The Newsweek/Washington Post blog called “On Faith” is quickly becoming one of my favorite sources of comedy on the internet. The latest from Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo who runs the “Catholic America” part of the blog says that Nancy Pelosi is more pro-life than the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue.
Written with a Kmiec-ian logic, Arroyo makes his case:
Nancy Pelosi, the first Catholic woman to be Speaker of the House and Dr. William Donohue spokesman for the Catholic League constitute a Catholic odd couple. It’s not my place to delve into how each relates to God, so I consider both to be Catholics. But ohhhh so different in style!
Ms. Pelosi is soft-spoken, articulate, polite and gentle in her approach to other opinions; Dr. Donohue is not. As head of the Catholic League, Dr. Donohue links his words and political positions by reference to Catholic teaching; Pelosi does not. Pelosi represents a very liberal Democratic district in San Francisco and is second in line for presidential succession. Dr. Donohue, who on more than one occasion has mordantly attacked Democratic Party Liberals, serves a well-financed organization whose logo features a sword. Despite their different perspectives and consistent with their differing jobs, both exemplify diversity in Catholic America.
Oh my gosh, he’s got a symbolic sword and he’s not afraid to use it. Somebody stop him!
Recently, their differences were brought into the public eye with the family planning provision in the Congressional stimulus bill and the Presidential executive order about the Mexico City policy. Pelosi, the Catholic woman, supported family planning funding in the stimulus bill, while Dr. Donohue, the Catholic male, railed against it. (President Obama dropped the measure — proving once again that he is not a mindless pro-abortion ogre.) Gone from the current bill is the provision to provide sex education, counseling on the use of condoms and birth control information. However, the logic here is clear, even if the political strategies are complicated. The principal cause of abortion is unwanted pregnancies. Programs that reduce unwanted pregnancies, therefore, also reduce the likelihood of abortions. Ironically, Ms. Pelosi’s stance was consistent with a desire to reduce abortions, while Dr. Donohue’s opposition was not. Both are thoughtful lay persons using different paths to implement Church teaching against abortion, but come to far different conclusions.
What kind of sick twisted mind could possibly glean from Pelosi’s statements about birth control being good for the economy that she’s at all concerned with bringing down the number of abortions. Wouldn’t an increase in the number of abortions also be good for the economy?
And as far as thinking Obama was a “mindless pro-abortion ogre” – just for the record I’ve never accused him of being mindless.
The Mexico City policy has been a part of political ping-pong for decades now. Republicans impose a ban on U.S. funding of agencies that include abortion information in their programs, while Democrats permit such funds for overseas programs. Looked at superficially, the Democrats oppose Church teaching, while Republicans support it. However, science provides objectivity, making relevant the report from the Guttmacher Institute and the United Nations Population Fund. They estimate that family planning services to some 201 million women overseas would prevent 52 million unintended pregnancies and, therefore, 22 million abortions annually. Spacing of children by Third World women, it is projected, would reduce mortality rates for children under 5 years of age by 17%. AIDS is so wide-spread in Africa that half of 15 year old youth in Zambia will likely die of that disease. This reality led George W. Bush to remove the Mexico City policy restrictions when it came to U.S. HIV/AIDS assistance.
Naïveté is not useful here. While it is official Catholic teaching that use of artificial means of birth control with condoms is sinful, there are people of faiths other than Catholicism in the world. Not everyone follows Catholic teaching, and if polls are correct, neither do most Catholics. Moreover, since the 1973 Helms Amendment prevents a single U.S. dollar to be used to fund abortions, no U.N. agency can use our taxpayers’ funds to perform abortions. In sum, Pelosi is entitled to a judgement that abortions can be limited by supporting family planning and reversing the Mexico City policy.
These facts are not reflected in Dr. Donohue’s public condemnation of our new President: “Here we have a black president taking money from the taxpayers in a time of economic crisis and giving it to organizations–many of which are anti-Catholic–so they can spend it on killing non-white babies in Third World nations.” I do not deny Dr. Donohue’s passion as part of Catholic America, but neither would I deny Speaker Pelosi the right to follow her conscience in trying to reduce abortions.
So let me get this straight. Pelosi is pro-life because she wants to fund organizations that provide abortion overseas? And Donohue is bad because he’s against this? Somehow we’re supposed to believe that funding abortion providers saves lives. I’m not getting it.
I think sensible Catholics not in the public eye should avoid odd couple extremes. We should never say: “Whatever Obama wants is great!” but neither should we thoughtlessly respond: “Whatever Obama wants is terrible!”
Finally, for those keeping Pro-Life score, the round goes to Pelosi this week.
I wonder if there’s any way we could have Arroyo declared brain dead using this column as evidence. The only problem with that is once his liberal friends found out he was declared brain dead, bad things would follow. Remember, liberals love to declare people brain dead because then they get to do their favorite thing – kill someone for their own good. Hey, it’ll help the economy.
