All right, so Nancy Pelosi was on Meet the Press, speaking with Tom Brokaw. Among other things, she said:
MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you’re looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, “Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?” what would you tell him?
REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…
MR. BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it…
REP. PELOSI: I understand that.
MR. BROKAW: …begins at the point of conception.
REP. PELOSI: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions. That’s why we have this fight in Congress over contraception. My Republican colleagues do not support contraception. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must–it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think. But that is not the case. So we have to take–you know, we have to handle this as respectfully–this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been–and I’m not saying Rick Warren did, because I don’t think he did, but others will try to.
(First, I want to point out that Warren did not ask Obama when human life begins. Here’s what he asked:
Forty million abortions — at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?
So the question was not about ensoulment or the beginnings of a unique biological entity, but about rights. Questions of rights are not above a president’s pay grade. And if Obama supports Roe and related decisions, that would indicate that a baby gets human rights at birth. If that is what he believes, then let him say so, openly.)
Anyway, back to Pelosi.
I’m not going to parse her answer – I’ll point you to someone else who will in a moment, but what I want to focus on are the bishops.
Over and over we are told – by bishops themselves – that their primary role in contentious situations like this is to teach.
So..TEACH.
Here you have a very prominent American Catholic, going on the record with her purported studiousness on this issue, authoritatively declaring something false about the teaching of the Catholic Church.
This is what we call a teachable moment. Monday morning, the USCCB should have a press release, accompanied by a real human being – preferably a bishop – maybe even a Colorado bishop, given the location and the proximity of the press – giving a short, succinct correction of Pelosi’s statement. It wouldn’t take long. Do it right in front of where the convention is meeting.
No 501(c)(3) worries. No threats of endorsement or condemnation. Just…
Teach.
Do it over and over and over – do not let this moments pass by and the deceptions continue to rule.
Along with the excellent witness of presence - such as Archbishop Chaput’s attendance at a prayer vigil at a Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Denver tomorrow night -
Teach.
That the doctors of the church have not been able to decide when life begins. But if she’d really studied the issue (as she expressly claims), she would know that no doctor of the church in particular and no orthodox father of the church has ever said abortion is OK, as we’ll see at great length. It’s true that some doctors and fathers and theologians of the Church raised the question of “ensoulment,” asking when an unborn baby receives a soul, and given different answers. But in Christian (as opposed to Gnostic) tradition, humans are not only souls but also bodies. And thus no Father ever, ever used the idea of later ensoulment (often borrowed from Aristotle) to excuse or permit abortion. Contrary to what Pelosi expressly says, Augustine never ever said life begins at three months. In Christian tradition, until the 1960s, life was thought to begin at conception, regardless of the details certain thinkers put forth about speculative embryonic anthropology.
Actually, I think that should be 501(c)(3) worries — I used to work for a non profit. But I’m just being nitpicky. You’re not – I just typed too fast.
There could be another teachable moment coming — if Papa Benny appoints Abp. Chaput as Archbishop of New York in the 73 or so days between now and the election — now that would be a teaching moment.
I’m so glad you posted on this!
When I first read the transcript posted on the Corner today, I sent Archbishop Niederauer an e-mail asking him to teach about the issue, and explicitly used the phrase “teachable moment” as well (a word I first read on this blog!). Spooky! As always, you are far more eloquent.
That said, I strongly doubt we’ll see any action from the USCCB on this until after the election. Too many bishops are Democrats by tradition, and I suspect they don’t want to hurt their candidate of choice (no pun intended). Unfortunately, from his stance on many issues, particularly “gay” issues, I suspect the Archbishop is one of these.
But if I get an e-mail from the Archbishop’s office, I’ll be sure to send it to you.
Best,
-Koz
As I posted today, Bishop Niederauer would do well to send Representative Pelosi this link. It clearly shows that from the first century onwards, the Church has opposed abortion. This is not a recent development in the last fifty years.
