I imagine there will be cell phone videos of Pelosi receiving communion every time she receives for the next few months until people forget the story (ok, honestly, the next few weeks...)
There is already such a report. The Religion News Service (RNS) reports that Speaker Pelosi received Communion at Mass at a Georgetown church on Sunday.
I fear that you are right, but I hope you are wrong. Note also that this is such an important issue that even bishops who do not have high profile abortion-promoting Catholic politicians in their dioceses might be expected to speak up. Most have not. Meanwhile, there are many others who do indeed have such politicians, including those in state governments. Are those bishops cowering under their beds, hoping nobody has noticed? Is this the apostolic leadership Jesus had in mind?
A number of you have taken the time to respond, and I appreciate that.
There is a factual problem here. Does someone who supports Roe v. Wade therefore support abortion, or even "abortion at all stages of pregnancy"? I have the impression that many people -- including Archbishop Cordileone -- answer "yes" to this question.
I myself support Roe v. Wade, for the reasons described in my longer post. As I see it, the point of Roe is to restrain the use of the power of the state to invade privacy. Within that sphere of privacy the decision to have an abortion is wrong, but I am not in a position to judge any particular case within that sphere of privacy. I think the state's resources would be more productive during this sphere of privacy if it were devoted to supporting women to carry to term rather than prohibiting abortion.
I have been a practicing lawyer for over fifty years. I have read and studied Roe v. Wade. To say that Roe "supports abortion" is wrongheaded. I support Roe and do not support or advocate for abortion. As I see it, the idea that Roe supports abortion is a polemical assertion put forward by those who think the state -- on behalf of the unborn child -- should be able to invade this sphere of privacy.
I respectfully disagree that state actions in furtherance of this kind of invasive behavior is justified by the principle of life of the unborn child. Such justification is using the ends to justify the means. All Roe says is that these particular means -- invasive, prohibitory means during early stages of pregnancy -- are unconstitutional.
There are a lot of good Catholics -- including Nancy Pelosi, I suspect -- who are opposed to abortion but who support Roe's restrain on state power. For these people, the use of canon 915 is, at best, misguided.
So what is the problem here? Frankly, I think it's the failure of Cordileone to be honest with the facts. Is this because of ignorance? Or should he have known better?
I assume you do not consider the illegality of murder to be overrreach by the State into the sphere of privacy. Why do you consider it legitimate to permit such "reach" into the life of a mother with, say, a one month old victim, but not an unborn victim? After all, a biologically distinct organism is present immediately after conception; that same organism maintains consistent biological identity from that point forward until old age and death. That's the hard science. Is it not overreach to have the State draw a line anywhere in that timeline to define the point at which it begins to label the organism a human being worthy of legal rights? Its fundamental biological continuity does not change at the moment of birth; nor at any other point earlier or later.
We agree -- you and I -- that life begins at conception. We are talking about a living person. That's not the issue. The difference is that before birth this living person is inside another person. If this were a totalitarian state that wouldn't make any difference. But this is a Constitutional democracy with a Bill of Rights. There are limits on what the state can do to infringe upon the bodily integrity of the woman carrying the child. "Liberty interests" is the most generic term. In our democracy with its Bill of Rights those interests limit what the state can do.
It's a complex problem, as the Roe opinion recognized. At one point there is a fertilized egg and six months later it's a fully formed human being, both still inside the womb. What is reasonable for a civilized society? Sure, if you regard the life of the child as the only relevant factor then you could argue that the woman's womb was not her own: the woman is a mere nursemaid to a human being which merits the protection of the state by whatever means. But that approach ignores the complexity of the situation.
It might be your preference -- and the preference of many others -- to ignore the woman and the fact that the child is in her womb, from fertilized egg to birth, and have the state intervene by whatever means on behalf of life. I understand that argument, but you have to throw out the Bill of Rights to get there. In the United States we do not have an all powerful state. Facts matter. The fact that the child is in the woman's womb limits what the state can do. Biological facts matter. Half of fertilized eggs do not survive the first trimester. A good percentage of those are miscarriages. Historical facts matter. Before the mid to late 19th century, the accepted definition of abortion was after "quickening".
There is a difference between principle and practice. You can state a principle, but you can't legislate enforcement of the principle in the abstract. Labeling abortion as murder doesn't solve the problem. The principle of life doesn't justify any means regardless of context to preserve life using the power of the state. As a nation of laws we limit the power of the state to be intrusive, and we must live with the consequence that people can do bad things within their zones of privacy. Society must -- and generally does -- seek other ways to deal with sin.
