|
Normally, I steer away from interjecting politicians by name into a
homily. It’s
not my place to discuss my politics or how I assess a politician’s
policies or public statements in a homily. No, it’s my
place―actually, it’s my moral responsibility―to
discuss with you what scripture and the Church teach. However,
these past two weeks, two politicians on the national stage have
served up whoppers, actually
“Double
Whoppers with Cheese,”
that I cannot let pass by without comment. Why? Because
each has misrepresented what scripture and the Church teach and this
presents a potential threat to the faith and morals of the people
God has entrusted to me as a priest.
Last week, I
discussed what our “pay grade” is as Christians when it comes to
moral issues, and especially the issue of when human life begins.
Because God has already sent His only begotten Son to reveal the
Way, the Truth, and the Life, there is simply no way that any of
us―as Jesus’ disciples―can honestly state in response to any moral
question, “that’s beyond my pay grade.” We already know the
answers; as disciples, our challenge is to give witness to those
answers no matter how people may feel about us, what they may think
about us, or what they may do to us.
Following Mass and while ironing my shirts last Sunday afternoon, I was listening to
Meet the Press. The moderator, Tom Brokaw, asked Speaker of the
U.S. House of Representatives, Mrs. Nancy Pelosi, “Help me out here,
Madame Speaker. When does life begin?” I was stunned and
astonished to hear Mrs. Pelosi state:
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….St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know….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 [that life
begins at conception]….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….
What was wrong with the Madame Speaker’s statements that caused me
to be so stunned and astonished that I screamed at the television
and scared the bejeezes out of the cat who ran away and hid?
Three things.
First: her statement that the Church has asserted that “life begins
at conception” for about 50 years. Second: her statement that St.
Augustine said life begins at “three months.” Third: her
audacity in believing that she possesses sufficient academic
training to be a Church historian. The first—a factual
error—concerns Church teaching. The second—an historical
error—involves a clear misreading of one of the great theologians of
Western Christianity. The third—an error of judgment—is the belief
that, as an “ardent, practicing Catholic,” Mrs. Pelosi (or anyone of
her stripe) possesses sufficient academic training to speak
definitively on behalf of the Church’s
teaching.
On the first point, several archbishops—those who are specifically
entrusted with teaching the orthodox faith—came out swinging.
Statements were issued almost immediately by the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops as well as the Archbishops of
Washington D.C., Denver, and New York. Their response was swift and
in numbers and intensity that surprised even Church insiders, some
have observed.
I think the statement issued by the Archbishop of Denver, Charles
Chaput, was spot on point. He noted:
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
anti-abortion 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.”
Ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical
record that from apostolic times, the Christian tradition
overwhelmingly held that abortion was grievously evil. In the
absence of modern medical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held
that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to
homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the
unborn child might be animated or “ensouled.” But none diminished
the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the
early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short,
from the beginning, the believing Christian community held
that abortion was always, gravely wrong.
So, the fact of the matter is that the Church has always taught that
abortion is a grave evil. On this first point, Catholics should not
be confused, as any self-professed ardent, Catholic would know
beyond the shadow of any doubt whatsoever.
On the second point, when I heard the Speaker of the House of
Representatives opining about St. Augustine, I thought that perhaps
she had confused two doctors of the Church, St. Augustine (who lived
during the 5th century) and St. Thomas Aquinas (who lived during the
13th century). St. Thomas Aquinas did speculate that an embryo is
“ensouled” at the point of “quickening,” that is, the time when a
pregnant woman can feel her baby move. The point at which this
occurs is approximately three months following conception.
That having been duly noted, Eleanore Stump, a professor of philosophy at St. Louis
University and author of “Aquinas” (Routledge, 2003),
is quoted as saying: “There’s no way…Aquinas would have accepted abortion.”
But, on Tuesday, Mrs. Pelosi’s office released a statement leaving
no doubt that she meant St. Augustine. The statement noted:
After she was elected to Congress, and the choice issue became more
public as she would have to vote on it, she studied the matter more
closely. Her views on when life begins were informed by the views
of Saint Augustine who said:
“…the
law does not provide that the act [abortion] pertains to homicide,
for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks
sensation”
(Saint Augustine, On Exodus 21:22).
Mrs. Pelosi unfortunately read neither Fr. Connery’s Abortion:
The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective nor St.
Augustine’s On Exodus very carefully, if at all. The point
in the quote from the latter and affirmed by the former concerned
the application of criminal penalties and sanctions (for example,
excommunication), not whether abortion was a
grave evil. What we do know, in fact, is that St. Augustine
preached against the Roman practice of infanticide—the killing of
unwanted or imperfect children. Nowhere in all of his volumes―and
they are legion―did
St. Augustine ever approve of abortion.
Professor Stump also noted that intellectual powerhouses like St.
Augustine and especially St. Thomas Aquinas are so incredible that
their writings encompass volumes of ideas and thoughts that are laid
out sometimes with extreme care and detail and at other times are
speculations that meander all over the place. Further,
she stressed, both Augustine and Aquinas debated their own arguments
in those volumes. For example, take St. Augustine. Later in his
life, he wrote a book entitled Retractions in which Augustine
corrected errors and possible misinterpretations he discovered in
his earlier writings. The lesson to be learned? Taking one
statement out of context to make it support a predetermined, controversial
political position on a complex moral issue is…well, let’s just say, the Madame Speaker could
not have engaged in very
serious study,
despite the fact she says that she did.