I have to agree with you that teachable moments are constantly going by untouched, unused, and it is so sad. It is also sad that so many of the laity are, by choice it seems, willfully ignorant of what the Church plainly teaches, and believe the twisted lies of the Devil, which they are inundated with every day. Overall, Pelosi is typical of the people who reject the Church’s teaching and yet consider themselves Catholic.
It is also interesting to note that Democrats like Pelosi and Obama are incapable of giving a simple, direct, one sentence answer to a question. When McCain was asked the same question as Obama about life or rights or however the phrasing was, he just answered, “At conception.” For me, the longer the answer, the more likely the person is trying to hide behind the words or is trying to confuse the enquirer.
-Fr. Ron
A great post. The teach part is so true.
That a layperson has to suggest it at all, well, why go there when one can pray that the teaching comes along with the expedition called for?
It’s painful watching Nancy Pelosi’s verbal gymnastics. I really wish she would just dismount.
Amy,
Thank you so much for this post, I was not able to see this weeks MTP but I suspected some of this nonsense would come up. I will definitely be focusing on the education of my people and I can only hope that the admonition of next weekends Gospel ” Get behind me satan…” will reverberate with the People of God. Keep up the great work!
I would just like to point out for anyone preaching on the 23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time on September 7th, that this is a most excellent set of lectionary readings for the duty we have as Catholics to not only speak out against evils, but attempt to persuade our brothers and sisters, especially in the faith.
You really cut to the heart of this. Often, I’ve prayed for the bishops to be holy, but now, thanks to you, I’m going to pray that they teach the Faith.
This post should be front and center on the desk of every Catholic bishop in the United States this morning. Even if they did nothing about Wellborn’s recommendation, at least their failure to do so would tug at their conscience all day.
I guess Madame Pelosi never asked Tertullian.
First, Ms Pelosi was NOT asked when she thought babies should get rights, that was Mr Brokaw’s change of subject and should not be laid at Ms Pelosi’s feet.
Second, while I cannot speak for St. Augustine, St. Thomas did not believe that the soul was created until some months after conception. He did not, nor do I believe any of the Church follows approved of abortion, but rather stated that since we did not know when the soul was infused into the fetus we must act as if that happened at conception.
This is consistent with Ms Pelosi’s statement that we don’t know when HUMAN life begins, that is if you define human life as a creature having an immortal soul. I notice that recent statements refer to life, not human life and that is a different matter.
We do our cause no good when we change topics in mid stream or bend history to meet our beliefs.
That this is a time for bishops to stand up and teach the history of our faith and its recent developments, I agree with.
Did you even read the post at Catholidoxy? What you say is what he says and what everyone who is conversant on the issue knows.
I am unfortunately a resident of Denver right now. I attend Mass downtown at a wonderful parish. Re: teaching – for the past 4 weeks, the priests have given strong homilies on Humanae Vitae. This past Sunday, the priest gave a homily on the natural law, abortion and our duty to vote as Catholics. I felt like I was at a university lecture and that if I were pro-abort and pro-B.O., that I wouldn’t be able to withstand this reasoning and logic. There were a couple of parishioners with B.O. buttons and one made a point of pointing it out to the priest after Mass, with a fratboy smirk. As difficult as this week may be for lay people in Denver, it is 100x worse for faithful priests. But from a Catholic perspective, Denver is a great place to be, esp. compared to Chicago.
The hierarchy is not bound by the Fathers but we have to be accurate and not report the part of the Fathers that we prefer in an ad hoc debate. Both Augustine and Jerome took both sides of this question of ensoulement..immediate and delayed….they did not argue however… ever for abortion….soon or later. But they and Aquinas argued for delayed ensoulement…the latter because of the manner in which he followed Aristotle who stated that there was first a vegetative soul…then a sensitive soul…then an intellective soul….. each incorporating the former(s) as time went on.
