Pelosi and Augustine
In her reply to the Catholic prelates who have criticized her appeal to the Catholic tradition in justification of her political decisions with regard to abortion, Nancy Pelosi appeals to a statement by St. Augustine in his comments on Ex 21:22. A few remarks:
The proper citation is to Augustine, Quaestiones in Heptateuchum, Book II, ch. 80 (PL 34, 624-25). Augustine is commenting on the old Latin translation of the Septuagintal Greek translation, which read: “It two men should quarrel and one should strike a pregnant woman, and her child comes forth not yet formed, he shall suffer whatever penalty the woman’s husband may require… But if the infant is fully formed, he shall give a life for a life (animam pro anima), an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, burning for burning, blow for blow…” On this, in the pertinent passages, Augustine says:
The fact that it does not think that an un-formed offspring has anything to do with homicide, shows that it did not consider such an offspring in the womb to be a man. Here a question is usually asked about the soul: whether what is un-formed can also be understood not to be en-souled (animatam), and it is not homicide because if it did not have a soul, it can’t be said to be de-souled un-formed killed). … If, then, that child was un-formed, but in some sense was in an un-formed way en-souled (animatum)–because the difficult problem of the soul must not be resolved in haste with the rashness of an opinion not subjected to careful examination–the Law did not want it to be considered a homicide because a soul within a body still deprived of the senses cannot be called living, if it is such in a body not yet formed and therefore not yet endowed with senses.”
Here is the dense Latin: Quod vero non formatum puerperium noluit ad homicidium pertinere, profecto nec hominem deputavit quod tale in utero geritur. Hic de anima quaestio solet agitari, utrum quod formatum non est, ne animatum quidem possit intelligi, et ideo non sit homicidium, quia nec examinatum dici potest, si adhuc animam non habebat. … Si ergo illud informe puerperium jam quidem fuerit, sed adhuc quodammodo informiter animatum (quoniam magna de anima quaestio non est praecipitanda indiscussae temeritate sententiae), ideo Lex noluit ad homicidium pertinere, quia nondum dici potest anima viva in eo corpore quod sensu caret, si talis est in carne nondum formata, et ideo nondum sensibus praedita.
If you look at a modern translation of the Exodus text, you will find something like this: “If two men quarrel and injure a woman with child so that she gives birth [or: miscarries] but suffers no other harm, the one who hurt her shall be fined according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, etc.” The Septuagint translator is the one responsible for turning this text into a casuistry about the penalties that shall be enforced depending on whether the fetus is “formed” or “unformed.” You can find a fascinating discussion of the Septuagint translation, and of what it may have to say about attitudes toward abortion in ancient Judaism, at http://books.google.com/books?id=xh9vy_dvO6YC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=Exodus+21:22+septuagint&source=web&ots=3vq1_Dbxyw&sig=pHKoylsme5lYr9ELxpxTzsjHnbg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA13,M1
Augustine’s text is careful and not as clearly in the direction of Speaker Pelosi’s position as she seems to think–consider that phrase “informiter animatum“. In any case, his aside still is worth remembering: “The difficult problem of the soul must not be resolved in haste with the rashness of an opinion not subjected to careful examination.”
on August 28th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
From a legal point of view, the casuistry could be rather important:
It seems to me, just reading the text here, is that the key thing could be this: before ensoulment, the killing of the unborn is a tort (private wrong), to be compensated by monetary damages to the father. After ensoulment, it’s a homicide, a public wrong (crime) against the community-to be dealt with accordingly (lex talionis).
on August 28th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Speaker Pelosi isn’t a theologian, and I think it’s been established that her argument was fairly unformed in the Meet the Press interview. Having two bishops AND professional Catholic Amy Welborn on her tail has, hopefully, made her more circumspect.
I don’t think there’s anything vague about Church teaching about abortion; we are prohibited from fiddling with human life in any phase of “construction.” You could argue that Catholics can’t even do too much to meddle with the “planning” phase except with calendars and thermometers.
What is not so clear–and what I don’t see that Augustine or Exodus address–is the point at which a Catholic politician, who has never had an abortion, performed an abortion, or advised a particular individual to have one, is nevertheless responsible for the abortions of the abortions of other people.
on August 28th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Sorry, should be … “responsible for the abortions of other people.”
on August 28th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Jean:
“…..at which a Catholic politician, who has never had an abortion, performed an abortion, or advised a particular individual to have one, is nevertheless responsible for the abortions of other people.”
I agree, But that wasn’t Pelosi’s trajectory in her arguement and answer to Brokaw – and that I suspect is the problem.
We didn’t see the same reaction from Bishops when Giuliani answered the question in much the same way that you framed it. He said that he personally would encourage adoption and would not encourage abortion, never has but feels the law should stand.
on August 28th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Speaker Pelosi is not a theologian, but also Cardinal Egan is not The Speaker of the House, who has to figure out to what extent Catholic theology (poorly understood, I will grant you) should dictate her job. Cardinal Egan told here in no uncertain terms what her duty as Speaker was: ” In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons.”
I don’t ever remember a statement quite that direct from a high-level Catholic official to a high-level American politician, and certainly I don’t remember anything even coming close regarding, say, the civil rights movement in the 1960s.
