion". Pelosi's track record as one who promotes pro-choice policies is well-known, and I'd be surprised if anyone here would think differently.
According to this site, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood Action Fund and the Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California all have given Pelosi a score of 100% in recent years. As you know, that means that her voting record in the House is perfect, when it comes to voting on legislation that is supported by those pro-choice organizations.
The same site lists her score with the California Pro-Life Council and the Susan B Anthony List as 0% in recent years.
https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/26732/nancy-pelosi/2
Pelosi has voted at least once to make partial-birth abortion legal. In recent years, she has worked to do away with the Hyde Amendment; when she has voted in the past for budgets which include the Hyde Amendment, she made it clear that she was casting her vote despite the Hyde Amendment.
In short: her record as a legislator is that of someone who promotes abortion funds abortions with government funding. She has done her part to build the structure of sin which is the abortion industry in the US today.
Btw, when I go to her landing page at the US House site, the first photo which pops up is of Pope Francis shaking hands with her. She is trading on her Catholic identity for political gain, while working against what the church teaches in the US House.
I guess I don't equate being pro-choice with promoting abortion (that is, encouraging people to get one and holding abortion morally neutral in all cases) any more than tolerating legal divorce is tantamount to viewing divorce as A-OK.
DeleteI'm sure we disagree on this. You are a deacon and I am a lapsed lay person. I'm sure you can cite me passages in the CCC that support your stance, which I will try to accept in the spirit of loving fraternal correction.
I think many legislators of both parties and of many faiths trade on their religion for political gain. Can't count, for ex, the number of pols falling all over themselves to get their picture taken with the late Billy Graham back in the day.
I guess my concern is less with Pelosi specifically--she's 80 and on her way out (I hope)--and more on the inconsistencies in the way US bishops respond to pro-choice legislators.
The pro- birth people equate pro- choice with pro- abortion. It’s not - they choose to use a deliberately misleading term. But the pro- birth movement also uses the misleading term “ pro- life” to describe itself - even though most use it with a meaning that is so narrow that most of them can’t really be described as being pro- life. So pro- birth and pro- choice should be used to more accurately describe these movements.
DeleteElected officials who support pro- choice legislation are not necessarily pro- abortion. I’m guessing that the overwhelming majority would love to have an ideal society in which no woman ever faces having to decide whether or not she can welcome a child, and support that child in a safe and decent environment until the child is 18 or older. This should be her choice, not that of those who won’t be enduring the pregnancy, who won’t be giving birth, and who won’t be responsible for at least 18 years of emotional and financial support.
In addition, this country embraces a principle of separation of church and state. It also supports religious freedom. Politicians are bound to follow the Constitution, not the dictates of their personal religious group. Roughly 80% of Americans are not Roman Catholic and the majority of Americans, including a majority of Catholics, support keeping abortion legal. Not even all Catholics buy the argument that a “baby” is present from the moment of conception. Human DNA alone is not a human being. Some Jews don’t believe that a fetus becomes a person until the first breath is taken after birth. Like the RCC’s claim about a human being existing from the moment of conception, this Jewish belief is based on religion, on Genesis. They have just as much right to their religious beliefs as do Catholics, no? Both sets of views are extreme IMO, but a compromise could be found if both movements were not so unwilling to do so. Punishing politicians who choose to do their job to represent ALL of their constituents will just cause them to dig in their heels. It will also be the last straw for some and drive even more people out of the pews. If Catholics think it’s legitimate to impose their religious views on all Americans, perhaps they should think about the potential in the future for some other religious group to impose their beliefs on Catholics.
If Catholic politicians are to be punished and publicly shamed by the church for going against church teachings in their job as elected representatives of a pluralistic constituency, then it would be best for Catholic politicians to bow out and not run for political office.
I am not a fan of Pelosi who is a corporate Democrat who abandoned the American workers years ago if she ever supported them. She voted "aye" on NAFTA in 1993. Now she goes into high dudgeon because of abortion. I wouldn't deprive her of the Eucharist, just political office. I really don't think people my age or older should be making decisions that'll affect the young for decades. At most, an advisory capacity and I'd reject HER advice. Her main purpose is to make sure Democratic representatives don't wander into regions where real solutions lie.