Augustine and Jerome seem to have run into a different problem and that was the Septuagint version of Exodus which does seem to imply that there is only a life when the pre born is “formed” with its limbs. Here is the Septuagint:
Exodus 21:22 “And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty; as the woman’s husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation.23 But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life,24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
This passage which only requires life for life if the pre born is formed and not before then seems to have caused both Fathers to be less strict about ensoulement and the appellation “homocide” though they no where conclude that early abortion is therefore without sin because it may not be homocide. It can be mortal sin without its being murder of an ensouled person.
But we at least have to report what they held accurately and not grab for just the quotes that the internet has made prominent via the net’s involvement with debate.
Augustine:
First the strict outlook of Augustine that is always quoted in these debates:
“Sometimes, indeed, this lustful cruelty, or if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born.”
-De Nube et Concupiscentia 1.17 (15)
________________________________________________
Now the milder outlook of Augustine not as to abortion but as to calling it murder at all stages…. after he saw the Septuagint:
“On Exodus 21:22″…Augustine CSEL 8:147
Here the question of the soul is usually raised: whether what is not formed can be understood to have no soul, and whether for that reason it is not homocide, because one cannot be said to be deprived of a soul if one has not yet received a soul. The argument goes on to say, “But if it has been formed, he shall give soul for soul”….If the embryo is still unformed, but yet in some way ensouled while unformed…the law does not provide that the act pertains to homocide, because still there cannot be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation, if it is in the flesh not yet formed and thus not yet endowed with senses.”
Now the stricter Jerome in the passage that is always quoted:
1. Epistle 22 to Eustochium
“…Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder. ”
Now here is a later letter perhaps after he becomes aware of the Septuagint Exodus passage…he too gets milder not on abortion…but on calling it homocide:
Epistle 121.4 to Algasa
“…seeds are gradually formed in the uterus, and it is not reputed homocide until the scattered elements receive their appearance and members”.
______________________________________
All of this is why John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae is adamantly against abortion but he does not pass judgement on the further issue of the timing of ensoulment.
If you read all of section 60, he will give his inclination on it which is early ensoulement…..but he notes in the second paragraph that ensoulement is not settled..[" has not expressly committed itself"]…:
EV section 60 ” Precisely for this reason, over and above all scientific debates and those philosophical affirmations to which the Magisterium has not expressly committed itself, the Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit: “The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life”.59…CDF
Readers can find later in EV in section 62…an infallible declaration on abortion for which John Paul had the agreement of virtually all the Bishops polled worldwide probably by letter.
Pelosi’s confusion seems to stem from the question of whether abortion is murder. That is something that the church fathers disagreed about because of the ensoulment question. It seems to be a rather common confusion, and perhaps a willfull one, especially among the Catholic Left. I encountered it in a letter to the editor in NCR(eporter), and heard Daniel Maguire spout it.
But, I also think the confusion is made worse when pro-lifers claim that “abortion is murder.” I prefer to say that abortion takes innocent human life, and is thus wrong. I partly prefer this statement because all the church fathers agree with it, whereas the murder question has been convoluted.
I agree Amy – I judge the bishops here have an utter and total obligation to teach in this matter!
As for Pelosi, her constituents should question her lack of research skills. If that’s the best she can come up with, it should call all her conclusions into question. A very rudimentary search on what the Doctors had to say will produce plenty of condemnation of abortion.
For example:
“A woman who deliberately destroys a fetus is answerable for murder. And any fine distinction between its being completely formed or unformed is not admissible among us.”
——–St. Basil the Great circa 330 – 379 CE
Right ON, Amy. Will the Bishops swing and knock this softball into the upper-bleachers? It seems to me that Pelosi’s ignorance (I will give her the benefit of the doubt here) amounts to propagating heresy — and then the Bishops MUST speak out, yes? (Am I being too optimistic?)
Swing, Batter, Batter. SWING!
Bill: Can I post your comment (in whole or in part) on my blog?
