« What should she do? | Main | Secularization unbound? »
December 28, 2006
Nancy-Palooza
Can you feel the excitement? In a few days, Nancy Pelosi will seize the reins as Speaker of the House, and boy, does she want you to know it:
On a scale associated with presidential inaugurations, Nancy Pelosi is planning four days of celebration surrounding her Jan. 4 swearing-in as the first female speaker of the House. She will return to the blue-collar Baltimore neighborhood where she grew up, attend Mass at the women's college where she studied political science, and dine at the Italian Embassy as Tony Bennett sings "I Left My Heart in San Francisco."
But the hoopla is more than just a party.
Pelosi is grabbing the moment to present herself as the new face of the Democratic Party and to restore the party's image as one hospitable to ethnic minorities, families, religion, the working class and women.
snip
On Jan. 3, Pelosi will attend morning Mass at Trinity University, her alma mater in Washington, and then attend a tea in the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium for about 400 female politicians, supporters and activists. In the evening, she will be honored at a dinner at the Italian Embassy, where Bennett will perform.
The next day, Pelosi will participate in a nondenominational service at St. Peter's Catholic Church on Capitol Hill and then eat brunch with hundreds of supporters at the Cannon House Office Building and the Library of Congress. At noon, the House will convene to elect Pelosi speaker. That night, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee will hold a fundraiser at the Building Museum, where 1,200 partygoers will pay $1,000 each to applaud Pelosi between performances by Jimmy Buffett, Carole King and Mickey Hart, among others.
Trinity is understandably excited about the achievement of its alumna, but the burning question is, what will the Archbishop of Washington do?
One could say...ah, well it's a function in a university chapel. It's not directly associated with the Archdiocese. In fact it's a couple or three steps removed from the Archdiocese. One could say that and a lot more. And I'm fairly ignorant about what an Archbishop's options are in a situation like this. I am fairly sure, however, that one of his options would be to open his mouth and say something.
Ah, but what of the agony of the Catholic politician...struggling to serve her conscience even as she serves her constituents in a way that is consistent with both her faith and the Constitution! What a dilemma! What valiant creatures these Catholic pols are, attempting to live out their faith in the public square!
Here is a summary of Pelosi's record on abortion and similar issues in the House.
- Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
- Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
- Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
- Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
- Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
- Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
- Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
- Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
- Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
- Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
- Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
- Supported funding contraception and UN family planning. (Jul 1999)
Rep. Pelosi has earned a fully pro-choice voting record from NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Clift: I think the issues that brought you into politics were the environment and also choice. [You had] five children in six years, a Catholic background…Was embracing choice an issue with your family?
Pelosi: To me it isn’t even a question. God has given us a free will. We’re all responsible for our actions. If you don’t want an abortion, you don’t believe in it, [then] don’t have one. But don’t tell somebody else what they can do in terms of honoring their responsibilities. My family is very pro-life. They’re not fanatics and they’re not activists. I think they’d like it if I were not so vocally pro-choice.
Doesn't sound much of a struggle to me. Sounds like her mind is made up. And there's not a bit of Catholic-tinged reasoning even touching the edges of her actions, associations or explanations. So while comments about "how we can be pro-life while still espousing limited legal abortion" have been part of the discussion here before, they have no place at this moment, for that is not what Nancy Pelosi is interested in, that's not where her head is.
So. Will the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church let itself be played? Will it allow Nancy Pelosi to "celebrate" her Catholic roots as an act of obvious, frank political manipulation to get ethnic Catholics to start thinking Democrat again? Or will the leadership of this Church swallow its instinctive institutional self-protectiveness and pride, consider the spectacle of a Catholic who has achieved a position of political power, trumpets her Catholic identity, but is viciously indifferent to the plight of the weakest and most helpless in our society and say...Hmmm. Something wrong here. Maybe we should...do something? Maybe?
Folks, this is not about being Catholic. The world is full of bad Catholics and most of us are in that category, for sure. We all need a little mercy now, as Mary Gauthier says. I have long maintained that the most fundamental spiritual difference between Catholics Then and Now is the shift from "We're all bad Catholics except for that little saintly lady who comes to 6am Mass in the snow, and even she probably thinks she's a bad Catholic" to "We're all Good Catholics Now!" Great, even.
