IT’S CALLED THE CATECHISM…

Okay.  First Nancy Pelosi quotes St. Augustine (incorrectly), then Joe Biden backs her up.  Now Arnold is out pushing for Gay Marriage and his wife admits she’s a Cafeteria Catholic.

At issue is Pelosi’s assertion that the Catholic Church did not have a solid position against abortion. On when life begins, she said: “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.  And Senator - St. Augustine said at three months.  We don’t know.”

Hmmmmm…let’s see what the Catechism has to say:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortio

n 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

75 Didache 2,2:SCh 248,148; cf. Ep. Barnabae 19,5:PG 2 777; Ad Diognetum 5,6:PG 2,1173; Tertullian, Apol. 9:PL 1,319-320.

Ahhhhh…the Didache.  Don’t get much “earlier” than that.  And now let’s here from Senator Biden.

Just like Pelosi, in an April 27, 2007 interview, also with Meet the Press, Biden defended his support for abortion with references to ancient Church leadership, which he interpreted as questioning abortion.  “Even within our own church, there’s been debates about life, you know, from, from ‘Summa Theologica,’ Aquinas, and 40 days to quickening and right to, you know, you know, Pius IX, animated fetus doctrine and so on.”

Mr. Biden is confused.

In 1869, Pius IX rescinded Gregory’s animated fetus exception in the Bull Apostolicae Sedis, and re-enacted the penalty of excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy.^[13][14] The distinction between animated and unanimated fetus remained in canon law until the second codification in 1917.

   It is important to note when discussing the Roman Catholic Church history of ensoulment within the abortion debate, that the Church teaches that ensoulment is at conception. This is taught as an article of dogma which is required belief by all its members. The Church draws a clear distinction between articles of dogma and articles of doctrine. The Church requires belief by its members of all dogma, which it considers infallible truth. Doctrine, including canon law, has differing levels of certitude, and may be open to some debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment

I think the confusion arises from the idea that different penalties have been placed on people procuring or performing abortions.  But it has ALWAYS been considered wrong.  Which is remarkable when you think about it as we had no prenatal technology at the time of the Early Church Fathers.

But moving on…we now have Maria Shriver throwing her two cents in. 

“I start every one of my days praying,” says Maria Shriver, wife of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. “I go to church every week. I went to Catholic schools my entire life.” But, says Shriver, when it comes to Church teachings, “I pick and choose… I think I’m probably a ‘Cafeteria Catholic.’”  (Well God love her, at least she admits it)

But here’ s the rub.  Notice what she disagrees with:

Shriver spelled out some of her disagreements: “I don’t believe that if someone’s divorced they shouldn’t get Communion; I don’t believe that people who are gay shouldn’t be accepted into the Church… I’m pro-choice, I believe women should have that right.” She also said “women should have a larger role in the Catholic Church.”

Now lets look again to the catechism. 

2386  It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.

Thus, the innocent spouse in a marital break-up has the same possibility to receive Communion as other Catholics, with the usual conditions (being free from mortal sin in other areas of life, going to Confession if not, Eucharistic fast and so on).

 

And: 

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,¹⁴⁰ tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”¹⁴¹ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

It does make one wonder what “Catholic Church” these people belong to.    They are rebelling against the church, but they don’t even know what the church teaches!  

The paperback edition of the Catechism costs less than $10.00.

As for her being pro-choice?  Well, I can’t help her there.  But I am curious as to what she means by women playing a bigger role in the church.  Other than being a priest, I don’t know what else she could be talking about.   Extraordinary Eucharistic ministers, lectors, teachers, altar servers, choir directors…am I missing something?   Personally I think this woman, along with John Kerry, Joe Biden, Arnold and Nancy Pelosi need to take a refresher course in what their faith teaches.  If they still disagree, so be it.  But at least they’ll know what it is they are disagreeing with.