Someone should give Pelosi an unabridged dictionary; by no definition is her “Catholicism” ardent. Invincible
ignorance or just arrogance?
http://www.archden.org/images/ArchbishopCorner/ByTopic/onseparationofsense%26state_openlettercjc8.25.08.pdf
Irenaeus,
Yes….you never have to ask….just state that it is partial if you do partial as to the over-riding concept but I think here, you are looking for the duality. The same duality by the way appears in Trent’s catechism:
Delayed ensoulement in section 3 (of the Creed):
5th paragraph down in the section (“by the Holy Ghost”)
” the most sacred body of Christ was immediately formed, and to it was united a rational soul enjoying the use of reason; and thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man. That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.”
then the opposite view of immediate murder even in contraception which is pre-conception in the wording of Trent:
“and therefore married persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine, are guilty of a most heinous crime �� nothing less than wicked conspiracy to commit murder.”
Yet it can’t be murder technically speaking if section 3 of the Creed is also true in the same catechism and there is no soul for “a certain lapse of time”. Yet it can be sin without murder being the technically proper word.
The topic of when “ensoulment” occured occupied thinkers for many centuries before conception was scientifically understood. Conception was finally grasped as the union of a sperm cell with an egg in the 1830s. Before then all sorts of cultures speculated vigorously and developed such notions as the homonuculous, the vegetative soul, the sensitive soul, intellective soul, etc.
However, the soul was always understood to be the animating principle of life. Indee, the Latin word for soul is “anima.” If something is alive, it has a soul. If a human being is alive, he or she has a human soul.
The stages of “soulness” that pre-scientific or semi-scientific people once speculated about are long gone from Catholic thought.
Pelosi’s confusion stems from misunderstanding Augustine, Aquinas, etc. on when conception occurs. It was not understood that it is an instantaneous event when a sperm cell joins with an egg. They thought conception itself occured after months of the male ejaculate remained within the female in a sort of potential human life mode. They all agreed that a new human life came into being when a human soul became present. The soul is the form, or the “idea,” of the body in terms of Greek philosophy. The matter of the body is provided by the make and female. The male was thought to provide the matter which the female incubated until a soul was infused by God. The male ejaculate was often depicted as having within it a tiny human being fully formed.
Had earlier thinkers grasped the scientific truth that conception occurs when a sperm cell unites with an egg, they it follows that they too would hold that human life must be defended from the moment of conception because if conception has occured then a soul is present. It must be. Otherwise, there would be no new human life. We know now that not only are the cells dividing and the new life growing, the new person’s entire DNA “program” is present. It does not develop in stages like the “vegetative” or “sensitive.” Nothing is ever added to a person’s DNA code after the moment of conception.
Whether the new person will have red hair which will turn grey at 40 or 60, whether he or she will get diabetes at 70 or have the hand/eye coordination of a Ted Williams–all such criteria and countless more are already decided at conception.
The point of when a new human being comes into existence, sadly, is moot in more ways than one. It wouldn’t make any difference to many people if we could listen in to the minds, or even the souls, of the unborn and hear them humming the Brandenburg Concertos or working differential equations. Many don’t care if they are human or not. If the unborn stand in the way of what the ruthless think they want, they are going to be murdered.
There is a teachable moment today, but it is those of us who are pro-life who must learn a lesson. The lesson is that our Bishops will evade their responsibiltites. They will keep right on giving Communion to people who strive mightily against any effort even to restrict abortion, much less abolish it. They’ll allow the Catholic teaching to be falsified in the public square by Pelosi, Biden, Cuomo, Kennedy, etc.
Millions watch these people of TV and are scandalized. Most Bishops mumble in response, if even that…
The Fathers and Doctors of the Church are deserving of the greatest respect, but they are not the Magisterium.
