In response to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s comments to an EWTN reporter about the letter from Luis Ladaria, SJ, to Archbishop José Gómez, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco has issued the following statement.
We must never lose sight of this fact: in the last 50 years, in the United States alone, 66,000,000 babies have been murdered in their mothers’ wombs. This is not a matter about which one can use judgment. It is a fact. 66,000,000 babies murdered in their mothers’ wombs. If we look around us and see what is happening in our society today, we will see that this fact once again demonstrates that violence begets violence. 66,000,000 babies murdered in their mothers’ wombs. The response to a woman in a crisis pregnancy is not violence, but love.
It is for this reason that I’m happy to know that Speaker Pelosi said she is pleased with the letter of Cardinal Ladaria, Prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to Archbishop Gómez, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, regarding the issue of Catholics prominent in public life who advocate for practices that are gravely evil. In that letter, Cardinal Ladaria advises the U.S. bishops to use as a guide in discerning how to address this situation the principles laid out in a private letter in 2004 from the then-Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the CDF at the time, to the bishops of the United States.
In his letter, Ratzinger confirmed that consistently advocating for abortion and euthanasia constitutes formal cooperation in grave sin, and that bishops must dialogue with Catholics prominent in public life who do so in order to help them understand the grave evil they are helping to perpetrate and accompany them to a change of heart. He goes on to say in that letter that, if these dialogues prove to be fruitless, then, out of respect for the Catholic belief of what it means to receive Holy Communion, the bishop must declare that the individual is not be admitted to Communion. Speaker Pelosi’s positive reaction to Cardinal Ladaria’s letter, then, raises hope that progress can be made in this most serious matter.
I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live (Dt 30:19).
Of course not! This is Speaker “we have to vote for it, so we can find out what’s in it” Pelosi. This applies not only to ObamaCare and Vatican letters, but to the two trillion dollar COVID (wink, wink!) bill.
The same applies to opposing legislation. It’s important to oppose legislation, like election reform legislation in Georgia that would likely result in more people voting, before actually reading the proposed legislation, well, without ever reading it, it appears.
Bills have been proposed that would require those in Congress to read bills before voting on them. Ms. Pelosi and her ilk voted them down.
“Once you learn to read, you will be forever free.” – Frederick Douglass
“Speaker Pelosi’s positive reaction to Cardinal Ladaria’s letter, then, raises hope that progress can be made in this most serious matter.”
Oh please.
Well– I am shocked, myself, at what Abp. Cordileone wrote. Guess I must have missed something– this seems, to me, like a pointless “dialogue,” going ultimately– nowhere. The Fathers of Vatican II definitely wanted every Catholic, clergy or layman– to be totally “free,” to make their own individual decisions, as they see fit. And clergy leaders are to abandon their traditional roles of Church authority and leadership. Laymen are to have more power in personal decision-making.
Nancy knows all of this. And she has already made her decision, long ago, sadly, regarding the sin of abortion. No Church leader, not even the Pope, is turning Nancy away from reception of the Sacraments, over the issue of abortion. Most likely, clerical leaders all will continue to just write about their beliefs and opinions, and that’s all. And Nancy will continue to go to Mass regularly, and receive Communion– and even arrogantly tell the Pope, that it’s just fine! So, to me, this all seems pointless– unless the Vatican makes major changes.
Anon.,
I have to disagree with your characterization of the Second Vatican Council. I think you’re confusing the Council with the “Spirit of the Council.” This latter concept was developed by subversives to undermine Vatican II. It should not be confused with the Council.
No, Steve Seitz. The Fathers of Vatican II really did desire “freedom of conscience” for all to make their own decisions, and for traditional Church authority to end. They wanted a greater emphasis on freedom and humanism. These issues were debated at the Council, but ended up in the 1965 document, “Dignitatis Humanae”– debated because it was incompatible with all previous Church teaching, authority and practice. This document was highly praised by liberal Church reformers, and is recognized today as a great triumph of the modern Church. This is a big part of the vision of Pope St. John XXIII, when he called for the Council.