ReplyDeleteJim, if you truly believe that he did this because he’s sincerely hoping for a “ change of heart”, just being pastoral, I’d be happy to show you that famous bridge that’s for sale.
ReplyDeleteIt’s all political. That’s as obvious as the nose on his face.
I see on NCR's site this morning that Nancy Pelosi was seen receiving the Eucharist at a church in the DC area. Presumably that's what she's been doing all along. But I wish the media would not draw attention to it. People deserve a little peace and privacy.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing this whole issue reminds me of is sanctions. Like we're putting on Russia, to try and force a change in behavior. As foreign policy I sort of understand it. Sometimes it works. But I don't think anyone is under the illusion that Putin's heart is going to be changed by it. And that doesn't really matter because what is really desired is a ceasefire. In the spiritual realm I think sanctions are a blunt weapon that doesn't really work.
Sanctions are like sending a kid to bed without supper: You might get lip service and compliance if he gets hungry enough. But even that's not going to work if the kid can go to the neighbors and get a sandwich.
DeleteGiven the fact that non-Catholics don't really understand the difference between excommunication and denying communion, and that bishops are not responding to pro-choice politicians consistently, the news coverage is going to get messy. As the fight over legal access to abortion will likely be waged in states, the inconsistency in the way the US bishops respond is going to be thrown into even higher relief. Will that lead to confusion over where the Church draws the line on complicity with the sin of abortion? Will the lack of consistency be good or bad for the Church?
Holy Trinity is a Jesuit parish in Georgetown.
ReplyDeleteThe first comment was written by a Jesuit. The second by the Bishop of San Diego, who sees the weaponization of the Eucharist for what it is - political partisanship.
I want to write a longer piece about those bishops who seek to keep some from the table of Christ, but for now I will say this: it is not your table (nor mine). Bishops, priests, etc. are neither the hosts nor the bouncers nor the ones who wrote the guest list. The Eucharist is the resurrected body of Christ given for the life of the world. Jesus Christ is the one who invites the guests (“all you who labor”); he is the host of those who come; he is the setter of the table; and he is the feast which is shared (“Take this, all of you. . .this is my body, this is my blood”). We are guests at the meal, and sometimes (by his calling) servers. So stay in your lane, please. The wait staff doesn’t get to exclude those who want to come. If you don’t like the company Christ calls (and, admittedly, it is a rag tag bunch of sinners, one and all), it’s you who need to leave the table, not them."
- Rev. John D. Whitney, S.J. via Facebook. June 20, 2021.
“The Eucharist...will inevitably become a tool in the vicious partisan turmoil that roils our nation. It will be impossible to prevent the weaponization of the Eucharist in partisan battles.”
- Bishop Robert McElroy. “San Diego’s bishop opposes ‘partisan’ Catholic effort to admonish Biden over abor- tion.” Times of San Diego. June 19, 2021.
Fr. Whitney has written a beautiful and appealing metaphor. But like all metaphors, it has its limits. Cordileone has the authority to do what he did. No serious Catholic can doubt that.
DeleteAs for "weaponization" - how does that not cut both ways? Pelosi's landing page has a picture of her shaking hands with Pope Francis. Is she not "weaponizing" the Holy Father?
There is at least somewhat of a case to be made for freedom of conscience. Theoretically at least, someone could be opposed to abortion, but feel in conscience that others should have the freedom to make their own choices. One could also make the case ( as I'm sure Abp. Cordileone does) that the person who reasons this way does not have a properly formed conscience. But this is close to a "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy.
DeleteThe Church has never fostered an "everybody welcome" policy re Communion. I had to go through months of RCIA to prove I was properly baptized, properly married, not divorced, and that I understood the responsibilities involved in receiving Communion, and get absolution as close to First Communion as possible to reduce the chances of committing a grave sin before receiving. Even the open table in the Episcopal Church requires recipients be baptized Christians. So I am totally confused by Fr Whitney's comment.
DeleteKatherine - the freedom-of-conscience claim generally isn't recognized as giving one the right to commit an act that kills or injures another subject.
