Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
A Catholic Odd Couple: Pelosi and Donohue
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.
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.
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.
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.
By Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo |
February 3, 2009; 4:28 PM ET
| Category:
Catholic America
Save & Share:
Previous: Ending Schism with a Bang |
Next: Will Obama Save Catholic Schools?
Posted by: clonedlamb | February 15, 2009 1:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
PaulC2, you are dangerously delusional--self-induced and illegal abortions were even higher before legalized contraception and abortions. Out-of-wedlock births were just as high but you didn't hear about them because mothers didn't keep their children. Condoms and STDs from VATICAN-RUN BROTHELS have been around for centuries. Quit dishonestly getting all your talking points FROM PEDOPHILE PRIESTS WHO ARE MAD THEY HAVE TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY TO FIND FRESH VICTIMS.
Posted by: clonedlamb | February 15, 2009 1:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Teen and young adult's easy access to alcohol and cars is in step with the increase of STDs and abortions. Bottom line: Make age 25 the minimum age for drinking and to get a driver's licence
Posted by: CCNL | February 10, 2009 6:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You are far too kind to the demagoguery of Donohue.
Not conforming to the dictates of the bishops, by members of other faiths, is called "anti-Catholic". By the same standard, Donahue is anti-Budhist, anti-Jewish, anti-Islam, etc.
His attempt to impute racism is contemptible. What is he doing to help with the problem of unwanted pregnancies in third-world countries? Is he reaching out to provide education, particularly to women, health care, economic opportunities?
The issue is not the color of their skin, the issue is that they are poor women in poor countries trying to cope with difficult circumstances in the face of a lack of resources. It's the same as the problem of the poor in the US - if minority women have a higher rate of abortion, it's not some echo of Sanger's eugenics, it's because too many live in marginal conditions.
Yes, self-righteousness has a long history in the Church, but that doesn't mean it's a good tradition.
Posted by: j2hess | February 10, 2009 3:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Clonedlamb:
Before condoms were readily available, did we have the calamities you suggest? the answer is no. We had far less abortions, far less STDs and far less out of wedlock pregnancies. this is completely undeniable. You can look up the facts yourself.
If people realized that sex has ramifications, they would be less likely to indulge so indescrimately. History bears this out.
Posted by: paulc2 | February 9, 2009 9:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
PaulC2, what planet are you from? Without condoms, poverty, unwanted pregnancies, gross childbirth injuries like smelly bladder and bowel lacerations, abortions and STDs would multiply EXPONENTIALLY. Any reduction of these calamities through simple medicine is GODSEND. Your preference to force avoidable exponential misery on "sinners" is UNCHRISTIAN HERESY. Please note the MOTHER-KILLING, PEDOPHILE-SERVING Vatican ceased being Christian centuries ago when it was hijacked by looksist Scott Peterson WIFE-KILLERS who used fetuses instead of fists to get rid of unwanted wives. Just because YOU enjoy inflicting CRIMINAL Munchausen by Proxy medical abuse on the sexually active because of your pro-pedophile cult doesn't make you "holy" or "prolife".
Posted by: clonedlamb | February 8, 2009 9:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dr. Stevens-Arroyo,
your article suggests a philosophy of the ends justifying the means. In this case, you are saying that support of birth control and abortion information is justified, if it cuts down on abortions.
Well, the Church teaches that birth control is evil for a reason. One of those reasons is that people using birth control think that they are protected from sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies so that they are more easily tempted to have extramarital sex. Well, the facts are that an average couple using a condom still has a 14% chance of giving birth in a given year. Think about that for a second. That means that if you have an average high school class of 30 kids and half are sexually active AND all use condoms, you will have 1 expected birth each year per class. These simple facts are born out in the data. a quarter of all high school girls in the US has an STD. If half are sexually active, that means half of the sexually active girls gets an STD. Isn't that an appalling statistic? and think about how many unwanted pregnancies we are getting. Much of this is because people think they are safe by using Birth control, when they are not. the data shows (CDC) that the rate of unwed mothers and the rate of abortions skyrocketed with the advent of readily available birth control. To hear its advocates, though, you would think it was just the opposite.
Posted by: paulc2 | February 5, 2009 4:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The USA is out of control sexually as shown by the one million abortions and 19 million cases of STDs per year. Treatment of STDs cost $14.7 billion/yr. Where is the outcry from Ms. Pelosi about this?????
Posted by: CCNL | February 5, 2009 12:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
CCNL, you must be from another planet too where no young adults need cars to attend the colleges or show up at their needed jobs "right across the street from their parents' homes"! On your planet, parents have nothing better to do than constantly leave their bosses in a lurch while they chauffeur their kids EVERYWHERE ALL DAY LONG ESPECIALLY IN RURAL AREAS THAT HAVE NO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION (which you probably oppose funding anyway). Your "no car solution" won't work for most teens and young adults who have sex in their parents' homes or on school property.