Hard to know, but if this is the same “Anon.” (with a period) who has commented on other threads like the one about flavor in the communion, then this comment too shows you should probably read some more informed commentary about Vatican II and theology before commenting. You appear to be saying that Vatican II taught anything goes. That’s incorrect. It’s not only incorrect, it’s wildly wrong, so much so as to be an irresponsible statement.
Anon this is possibly the most inaccurate statement ever posted on this site. The Church never wanted humanism, this is the evil of liberalism, and you clearly show it.
The Jesuit theologian, Fr. John Courtney Murray, wrote extensively from the 1940s, regarding religious freedom and the relationship between the Church and a democracy, like ours, and religious pluralism, as well as the upcoming problem of secularism. The concept that he favored was basically along the lines of “Americanism,” a concept begun in the early colonial period, and developed also by Abp. John Carroll, America’s first prelate, as America was unique with its democracy. The new country would have separation of church and state– and no state religion. The Popes all condemned “Americanism” as heresy. And Murray was censored by the Vatican in 1954, and had to quit publishing. However, as his concepts were now of prime interest to the needs and concerns of the Council Fathers, Murray was called back into service, protected, and much of his previous work on Religious Freedom was adopted at Vatican II, particularly for the “Declaration On Religious Freedom”– “Dignitatis Humanae.”
It’s called “development of doctrine”, Anon. Are you an SSPXer who splits with the church over this issue and document?
The Church gradually recognized the legitimate autonomy of the secular realm and the legitimacy of a secular state, which were new developments in history. The council stated it intended to develop the recent teaching of popes about the inviolable dignity of the human person.
Are you saying that the only valid arrangement of government according to Catholic doctrine is to have a Catholic state? You’re wrong, if you think so.
Vatican II affirmed both the truth of Catholicism and the freedom of individuals living in a pluralistic secular state. All is good.
Anon.,
I think you may have misread the document. I invite you to go back and re-read it.
Dignitatis Humanae is also entitled, “Declaration of Human Liberty.” It concerns the truth of human dignity and conscience and is primarily concerned with the rights of people outside the Church to find the truth without coercion, specifically governmental coercion.
The document affirms the truth of Catholicism and that there is only one truth in Christ. The document also rejects error on the part of Catholics and states that Catholics in error must pay close attention to the teachings of the Church.
In tandem with this document, I must add that church action such as excommunication, interdict, and the denial of Holy Communion also speak of the truth when the Church places a soul on notice that their beliefs are contrary to the truth.
No, Anonymous. This is not mere “reading.” This is from many decades of real-life experience, being involved in the Church, especially since the Council– asking questions of prelates, who will explain everything to you.
Martin and bohemond– it really helps, to get involved in the Church, and go ask questions of top clerical leaders. Get the truth straight from the horse’s mouth. You may or may not like what the truth is– but at least you will have all your answers– and no illusions. I do not like many things– particularly, the “non-governance” aspect– of today’s Church, and the Nancy Pelosi and James Martin, S.J. types allowed to “run amok.” But I put up with it, and won’t leave. The pre-Conciliar Church often had cruel abuses of authority. There are problems with both.
Martin, you are correct. No, I agree, a Catholic state (as in many European countries as well as other countries in the world) is dangerous. Catholic states also have resulted in revolutions and bloodshed, historically.
Anon.,
I will go a little further. In addition to “Dignitatis Humanae,” I also invite you to read the Catechism, sections 1790 to 1794. These paragraphs speak of the dangers of a conscience making erroneous judgements.
1791 states: “Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel . . . enslavement to one’s passions . . . assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching . . .these can be the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.”
1794 states: “A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith.”
I strongly suspect that the bishops that you cited were either mistaken or misunderstood.
“Vatican II affirmed both the truth of Catholicism and the freedom of individuals living in a pluralistic secular state. All is good.” Only an ignorant liberal thinks a secular state is good, secular state which has lead to the social chaos we now have.. Smash Pluralism
Bohemond,
I sympathize with you, but theocracies [if this is what you’re suggesting] never end well. Secularism also has issues which you’ve noted.
The best solution is what our Founding Fathers envisioned: A non-sectarian government that both decentralizes power and protects the rights that are necessary for both human dignity and a healthy democracy.
Steve I will take Catholic Confessional State over the moral catastrophe we are suffering through. Can you imagine a truly Christ centered society by force of law. A state emptied of leftists and communists, Abortion, Contraception, Sodomy and Usury Outlawed. I will take that over this nightmare we now have.