I am not sure the bishops should be watching the talk shows and responding minute by minute to everything the way the campaigns do. I do think it is insane that Brokaw and Pelosi think that Roe v Wade is only about the first trimester. After having this issue come up every election it seems like malpractice to have politicans and reporters not know that Roe means a de facto abortion on demand for all 9 months, even 9 and half if the baby is overdue. That is a position that polls in the single digits yet it is the law of the land. Somehow an argument that only applies to the first 3 months is used to justify it.
Randy –
JUdging from the above, Archbishop Chaput was clearly up to the task.
Good for him!
I think Pelosi is a lot wilier than you all give her credit for – Obama was probably coached to “slip the ball” to permit a scrummage (I’m a Brit , so excuse my Rugby idiom) that would muddy the waters enough to confuse all comers.
| Firstly | the Saddleback question was NOT a sanctity of life question, formulated by the Pastor guided by grace. It was simply a legal “finding of fact.” Obama doesn’t deserve a law clerk’s salary if he couldn’t (or wouldn’t answer it). On the other hand Obama’s definition of marriage – “there’s 3 in a marriage, God too” was carefully calibrated to appeal to the audience he wanted to win over. If the Bishops want some cues on how to talk about these subjects they need to be clear what area they are addressing — law, biology or sanctity — for they are three different parts of their flock.
___ the church-going Catholics need to be reminded of the sanctity message, related to the popular understanding of the sanctity of marriage articulated by Obama and referenced by McCain with his “greatest moral failing,”
___ other world-view-sharing communities (our separated Christian brethren, Jews, Muslims and the non-JudeoChristian religions, Crunchy Con environmentalists or Gaia Greens et al) need to be reminded that if biology can convict a person for criminal conduct evidenced by his DNA and cause him to lose his life, why is a more stringent standard of evidence needed inside the womb to protect an innocent person from losing their life?
__ and finally citizens who are eligible to vote are to be reminded that they have NO ABSOLUTE right to life under American law. All other rights are only as “sure” as their State and Federal legislature sees fit to define (and the judges seated on the Supreme Court are willing and able to defend, think Dred-Scott) based on political philosophy arguments rooted in American Exceptionalism. The tyranny of relativism long ago crossed the threshold into the mainstream and is seriously corroding the social cohesion where certain Americans feel responsible for certain other Americans. The long-term prognosis isn’t good. Our Founding Fathers would be ashamed of us… our Creator Father will disown us…
| Secondly | the Brokaw question was a sanctity of life question and Mrs Pelosi quite eruditely obfuscated, NOT on the finding of facts I elucidated above, but rather on what she understands about what her Church teaches about a created soul, a gift of the κύριον καὶ τὸ ζωοποιόν ( Dóminum et vivificántem) aka Lord and Giver of Life, in other words what she believes to profess at Mass every Sunday when praying the Nicene Creed. The Vatican II generation (my mother is of an age with Mrs Pelosi and suffers the same muddled thinking) need to be reminded that the jargon used in the motto “A Universal Call to Holiness” was not a new-fangled slogan aimed at redefining sanctity by democratic means, but an appeal to the salt and light of this world to help ALL human souls experience salt and light — not what has happened: the lethal saline of the abortionist reigns with Lucifer’s bright lights of worldly fame, wealth and power.
Non abbiate paura! Let’s reclaim with zeal the joy of proclaiming that true citizens care for each others’ rights, beginning at the instant they become Americans, conception!
What exactly does Mrs Pelosi believe when she prays the Nicene Creed each Sunday? Even a weak and recalcitrant sinner admits to this minimum, so one assumes an “ardent” worshipper could zealously defend it, right?
κύριον καὶ τὸ ζωοποιόν
Dóminum et vivificántem
Lord and Giver of Life
oops my browser crashed posting the long post, but it wasn’t lost, that’s a first!
I think a lot of these Catholic politicians learned their spin on abortions rights from Fr Drinan at Georgetown. I have heard that he helped craft the “pesonally opposed” mantra for Mario Como.
