In Case You Are Wondering Why The Archbishop of Denver Was Not Asked to Pray an Invocation at the Democrats' Denver Convention
Many of us were told at Catholic colleges that past theologians such as Thomas Aquinas and Augustine were unsure of when a baby became ensouled. This is sometimes adduced as evidence that the Christian tradition is unclear about whether abortion is wrong (strictly speaking at what point does abortion becomes murder.)
This is a red herring. The tradition is consistent from the start that abortion is evil, no matter how you resolve the scientific issue. The Didache (written before parts of the New Testament), Justin (second century) and other authorities on down through the ages are clear.
The Democrats are holding their convention in Denver as I write. The Democratic Party has asked neither the Rev. Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., Denver's Archbishop nor his extremely capable and pious Auxiliary, James D. Conley to pray one of the traditional invocations at their convention. Their fidelity to the Church's teaching and their moral courage are too clear. They would be dangerous addressing the abortion Party in prayer.
But the two shepherds have not been quiet. When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spouted theology on Meet the Press, these eminent and holy bishops responded with clarity and accuracy in an open letter to their flock:
To Catholics of the Archdiocese of Denver:
Catholic public leaders inconvenienced by the abortion debate tend to take a hard line in talking about the "separation of Church and state." But their idea of separation often seems to work one way. In fact, some officials also seem comfortable in the role of theologian. And that warrants some interest, not as a "political" issue, but as a matter of accuracy and justice.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a gifted public servant of strong convictions and many professional skills. Regrettably, knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them.
Interviewed on Meet the Press August 24, Speaker Pelosi was asked when human life begins. She said the following:
"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 . . . 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."
Since Speaker Pelosi has, in her words, studied the issue "for a long time," she must know very well one of the premier works on the subject, Jesuit John Connery's Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective (Loyola, 1977). Here's how Connery concludes his study:
"The Christian tradition from the earliest days reveals a firm antiabortion attitude . . . The condemnation of abortion did not depend on and was not limited in any way by theories regarding the time of fetal animation. Even during the many centuries when Church penal and penitential practice was based on the theory of delayed animation, the condemnation of abortion was never affected by it. Whatever one would want to hold about the time of animation, or when the fetus became a human being in the strict sense of the term, abortion from the time of conception was considered wrong, and the time of animation was never looked on as a moral dividing line between permissible and impermissible abortion."
Or to put it in the blunter words of the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer:
"Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder."
Ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the Christian tradition overwhelmingly held that abortion was grievously evil. In the absence of modern medical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the unborn child might be animated or "ensouled." But none diminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong.
Of course, we now know with biological certainty exactly when human life begins. Thus, today's religious alibis for abortion and a so-called "right to choose" are nothing more than that – alibis that break radically with historic Christian and Catholic belief.
Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it - whether they're famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.
The duty of the Church and other religious communities is moral witness. The duty of the state and its officials is to serve the common good, which is always rooted in moral truth. A proper understanding of the "separation of Church and state" does not imply a separation of faith from political life. But of course, it's always important to know what our faith actually teaches.
+Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver
+James D. Conley
Auxiliary Bishop of Denver
###
This is a red herring. The tradition is consistent from the start that abortion is evil, no matter how you resolve the scientific issue. The Didache (written before parts of the New Testament), Justin (second century) and other authorities on down through the ages are clear.
The Democrats are holding their convention in Denver as I write. The Democratic Party has asked neither the Rev. Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., Denver's Archbishop nor his extremely capable and pious Auxiliary, James D. Conley to pray one of the traditional invocations at their convention. Their fidelity to the Church's teaching and their moral courage are too clear. They would be dangerous addressing the abortion Party in prayer.
But the two shepherds have not been quiet. When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spouted theology on Meet the Press, these eminent and holy bishops responded with clarity and accuracy in an open letter to their flock:
ON THE SEPARATION OF SENSE AND STATE:
A CLARIFICATION FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE CHURCH IN NORTHERN COLORADO
A CLARIFICATION FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE CHURCH IN NORTHERN COLORADO
To Catholics of the Archdiocese of Denver:
Catholic public leaders inconvenienced by the abortion debate tend to take a hard line in talking about the "separation of Church and state." But their idea of separation often seems to work one way. In fact, some officials also seem comfortable in the role of theologian. And that warrants some interest, not as a "political" issue, but as a matter of accuracy and justice.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a gifted public servant of strong convictions and many professional skills. Regrettably, knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them.
Interviewed on Meet the Press August 24, Speaker Pelosi was asked when human life begins. She said the following:
"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 . . . 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."
Since Speaker Pelosi has, in her words, studied the issue "for a long time," she must know very well one of the premier works on the subject, Jesuit John Connery's Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective (Loyola, 1977). Here's how Connery concludes his study:
"The Christian tradition from the earliest days reveals a firm antiabortion attitude . . . The condemnation of abortion did not depend on and was not limited in any way by theories regarding the time of fetal animation. Even during the many centuries when Church penal and penitential practice was based on the theory of delayed animation, the condemnation of abortion was never affected by it. Whatever one would want to hold about the time of animation, or when the fetus became a human being in the strict sense of the term, abortion from the time of conception was considered wrong, and the time of animation was never looked on as a moral dividing line between permissible and impermissible abortion."