More disparaging of Vatican II by someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Vatican II endorsed nothing remotely resembling what you assert. Find another bogeyman. Don’t blame Vatican II.
Every one has always been free to make their own decisions. There was not a desire to end Church authority. They couldn’t if they wanted to. It was established by Christ.
I think you have misunderstood the document.
Sorry, my info is not from reading the document, “Dignitatis Humanae,” it is from decades of being involved in the Church, and talking to Church authorities. Straight from the horse’s mouth. Yes, the Council changed a great deal in the Churvh. Go talk to your prelates or perhaps to knowledgeable theology professors at big Catholic universities.
I think you are pulling my leg.
No, Anonymous. Go get involved in the Church, go talk to your priests and prelates! You will get exactly the same thing. Straight from the horse’s mouth.
Anonymous, the pre-Conciliar Church really was a different Church. Every little thing followed! Lots and lots of authority and discipline! No such thing as “personal autonomy”– once you accept the Catholic Faith. However, the clergy reallly did want potential converts to freely decide whether or not to become Catholic.
Maybe you just didn’t know any Catholics that used their personal autonomy before the Council.
“Religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known chiefly either from the character of the documents, his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking”
Vatican Council II
Anon.,
It’s true that the pre-conciliar Church was a different Church, but it’s a judgment call to say that it was better. This is not to say that the contemporary Church doesn’t have issues – It does.
However, history as well as the testimony of Benedict XVI, Romano Guardini, and other luminaries indicate that the pre-conciliar Church had become excessively stale – Many of its members posing as Christians but thinking like pagans. Everything appeared to be fine on the outside, but the inside had become spiritually hollow.
This explains why everything fell off the cliff when the 60s cultural revolution gripped Western culture. The priesthood was brimming with vocations, but huge numbers left when Paul VI allowed them to quit for the secular life. This speaks directly of infant spirituality.
It is poorly phrased to say that the Church before Vatican II was a different Church.
Anonymous,
Yes, you’re technically correct. It was the same church before and after the Council.
Sorry, but the pre-Conciliar Church was– “different.” Not exactly “better.” Just “different.” Same Church, two different eras, two styles of liturgy, leadership, and ways of doing things. In the pre-Conciliar era, there was strict discipline. Everything mandated and controlled strictly, by the Church, from the Pope on down the hierarchical “chain of command”– no personal”autonomy” to make decisions. That is exactly what the Fathers of the Council desired –“freedom of conscience” and more “personal autonomy,” with less clerical control. More participation by the laymen. They felt that for centuries, the Church had denied clergy and laymen their human rights, and their freedoms of conscience. and their ability to make individual decisions. If you never lived during the pre-Conciliar era, never went to Catholic school then, you would have no direct understanding of this. As for the excellent Romano Guardini, he had much to offer. And he and many intellectual clerics also thought the Church to be “stale.” That was their opinion. Others did not agree. Many people said the Catholic Church was always “too legalistic,” and “too strict and controlling,” fostering “too much guilt and fear.” Our Pastor always said that he felt that he was “making too many decisions daily, for laymen,who were being too controlled by the Church”– and he “wanted them all to grow in their Faith, and be able to make their own decisions, without him.” (Too many consultations on things, with Father? Well, in many cases, people had no choice, but to ask if “such-and-such” was okay, by the Church!) He rejoiced when Vatican II came along! His “dream-come-true” on this issue! However– I saw our Pastor as basically well-meaning, a lover of “individual freedoms of conscience” and humanism”– but I also felt that he did not take religion seriously enough, and was a little too lax, at times, in the pre-Conciliar era. Predictably, he ignored the Pope’s 1968 “Humanae Vitae” encyclical, telling everyone to “make their own decisions.” Also, lots of priests did not seem to understand or care, regarding the issue of abortion, in 1973– and some just said, “a woman should make her own decision.” Without clear religious and moral teachings mandated, by strict discipline– Catholics (clergy and laity) simply were allowed to “do as they please”– and many of then began to fall deeply into sin and corruption, after the Council– led around by the nose, by the current filthy, wild “hippies” and “liberals” in the 1960s. Now– there is a good example of why I do not much like Vatican II!! But the pre-Conciliar era, was perhaps too strict and controlling. Both have good and bad points. Loved the pre-Conciliar old Latin Mass and Sacraments–very holy!
