A Priest Writes To Nancy Pelosi

The image to the left is from the Rock For Life website.  You can enlarge the image by clicking on it.

Fr. John Malloy, pastor of Saints Peter and Paul Church in San Francisco, has written an “Open letter to Nancy Pelosi,” which he also published in his parish bulletin.

California Catholic Daily has the story here: A priest writes to Nancy Pelosi

Here is the text of Fr. Malloy's letter:

Nancy, you are fooling yourself and I fear fooling many good Catholics. You are simply not in sync with the Catholic Church. Until you change your non-Catholic positions, you should stop calling yourself Catholic. Your record shows that you support embryonic stem cell research, Planned Parenthood, contraception, family planning funding, allowing minors to have an abortion without parental consent, and are against making it a crime to harm a fetus, etc. etc.

The fact that you favor married priests and women priests certainly would not classify you as conservative, but your answer to the question are you a conservative Catholic was:
“I think so. I was raised in a very strict upbringing in a Catholic home where we respected people, were observant, were practicing Catholics, and that the fundamental belief was that God gave us all a free will, and we were accountable for that, each of us. Each person had that accountability, so it wasn’t for us to make judgments about how people saw their responsibility and that it wasn’t for politicians to make decisions about how people led their personal lives; certainly, to a high moral standards, but when it got into decisions about privacy and all the rest, then that was something that individuals had to answer to God for, and not to politicians.”

That sounds fair and tolerant, but your record belies high moral standards.

The NARL rates you 100% pro-abortion. Your statement: “To me it isn’t even a question. God has given us a free will. We’re all responsible for our actions. If you don’t want an abortion, you don’t believe in it, [then] don’t have one. But don’t tell somebody else what they can do in terms of honoring their responsibilities. My family is very pro-life. They’re not fanatics and they’re not activists. I think they’d like it if I were not so vocally pro-choice.”

Do we not elect politicians to make laws that help people honor their responsibilities, such as protecting life itself? Can politicians not tell someone else not to kill? If you can kill a baby in the womb, Nancy, why not outside of it? Oh wait, you are in favor of partial birth abortion, so-called because the baby sticks out of the “mother” about halfway, while the “doctor” sucks out the baby's brain. That seems comparable to the choice the Nazis made killing six million Jews.

Yes, Nancy, we (together with your pro-life family) would all like it if you were not so vocally pro-choice, i.e. pro-death. Until your choice is in line with Catholic doctrine, please, Nancy, do not receive the Eucharist when you attend Mass.

Rev. John Malloy, SDB
San Francisco, CA

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion

General Principles

by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," nos. 81, 83).

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

4. Apart from an individual's judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

St. Paul expressed similar sentiments here:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.  Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:23-32)

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.

Abortion and Canon Law:

Can. 1397 – One who commits homicide or who fraudulently or forcibly kidnaps, detains, mutilates or seriously wounds a person is to be punished with the deprivations and prohibitions mentioned in can. 1336 in accord with the seriousness of the offense; however, homicide against the persons mentioned in can. 1370 is punished by the penalties specified there.

Can. 1398 – A person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication.

[The Latin original reads: Can. 1398 – Qui abortum procurat, effectu secuto, in excommunicationem latae sententiae incurrit.]

An excommunication is the heaviest spiritual sanction the Church can render. So long as it is in force, it bars the excommunicated person from the church community and from receiving most of the sacraments, as well as from all public associations affiliated with the Church. An automatic (or "latae sententiae") excommunication is an especially severe penalty. The nine or so latae sententiae excommunications in the Code are reserved for use against certain things the Church particularly wants to deter, like assaulting the pope (can.1370) and priests divulging matters heard in the confessional (can.1388). Most excommunications can only follow a tribunal trial (can. 1425, §1, 2°). But latae sententiae penalties operate like a bill of attainder in that there is no "process" for their imposition – the fact that the person voluntarily performed the proscribed act, in the absence of some exception provided in the law, means the penalty is incurred. An excommunication can usually be lifted by the local bishop (the "local ordinary") and sometimes by a priest during confession (can. 1354-1357).

Any thoughts?

Comments

[JF]

God bless you Father! You are right on. If more in our nation were so honest, maybe abortion would be a plague of the past!