You didn't answer my questions. I also make the additional observation that the State did not impregnate the woman -- hence is not responsible for the dependency of the fetus on the woman's body. The relationship was established, in most cases, by some third party (the father) and usually in collusion with the woman herself. So there may or may not have been "violation" of her rights. The State's "intrusion" on behalf of the fetus does not "ignore" the woman -- rather it assesses a trade-off between the fetus's right to life and the woman's convenience. In comparable trade-offs post birth, the right of the State to intervene on behalf of the life of the potential victim would always prevail over the right to the potential assassin's right to convenience. How is this situation different?
I did my best to answer your questions. I take it you didn't like the answer. Nor did you respond to my main point.
Your additional observation makes two points. First, the woman is responsible for her pregnancy. True (except for rape), but I don't see how that justifies state control over her body. Second, the state makes a tradeoff between the life of the child and the convenience of the woman. I suspect most women would be offended by the suggestion that control over their own body is a convenience. Men have a long history of using their power to control women, rape being only one example. The state's "tradeoff" -- if that is what it is -- would be another example in this long history. In any event, the "tradeoff" is a logical slight of hand that crudely separates what cannot be separated. The "post birth" comparison depends upon that separation and is therefore inapposite.
Let me try a different approach, using a metaphor. For the state to intervene without the woman's consent is a serious matter. It's like doing brain surgery. If we are doing brain surgery, we want the doctor to be using a scalpel, not a meat cleaver. A meat cleaver is the wrong instrument. Any doctor who shows up in the surgery with a meat cleaver is the wrong doctor.
The doctor in this situation -- speaking metaphorically -- is the people. It's easy to state the relevant principle: life is sacrosanct. It is deceptively easy to write that principle into law, and think "great, we're done!" No, we're not done. Principles are not self-executing. Who's going to do what to whom?
This is brain surgery. It's about a person-to-be, a child in the womb of a person who already is, a child unable to survive outside the womb. A competent analysis must take into account the whole of this reality. An analysis that simplifies this reality -- by saying either "the woman's choice is all important" or "the life of the unborn is all important" -- is partisan rather than competent, easy and dishonest rather than difficult but honest. Both extremes are wearing blinders.
In our government, who have the people chosen to address this problem? To return to the metaphor, the legislative branch is like a meat cleaver, especially in these highly partisan times. By way of contrast, the judicial branch -- for fifty years following Roe v. Wade -- is like a scalpel. Roe v. Wade makes the difficult but honest assessment, as called for by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Both woman and child are weighed with regard to use of the state's power to forcibly prevent a woman who chooses an abortion from having one. The 1973 Roe court's conclusion was pointedly directed toward this use of state power: first trimester, no; second trimester, only to assure the health of the woman; third trimester (after viability), yes. The 1992 Casey decision reformulated Roe's pre-viability standard, requiring that state power avoid placing an "undue burden" upon the woman.
Prelates like Cardinal Gregory recognize that the political debate over whether -- in the event Roe and Casey are overturned by the current Supreme Court -- the judicial scalpel of Roe should be legislatively reinstated is a genuine political issue that Catholics can disagree on without departing from the principle that life is sacred from the moment of conception. Prelates like Cardinal Gregory well understand that partisans shed more heat than light on the debate when they assert that their Catholic opponents who support Roe must therefore be supporting abortion.
Although Cardinal Gregory will likely avoid saying so in public, Archbishop Cordileone's canon 915 sanction of Speaker Pelosi for her support of Roe falls into the category of partisan heat.
Gregory's position is prudent and straightforward, not giving offense to a fellow bishop while making a correct judgment himself.
What's the problem here? As the commentary to canon 915 makes clear, there are two issues, both of which argue against Cordileone. First, "manifest grave sin" refers to the conscience of Pelosi, a matter of the "internal forum". Does Cordileone really think Pelosi is not following her conscience? More on that question in the next several paragraphs. Second, there must be "grave scandal on the part of the community". Does Cordileone really think that most San Francisco Catholics are scandalized by Pelosi's vigorous defense of a woman's choice in child bearing?
Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 by a 7-2 majority of the Supreme Court. Justice Rehnquist, one of the dissenters, wrote "The Court's opinion brings to the decision of this troubling question both extensive historical fact and a wealth of legal scholarship. While the opinion thus commands my respect, I find myself nonetheless in fundamental disagreement with those parts of it that invalidate the Texas statute in question, and therefore dissent." 410 U.S. 113 at 171. From the beginning the Roe opinion has been cast by partisans on both sides as "legalizing abortion" throughout pregnancy. This position was expressly rejected by the Court. 410 U.S. 113 at 153-154.
What Roe v. Wade actually did was establish a trimester formula for constraining the power of the state. It did not approve or validate abortion. The issue in Roe was whether the state of Texas could invade the privacy of women to prohibit abortion. The Bill of Rights (applied to the states by the 14th Amendment) is a limitation upon the use of state power. Invoking the Bill of Rights says nothing at all about the particular conduct (in this case, abortion) which is thereby shielded from state power.
Just as Roe recognized the privacy interests of the woman it also recognized the interests of the state in preserving the health of the mother and the life of the unborn child. The Court held that state power could be used to intervene: i) not at all during the first trimester; ii) only to protect the health of the mother during the second trimester; and iii) to protect the life of the child during the third trimester. Again, Roe did not authorize or validate abortion. The case was about the use of state power within the context of conflicting but legitimate interests. So, for Nancy Pelosi to advocate and support legislation which would similarly restrain the state's use of its power says nothing to authorize or validate abortion.
As good canon lawyers would advise Cordileone, Pelosi's support of Roe v. Wade is consistent with her opposition to abortion. The concern addressed by Roe was the use of state power so as to be invasive of the private space reserved to the people by the Bill of Rights. What people do within this private space -- abortion is only one example, and even that example does not apply under Roe after viability -- is none of the state's business.
But what people do within their private space is of concern to the Church, whose role it is to teach people so that they will have the benefit of that teaching in forming their consciences. Abortion -- the deliberate taking of life -- is evil. Cordileone is quite correct on this point. Where he goes astray is in presuming that Pelosi believes otherwise simply because she believes it's none of the state's business.
Why does Cordileone -- and many other conservative Catholics -- have this blind spot? It may lie in confusion between principle and practice. There is a common sense understanding of the danger of this confusion, which we summarize as the separation of church and state. In the United States, where we have a long history of Bill of Rights jurisprudence, limits on state power are all about practice: what is the government doing in a particular circumstance and how does that impinge on the right of citizens to be left alone?
There is a problem here, and it is cited by Cordileone in his letter of May 20th. He quotes then Cardinal Ratzinger (later Benedict XVI) as proscribing "formal cooperation with evil by supporting permissive abortion laws." This goes back to JPII's "Gospel of Life" encyclical of 1995 (paragraphs 68 through 74), and other Vatican documents, which make the argument that lack of a law prohibiting abortion is tantamount to an affirmation of abortion. That's a stretch, unless it is clear (and it isn't) that applies to principle rather than practice. Cordileone may be forgiven for falling into that trap. Roe v. Wade is about limiting what government does -- its practice -- vis a vis the liberty interests of its citizens.
There is a long history to the battle between state power and liberty. James Madison famously observed, in an October 1788 letter to Thomas Jefferson, "I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed by a popular current." Jefferson replied in March 1789, "half a loaf is better than no bread; if we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can" and "a declaration of rights ... a legal check [on legislative power] in the hands of the judiciary." The original Constitution did not have such a declaration of rights, in part because of concern that "overbearing majorities" would simply disregard them precisely "on those occasions when its control is most needed" (Madison 1788). But look what our judicial branch has done since those early days to provide a "legal check" on legislative power.
Nancy Pelosi can hardly be faulted for supporting the hopes and dreams of the founding fathers. Roe v. Wade is part of a long history of moving from Jefferson's "half a loaf" toward something more with respect to the David and Goliath fight between individual liberty and the power of the state. Cordileone may not have appreciated this history. In any event, his presumption that Pelosi's support of Roe v. Wade is tantamount to support of abortion has no basis in fact.
Well Clyde, Hitler must have followed his conscience and so have countless evil, disgusting human beings. Shall we say hurray for the holocaust then?
And by the way, there is no such choice to kill human beings especially the most helpless. If you argue that that is indeed a choice then yes, Hitler must be justified.
And before you go on and on about women's choice about their bodies, the baby is not THEIR body. The child is a completely seperate human being.