As a church musician, I clearly recall preparing for weddings, in the mid- to-late 1960s– before and after “Humanae Vitae.” The brides had to make discreet decisions, to plan a wedding date, and prepare for honeymoons. The “time of the month” was important. And then, especially in the case of a “mixed marriage” (a Catholic marrying a Protestant in the Catholic Church) is it okay for a bride, especially if Protestant, to make a doctor’s appointment, to see about birth control, and time it all for a “successful” honeymoon?? Or if she marries a Catholic boy, would she have to forfeit some things, like the idea of birth control? Does she still have to “sign that little paper,” assuring that the couple would raise their children Catholic?? Etc. etc. And what does the priest say– about the honeymoon plans– and about the sin of birth control?? I recall many priests, even after “Humanae Vitae” came out, who said,”that is your individual decision,” for their Catholics, and to Protestants marrying Catholics. Not good! Better for the Church to have a strict policy, strict Church laws, on moral issues, which all clergy and all laity must follow– not leave decisions up to people to “decide on their own.” That is my belief.
Nobody in my family ever asked a priest if something was ok.
When they married a divorced person, they knew not to go back to Church.
When they married a Protestant, they knew they were not going to have a church wedding. And they knew not to invite relatives.
It was more important to them to do what they wanted. They did not care what the Catholic Church thought about it.
Well, Anonymous, your situation was completely different. If you go and see your priest to make plans for a church wedding, he has a lot of things to talk about with the couple, long before they can even make wedding plans at all. It’s not so simple. The priest may tell you that he won’t marry you in the Catholic Church, you are making a big mistake, forget about a church wedding, and here are his reasons. A Catholic marriage is holy– it is a Sacrament.
anon., I don’t think many Catholic families in the early 1900s had a child marry a divorced person so that is not typical. There were a lot of mixed marriages in the mid-century though. You could get the Sacrament but not in the Church. And the non-Catholic used to have to sign a paper that the kids would be raised Catholic. They do not do that anymore.
My point was that maybe the people you knew were afraid of the Church and toed the line.
The Catholics I knew thought the Church was full of it and did not care what the Church said. They ate fish on Friday because they were Catholic. They felt like the anon. above and like Nancy Pelosi that they could use their own judgement. Even before Vatican II.
Faithful Catholics now are much more devout and better educated in the Faith than the pre-Vatican II generation that I knew.
Anon.,
We might be focusing on two different aspects of the Church. You seem to be focusing on the practice and attitudes of clergy and laity before and after the Council. In this regard, I agree with you: the pre-Conciliar Church was better.
The Council, itself, did not get rid of that. However, there were a host of other factors that contributed to our contemporary problems. I’ll name a few:
a) The cultural revolution of the 1960 in the West.
b) Paul VI did not have the deep spirituality that was necessary to both successfully implement the Council and navigate the Church through the encroaching cultural swamp.
c) Both Paul VI and John Paul II named a large number of inferior bishops to the episcopacy.
d) The spirituality of the faithful (clergy and laity) was not sufficient to deal with the 1960s (It seems that many simply did not have an authentic connection with Christ – Some leaders tried to hijack the Council by invoking the “Spirit of Vatican II”.
I vigorously defend Vatican II for two main reasons:
a) It was an Ecumenical Council, thus the Holy Spirit spoke through the Council.
b) To correct our problems today, it’s most important to identify the true cause(s). If we get this wrong, we’ll develop the wrong solution(s). All of our contemporary problems today can be solved by measures other than by touching the Conciliar documents. Revoking the Council [if it were possible] wouldn’t solve our problems – and likely would make them worse.
Steve Seitz– I enjoyed reading your post of May 22 at 9:40am!
It doesn’t require intelligence to be pro-life: It just requires honesty.
I don’t think Pelosi is honest either with us or herself about her Catholicity. Thus, should we be surprised that she plays so loose with the truth?
I didn’t know Archbishop Cordileone could troll so skillfully.