For those not familiar with the now-deased Fr Drinan, he was a member of the US House of Representatives until ordered to quit. Here’s what Wikipedia says:
Drinan went on to win election to the House of Representatives, and was re-elected four times, serving from 1971 until 1981. He was the first Roman Catholic priest to serve as a voting member of Congress. . . . Drinan’s consistent support of abortion rights drew significant opposition from Church leaders throughout his political career, who had also repeatedly requested that he not hold political office in the first place. [3] [1]Drinan attempted to reconcile his position with official Church doctrine by stating that while he was personally opposed to abortion, considering it “virtual infanticide,”[4] its legality was a separate issue from its morality. This argument failed to satisfy his critics.
In 1980, Pope John Paul II unequivocally demanded that all priests withdraw from electoral politics. Drinan complied and did not seek reelection. [1] “‘It is just unthinkable,’ he said of the idea of renouncing the priesthood to stay in office. ‘I am proud and honored to be a priest and a Jesuit. As a person of faith I must believe that there is work for me to do which somehow will be more important than the work I am required to leave.’”[5]
Drinan taught at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C. from 1981 to 2007, where his academic work and classes focused on legal ethics and international human rights. . . . 1987, he founded the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics. Drinan continued to be a vocal supporter of abortion rights, much to the ire of the Church, and notably spoke out in support of President Bill Clinton’s veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 1996. In his weekly column for the Catholic New York,[6] John Cardinal O’Connor sharply denounced Drinan. “You could have raised your voice for life; you raised it for death,” the cardinal wrote. “Hardly the role of a lawyer. Surely not the role of a priest.” In 1997, under orders from his Jesuit superiors, Drinan publicly retracted his support for partial-birth abortion.[7]
Here’s an article cited in Wikipedia that gives a fuller picture of Fr Drinan, how the American Jesuits defied the order’s leader, Drinan’s political career and his abortion positions:
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=21136
Especially interesting is the Jesuits’ refusal to allow a Fr McLaughlin to run as a Republican for the Senate – he is now the host of a popular PBS political show on Sundays.
Here’s Drinan’s 1996 op-ed piece on Partial Birth Abortion outlining his support of Clinton’s veto of the origial bill banning the procedure. http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/~dewolf/drinan.htm
This is what puzzled me about your “open political thread” about why Catholics with serious opposing views get stuck and cannot advance the discussion. The legions of Nancy Pelosi’s don’t give a damn about any teaching that doesn’t conform to their version of Catholicism.
Hats off to Washington’s Archbishop Wuerl who mustered the courage to state that Pelosi was “incorrect” on Meet The Press. One might have hoped for a stronger response, but at least it was something…
Denver’s Bishop Chaput has suggested that Biden refrain from receiving Communion and has said that he’d like to speak with him.
Frankly, we’ve been hearing the “I’d like to speak with him/her” ine from Bishops for decades now. Nothing against Bishop Chaput, but never-ending “engagement” on this subject hasn’t budged a single politician that I know of since 1972.
It is an outrage that the American bishops are so loathe to respond with scathing vigor on the subject of Catholic public figures running roughshod over our Catholic Church, our Catholic teachings and faith. What would Jesus do? He certainly would not have chosen silence or mealy-mouthed platitudes to placate the people he was addressing. No, he addressed them thus: …..Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites…..Mt 23:13-22. Are the Bishops afraid of loosing members of their flock? Are the Bishops ignoring the wolves that are decimating their flocks? Don’t they realized that Catholic (in name only) public figures are emulated by other Catholics, leading them astray. Bishops who are not actively and properly teaching and protecting their flocks will have much to answer for in front of the Supreme Judge, who is Jesus.
I was so happy to see that, in fact, many bishops did “Teach” :)
I was especially touched by Egan’s statement. I wonder how much B16′s April visit had to do with waking the sleeping giant…now I just hope he stays woke till he can wake up the voting CINOs in the pews.