As for scandal, it comes from the word skandalon which means stumbling block. So yes Pelosi is a stumbling block, a huge one, not just for the Catholics but for everyone.
Gregory is sick and corrupt prelate who aids and abets abortions and abortionists by his refusal to correct those who support it. Silence is support.
But then again, we never did expect anything better from Gregory.
“Manifest sin” is a sin that is done in view of the community, or it wouldn’t be manifest. “Grave” refers to the seriousness of the sin.
Committing adultery is certainly grave sin, but it’s not often manifest. The boy who killed all those children in a Texas elementary school committed manifest grave sin.
The role of the “internal forum”, as you put it, would be to discern whether or not that grave sin is mortal and if so, if the sinner is repentant or not. Canon 915 doesn’t care if a sin is mortal or not, only if the sin is grave and manifest.
If you don’t think what Pelosi is doing regarding abortion is sin, okay. Abp. Cordileone disagrees, he’s the guy with the right to make that call, and he made it.
Personally, I think Ed’s path of a trial for heresy is more consistent with this kind of thing than merely barring the person from Communion.
You're missing the fact that since the leak of the Dobbs case, Speaker Pelosi has doubled down on her support for abortion at all stages of pregnancy. See the abortion law just rejected by the Senate. Pelosi has made clear that she's willing to use the full force of the federal government to find and guarantee access to abortion. She only values the right to privacy for women seeking abortions. Nevermind conscience protections for those opposed or the rights of the unborn. She reminds me of the slaveowners of the decades prior to the Civil War- they cry "states' rights," but they used the federal government to force cooperation with slavery (see, for example, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850).
What's worse is that she's used her Catholic faith to justify her position. As her pastor, Archbishop Cordileone told her that she can't use her faith to justify a grave moral evil.
So what we have is a tale of two prelates: one who's pastorally trying to correct a Catholic who is outspoken in using her faith to justify a gravely immoral action and another who's acting like he's afraid to speak the truth.
I imagine there will be cell phone videos of Pelosi receiving communion every time she receives for the next few months until people forget the story (ok, honestly, the next few weeks...)
There is already such a report. The Religion News Service (RNS) reports that Speaker Pelosi received Communion at Mass at a Georgetown church on Sunday.
Did we really expect anything better from Georgetown? Or from Jesuits for that matter?
Cordileone’s action appears to be a straightforward application of the law. So how can Gregory’s position be justified?
The short answer is that Gregory's position cannot be justified. That, in itself, is a scandal to the faithful.
I fear that you are right, but I hope you are wrong. Note also that this is such an important issue that even bishops who do not have high profile abortion-promoting Catholic politicians in their dioceses might be expected to speak up. Most have not. Meanwhile, there are many others who do indeed have such politicians, including those in state governments. Are those bishops cowering under their beds, hoping nobody has noticed? Is this the apostolic leadership Jesus had in mind?
A number of you have taken the time to respond, and I appreciate that.
There is a factual problem here. Does someone who supports Roe v. Wade therefore support abortion, or even "abortion at all stages of pregnancy"? I have the impression that many people -- including Archbishop Cordileone -- answer "yes" to this question.
I myself support Roe v. Wade, for the reasons described in my longer post. As I see it, the point of Roe is to restrain the use of the power of the state to invade privacy. Within that sphere of privacy the decision to have an abortion is wrong, but I am not in a position to judge any particular case within that sphere of privacy. I think the state's resources would be more productive during this sphere of privacy if it were devoted to supporting women to carry to term rather than prohibiting abortion.
I have been a practicing lawyer for over fifty years. I have read and studied Roe v. Wade. To say that Roe "supports abortion" is wrongheaded. I support Roe and do not support or advocate for abortion. As I see it, the idea that Roe supports abortion is a polemical assertion put forward by those who think the state -- on behalf of the unborn child -- should be able to invade this sphere of privacy.
I respectfully disagree that state actions in furtherance of this kind of invasive behavior is justified by the principle of life of the unborn child. Such justification is using the ends to justify the means. All Roe says is that these particular means -- invasive, prohibitory means during early stages of pregnancy -- are unconstitutional.
There are a lot of good Catholics -- including Nancy Pelosi, I suspect -- who are opposed to abortion but who support Roe's restrain on state power. For these people, the use of canon 915 is, at best, misguided.
So what is the problem here? Frankly, I think it's the failure of Cordileone to be honest with the facts. Is this because of ignorance? Or should he have known better?
