Following a brief meeting with Pope Benedict XVI on February 18th, 2009, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi issued a statement expressing her joy for the opportunity to have met the pope and to have praised “the Church’s leadership in fighting poverty, hunger, and global warming.” Conspicuously absent from her list was the Church’s leadership in fighting abortion on demand, but that is hardly surprising given that Pelosi would later characterize the overturning of Roe v. Wade as “heart-wrenching,” “outrageous,” and even “cruel.”
The fact is that Pope Benedict XVI squeezed Madam Speaker into his busy schedule following a routine weekly General Audience in the Paul VI Hall. After dismissing the Speaker’s entourage—most notably her photographers—from the small side room, the pope got down to business and launched into a bill-by-bill review of Mrs. Pelosi’s Congressional voting record on life issues. Those privy to the meeting relate how the pope’s unanticipated reprimand made Pelosi uncomfortable nearly to the point of illness. What she thought was going to be a prime photo op turned out to be an opportunity for the pope to voice a serious rebuke—a rebuke he had been planning all along.
This makes it all the more ironic that Mrs. Pelosi has appealed to Benedict’s successor to repeal her Ordinary’s injunction of Canon 915 that prohibits her from receiving holy communion. If she had heeded Benedict’s warning and reconciled herself to the Church, she never would have found herself in such an awkward position. More importantly, during the aforementioned February 2009 behind-closed-doors meeting, her reception of holy communion was not at all the main issue. That issue was—and continues to be—her Ordinary’s, not the pope’s. Both Archbishop Cordileone and his predecessor George Niederauer admirably assumed the pastoral role of reaching out to Mrs. Pelosi to address the issue of her participation at Holy Mass.
All this stands as an exemplary observance of the respective roles of authority and competence in the Church, something many Catholics fail to understand. It is not primarily the Bishop of Rome’s duty to decide who should and should not receive holy communion. But as Benedict’s action illustrated, it is his duty to correct a politician for creating public scandal through his or her actions. It was, after all, Pelosi who had asked for a private audience in 2009, not the pope. She clearly was unable to foresee what would come of it.
I draw attention to this 2009 meeting to highlight the role of prudence in establishing a right course of action when it comes to dissident public figures. Rather than publicly using a General Audience as the occasion to read a list of names of those who, like Pelosi, obstinately refuse to let the Church’s moral teaching guide them in their public actions, Pope Benedict deemed it more effective and prudent to confront Speaker Pelosi during a private tête-à-tête. He could not have been more courteous and respectful in doing so. Deliberations about how to deal with a dissident politician are obviously aimed at the individual’s spiritual health and salvation, but there is more. When it is a matter of public scandal, decisions are made on the basis of what will clear confusion among the faithful and lead them to a greater knowledge of the truth.
The situation gets even more daunting when public scandal affects non-Catholic Christians. Presbyterian theologian Carl R. Trueman recently lamented that “the present pope seems to be nothing more than a liberal Protestant in a white papal robe.” True or not, that impression is something the Holy See needs to take seriously, especially given Trueman’s sympathy for Catholic teaching and his high stature in Reformed, Orthodox, and Catholic intellectual circles. His impression that Francis signifies “a loss of the transcendent in favor of the immanent” may or may not be accurate, but the impression alone is serious enough to invite serious reflection on the part of the Holy See about how the Church is perceived by influential, serious-minded Reformed Christians.
Neither should the specific incident that triggered Trueman’s latest complaint be taken lightly: namely, the “pope’s decision to have a special pilgrimage for the LGBTQ community in the 2025 Jubilee Year, titled ‘Church: Home for All, LGBT+ Christians and Other Existential Frontiers.’” We can chalk it up both to his Protestantism and lack of knowledge about how things work at the Vatican to conclude that this was the “pope’s decision,” but that is beside the point (you can read about the whole fiasco here). The bottom line is that the Holy See messed up both the way it allowed outside events to be included in its schedule of Jubilee events and how it communicated its response to the incident.