February 5, 2009 at 4:24 am
Wow. I don’t know if this reminds me more of Vox Nova or Doug Kmiec. Either way, it’s pretty awful.
February 5, 2009 at 9:30 am
I don’t know who died and made this moron score-keeper. I think I’d prefer to leave this to professionals.
On another note, Donohue is pretty much like a family pit-bull; not pleasant to be around unless he knows you, but great at protecting the house. Pelosi is more like a pocket-terrier; cute and harmless looking on the outside, but incessantly whiney and attention hungry (and urinates on everything when no one is looking).
February 5, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Deus…you got it perfect!! Love the description.
February 5, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Has anyone else noticed that they reference the Guttmacher Institute as providing scientific objectivity? Have they ever come to a conclusion that does not involve bringing more women through the doors of Planned Parenthood?
February 5, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Thanks for fisking this laughable exercise in double-speak. Unfortunately, it is an argument getting traction among the darkened intellects.
We have been getting, are going to keep getting, this “contraception as cure for abortion” argument, so we need to show it for the dud it is. Notice the glaring omission: no word on the rightness or wrongness of abortion. The most we get is the “Church teaching against abortion” which brushes it away as if were merely current policy. In short, if abortion isn’t wrong, there is no need to prevent them.
BUT he gets my Blind-Pig-Finds-a-Truffle Award of the day for this:
While it is official Catholic teaching that use of artificial means of birth control with condoms is sinful
THANK YOU! I don’t how many people, including Catholics (and even my RCIA director), are under the impression that as long as a contraceptive isn’t abortifacient, it’s anything goes.
February 5, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I think this is kind of similar to Bishop Williamson. Catholics who knew his track record weren’t shocked by his statements because we already know he has a penchant for saying outrageous things and buying into conspiracy theories, etc (that doesn’t excuse him, it just tempers our reaction).
This is another business as usual article for On Faith. That blog won’t get a rise out of me until they publish something rational and well thought out.
February 5, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Ms. Pelosi is soft-spoken, articulate, polite and gentle in her approach to other opinions.
True enough – if you refer to Emily Pelosi, a 7th-grader somewhere in Kansas. This description is as ill-fitting to the current Speaker of the House as is the term “NBA Hall of Famer with 12 gold records.”
Dr. Donohue links his words and political positions by reference to Catholic teaching; Pelosi does not.
True by accident: Pelosi has no idea what Catholic teaching is. She certainly tries often enough, such as misquoting Church Doctors to try to justify her stance on abortion. (Joe Biden, bless ‘im, does it too.)
The principal cause of abortion is unwanted pregnancies.
Wrong again! The principal cause of abortion is people choosing to kill their children. Absent that choice, the unwanted pregnancies would result in live infants, not dead ones.
Besides all this, there’s the overarching nonsense of claiming on the one hand “It’s not my place to delve into how each relates to God” and then spend the rest of the column running a long list of comparison/contrast from a pro-life perspective, finishing by handing out a verdict based on a standard the author claims that one has upheld more stringently – at least “this week.”
And finally, his verdict is self-contradictory – he praises Obama for dropping a measure that Donohue opposed but Pelosi supported, and then concludes that Pelosi is nevertheless more pro-life at the moment.
He should be writing for the New Scientist.
February 5, 2009 at 9:34 pm
“(President Obama dropped the measure — proving once again that he is not a mindless pro-abortion ogre.) “
Hmmm. I understood the measure still exists, but now it is ‘sugar-coated’ as “STD Prevention.”
February 5, 2009 at 9:57 pm
“polite and gentle” I guess she forgot about Pelosi telling protester “Can we drill your head”, that’s pretty gentle.
The mentioning of the sword though cracks me up. Seriously what kind of point is that.
“the Catholic male” is also pretty funny.
Same old same old, but the principal cause of abortion is people choosing to be sexually active without wanting a child.
February 6, 2009 at 12:13 am
To suggest — as some Catholics do — that Rep. Pelosi is the “real” prolife individual requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse.
Oh, wait, Archbishop Chaput already said that. (though about Obama)
“the principal cause of abortion is people choosing to be sexually active without wanting a child.”
Yup! You nailed it!
February 7, 2009 at 11:12 pm
The principal cause of abortion is incorrect belief that it’s the “right” solution for the “problem”. The principal cause of the “problem” of unplanned pregnancy is being sexually active without wanting a child.
February 10, 2009 at 6:06 pm
The mentioning of the sword though cracks me up. Seriously what kind of point is that.
Great question. If he thinks the Catholic League’s symbolic sword is bad, imagine what his thoughts are on the political arm of the Catholic Church. They actually wield the real things.