I assume you do not consider the illegality of murder to be overrreach by the State into the sphere of privacy. Why do you consider it legitimate to permit such "reach" into the life of a mother with, say, a one month old victim, but not an unborn victim? After all, a biologically distinct organism is present immediately after conception; that same organism maintains consistent biological identity from that point forward until old age and death. That's the hard science. Is it not overreach to have the State draw a line anywhere in that timeline to define the point at which it begins to label the organism a human being worthy of legal rights? Its fundamental biological continuity does not change at the moment of birth; nor at any other point earlier or later.
We agree -- you and I -- that life begins at conception. We are talking about a living person. That's not the issue. The difference is that before birth this living person is inside another person. If this were a totalitarian state that wouldn't make any difference. But this is a Constitutional democracy with a Bill of Rights. There are limits on what the state can do to infringe upon the bodily integrity of the woman carrying the child. "Liberty interests" is the most generic term. In our democracy with its Bill of Rights those interests limit what the state can do.
It's a complex problem, as the Roe opinion recognized. At one point there is a fertilized egg and six months later it's a fully formed human being, both still inside the womb. What is reasonable for a civilized society? Sure, if you regard the life of the child as the only relevant factor then you could argue that the woman's womb was not her own: the woman is a mere nursemaid to a human being which merits the protection of the state by whatever means. But that approach ignores the complexity of the situation.
It might be your preference -- and the preference of many others -- to ignore the woman and the fact that the child is in her womb, from fertilized egg to birth, and have the state intervene by whatever means on behalf of life. I understand that argument, but you have to throw out the Bill of Rights to get there. In the United States we do not have an all powerful state. Facts matter. The fact that the child is in the woman's womb limits what the state can do. Biological facts matter. Half of fertilized eggs do not survive the first trimester. A good percentage of those are miscarriages. Historical facts matter. Before the mid to late 19th century, the accepted definition of abortion was after "quickening".
There is a difference between principle and practice. You can state a principle, but you can't legislate enforcement of the principle in the abstract. Labeling abortion as murder doesn't solve the problem. The principle of life doesn't justify any means regardless of context to preserve life using the power of the state. As a nation of laws we limit the power of the state to be intrusive, and we must live with the consequence that people can do bad things within their zones of privacy. Society must -- and generally does -- seek other ways to deal with sin.
It's not perfect, but it's civilized.
You didn't answer my questions. I also make the additional observation that the State did not impregnate the woman -- hence is not responsible for the dependency of the fetus on the woman's body. The relationship was established, in most cases, by some third party (the father) and usually in collusion with the woman herself. So there may or may not have been "violation" of her rights. The State's "intrusion" on behalf of the fetus does not "ignore" the woman -- rather it assesses a trade-off between the fetus's right to life and the woman's convenience. In comparable trade-offs post birth, the right of the State to intervene on behalf of the life of the potential victim would always prevail over the right to the potential assassin's right to convenience. How is this situation different?
I did my best to answer your questions. I take it you didn't like the answer. Nor did you respond to my main point.
Your additional observation makes two points. First, the woman is responsible for her pregnancy. True (except for rape), but I don't see how that justifies state control over her body. Second, the state makes a tradeoff between the life of the child and the convenience of the woman. I suspect most women would be offended by the suggestion that control over their own body is a convenience. Men have a long history of using their power to control women, rape being only one example. The state's "tradeoff" -- if that is what it is -- would be another example in this long history. In any event, the "tradeoff" is a logical slight of hand that crudely separates what cannot be separated. The "post birth" comparison depends upon that separation and is therefore inapposite.
Let me try a different approach, using a metaphor. For the state to intervene without the woman's consent is a serious matter. It's like doing brain surgery. If we are doing brain surgery, we want the doctor to be using a scalpel, not a meat cleaver. A meat cleaver is the wrong instrument. Any doctor who shows up in the surgery with a meat cleaver is the wrong doctor.
The doctor in this situation -- speaking metaphorically -- is the people. It's easy to state the relevant principle: life is sacrosanct. It is deceptively easy to write that principle into law, and think "great, we're done!" No, we're not done. Principles are not self-executing. Who's going to do what to whom?