Pope Sant John XXIII lived by the motto omnia videre, multa dissimulare, pauca corrigere (roughly, “see everything, overlook a great deal, correct a little”). The words have been attributed variously to Bernard of Clairvaux and Gregory the Great, among others. One of the hardest decisions a pastor must make at any level—be he a priest, bishop, or pope—is what to overlook and what to correct. The timing of the overlooking or correcting is no less important. But he must also carefully consider who is watching him overlook and correct. This does not imply that his decision is arbitrary or subjective, but only that it is prudently aimed at the good of both the one in need of correction and the faithful at large who witness (or do not witness) the correction.
Many corrections have rightly been made behind closed doors; far more, in fact, than in public. This is perfectly in accord with holy Scripture (cf. Matt 5:25; 18:15-17). But to put it bluntly, perhaps more discernment should be exercised before overlooking events uploaded to an open on-line Jubilee calendar and correcting those who choose to attend a valid Mass celebrated according to a Form approved for use under certain circumstances. Perhaps a similar discernment should be employed before deciding which episcopal actions to overlook and which to correct.
Though we may direct most of our attention to our enemies, it is actually our closest and most powerful allies—like Trueman—who are watching most closely.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
The church should also call out those that support the death penalty.
Willed abortion can never be justified. The death penalty is justified under limited conditions. A supporter of abortion is called to repentance. A supporter of the death penalty is called to greater discernment, or to risk “erring on the side of life rather than death.” These issues are both part of the argument for a culture of life, but the “calling out” of death penalty supporters is different in kind from that appropriate for supporters of abortion. Moral equivalence as a basis for like treatment here would be a more serious evil than any supposed “evil” attached to support for the death penalty, for many reasons beyond the simple difference in the tens of millions of innocent unborn babies killed in the U. S. alone in just a few decades by abortion compared to a tiny percentage of convicted murderers who have died by state sanctioned execution.
Just raising the issue of the death penalty during a discussion of abortion bears a risk of public scandal.
Well said, Sir, well said.
Great points,Thanks
Are you attempting to equate the execution of an individual objectively adjudicated in a court of law of being guilty of committing a capital crime with the murder of an innocent human being in the womb, “Chplain”(sic)?
The only difference is that abortion is the purposeful death of an innocent and defenseless human person and is always an act of injustice.
Capital punishment is the result of justice meted out because someone has been charged with a capital crime, had access to a defense against the charge and was found guilty by a jury of his peers.
Let’s not confuse people with the two acts; people are already confused enough.
Where Mrs Nancy Pelosi comes in, has she ever aborted a pregnancy? Has she ever told any pregnant women to abort their pregnancy? As Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, has she the right, under the law, to protect the constitutional right of every American?
There is no right to murder. Nor is there any right to support murder. Nor would any legal manufactured rights to do either have any authority if they existed, as God is the source of all true authority. Nor is a legal right to do a thing, sufficient justification for doing it.
There is no right to murder even if you’ve convinced yourself that the person isn’t really a person – there are some people convicted at Nuremberg who would have grounds for an appeal if personal beliefs regarding the personhood of the victim were relevant.
The Supreme Court recently found that no one has a constitutional right to abortion. Read the decision. It was the right call.
I don’t support the death penalty Chplain Scott, but I believe there may be very rare circumstances where it could the only way to protect society.
On the other side of the issue, we who are opposed to capital punishment should also be opposed to early release due to overcrowding, clueless parole boards, & plea bargaining that allow dangerous offenders loose to prey again on victims. That happens on a regular basis where we live. Our criminal justice system’s like a revolving door.
mrscracker – Do you live in California too?
Why? The death penalty is a biblical principle. On what basis or by what authority do you violate God’s own Word?
So is stoning for adultery…
Ten Commandments of God…
# 5 Thou shalt not kill.
I don’t know where you have been over the past many years but the Church does also condemn the death penalty. What part of, “from conception to natural death” do you not understand.
One Pope’s non-infallible statements do not overturn 2 millennia of Tradition, much less Scripture.
However we cut it, ‘Perhaps a similar discernment should be employed before deciding which episcopal actions to overlook and which to correct’ when we’re addressing reception of the Holy Eucharist we either have a standard that affirms a common belief, or we don’t.