This seems like a chess move towards placing Nancy in check by declaring her unfit to receive Communion in his archdiocese. Although she thought she was being clever and was condescending about it, Nancy made a tactical error and left herself open to being checked. Cordileone seized on the opportunity and now controls the board.
Nancy doesn’t care. She laughs at Abp. Cordileone, and laughs at the Pope. I have for decades now, seen Nancy and Paul Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, and many other “bad Catholic” lawmakers, as well as big, paid Church employees, attending big Church functions,and they do “their thing,” and whoever is the Archbishop, during their time (Quinn, Levada, Niederauer, and now, Cordileone) do “their thing.” And the “bad Catholics” are “tolerantly” allowed to do “their thing.” They are politely acknowledged as “disagreeing” with the views of the Archbishop. “You have your view, and I have mine,” type of thing. Nonsensical! Crazy Church! Want to go have a “crazy night” at a big function, over at the Cathedral??
Maybe she tore it up.
We would all be much better off if the bishops would remove the word “dialogue” from their vocabulary.
In the words of the prophet Homer Simpson, “DOH!!!!!”
For me, as I know the painful truth about what today’s Church wants, since the Council– I add two plus two and get four. Before the Council, the Church had strict authority on every little thing, and the emphasis was always on strict Church teachings, and the next world. I will never forget our Pastor and the nuns telling me, right after the Council, that the traditional ways of the Church would no longer be desired– and Marriage and humanism would now be desired. I replied,
“but what about a special religious vocation to a life of vows of Chastity, dedicated to Christ? This will kill the Church!” The Mother Superior laughed and said, “I guess they would prefer that I get married and have a baby! I must be so “deprived” of my humanity!” Our Pastor then got busy with the new “Marriage Encounter” group. Many priests did that too, and took psychology courses. Realistically speaking, there will be no action by the Church to excommunicated “bad Catholics.” They really want freedom of conscience,” humanism, and the least authority measures they can possibly get away with, in Church governance. Go ask Abp. Cordileone or your local bishop. Or ask other highly knowledgeable priests. Nothing will change.
Sorry, I meant to say,in my post of May 19 at 3:56pm– that I believe there will be no action by the Church to excommunicate (not “excommunicated”) “bad Catholics.” That is– unless the Church has a big change. Just have to put up with it, and pray– that’s all.
I have always thought that Nancy Pelosi would make a big, highly publicized, televised, dramatic scene, and rip up a letter of excommunication from her bishop, if she ever got one.
Here is what I believe, regarding Church leadership, morality, and dicipline. I think all human beings– including myself– are incapable of always making wise decisions, especially during times of difficulty or extreme problems, stress, and hardships in life. Human beings can easily make bad mistakes– and regret them, later! Or else, they may not have sufficient moral and religious training, or strength and courage– to stand alone, if they must, make good decisions, and stick by them, in challenging situations. Better for a church, as well as secular society, to already have strict laws in place, forbidding many serious sins! All humans are “fallen creatures,” in need of Christ’s Sacrifice, to redeem them.
There will always be, in each generation, even after very good moral and religious training– only a small handful of people, truly dedicated to God, and the responsibility of spiritual and moral discipline. I don’t think it’s fair, either, to call people “hypocrites.” Many “hypocrites” are well-meaning– but are weak and flawed people, as we all are! Many people do as best they can. Overall, I believe that strict laws and good training in manners and morals should prevail, in a church and in society, to help develop a good church, and cultivate a good culture and civilization, beneficial to all, for the glory of God.
What I meant to say, on my post of May 21 at 1:45pm– is that our society and churches will only have a small handful, in each generation, of truly good, dedicated, outstanding people. Then, you get a bunch of well-meaning people, who are sort of “lukewarm,” “mediocre,” or “hypocritical”– not very dedicated, but not heretical or bad– they are just very weak, easily swayed into sins of all kinds. It takes smart, tough leadership, to make good decisions, to safely protect and guide a society and to safely protect and guide a church. The “Wolf” of Satan is always lurking around the door, waiting to grab some poor fool, who falls into sin! Anyone can be a “fool,” and fall into sin! And your kids, too! Scary. This is a “fallen world.” We need strong, smart leaders, in our society and in our Church.