I hope to think deep thoughts (and share them) about Exodus and Augustine later, but right now I am still in the office. I know the waiting will be difficult for everyone.
on August 28th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
For a history of early and medieval Catholic theologians’ teaching (both Latin and Greek) about the ontological status of the earliest little creature, see
Joseph F. Donceel, S.J. “Immediate animation and delayed hominization”, Theological Studies, March, 1970, pp. 76-105.
He presents some of the arguments why those theologians thought that there was not a person present immediately.
For a contemporary scholastic argument against the notion that a person is present from the beginning, see:
Thomas A. Shannon and Allan B. Wolter, O.F.M., “Reflections on the moral status of the pre-embryo”, Theological Studies, December, 1990, pp. 603-626.
Shannon and Wolter conclude that considering the biological findings of the time (1990) there is no philosophical reason at all to assert that a person is present in the first three weeks. If this be true, then the whole stem cell controversy might easily be avoided if a consensus could be reached on the matter.
Fr, Wolter was a great Scotus scholar who also knew a lot of contemporary science. A great teacher who could make the complex almost seem simple. Try this article.
on August 28th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
For a history of early and medieval Catholic theologians’ teaching (both Latin and Greek) about the ontological status of the earliest little creature, see
Joseph F. Donceel, S.J. “Immediate animation and delayed hominization”, Theological Studies, March, 1970, pp. 76-105.
He presents some of the arguments why those theologians thought that there was not a person present immediately.
For a contemporary scholastic argument against the notion that a person is present from the beginning, see:
Thomas A. Shannon and Allan B. Wolter, O.F.M., “Reflections on the moral status of the pre-embryo”, Theological Studies, December, 1990, pp. 603-626.
Shannon and Wolter conclude that considering the biological findings of the time (1990) there is no philosophical reason at all to assert that a person is present in the first three weeks. If this be true, then the whole stem cell controversy might easily be avoided if a consensus could be reached on the matter.
Fr, Wolter. a Franciscan and aa great Scotus scholar, also knew a lot of contemporary science. A great teacher who could make the complex almost seem simple. Try this article.
on August 28th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
“I don’t think there’s anything vague about Church teaching about abortion; we are prohibited from fiddling with human life in any phase of “construction.”
Whatever this may mean it is important to point out that the Church is not infallible and that this teaching is not infallible. Infallibility is really a 19th century creation by Pius IX in Vatican I. And before the 12th century infallibility of the pope or bishops is unheard of.
Christ remains with his church in that the message continues indefectible.
on August 29th, 2008 at 8:46 am
George, I realize I’m taking the thread in a different direction. Fine for the bishops, Amy Welborn and anybody else who knows better to correct Pelosi. But for me that’s just not the larger issue.
I can’t really wrap my head around exactly what statements or actions make Catholic politicians responsible for the abortions of others.
Is it enough to vote for restrictions on abortions when they are introduced, thus avoiding a sin of commission? Or must Catholic lawmakers continually introduce laws that restrict abortions in order to avoid a sin of omission?
Or let’s say a law is introduced that would restrict abortion, but includes provisions for birth control instruction and free condoms to be distributed through the public schools. Should a Catholic politician vote for that?
To what extent do labels and a Catholic politician’s rhetoric make him responsible for the abortions of others? Is calling yourself pro-choice a sin because it announces your intention never to vote for a restriction on abortion? Are you any less culpable if you call yourself pro-choice but DO vote for restrictions on abortion, such as the Partial Birth Abortion Bill?
Many hypotheticals, I realize, but does it seem to anyone else that the “teaching moments” seem to take place AFTER a politician has gone “too far”?
on August 29th, 2008 at 11:07 am
I have a question to add to Jean’s. The official Catholic position is that the law absolutly must prohibit abortion. Any attempted solution that omits a legal ban is unacceptable. So what kind of legal prohibition are Catholic legislators bound to support?
Must the law reflect the position of the Church on the severity of the offense? Would a law that made an abortion a misdemeanor and imposed a modest fine be acceptable?
Could there be exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother?
The Church’s position is that the woman who obtains an abortion is excommunicated. Would a law that punished only abortion doctors be a message that it’s okay to have an abortion, just not to perform one? Isn’t a huge part of the Vatican’s position that the law must “send a message”?
on August 29th, 2008 at 11:22 am
“The official Catholic position is that the law absolutly must prohibit abortion. Any attempted solution that omits a legal ban is unacceptable.”
David can you provide a cite for this? My understanding is that this is a much-disputed principle within the pro-life community. No time to dig up the cites right now, but I believe recent popes and bishops have said that, if the perfect isn’t possible, then it’s acceptable to work for half-measures that bring us closer to the goal.
I recall reading that, when Cardinal Bernardin was president of the US bishops’ conference, he took on a lot of heat for supporting legislation that would have represented a half-measure – I don’t remember all the details but it might have been something that banned late-term abortions but legalized early-term abortions.
on August 29th, 2008 at 11:35 am
“I can’t really wrap my head around exactly what statements or actions make Catholic politicians responsible for the abortions of others.