[T. Shaw]

Amen! Alleluia!

Some bishops and priests may want to adjust their "focus" from "getting along" (coddling, compromising, rationalizing, rubbing elbows at cocktail parties) with serial satanics. Bottom line: their 'job one' is the salvation of souls.

“We shall go before a higher tribunal - a tribunal where a Judge of infinite goodness, as well as infinite justice, will preside, and where many of the judgments of this world will be reversed.” Brig. Gen. Thomas Meagher, USA, statement at his (death) sentencing by a Saxon court for his role in the 1848 Irish rising.

[Georgia]

Thank you, Father Malloy! You are really showing what true charity is. It is still shocking to see the smiling and smug face on Nancy as she is pictured. Had Nancy received more truthful admonishments from other shepherds and fellow Catholics along the way, she would be ashamed to appear so happy to sanction the slaughter of babies.
Her family needs to pull her aside and not just tell her to be "Not so vocal"! They need to tell her she is paving the way for her own Eternal Damnation.

[Mario Mirarchi]

Somebody make him a bishop.

[Phil]

We should all innundate Pelosi's office with copy's of Father's e-mail.

[Qualis Rex]

I have met Father Malloy and attend St Peter and Paul church. I am seriously (but pleasantly) surprised he wrote this letter. Many priests in their twilight years tend to get more introspective and myopic about their life and parish. It's good to see him reaching out like this. I hope more priests and hierarchy will follow his example.

[Donald]

A priest with some principles and willing to vocalize them...amazingly refreshing...politicians are, by and large, affected by public opinion dictated by polls...the queen mother and king of that are Hillary, John Kerry, et al, but, Nancy P. is darned close...if she/they knew that she/they would receive, say, 1% of the Catholic vote in their districts, she/they would become so pro-life it would be staggering to their constituency...Nancy is void of moral fiber and, frankly, spinless to uphold her teachings and upbringings...even her family appears to disagree with her on the life issues...I am perplexed as to her understanding of her eternity...I say, as did Phil...she should receive that e-mail en masse.

Good post!!

[David Newberry]

How can we get this message to others? If we do not vete against such candidates then we are, in fact, supporting them. I know many faithful party members who feel that any politician who runs on a Party Ticket may be voted for or against without consideration of political agenda and performance. I know others who believe that it is consistant with God's will to refrain from voting rather than support either a pro-choice and a pro-life candidate. WHere have we gone wrong?

I was a single-party democrat for the first 47 years of my life. I was a ranking member of my state's democrat party and in 1980 as we were drafting the party's platform plank on abortion - many of us objected. We were told to shut up and get out. So for the first time in my life I was left to research the political parties and their stances on moral and ethical issues.

I became a Reagan Republican and a strong advocate of Psalm 139. I am dismayed as a Knight of Columbus to read in last month's magazine issue an article written by a Dominican priest who extoled the decision made by a friend of his who divored his wife and established himself as a homosexual because "it was more honest". I was and remain outraged at this article for many obvious reasons. The priest went on to state how the Church loves hommosexuals (we agree on love of the individual) and how homosexuality was permited by the Church rather than any form of intolerance.

I Emailed the author and the editor for the flawed opinion and the editorial lack of discipline. I reminded them that when a diocese goes broke because of sex abuse settlements that it is we regular parish members that pay the freight with our contributions and tithe. The editor sent a note of receipt acknowledgement and that is the end of the story.

We need spiritual and political leadership if we Christians are to ever gain the high ground. We need spiritual heros and role models - not expedient politicians or politically correct church leaders.

God bless us all and please keep up the good work! I am new to your website.

David Newberry
redindian@comcast net

[Qualis Rex]

This is VERY important: I just spoke to the rector of Sts Peter and Paul church. He stated that Father Malloy needs A LOT OF SUPPORT right now. Apparently he is getting some "fall-out" due to his letter.

PLEASE DO TWO THINGS HERE:
1) Phone Sts Peter and Paul church at (415) 421-0809 and ask to leave a message of support for Father Malloy. He will very much appreciate it.