No,it is about playing and using Catholic identity as a political tool and not being called on it, especially when the one doing the playing uses her power to actively work against what the bishops of this country say is a priority of theirs. And frankly, if this self-aggrandizing, cynical spectacle is met only with silence, who can blame the rest of us, engaged in far less visible professions and efforts in this world, for shrugging and saying, "Huh. So that's how it is? That's what being a disciple means? Using the position we've achieved and the place that we've taken and either ignoring or actively working against the Church's efforts? Well, Who knew? That's easier than I thought!"
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
You're right. And my guess is that no one in authority will say "boo" about it.
Posted by: John Foster at Dec 28, 2006 3:51:08 PM
The bishops do nothing about Catholic conservatives who do nothing to support the Church's social policies, so I guess we can expect them to do nothing in Speaker Pelosi's case. In fact, in the face of most controversies, the bishops do nothing....but talk
Posted by: Jim at Dec 28, 2006 3:57:38 PM
I get the impression that she has a problem with pro-life people, especially when she comments that her family is supposedly pro-life (How do we know that for sure?), but aren't fanatics or activists. I guess she figures that pro-life people are fanatics or activists. Being a pro-life activist is probably something she looks down on. Yet, when it comes to NARAL and other abortion organizations, she has no problem bowing down to their altar. Shame on her! She is just power hungry and is more than willing to sell her soul to the devil. She makes all Catholics look so bad. It is very sad.
Posted by: DK at Dec 28, 2006 3:59:31 PM
I would not expect one peep from "The Donald". a.k.a Bishop Wuerl of D.C. While he isn't nearly the shameless self-promoter that his predecessor was (slippery Teddy McCarrick), don't expect him to lift a finger to speak truthfully about a rabid pro-abortion activist like Pelosi trumpeting her so-called Catholic credentials by blasphenously receiving our Lord at Mass. Trinity, but the way, is only Catholic on its stationery as it was driven into the ground by feminist nuns long ago.
Remember, too, that as bishop of Pittsburgh, Wuerl never had the courage to put a stop to John Kerry's equally scandalous visits to the parishes in his diocese. Pelosi and Wuerl are both reflections of our society and the Church in America, respectively. Both are cause for deep concern.
Posted by: Restoration at Dec 28, 2006 4:02:31 PM
jp3 from Georgetown:
On cue. Completely predictable.
Posted by: mac at Dec 28, 2006 4:03:26 PM
I am pretty confident that I can predict exactly what Archbishop Wuerl will do: Nothing. He won't even comment.
If he follows McCarrick's playbook he might even be out of town that day.
Posted by: dymphna at Dec 28, 2006 4:28:27 PM
Jim comments above that the Church does nothing about Catholic conservatives who "don't support the Church's social policies. . . ." Actually, Jim, the Church doesn't have "social policies" but "social teaching." While in some circumstances Catholic conservatives don't support that, in the great many cases they don't see the Church's social TEACHING as leading to what we currently refer to as liberal POLICIES. Opposition to abortion is not a "policy" since it is simply the application of the prohibition against killing the innocent to a case of, um, killing the innocent. Tax rates, ways of providing housing and medical care, and other prudential questions are all points on which Catholics can have many positions that would fit with Catholic SOCIAL TEACHING.
Posted by: David Deavel at Dec 28, 2006 4:32:37 PM
Jim (jpc3@georgetown) is right,
If a Republican is pro-abortion and pro-ESCR he/she should also be denied the right to use the Mass as a political photo op.
Posted by: reluctant penitent at Dec 28, 2006 4:34:08 PM
"...denied the right..." should be "...denied the opportunity..."
Posted by: reluctant penitent at Dec 28, 2006 4:35:34 PM
"Will the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church let itself be played?"
Do you mean in the sense of hyped-up expectations from the Republicans, followed by let-downs? Remember, Nancy Pelosi and sitting Republican presidents have identical records when it comes to active participation in Washington's annual demonstration for life.
I'm dismayed by Pelosi's conservative approach to abortion. But I hope Wuerl and the bishops have more sense than to be drawn into a tussle that they cannot hope to win. Prudence would dictate picking and choosing battles. An installation of a Speaker is not a pro-Life moment. To make it so would expose the instigators as politicians, not shepherds. But the msm would love for the fur to fly. It will sell Levitra on CNN, don't you think?
Posted by: Todd at Dec 28, 2006 4:37:06 PM
I have long maintained that the most fundamental spiritual difference between Catholics Then and Now is the shift from "We're all bad Catholics except for that little saintly lady who comes to 6am Mass in the snow, and even she probably thinks she's a bad Catholic" to "We're all Good Catholics Now!" Great, even.