This is brain surgery. It's about a person-to-be, a child in the womb of a person who already is, a child unable to survive outside the womb. A competent analysis must take into account the whole of this reality. An analysis that simplifies this reality -- by saying either "the woman's choice is all important" or "the life of the unborn is all important" -- is partisan rather than competent, easy and dishonest rather than difficult but honest. Both extremes are wearing blinders.
In our government, who have the people chosen to address this problem? To return to the metaphor, the legislative branch is like a meat cleaver, especially in these highly partisan times. By way of contrast, the judicial branch -- for fifty years following Roe v. Wade -- is like a scalpel. Roe v. Wade makes the difficult but honest assessment, as called for by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Both woman and child are weighed with regard to use of the state's power to forcibly prevent a woman who chooses an abortion from having one. The 1973 Roe court's conclusion was pointedly directed toward this use of state power: first trimester, no; second trimester, only to assure the health of the woman; third trimester (after viability), yes. The 1992 Casey decision reformulated Roe's pre-viability standard, requiring that state power avoid placing an "undue burden" upon the woman.
Prelates like Cardinal Gregory recognize that the political debate over whether -- in the event Roe and Casey are overturned by the current Supreme Court -- the judicial scalpel of Roe should be legislatively reinstated is a genuine political issue that Catholics can disagree on without departing from the principle that life is sacred from the moment of conception. Prelates like Cardinal Gregory well understand that partisans shed more heat than light on the debate when they assert that their Catholic opponents who support Roe must therefore be supporting abortion.
Although Cardinal Gregory will likely avoid saying so in public, Archbishop Cordileone's canon 915 sanction of Speaker Pelosi for her support of Roe falls into the category of partisan heat.
Gregory's position is prudent and straightforward, not giving offense to a fellow bishop while making a correct judgment himself.
What's the problem here? As the commentary to canon 915 makes clear, there are two issues, both of which argue against Cordileone. First, "manifest grave sin" refers to the conscience of Pelosi, a matter of the "internal forum". Does Cordileone really think Pelosi is not following her conscience? More on that question in the next several paragraphs. Second, there must be "grave scandal on the part of the community". Does Cordileone really think that most San Francisco Catholics are scandalized by Pelosi's vigorous defense of a woman's choice in child bearing?
Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 by a 7-2 majority of the Supreme Court. Justice Rehnquist, one of the dissenters, wrote "The Court's opinion brings to the decision of this troubling question both extensive historical fact and a wealth of legal scholarship. While the opinion thus commands my respect, I find myself nonetheless in fundamental disagreement with those parts of it that invalidate the Texas statute in question, and therefore dissent." 410 U.S. 113 at 171. From the beginning the Roe opinion has been cast by partisans on both sides as "legalizing abortion" throughout pregnancy. This position was expressly rejected by the Court. 410 U.S. 113 at 153-154.
What Roe v. Wade actually did was establish a trimester formula for constraining the power of the state. It did not approve or validate abortion. The issue in Roe was whether the state of Texas could invade the privacy of women to prohibit abortion. The Bill of Rights (applied to the states by the 14th Amendment) is a limitation upon the use of state power. Invoking the Bill of Rights says nothing at all about the particular conduct (in this case, abortion) which is thereby shielded from state power.
Just as Roe recognized the privacy interests of the woman it also recognized the interests of the state in preserving the health of the mother and the life of the unborn child. The Court held that state power could be used to intervene: i) not at all during the first trimester; ii) only to protect the health of the mother during the second trimester; and iii) to protect the life of the child during the third trimester. Again, Roe did not authorize or validate abortion. The case was about the use of state power within the context of conflicting but legitimate interests. So, for Nancy Pelosi to advocate and support legislation which would similarly restrain the state's use of its power says nothing to authorize or validate abortion.
As good canon lawyers would advise Cordileone, Pelosi's support of Roe v. Wade is consistent with her opposition to abortion. The concern addressed by Roe was the use of state power so as to be invasive of the private space reserved to the people by the Bill of Rights. What people do within this private space -- abortion is only one example, and even that example does not apply under Roe after viability -- is none of the state's business.
But what people do within their private space is of concern to the Church, whose role it is to teach people so that they will have the benefit of that teaching in forming their consciences. Abortion -- the deliberate taking of life -- is evil. Cordileone is quite correct on this point. Where he goes astray is in presuming that Pelosi believes otherwise simply because she believes it's none of the state's business.