Or to put it in the blunter words of the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer:
"Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder."
Ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the Christian tradition overwhelmingly held that abortion was grievously evil. In the absence of modern medical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the unborn child might be animated or "ensouled." But none diminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong.
Of course, we now know with biological certainty exactly when human life begins. Thus, today's religious alibis for abortion and a so-called "right to choose" are nothing more than that – alibis that break radically with historic Christian and Catholic belief.
Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it - whether they're famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.
The duty of the Church and other religious communities is moral witness. The duty of the state and its officials is to serve the common good, which is always rooted in moral truth. A proper understanding of the "separation of Church and state" does not imply a separation of faith from political life. But of course, it's always important to know what our faith actually teaches.
+Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver
+James D. Conley
Auxiliary Bishop of Denver
###
Perfect Birthday Gifts for a Liturgical Geek
1) A coffee mug:
http://www.cafepress.com/sacredmusic.106651451
2) A clock:
http://www.cafepress.com/sacredmusic.106541321
Jeffrey Tucker Explodes Some of the Myths About the Proponents of Chant
Chant is the natural music for the full and active participation of the people in the divine liturgy of the Eucharist. Yet the liturgical elite dismisses it as undemocratic.
What gives?
On the New Liturgical Movement, Jeffrey Tucker, a young spark plug of liturgical renewal, and a lover of liturgical music explores (beware your prejudices may be endangered!):
The most conventional critique of the push for Gregorian chant in parishes is that chant is elitist, and not for regular people. The words are in Latin. It uses unfamiliar notation. It draws its melodies from traditions unfamiliar to the modern ear. It might be loved by “conservatory trained” musicians with high sensibilities, this argument goes. The establishment might go for it. But it is inherently alienating to the regular person, who longs for ecclesial art that is more common and accessible.
Whoever says these things knows nothing about the current music situation in the Catholic Church. The archetype of the chant director today is that he or she is a volunteer, not a professional. He or she has been trained not at conservatory but at a seminar or colloquium, the tuition for which was paid out of pocket. The singers in chant scholas are also volunteers, people who discovered this music only a few years ago and who are inspired by its beauty and role in liturgy. They do not know Latin; what they do know they have learned without formal instruction. [read on.]
What gives?
On the New Liturgical Movement, Jeffrey Tucker, a young spark plug of liturgical renewal, and a lover of liturgical music explores (beware your prejudices may be endangered!):
The Sociology of the Chant Movement
The most conventional critique of the push for Gregorian chant in parishes is that chant is elitist, and not for regular people. The words are in Latin. It uses unfamiliar notation. It draws its melodies from traditions unfamiliar to the modern ear. It might be loved by “conservatory trained” musicians with high sensibilities, this argument goes. The establishment might go for it. But it is inherently alienating to the regular person, who longs for ecclesial art that is more common and accessible.
Whoever says these things knows nothing about the current music situation in the Catholic Church. The archetype of the chant director today is that he or she is a volunteer, not a professional. He or she has been trained not at conservatory but at a seminar or colloquium, the tuition for which was paid out of pocket. The singers in chant scholas are also volunteers, people who discovered this music only a few years ago and who are inspired by its beauty and role in liturgy. They do not know Latin; what they do know they have learned without formal instruction. [read on.]
Solzhenitsyn, Resquiat In Pacem 1918-2008
You can Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Harvard Address on the web in what may be a slightly more readable form than mine below. It is supplied by the Augustine Club at Columbia. Nathaniel Peters reflects on Solzhenitsyn's indictment of Western legalism on the First Things blog. I am indebted to Mr. Peters for a link to Chuck Colson's comparison of Solzhenitsyn's Harvard address to Jeremiah's prophesies to the Judeans.
Solzhenitsyn was prophetic, an unwitting instrument of God's voice, and gave us foresight into the future by observing the current truth in its bitter reality. He taught us with his poetic concreteness, his Slavic irony, and the vivid reality of his reporting. He was Tom Wolf without the sight gags. I Am Charlotte Simmonds proves the bitterness of Solzhenitsyn's truth by showing us how far we have slid in the three decades since his Russian words were heard by that sweating host in Harvard Yard.
Amanda Shaw gives us an insight into Solzhenitsyn's use of words as windows to truth, also on the First Things blog.
Solzhenitsyn was prophetic, an unwitting instrument of God's voice, and gave us foresight into the future by observing the current truth in its bitter reality. He taught us with his poetic concreteness, his Slavic irony, and the vivid reality of his reporting. He was Tom Wolf without the sight gags. I Am Charlotte Simmonds proves the bitterness of Solzhenitsyn's truth by showing us how far we have slid in the three decades since his Russian words were heard by that sweating host in Harvard Yard.
Amanda Shaw gives us an insight into Solzhenitsyn's use of words as windows to truth, also on the First Things blog.