2) Call the archdiocese of San Francisco at 415 614 5500 (ask to speak to Ms Miller, assistant to the Archbishop) or email info@sfarchdiocese.org (cc millerl@sfarchdiocese.org) and tell Archbishop Niederauer that you also support Father Malloy's decision, and that he should emulate Father Malloy and counsel Nancy Pelosi in Catholic teaching so that she may have a change of heart on the issue of abortion. REMEMBER: Archbishop Niederauer and Father Malloy ARE IN NANCY'S DISTRICT.

thank you and God Bless!!!

[Karen]

Good for him!!!!

[average]

I'm not surprised that Fr. Malloy is receiving "fall-out". He should.

His judgments on her: she has views on abortion, married priests, women priests
stem-cell research, war, etc.

Catholics can't express their opinions whether they're a legislator or a bus driver?

Would it surprise you to learn that the overwhelming per-centage of American Catholics DO discuss these topics?

Maybe the majority of commenters on THIS blog hold their hand up to their mouth on topics such as these but millions of American Catholics aren't afraid to discuss such things.

I don't think Nancy Pelosi has much to fear from renegade priests (who are very likely prodded by ultra-conservative by-standers) or stiffling Republican extremists.

She's backed, heavily, by most.

If there is scandal or potential schism in the church here--it isn't because of the Nancy Pelosi's of the country, or the millions of mainstream Catholics--it's because of Republican, ultra-conservative zealots.

You're still in a minority. It's easy to understand why. It's called sense.

Most of you should be medicated.

And, I say that with love.

[Donald]

Average:

I seem to remember a post you made, oh, a few days ago where your comments were..."is it necessary to resort to (insults) or name calling?" when you were boxed into a corner on excellent discourse regarding your democratic/liberal diatribe...like most liberals, you "dish" but can't "take"...yes, you are most certainly entitled to YOUR opinion and protected by the first amendment...be grateful for that...but, when it comes to the practicing of your faith and living by the teachings of the Church, well, it's "black and white"...you DO NOT profess to pro-abortion, stem-cell, research, women priests, etc. See, Average, you CAN'T have it both ways...you CAN, however, roll the dice on thinking you can, and risk your eternity...I'll pray for your conversion...w/ no insults or needs of medication.

[roger h.]

average wrote:

If there is scandal or potential schism in the church here--it isn't because of the Nancy Pelosi's of the country, or the millions of mainstream Catholics--it's because of Republican, ultra-conservative zealots.

You're still in a minority. It's easy to understand why. It's called sense.

Most of you should be medicated.

Troll alert!

[Phil]

average, you are a bonehead!

The culture war is already won! For, it doesn't matter so much what we say but rather what we do. Those on the side of Life, who are open to children, are doing. They are having large families as God intended, while the rest of the country is contracepting itself out of existence.

It is only a matter of time until the liberal life hating culture of deathers themselves die out. I have no doubt their stranglehold will be broken. I do worry about what they are going to do when they realize their little war is already lost.

[Georgia]

I wonder if Average is just an "average" priest or troll?

[average]

Okay. I've had some pretty pointed barbs thrown at me, sinner that I am, and not, perhaps, without justification. Thomistic and Carlos have called me pretty much everything in the book. I'm okay with that. I learn from it.

I may ultimately come around to your point of view on abortion, but I doubt it.

What you needn't do is lie.

You needn't put words on these threads which I never said.

I've never said anything, Donald, about "is it necessary to resort to insults or namecalling?" THAT is someone else's post. Not mine. Go back again and read carefully.

Commenters, now and again, take someone's post and then insert their own comments in-between and it makes it very confusing to try to keep the continuity and understanding. I don't mind this but it should be delineated by a coloring or some other manner.

I never said someone who eats beef could call themselves a vegetarian.

As as for the lame contention that I have not adequately responded to you with respect to your comments (Mr. T and Mr. C)
go back and re-read the threads again.

I think what is happening here is you can't stand my view, which I'm fine with, and rather than methodically going over each point and counter-point you resort to an adolesent jibe about my not satisfactorily addressing your thoughts.

In fact, if I may be permitted a personal beef, I have made many points to which you seem not to have a sensible answer or you run away from. Instead of trying to give a satisfactory answer, which you can't in many cases, what do you do instead Thomistic? Throw Wikipedia or doctrine up as a shield instead of saying: You know what average, you might have a point.

Most people would call that being closed-minded.