With regard to this second point, there is also the question of why
anyone who is attempting to state a scientific fact (like when life
begins) would go back to a philosopher and theologian of the 5th
century when modern medical science can provide far superior factual
evidence to answer the question. It would make far more sense,
wouldn’t it, to consult experts―microbiology and embryology
come to mind first―of
the 21st century? If Mrs. Pelosi were to have engaged in serious study,
she would have discovered—much to her surprise, I think—that there
are reputable scientists who have published medical textbooks and
journal articles telling anyone who wants to read them precisely
when life begins. After all, Mrs. Pelosi did state to Tom Brokaw,
“…I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life
begins.” Come now! Nobody can state when life―even
human life―begins?
Once again, the simple fact is that the Madame Speaker could not
have engaged in very serious study, despite the fact she says that
she did.
In light of all of this, Mrs. Pelosi’s
“serious study”
could not have
included the volume, The Heredity Factor,” written by William
L. Nyhan, the widely-recognized expert in embryology and former
Chair of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of
California. Dr. Nyhan wrote: “When scientists could examine embryos
under the microscope, they recognized that the processes of
development constituted a continuum from fertilization through
delivery. There is no magic moment at which an embryo
suddenly becomes something different” (p. 265). That is to say,
life begins at conception and follows a progressive, developmental
trajectory that culminates in the birth of an infant human being.
The simple fact is that Mrs. Pelosi could not have consulted with an
expert like Dr. Nyhan. That is why, in what has to be deliberately
cultivated ignorance, Mrs. Pelosi had the audacity to state to the
moderator of Meet the Press, Tom Brokaw, “I don’t think
anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.”
Regarding the third point, namely, that as an “ardent, practicing
Catholic,” Mrs. Pelosi possesses the requisite academic training to
speak definitively concerning Church teaching, St. Paul reminded the
Christian community in Rome: “Do not conform yourselves to this age
but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern
what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect”
(Romans 12:2). Discerning God’s will is crucial and, in all
decisions, the objective is to do God’s will. This is how Christians become good, pleasing, and perfect,
St. Paul argues.
But, to this end, Christians must first recognize what St. Paul
calls “this age” for what it is. This requires that we honestly and
sincerely identify those values that run contrary to scripture and
Church teaching as well as the challenges these counter-values
present. Let us not forget, making the wrong decision does make
disciples bad, unpleasing, and imperfect. Why? Because
they have failed to discern God’s will. Making the right decision
is what makes disciples good, pleasing, and perfect because Jesus’
disciples have correctly discerned God’s will and have rejected
whatever fails to conform with it.
I am sure there are many Catholics today who would believe, along
with the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, that they are
“an ardent, practicing Catholic”
and the decisions they have made about complex moral issues came after they “have studied for a
long time.” But, it must be asked: Just who are these people
studying? Are they carefully examining all points of view on the
subject? Have they identified weaknesses in the arguments and
counter-arguments? On whose authority are they making these
essentially scholarly judgments? Unfortunately, most of what
these Catholics assert is false and it is obvious they have not
studied these complex moral issues seriously or soberly. Why? Because
their allegedly
long and careful “study” is construed
to find facts that fit the template of their private religious,
theological, social, cultural, or political agendas. None of this
is new, however. Even St. Peter himself fell into this trap
when he argued that he knew better than Jesus what constituted
Jesus’ mission. “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle,” Jesus
rebuked Peter. Why? Jesus said: “You are thinking not as God
does, but as humans do.”
“An ardent, practicing Catholic” seeks to discern God’s will with
the goal of becoming good, pleasing, and perfect. Yes, this
includes careful study...of scripture, Church teaching, and expert
scholars who represent all points of view. This is called
“informing one’s conscience” so that, as Mrs. Pelosi correctly
noted, human beings can exercise
free will and bear responsibility for their actions. But,
where Mrs. Pelosi goes wrong―dead
wrong, in my pastoral opinion―is
with her conclusion that a disciple can be “pro-choice.”
Why? Any decision that has not discerned God’s will
requires the invention of alibis―clever
arguments or, even, outright lies―that break radically with
scripture, Church teaching, and most expert scholars.
Catholics who invent excuses because they are not willing to discern
and implement God’s will—whether these people are famous or not—are
fooling only themselves. But, that’s not all. Catholics who invent
these excuses also end up being a stumbling block—an “obstacle,”
Jesus called it—to those who are making sincere efforts to discern
God’s will in this age as well as to live what both scripture and
the Church teach so that they might be good, pleasing, and perfect.
Mrs. Pelosi does not speak authoritatively concerning either
scripture or Church teaching. For ardent, practicing Catholics, it
is the duty of the Church and its bishops and priests to provide
this voice as well as a moral witness when obstacles present
themselves. That duty becomes even more an imperative when the
state and its officials—who boldly assert a “separation of Church
and state”—actually seek to separate faith from political life, as
Archbishop Chaput rightly noted. “It's always important,” he said,
“to know what our faith actually teaches.”
It’s hard enough in any era―the
“old age” or the “new age”―
for human beings to strive for holiness. But, in this generation
when family members and friends, priests and perhaps even bishops,
or an entire culture profess the opposite of what God’s will
requires, it becomes all the more difficult to seek holiness.
Likely, this is part of what Jesus meant when, after rebuking Peter
in today’s
gospel,
Jesus said to his disciples: “Whoever wants to come after me must
deny himself, take up his cross and follow me” (Matthew 16:25).
Lest we deceive ourselves, it is never an easy thing to be an
ardent, practicing Catholic because it oftentimes means not basing
our decisions on public opinion. |
HOMILY