DeleteJean, not all Episcopal churches require baptism to be welcome at the table. Our parish welcomes all who feel drawn by Christ to come to the table.
DeleteJim, your statement is rather broad - to kill another “subject“.?
DeleteCordileone does have the authority to do what he did. But people often abuse their authority, usually for some kind of personal gain. He’s grandstanding. He knows quite well that nobody looks to Nancy Pelosi for religious guidance and he also knows that his publicity stunt will not lead her to change what she does as an elected representative in Congress.
DeleteNancy Pelosi may be sending a message to those who know little about Catholicism to reassure them that an Archbishop is not the pope. She has a right to use the photo. The Pope used her visit with him, and Biden’s, to send a message to bishops like Cordileone to refrain from banning anyone from communion. But this archbishop has been so openly hostile to Francis that he’s clearly choosing to use this ban on Pelosi as a weapon in his personal war against the Pope.
DeleteAnne, if they are welcoming the unbaptized to Communion, they are out of sync with long-standing Anglican teaching. Typically, the unbaptized are invited to approach the Table for a blessing.
DeletePerhaps they are out of sync. I don't know. But they had an open table - completely open. I haven't been there in person for a couple of years, so I don't know if the interims have continued that invitation.
DeleteJean, from the downloadable service guide of the Washington National Cathedral. It mentions Christ but not baptism.
Delete"All who seek God and a deeper life in Christ are welcome to receive Holy Communion."
I believe that John Whitney is reminding us that Jesus did not exclude anyone from the table - HIS table. Not a bishop's table. At the last supper Jesus gave bread and wine to ALL there - not a single one of whom was a baptized christian. He did not exclude Judas, whom he apparently knew had betrayed him.
The open table of the EC was one of the aspects of the EC that most strongly drew me. I also learned that their list of "must believes" was very short, that they trusted people to form their own consciences. As one former Catholic said to me, they don't ask people to check their brains at the door.
The BCP is a beautiful prayer book, and the liturgy reflects this. Almost - but not quite- the same as the RCC. It's more beautiful. It's also more inclusive. Women are not subsumed to men in the creed ' Jesus came for US and our salvation instead of "us men". There is a humility there that is absent in the RCC. It does not believe that the priests and bishops can usurp the authority and privileges of God, as the RCC does. Cordileone is just one of the recent examples. Indulgences are another - totally shocking in this day and age. It does not declare itself infallible, the height of arrogance. Only God is infallible - not a pope, not a magisterium of any kind.
One of the reasons we left ECUSA was because of this type of freelancing that risks rendering the sacraments meaningless. Charity requires me to assume that Bishop Cordileone is motivated by a similar belief, however unfortunate I think his actions are.
DeleteInteresting. I don’t see how the open table is freelancing. It seems to be more christian - more following the example of Jesus - than the RCC. For me, that makes the sacrament more meaningful rather than less.
DeleteIf you read the post Communion prayer in the BCP, you will see that it is to strengthen those who want to be accepted by God "as living members of your Son, our Savior." It is for those who want to walk in the way of Jesus as Christians. It is not a meal to be served up like a potluck. I don't know why a non Christian would *want* to take the sacrament.
DeleteThe invitation is to those who who seek God and wish to deepen their relationship with Christ. There are many Christians who aren’t baptized but seek a deeper relationship with Christ. There are non- Christians who are seekers. Come and see! TASTE and see!
DeleteThose who have decided it’s up to them to decide who can come to Jesus’s table instead of following Jesus’s example of inviting all, seem to be trying to usurp that which belongs to Christ alone.
Good thing there are different churches for different people. :)
There is nothing potluck about it. Jesus prepared the table ( didn’t invite everyone to bring a dish) and didn’t require a baptismal certificate. Obviously the open table bothers you, but I think it’s very christ- like. One of the reasons that when I go to church it’s ECUSA.
That's nice for you, but difficult for those of us who have seen ECUSA throw out the baby with the bathwater at times without regard for its three pillars: Reason, Scripture, and tradition. The alternatives are to go with that Ugandan mission that hates gay people or Rome with its rules and regulations. So, yes, I am uncomfortable with what ECUSA has become.