Is it enough to vote for restrictions on abortions when they are introduced, thus avoiding a sin of commission? Or must Catholic lawmakers continually introduce laws that restrict abortions in order to avoid a sin of omission?
Or let’s say a law is introduced that would restrict abortion, but includes provisions for birth control instruction and free condoms to be distributed through the public schools. Should a Catholic politician vote for that?
To what extent do labels and a Catholic politician’s rhetoric make him responsible for the abortions of others? Is calling yourself pro-choice a sin because it announces your intention never to vote for a restriction on abortion? Are you any less culpable if you call yourself pro-choice but DO vote for restrictions on abortion, such as the Partial Birth Abortion Bill?”
Hi, Jean, I don’t think the churchn authorities have a blueprint for what a Catholic politician may or may not do in every given situation.
They tend to speak up when a Catholic politician has a lengthy and consistent track record of working against the sanctity of life. If there is a magic line that is crossed such that it earns the politician a public rebuke, I don’t know where it is drawn. I don’t think it exists. At some point, though, the bishop knows that it has become “too much”.
Each bishop is ruler of his own little kingdom in this regard, so tolerance also varies from one diocese to another.
I happen to live in a state (Illinois) that has a fair number of Catholic politicians (e.g. Senator Durbin, Mayor Daley) who are pro-choice to varying degrees. In Durbin’s case, he is regularly pilloried by pro-life activists. But to my knowledge, Cardinal George has never publicly called them to account nor refused them communion. Maybe he speaks to them privately.
on August 29th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
“238. Differences of opinion in the application of principles can sometimes arise even among sincere Catholics. When this happens, they should be careful not to lose their respect and esteem for each other. Instead, they should strive to find points of agreement for effective and suitable action, and not wear themselves out in interminable arguments, and, under pretext of the better or the best, omit to do the good that is possible and therefore obligatory. ”
Mater et Magistra Pope John XXII 1964
on August 29th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
That’s John XXIII
on August 29th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
David can you provide a cite for this? My understanding is that this is a much-disputed principle within the pro-life community. No time to dig up the cites right now, but I believe recent popes and bishops have said that, if the perfect isn’t possible, then it’s acceptable to work for half-measures that bring us closer to the goal.
Jim,
Here are paragraphs 22 and 32 from Faithful Citizenship (emphasis added):
Here’s something from Evangelium Vitae:
People more familiar with the subject can probably find a lot better citations, but it seems clear to me that the Church is saying laws that allow “choice” on the matter of abortion are impermissible. If a legislator is in a spot where the only thing he can do is vote for a less permissive law as an alternative to a more permissive one, he or she may do so on the grounds of “limiting evil.”
I would also point out the whole debate over voting at the moment, in which the Catholic position is that you may vote for a pro-choice candidate only in spite (never because) of his or her permission, but you must have “proportionate reasons.”
I find the last sentence in paragraph 22 above quite interesting, since in the United States right now, the right to choose abortion is constitutionally protected. Consequently, it is the inescapable conclusion that our legal system is “fundamentally flawed.”
It seems crystal clear to me that the Catholic Church’s position is that any legal system that permits abortion is deeply flawed and must be changed.
Now, what does that mean in practical terms? Suppose Obama is elected and attempts to work out a grand compromise on abortion. He declares he wants to end abortions not by banning them but by eliminating the root causes. He promises to fully support everything imaginable to help prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place and to give women who become pregnant accidentally anything they need or want as an alternative to abortion (medical care during pregnancy, adoption services if they are willing to carry the baby to term and give it up, financial support if they want an abortion because they can’t afford the baby financially, day care, and so on). Part of the compromise would also be to for the anti-abortion forces to stop attempting to chip away at abortion rights and settle for the status quo in terms of what is legal and not regarding abortions. Would it be acceptable to the Catholic Church. In principle, I would guess not, although I can imagine we would have many tortured debates like the ones we are having now over “proportionate reasons” to vote for Obama. But it seems to me Catholic thought is in principle opposed to having civil laws that in any way approve of abortion.
Of course, it also seems clear to me that my imaginary Obama plan (which I would support wholeheartedly) wouldn’t have a prayer, since the anti-abortion forces also tend to be politically conservative, and the last thing they would be willing to approve would be a massive increase in government spending and a lot of new social programs.
on August 30th, 2008 at 10:34 am
I am one of those Catholics who is reluctant to talk about abortion. Two reasons for this is that I am not a woman and I have never been willing to adopt and raise an unwanted child. I am Catholic and a San Franciscan. I admire my Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. Also I am a retired insurance broker and not a scholar so I am often perplexed by official Catholic teachings. In the United States, the discussion about abortion is about one side accusing the other side of not respecting life and the other side accusing the other side of not respecting women. Both sides are lying.
Michael from sunny and mild San Francisco
on August 31st, 2008 at 2:05 pm
David Nickol:
You’re right. To settle for the status quo in terms of what is legal and not regarding abortions is unacceptable.
Your imaginary Obama plan would fail, not only because of hypocritical conservatives, but because it would require an imaginary Obama, one who didn’t count teenagers being “punished with a baby” as a root cause of abortion.