Hah! Great observation.
Posted by: Jason at Dec 28, 2006 4:41:42 PM
I didn't know she had 5 children. Good for her. This would indicate she has embraced the Catholic teaching of large families being a blessing unlike say 80% of the pew-sitters.
Obviously her views on abortion are disorderd. Her support of ESCR is objectively evil. Some of the others on the list are small potatos like interstate transport.
Archbishop Wuerl will do nothing about it; she is most likely not registered in his diocese. Archbishop Niederauer is her ordinary and would be the appropriate place to seek an interdict against her. Her abortion stance would be a plausible cause for interdiction. Her ordinary would be the proper person to petition for an interdict.
Posted by: M.Z. Forrest at Dec 28, 2006 4:42:18 PM
This thread is already taking a direction that is, frankly, pissing me off. There is absolutely no need to come here and prance about pro-abort GOP-ers to demonstrate your bona fides. Long-time readers know that we despise the GOP around here, pretty much. This is not a Dem v. GOP issue. This is a Nancy Pelosi on January 3 at Mass at Trinity College in the Archdiocese of Washington issue.
But, as usual, the conversation just repeats itself.
Posted by: Amy at Dec 28, 2006 4:42:37 PM
M.Z.:
It's not a matter of "doing something" so much as recognizing and publicly acknowledging the cynical nature of the act and Nancy Pelosi's opposition to Church teaching even as she uses the Mass for her political advantage.
Posted by: Ellen at Dec 28, 2006 4:44:34 PM
"This is a Nancy Pelosi on January 3 at Mass at Trinity College in the Archdiocese of Washington issue."
Are you suggesting that a disinvite is in order? That's a tactic that also repeats itself, and not to any particular advantage to the bishop in question. It's time for new ideas, Amy. Not just trotting out the old, failed methods.
Posted by: Todd at Dec 28, 2006 4:45:53 PM
One could say...ah, well it's a function in a university chapel. It's not directly associated with the Archdiocese. In fact it's a couple or three steps removed from the Archdiocese. One could say that and a lot more.
Given his remoteness from the situation, he could restate in his own words the principles set forth in "The Participation of Catholics in Political Life" during a speech or in an editorial. And he wouldn't even have to use her name.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Dec 28, 2006 4:53:52 PM
Ellen,
Absent an interdict, you have made a scurilous allegation. Ms. Pelosi is entitled to her good name. You have also impugned Trinity College by your allegation. Ms. Pelosi and Trinity College have rights, most notably to their reputations.
I'm not going to go on a broad defense of Ms. Pelosi. I'm just telling you the rules of the game.
Posted by: M.Z. Forrest at Dec 28, 2006 4:56:13 PM
Todd,
On the handful of occasions you've taken a break from smearing members of the pro-life movement and shared any of your "new" ideas, they've been indistinguishable from the now-discredited (and rightly so) "seamless garment" of twenty years ago.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Dec 28, 2006 4:57:33 PM
Todd,
I think that votes and bill signings count more than rally attendance.
Using those measures, Mrs. Pelosi really stinks up the joint.
Once again, you are describing less than perfect pro-life actions by the nominally pro-life as hypocrisy, and using that to make those opposed to protecting the unborn IN PRINCIPLE look OK.
In Toddspeak, Nancy Pelosi may have said again and again that she will oppose any attempt to protect the lives of the unborn in federal law, and may have voted so as to prove that she meant it. But some Republicans don't come to the Right-to-Life rally, so Republicans are no better on the issue.
Which Republican runs as a Catholic with her record, again?
Posted by: Ed the Roman at Dec 28, 2006 4:57:35 PM
Todd:
If you have nothing to contribute, don't waste your time commenting. And by "nothing to contribute" I mean "Reading implications into the words of others" which is your M.O, pretty much. "Disinvite" is your idea, not mine.
No, what I meant was trotting out the old, reflexive, "Well, the GOP is bad, too" is not what I'm after on this thread because, well, we know the GOP is bad, too, and we've had our fill of the not-esteemed Governor of California and his kind, and commented it on it all frequently.
The point is - this event and the institutional Church's response. To this event. If Susan Collins were celebrating her election as Senate Majority Leader at a Mass at a Catholic church in DC, we'd be having the same conversation.
As far as I'm concerned, a Catholic ordinary calling attention to the dissonance between a Catholic politician's use of his or her faith and his or her actual ideology would be a very new idea.
