AgingCatholic goes after the Church Lady

I went searching on the Catholic Answers forum for more posts from AgingCatholic, whom I quoted a few weeks ago. Seeing none for some time, I sent him an email to ask if he was OK (I had first contacted him to compliment him on the prior post). Apparently, he has been banned from Catholic Answers. This is not surprising, I have been banned myself and now only 'lurk'. But AgingCatholic did send me a question he posted to Judie Brown on the EWTN forums.

For those who are not familiar, Judie is the founder of http://www.all.org/, and often on the receiving end of some of my most uncharitable thoughts. I always seem to picture her as the Church Lady from SNL, wagging her finger. In this particular instance, I largely agree with AgingCatholic's take. She is utterly dismissive of Sister Welding's obvious compassion for poverty and other life issues. I would note that AgingCatholic's points should cut both ways. That is, we should be attempting to interpret Judie's actions in the most favorable light as well. In addition, I do not believe that Judie is being "dishonest", as AgingCatholic implies. I think that she is more akin to the ants in T.H. White's THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING. Things are either 'done' (lock step with her) or 'not done' (any deviation). If you are 'not done', you are wrong and evil and receive the standard admonishments and reasoning.

As I have written before, I believe that the problem is that, lacking God's capacity for infinite love, we cannot, as humans, wholly comprehend our Catholic teaching on right to life. It is just too broad. Instead of just focusing on what calls to us personally, we should be striving to hear each other and attempting to grow together in love. I should be attempting to feel the love Sister Welding clearly has for the sick and poor. Likewise I should be attempting to feel more of Judie's apparent passion for the unborn. It is not a matter of picking who is right and who is wrong, but one of recognizing that we are all incomplete and will be a better representation of Jesus' instructions when we come together and support each other as a community of faith.

That said, here is the letter, without editing, as it was sent to me (and published here with permission:

********************************************

Judy,

Although I applaud your pro-life efforts, I must admit that I found this commentary to be downright offensive:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/dec/08120105.html

It is always a sin to profess to know the heart and mind of others, so this comment would be inappropriate at any time:

"The first and perhaps most obvious problem with this nun's letter is that she is clearly not only pro-abortion but feels fine attributing her views to God, the Author of Life!"

But when you continue:

"To equate the direct murder of a preborn baby with the "lesser of two evils," thus suggesting that some preborn children would be better off dead than to have to be born into poverty, is about as misguided and ill-conceived a notion as I have ever seen in print."

The spectre of blatant dishonesty is raised. Consider the nun's actual statement, which begins:

"Yes, abortion is the killing of an innocent life..."

Up front, she concedes that abortion is a dire evil, but then continues:

"So is war and violent killing on the street."

This is true, and wholly in keeping with the teaching of the Church. As Pope John Paul II explained in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI (#38), the right to life is inviolate regardless of our stage of development or physical or spiritual state. Further, it is directly tied to the inalienable rights of the human person, as defined by the Pastoral Constitution of the Second Vatican Council (which the pope quotes).

Where the nun appears to drift from our specific teachings is in the sentence that follows:
"I have often seen many starving babies in hospitals in Honduras and witnessed their pain. In these cases, abortion might have been the lesser of two evils, and even the most merciful alternative."

You interpret this as comparing life in poverty to no life at all. However, the Catechism instructs us to interpret the words of others in the most favorable light possible (CCC 2478). I do not interpret the statement above to be a comparison of hunger to death, but one of slow, agonizing death to a quick one.

Such a thought would still be theologically incorrect, since we hold every moment of life to be precious, a gift of infinite value from our loving God. But it would be more emotionally understandable. Look closely at the statement, the nun is reporting a direct experience from her service to these children. It is the nature of our species to place more emphasis on individual experience. Those deaths, and the horrible ravages of poverty witnessed first hand, clearly pull directly on her moral conscience, which she is compelled to obey (CCC 1790).

But even if your interpretation is correct and I am wrong, two very serious problems remain. First, your reaction. Look again at CCC 2478, in particular the quote of St. Ignatius of Loyola:

"Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved."

You not only interpreted the words in the most unfavorable light (among other things, your interpretation would require the presumption that the nun is actively attempting to deceive), you call other Catholics to join you in judging her and attempting to extract retribution via her order. Compare this to the path of love and compassion endorsed by a saint.

The second problem with your interpretation is that it presumes that it is inarguable that poverty should be trumped by abortion. But, as Catholics, we are first, and foremost, Christians. Jesus specifically and repeatedly stated that ministering to the poor is the principle criteria on which we will be judged for salvation (ex. Luke 10, Matthew 25, etc.) In fact, the word "Gospel" is derived from "Good News", and in "Good News to the poor".

In CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, Pope John Paul II explained that the right to life is the most fundamental of our rights (#38), but he also clearly stated that all the rights must be honored because they come directly from God. So our obligation to the weak is not negotiable, even when we are attempting to limit a grievous evil like abortion. In fact, in a Doctrinal Note on voting, Rome has gone so far as to state that elevating some teachings at the expense of others is "incoherent" and a potential "detriment" to the faith as a whole:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html (see #4)

Rome explains that the faith is a cohesive and coherent whole. We cannot pick and choose values because they are intertwined. Poverty, in particular, is directly tied to vast numbers of innocent deaths. Thousands of children die each day for want of clean water. Even more die for lack of simple items like mosquito netting or from preventable childhood diseases.

In the US, children living in hunger doubled in 2007, to about 700,000. Since the majority of women who procure abortions in the US live at or near the poverty line, and about half of them are already mothers, it would seem foolish, in either moral or secular terms, to view the issues as wholly separate.

The opinions of individual bishops should be respected, but they are not 'Vicars of the Pope', they are only authentic teachers (teachers speaking with the authority of Christ) when they are in communion with the Holy See. As we can see, Rome, as the Sister, sees "pro-life" as much, much broader than just abortion. Further, the Vicar of Christ has seemingly rejected your concept of elevating a narrow application of pro-life to special status, even at the cost of other teachings.

In fact, in SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS Pope Benedict introduces the concept of "Eucharistic Consistency" (#83). The Doctrinal Note is cited, and its broad list of fundamental and inalienable moral principles in #4 are directly referred to as "not negotiable" and tied to fitness for Holy Communion in political life.

This leads to several questions:

Q1. Are you asserting that Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul are/were both incorrect? That is, are you asserting that it is a better application of Church teaching to elevate abortion to special status at the expense of other fundamental moral principles?

Q2. Are you asserting that the Church's understanding of the Gospels is incorrect in that it is wholly correct to rush to judgement and enlist others to join one in casting stones? We are, after all, not just talking about CCC 2478, which the Church ties to the 8th Commandment, but the Beatitudes and Pope John Paul II's explanation of the proper application of CIC 915.

Q3. Are you asserting the Catholic Church's definition of "pro-life" is too broad? Sister Welding invoked specific examples of innocent death, but you label her comments "ludicrous". The Church's official position is that all attacks on human life are illicit and must be considered (see the Doctrinal Note, EVANGELIUM VITAE, CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, and the USCCB's document on Faithful Citizenship). Dismissing some attacks outright would appear to be a direct rejection of this position.

Peace