Addressed in a previous article ‘Overturning Nancy Pelosi’s Communion ban’ it appeared Pope Francis was in a win-win situation whatever his decision. Refusal has him appear orthodox while the disparaging policy of communion sans repentance of sin continues, if he grants an exception he appears benevolent. Although we’re primarily concerned with the ultimate winner. Gallagher seems to imply God as our most powerful ally overseeing the decision.
Insofar as justice on the ground the entire body of the faithful are victim or beneficiary. This apex doctrinal issue requires universal coherence sans exceptions. If not we have continued doctrinal ambiguity that effectively spells absence of doctrine. As we currently experience in Malta where bishops including Cdl Grech have allowed the decision for reception of the Eucharist, realizing that selective discernment is impossible to regulate to be decided according to conscience rather than doctrine.
Sorry Father but I don’t think PF would appear benevolent if he grants an exception. I think he would appear, as he has before, weak on Catholic doctrine.
It’s all too common for some to selectively adhere to religious doctrines, choosing which to follow and which to disregard or reject outright. We all fall short in our devotion to our Lord and God. Yet, there is a stark difference between private and public disregard, the latter being a more serious act of disobedience.
Those who serve God and commit to serving Him through the priesthood must embrace humility, especially those in positions of high authority within the Church. The precedents set by those who have gone before them should not be dismissed or contradicted lightly, as this breeds confusion and epitomizes arrogance.
Individuals like Pelosi require our prayers for the salvation of their souls, as they tread a perilous path of heresy and pride. Priests who support such disobedience are also on this troubling journey.
Public scandal involves giving public bad example, and public bad witness to the faith. Such public bad example, and public bad witness to the faith needs continuing public correction. Adam, who was the priest of Eden, was silent when the serpent was tempting Eve and he too capitulated and ate of the forbidden fruit.
Re: the death penalty. It is my understanding that the Church has not explicitly declared the death penalty to be contrary to its teaching. Abortion clearly is. The differentiator is the innocence of the victim, I imagine.
The most effective way to change people’s view on abortion is to get them to listen to the “Word of God”. Writing man-made laws is ineffective. The year after the Roe vs Wade decision was thrown out, the number of abortions in the USA increased. Man-made governments are not part of God’s plan. Never, ever did Christ tell His disciples to go to Rome and write man-made laws. Christ established His Church on earth so the people could hear the “Word of God”. The tool God gave to his disciples to change the world is the “Word of God”. When Church leaders try to use corrupt politicians to change the world with man-made laws they are turning their backs to God.
It was estimated last year that approx. 30,000 lives had been saved in prolife states following Dobbs. That figure surely will have increased by now.
Laws are what we use to bring justice to victims of crimes such as feticide, homicide, sexual abuse, etc. The way a society values its most vulnerable citizens is reflected in its laws.
Abortion is not per se a Church and Scripture affair, it is natural law. Permissiveness on it utterly cuts right through all laws and collapses social and political trust; by which to platform and spread everything completely unnatural needed to defend it.
“Abortion law” is not law it is an attack on humanity AND on law.
Since day one the Church has forbidden abortion, it does today and it will tomorrow.
Through the years Ms. Pelosi has CONSISTENTLY defied Church teaching on this matter, to the extent that she has publicly defied the Archbishop of her home diocese. The former Pope Benedict gave her a tongue-lashing that, according to this article, made her “uncomfortable to the point of illness.” The fact that Pope Francis seems ok with her actions really says all that need be said.
Didn’t know about NP’s “Come to Jesus” encounter with Pope Benedict. Apparently, she wanted it to be about NANCY PELOSI MEETS THE POPE. He, on the other hand, saw the need for it to be about the state of the Speaker’s soul. Good for him.
Mr. Hubert;
If memory serves – when that incident did occur Ms. Pelosi issued a fluffy account of what had taken place in the conversation. But it was already common knowledge of what the Pope had actually said to Ms. Pelosi, so George Weigel wrote a rather scathing column about the whole affair.