Why does Cordileone -- and many other conservative Catholics -- have this blind spot? It may lie in confusion between principle and practice. There is a common sense understanding of the danger of this confusion, which we summarize as the separation of church and state. In the United States, where we have a long history of Bill of Rights jurisprudence, limits on state power are all about practice: what is the government doing in a particular circumstance and how does that impinge on the right of citizens to be left alone?
There is a problem here, and it is cited by Cordileone in his letter of May 20th. He quotes then Cardinal Ratzinger (later Benedict XVI) as proscribing "formal cooperation with evil by supporting permissive abortion laws." This goes back to JPII's "Gospel of Life" encyclical of 1995 (paragraphs 68 through 74), and other Vatican documents, which make the argument that lack of a law prohibiting abortion is tantamount to an affirmation of abortion. That's a stretch, unless it is clear (and it isn't) that applies to principle rather than practice. Cordileone may be forgiven for falling into that trap. Roe v. Wade is about limiting what government does -- its practice -- vis a vis the liberty interests of its citizens.
There is a long history to the battle between state power and liberty. James Madison famously observed, in an October 1788 letter to Thomas Jefferson, "I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed by a popular current." Jefferson replied in March 1789, "half a loaf is better than no bread; if we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can" and "a declaration of rights ... a legal check [on legislative power] in the hands of the judiciary." The original Constitution did not have such a declaration of rights, in part because of concern that "overbearing majorities" would simply disregard them precisely "on those occasions when its control is most needed" (Madison 1788). But look what our judicial branch has done since those early days to provide a "legal check" on legislative power.
Nancy Pelosi can hardly be faulted for supporting the hopes and dreams of the founding fathers. Roe v. Wade is part of a long history of moving from Jefferson's "half a loaf" toward something more with respect to the David and Goliath fight between individual liberty and the power of the state. Cordileone may not have appreciated this history. In any event, his presumption that Pelosi's support of Roe v. Wade is tantamount to support of abortion has no basis in fact.
Gregory is the wiser prelate.
Well Clyde, Hitler must have followed his conscience and so have countless evil, disgusting human beings. Shall we say hurray for the holocaust then?
And by the way, there is no such choice to kill human beings especially the most helpless. If you argue that that is indeed a choice then yes, Hitler must be justified.
And before you go on and on about women's choice about their bodies, the baby is not THEIR body. The child is a completely seperate human being.
As for scandal, it comes from the word skandalon which means stumbling block. So yes Pelosi is a stumbling block, a huge one, not just for the Catholics but for everyone.
Gregory is sick and corrupt prelate who aids and abets abortions and abortionists by his refusal to correct those who support it. Silence is support.
But then again, we never did expect anything better from Gregory.
“Manifest sin” is a sin that is done in view of the community, or it wouldn’t be manifest. “Grave” refers to the seriousness of the sin.
Committing adultery is certainly grave sin, but it’s not often manifest. The boy who killed all those children in a Texas elementary school committed manifest grave sin.
The role of the “internal forum”, as you put it, would be to discern whether or not that grave sin is mortal and if so, if the sinner is repentant or not. Canon 915 doesn’t care if a sin is mortal or not, only if the sin is grave and manifest.
If you don’t think what Pelosi is doing regarding abortion is sin, okay. Abp. Cordileone disagrees, he’s the guy with the right to make that call, and he made it.
Personally, I think Ed’s path of a trial for heresy is more consistent with this kind of thing than merely barring the person from Communion.
You're missing the fact that since the leak of the Dobbs case, Speaker Pelosi has doubled down on her support for abortion at all stages of pregnancy. See the abortion law just rejected by the Senate. Pelosi has made clear that she's willing to use the full force of the federal government to find and guarantee access to abortion. She only values the right to privacy for women seeking abortions. Nevermind conscience protections for those opposed or the rights of the unborn. She reminds me of the slaveowners of the decades prior to the Civil War- they cry "states' rights," but they used the federal government to force cooperation with slavery (see, for example, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850).
What's worse is that she's used her Catholic faith to justify her position. As her pastor, Archbishop Cordileone told her that she can't use her faith to justify a grave moral evil.
So what we have is a tale of two prelates: one who's pastorally trying to correct a Catholic who is outspoken in using her faith to justify a gravely immoral action and another who's acting like he's afraid to speak the truth.
It might have been useful to anticipate arguments that conflate canon 916 and 915 as these will often pop up in comments on social media
Meanwhile Bishop Koenig, will you also grow some spine and bar Biden?