An example of various, useful discussion points:
1) Well, I don't think the Archbishop should do anything because there's no problem. Pelosi is Catholic and if she wants to celebrate that part of her life, so what?
2) It's not the Archbishop's place to "do" or even say anything. It's an event at a college. Who knows what will be said there?
3) Let's hope and pray that the Archbishop will be speaking to her privately, reminding her of Catholic teaching on life issues. Perhaps in conjunction with the Archbishop of SF. Tag-teaming her, in a pastoral fashion.
etc.
Posted by: Amy at Dec 28, 2006 5:03:43 PM
Ed, I agree with you on votes and bill-signings. I can't recall a Republican president signing a national bill outlawing abortions, but I see where you're going with this. But as I said, Pelosi's political position on life issues leave a lot to be desired. Was it not enough to refrain from a character attack as well? Among some pro-lifers, the choice not to walk to their drummer du jour is tantamount to heresy.
I'm not sure I'm describing anything less than a dissatisfaction with the status quo, and that includes both a political pro-life movement that has been pretty impotent and a Democratic party that has abandoned the ideals of civil rights. Is it a smear or is it the truth? Is the real question what to do in situations like this?
Given this discussion is between fellow pro-lifers, Ed, I think you can dispense with the petty insults. If you can't engage in a conversation with another pro-lifer without resorting to childish pronouncements about "toddspeak," do you have any hope of converting or persuading Nancy Pelosi?
Back to the drawing board, people. Again.
Posted by: Todd at Dec 28, 2006 5:19:24 PM
We are not always perceived as we insist that we be perceived, and the more strenuous our insistence the more likely that the perception is more accurate than we care to admit. That can apply in this instance to either Speaker-elect Pelosi or to those who clim they are not pursuing Ad Majorem GOP Gloriam
Posted by: RKF at Dec 28, 2006 5:22:30 PM
Given his remoteness from the situation, he could restate in his own words the principles set forth in "The Participation of Catholics in Political Life" during a speech or in an editorial. And he wouldn't even have to use her name.
Although a bishop may or may not have much (legal) authority over a college within his diocese with respect to its educational policies, practices, etc., I would think that he would have a great deal of authority over the liturgy as it is practiced within his diocese, not to mention authority over the priests who celebrate Mass within his diocese. So, I would think that he could tell the celebrating priest at Pelosi's Mass what to say and do, or what not to say and do.
Better yet, rather than a speech or op/ed or pastoral letter, Archbishop Wuerl could exercise his prerogative and be the main celebrant himself, and then he could properly instruct Ms. Pelosi during his homily. Whether Trinity has the power or not, whether Pelosi has the power or not, I don't think either would have the guts to tell the Archbishop that he was barred from celebrating the Mass.
Posted by: Bender at Dec 28, 2006 5:26:00 PM
Something should be done pastorally. Not sure if it is being done or not. These issues tend to be dealt with very slowly and very privately. Assuming there is nothing happening I don't know that this would be a good time and place to make a stand. Maybe pick on a prochoice priest or theologian. To me they do more damage. People who are expected to be good teachers of Catholic morality. Nobody expect politicans to be moral anymore. First we have dealt with the obvious offenders who do not give the appearance of injecting ourselves into partisan politics. Then we can say we are following an established protocol for when this kind of dissent occurs. Then hopefully it will not be seen as the bishops using the sacrament to embarass politicans they don't like.
Posted by: Randy at Dec 28, 2006 5:32:00 PM
I think the reason for the disconnect between Nancy Pelosi seeming to be personally prolife (evidenced by having five children) and also having a 100% pro-abortion voting record is that she considers the Catholic Church's teaching about the evil of abortion to be simply that a religious teaching. Her logic probably goes somewhat like this: "I am Catholic and my religion teaches that abortion is wrong but not all Americans are Catholic so I have to allow those who don't share my religion to have their own choice on this issue." She puts the Church's teaching on abortion in the same category as the Church's teaching on the Trinity or the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist which of course the Congress would never legislate about. It seems that it doesn't occur to her that abortion is an abomination that any reasonable human being should condemn. The motivation of those in Congress who work to outlaw abortion is no more religious than what motivates legislators to outlaw murder, theft and corruption. In today's world there is no longer any understanding of the natural law recognized by any human person whether religious or not. There is now a total disconnect between faith and reason.
Posted by: Jeff Z. at Dec 28, 2006 5:35:03 PM