DeleteWell, we’ve only belonged to one EC parish. So I confess I really don’t relate to your experience. It seems to have been quite different from our experience. At least you found a home in the RCC.
DeleteI haven't received in the RCC for 20 years, after a tubal ligation. Quit attending Mass with Raber when the pandemic hit. My "home" seems to be treading water in the Tiber.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCheck out Irene Baldwin's comment on the subject on Jim McCrea's e-mail thread.
ReplyDeleteArchbishop Gustavo Garcia-Siller's (San Antonio) on the "slaughter of the innocents" in Uvalde yesterday. https://thetablet.org/archbishop-of-san-antonio-on-school-shooting-i-dont-know-what-to-make-of-all-this/
ReplyDeleteNot a peep out of AB Cordileone about that carnage as of this morning on the diocesan Web site.
The “ pro- life” Republicans in the senate have all refused to sign on to some meaningful gun control regulations. The Dems need ten in order to defeat a filibuster. Another example of the hypocrisy of so many who self identify as “ pro- life”. These are the same politicians who will block all the measures that would make it easier for women to bri g a child into the world.,
DeleteThere are too many guns in circulation for gun control laws to have any effect, I fear. After reading the story about the shooter in the WaPo, I think we need more counselors and interventions in schools and communities. The Republicans like to blab about how gun violence is a mental health problem, so let's see if they'll step up in that regard. But I don't hold out much hope. If all those dead first graders at Sandy Hook didn't move them, nothing will.
DeleteI do fear that the 400 million guns in the country in private hands are too many horses out of the barn to round up now. But going forward, we could emulate the civilized countries that allow gun ownership but also have rational gun control ( in France an individual can own 10 guns - hardly confiscatory). They have registration, licensing, background checks that are thorough, mandatory gun education and training, provisional licensing etc. Essentially a lot of the things we do now so that someone can get a driver’s license. They forbid sales of military style weapons to civilians, sales of body armor to civilians etc. Of course. people with mental health issues also have access to extensive, affordable mental health care, which is not available to most Americans because of cost - most insurance companies have strict limits on how many sessions someone can meet with a therapist and few people can afford to pay out of pocket.
DeleteNothing will work instantaneously but the number and availability of assault rifles can be reduced over time. Like Anne says, nobody wants to give people free mental health care. But, there IS a technofix. AI driven autonomous drones with disabling drug injectors and other countermeasures. Effective, safe for students, better than good guys with guns. But will the cheap ass Repubs support it? Will the cheap ass Americans pay the taxes?
DeleteIn the case of the Uvalde shooter, it wasn't just lax gun laws that failed him, the community, and the victims. Lack of school nurses and counselors, and a poorly funded family support system seem to have been contributing factors.
Deletehttps://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/his-communion-ban-cordileone-harms-church-more-pelosi-does
ReplyDeleteMichael Sean Winters thinks forcing the issue with the Communion ban will hurt the church more than it hurts Pelosi. I think he may be right.
Jack mentioned a few comments ago that the timing is strange when Pelosi and her voting record have been in plain sight for decades. I also don't understand why *now*.
I presume the answer to the "why now" question is in AB Cordileone's statement, that he has been trying to contact and remonstrate with her on this issue for a long time, and he has decided that she has no intention of taking his spiritual guidance.
DeleteI agree that the lack of consistency in the way bishops respond to pro-choice legislators weakens church unity. My guess is that the bishop is hoping to force the issue with his brother bishops and the pope.
As for removing abortion from the larger context of pro-life issues that MSW discusses ... I think the Church already did that by making it a sin for which only a bishop could offer absolution. I understand Francis has tried to reverse that, but it's already in the heads of most Catholics that abortion is a special class of sin.
It is my understanding (at least in our archdiocese) that priests can give absolution for abortion without going through the bishop..
DeleteSince the Leak, Democrats have gone into overdrive fundraising on the abortion question. Not a turn-on for me. Maybe all the rah rah sis boom bah made by the Dems triggered Cordileone to act now.
DeleteThat's a possibility. I think the Democrats have been in overdrive about the issue for a long time.
Delete