Peace,

Average

[Mr Meaculpa]

Average,
Thank you for that non judgemental judgement. Try to stick to your tenents, you are failing. You do bring up an interesting point though, that "most" catholics can have an opinion that contradicts the Church. "Most" catholics think that there are no moral absolutes like yourself. A Catholic has no opinioin that goes against the Church, because it is nothing other than the teachings of Jesus Christ himself. This priest stands for moral absolutes like that of Jesus who gives him the power to teach the Truth.

[David1]

What we have here is a microcosm of the two camps in Catholicism. We all agree on the core but have disagreements on the expression and direction. And so both sides resort to name calling and throwing sand. The differences in expression and direction are very important and we should, at least, understand each other. When we accuse, people revert to defensive styles and nothing gets accomplished. When we fall back in temper tantrums, the real enemy wins.

Perhaps we can start with abortion. I think we all agree that once a baby is born he/she is considered a “person” and thus has rights. The mother, at that point, cannot take away the life. For those against abortion, we think that “personhood” begins at conception. For those supporting choice, at what point does the developing baby become a person with individual rights? 3 months, 5 months, 8 months?

[Carlos]

Mr. Meaculpa, I'd argue that a "Catholic" who denies moral absolutes is not longer truly Catholic and has separated himself from the Body of Christ.

[Leon Bernotas]

Bravo!! Father John Malloy
Even if I Try I could not say it any better.
Well done!
Leon Bernotas

[Carlos]

Average, I have never called you "names," but I have pointed out that you refuse to use logic when arguing a point and instead turn toward emotion. And, no, you never answered my question about using a race-based evaluation system to guage somebody's worth. That's why I told you to just "forget it."

[Carlos]

Average, I have never called you "names," but I have pointed out that you refuse to use logic when arguing a point and instead turn toward emotion. And, no, you never answered my question about using a race-based evaluation system to guage somebody's worth. That's why I told you to just "forget it."

[Imprimartin]

David1,
I'm not sure that's true regarding your "two camps" theory. But your name-calling observations are true. But I also think it's not a good idea to start with abortion.

Average Catholic had said in another post (and let me make sure that I get this right) that, "Doctrine is not truth; Doctrine is the direction a man or men want to take others. We try to follow it when it makes sense."

This is the essence of why he disagrees with the majority here on this blog. He seems to think that somehow, whatever beliefs the majority catholics hold, the opposite belief should not be demanded, under penalty, of that same majority. For example, he has said that most catholics have "come to grips" with abortion and therefore those same people ought to be penalty-free if they endorse/accept abortion. That argument actually has weight with him.

What I would like to know, from him, is why does that "majority rules" mentality hold so much sway with him?

Martin

[Donald]

Average,

I stand corrected...it was "Modern Catholic" slinging arrows in another post,and then saying "no need to resort to insults..." not Average Catholic...the logic presented by both of you was so similar, and then the similarity in names, I misspoke...or, maybe you're one in the same...Catholicism is an absolute...and, as to your postion on abortion, reconcile this...many a church and psychiatrist have been long counseliing mothers that have aborted babies in their lives, for forgiveness, reconciliation and to fill cavernous voids in their lives and psyches...I, personally, pray for their redemption...even nee "Roe" had a change of heart...a conversion...pray, Average, your faith will heal you!

[average]

David1,

Thank you.

Thank you for showing yourself to be tolerant and temperate and someone who thinks. If there were more like you there would be more ready dialog of intelligent give and take of ideas and of one's position. And maybe, just maybe, more people would get along as the church moves forward.

I respect people who don't support abortion, but I don't respect people who would rip the church in two because their personal views on married priests, women priests, intolerance toward gays, stem-cell research or abortion would lead them to try to force the church to turn its back on the millions of Catholics who hold differing viewpoints. To do so, isn't just derisive
and damaging it's untenable.

That's not what the Catholic Church is about.

The Church wants to bring people in not push people away.

That's the difference between the Church itself and most Catholics as compared to many who comment on this blog site.

If we were sitting next to each other in a pew and you were Pro-Capitol punishment and I was not I wouldn't make a fuss about it if you wanted to take Communion.

That's the difference between a Zealot and someone who is mainstream.

Peace,

average