Day 4 of Pelosi-Gate: Reactions

Here is the short n' sweet of what people are saying today about Pelosi-Gate...

Obama's camp is more than annoyed with Pelosi, as The American Spectator has found out:

"It's like 'Thanks, madam speaker, you've done quite enough. Please move along,'" says one Obama adviser. "She got us stuck on three different issues that we wanted no part of. She's no master strategist, no matter what she may believe. You may see more of her, but if her mouth is open, what comes out won't be anything that our campaign wants anything to do with."

Kathleen Parker, writing an editorial for the Chicago Tribune, re-notes the obvious:

In other words, human life begins at conception.That is not a religious posture, but a scientific fact that the lowest paid laborer on the planet can assert without qualm. What we do with that understanding is another matter, but no one should pretend not to know when human life begins. On this matter at least, the church and science are in agreement.

In local DC reporting, surprise that the Church heirarchy has been so vocal:

... the bishops' emphatic response to Pelosi's statements this week shows that they are willing to speak out when the church's teachings are challenged publicly by high-profile Catholics, according to the very Rev. David M. O'Connell, president of Catholic University of America.

For conservative Catholic groups, the fact that Wuerl weighed in on the controversy was welcome news. (WaPo)

Over at American Thinker, C. Edmund Wright applauds Cardinal Egan for changing the abortion debate:

... not a single word of scripture in the statement. No threats about God's retribution. No mention of anything religious really. It was simply a man of God using reason wisely. Much like the Apostle Paul, who used logic and reason to debate the Athenians (Acts 17) about Biblical truth, Cardinal Egan was aware of his audience and his stage and he was indeed "all things to all people, so that by all means (he) might win some" (1 Corinthians 9).

If much of the evangelical pro-life movement would take His Emminence's lead, some real traction can be made on this issue.

Wright raises an interesting point that deserves comment: Cardinal Egan was not necessarily teaching Church Doctrine, rather, he was witnessing to common sense. Pelosi's comments in fact violated both.

Of course, over at the Los Angeles Times, Tim Rutten brings out the old claim that the reaction of the bishops is simply politics. In his words: "All this conservative crosier waving is about a simple set of numbers." He means registered Catholic voter statistics.

But even Rutten has to admit that Pelosi was out to lunch:

"Pelosi, who described herself as an "ardent practicing Catholic," gave a response that was not only incoherent but managed to get wrong virtually every fact that might have buttressed her pro-choice position."

On other points, Rutten clearly hasn't gotten the memo:

If Pelosi had half a wit about her, she might have done what most U.S. Catholics instinctively do, which is to rely on a tradition of moral reasoning that stands athwart Chaput's novel reductionism.

Remember when I predicted that some would try to marginalize Chaput's statement as his personal opinion, and that was why it was so welcome to see so many American bishops issue statements of their own?

Here's why exactly: Rutten now has to claim that "Chaput's novel reductionism" is a fault shared by the majority of the prominent American bishops, not just one lone prelate with a political program to push.

Plus Tim Rutten is just plain wrong: all traditions of moral reasoning are not equal, and certainly the 20th century Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray (whom Rutten cites) is not a magisterium unto himself.

Geez Tim ... way to "pull a Pelosi."

update: Please see Fr. Z's coverage for a definitive debunking of Pelosi's spurious Augustine argument.