Did they? Didn't they?

This really irks me.

Yesterday I picked up on reports that Pelosi had managed to fit in her promised meeting with Archbishop Niederauer on Feb. 8th.

Last night I found someone citing a Feb. 13th email from the Archbishop's spokesman saying the meeting had not taken place. Reliable enough it would seem, right?

Wrong - because this report was itself corrected today ... Pelosi and Niederauer did actually have the meeting:

“It went well,” [Pelosi spokesman] Daly said. “They both thought it was productive and agreed they would meet in the future at some point.” Daly said they did not set a date.

Daly said that the meeting did not sway Pelosi's stance on life issues. “She is not changing her position on abortion,” he said. Daly said Pelosi still goes to Mass and Communion every Sunday at San Francisco's St. Vincent de Paul parish or elsewhere when she is traveling. Why are we hearing of this meeting only ten days later? “It was a private meeting. They didn’t feel the need to publicize it and we didn’t feel the need to publicize it," Daly said.

It was so private that the archbishop's own press spokesman, Maurice Healy, seemed unaware of it. He told OSV on Friday that no meeting had taken place, despite the archbishop making himself readily available.

Oooooohhhhhhh boy. Let's go through what's wrong with this picture:

1. Pelosi's office shouldn't be setting the tone. "They didn’t feel the need to publicize it and we didn’t feel the need to publicize it"?! That doesn't fly with me. Pelosi, after all, likes publicizing everything she does. Abp. Niederauer's invitation to meet with Pelosi was a public invitation, because of public comments she made, causing very public scandal. Was he hoping everyone would just forget? Well, I sure didn't. I know plenty of other Catholics are concerned as well.
2. Abp. Niederauer's spokesman shouldn't be thrown for a loop by this. Let's face it: the ongoing scandal caused by Pelosi should be near the top of the Archdiocese's concern lists. Or it should at least be on the list. To have the spokesman so unaware of things as to publish a false-negative answer when queried about their meeting ... is simply unprofessional.
3. Pelosi shouldn't be presenting herself for Communion after meeting with her Archbishop! I hate to be cynical, but if Pelosi is still presenting herself for Communion, if I were her Archbishop, I wouldn't want people to know that I had met with her privately. Here's why: I think it's completely reasonable to say that in their very first meeting the Archbishop was bound to plainly state to Pelosi that her voting record on abortion makes her ineligible to receive Communion, and that in submission to his rightful authority, she ought not to present herself for it, because doing so harms her at this point. That's the teaching of the Church, at least - a teaching the Archbishop is bound to present as her pastor. Pelosi can no longer dodge behind the excuse that she "doesn't know it's wrong".
4. This can easily appear like Pelosi and Niederauer are in cahoots. I'm sorry, but to quietly "get this meeting over with", with no amendment of ways on Pelosi's part, and seemingly no effort to embrace the opportunity on the Archbishop's part, this has all the earmarks of "oh my, the little people are up in arms - here, let's go have dinner and talk about something important so they'll get off our backs." Now, I'm not saying this is what happened ... but it's not hard to read it that way, given Pelosi's long-standing obstinacy on this issue, and Abp. Niederauer's long-standing reticence to challenge her.

It's not a perfect world. In a perfect world, after Pope Benedict was put in the hot seat by having to meet with Pelosi, the Holy Father would have gone back to his desk, and picked up the phone:

*ring-ring*

Abp. Niederauer: "Heeeeeeee-llo!"

Pope Benedict XVI: "George! I thought we talked about this! You said you were going to meet with Pelosi last week! What gives? Nothing's changed! She's just as clueless as ever!"

Abp. Niederauer: "Umm...."

Like I said, it's not a perfect world.

Breaking: Pelosi meeting with Abp. Niederauer?

I'm hearing that FOX News just reported that.

If it's true, than Pelosi only took about 20 days to get it done.

Stay tuned...

update: I'm hearing ambiguous reports as to whether a) the meeting actually happened, b) the meeting has been scheduled or c) nothing has happened and FOX just noticed the story late.

Meanwhile, the Pelosi counter keeps ticking away....

Timer: How long before Pelosi meets with Niederauer?

Here are the facts:

• Archbishop Niederauer invited Nancy Pelosi to a "conversation"
• Pelosi accepted and says she would "welcome the opportunity"
• Pelosi frequently travels the U.S., for instance, on her book tour
• Pelosi, famously, frequently travels back to San Francisco

So ... she will be in the same city as Niederauer very soon, in all likelihood. What a perfect opportunity this will be to take him up on his public offer, which she publicly accepted!

And surely if her Catholic faith is as important to her as she says, she will not leave the bishop waiting for her, after her comments have provoked the response of so many bishops and have gained so much attention.

With that said, I've started a timer which will track how long it has been since she said yes:



tick, tock, tick, tock ...

Flash: Pelosi *accepts* the Niederauer invitation {updated}

{updated 1:00pm - see below}

This comes as a surprise to me.

The Associated Press reports (and so far only they are covering it):

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, under fire from U.S. bishops for comments she made about abortion, accepted on Friday an invitation from the Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco for a private talk.

Pelosi said in a letter to Archbishop George Niederauer that she'd "welcome the opportunity for our personal conversation and to go beyond our earlier most cordial exchange about immigration and needs of the poor to Church teaching on other significant matters."

...While Pelosi's letter said she was interested in speaking about "church teaching on other significant matters," it did not mention abortion specifically. Her spokesman has defended her comments, saying in a previous statement that the congresswoman "fully appreciates the sanctity of family."

(See my commentary on Abp. Niederauer's letter here.)

Okay, let's examine these scant details. There's no mention of a date, and if there were I'd imagine it would have made it into the story. As the story notes, there is no reference to abortion (why beat around the bush like that?). And we don't have a copy of the actual letter.

At least she has obligated herself to eventually having the meeting. That's something.

And in completely unrelated news, the Associated Press also reports:

A light earthquake has rattled the San Francisco Bay area. The U.S. Geological Survey's preliminary report put the quake at a 4.0 magnitude. The temblor hit just after 9 p.m. and could be felt throughout the region. There were no immediate reports of damage.

Hmm, I wonder when Abp. Niederauer found out he might actually have to follow through on his offer?

update: Diogenes also takes a look at what this episode means.

AP summarizes Niederauer's statement to Pelosi

The Associated Press has a bland summary. A few observations/corrections:

... Archbishop George Niederauer isn't going as far as suggesting that the Catholic lawmaker stop taking Holy Communion because of her support for abortion rights.

At least it's clear to third parties that Niederauer doesn't plan on taking any action.

Several U.S. bishops condemned Pelosi last week after her appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Actually, by my count, twenty-four bishops have spoken-up. And I'm sure there are others.

The congresswoman from San Francisco defended her support for abortion by saying that church leaders throughout history haven't been able to define when life begins.

But Niederauer and other bishops say that the church from its earliest days has considered abortion evil.

Why is it so hard for the reporter to add one more line? "Pelosi is wrong."

As I've said before, this is a debate about historical fact, not opinion or interpretation. Reporters in other instances feel free to quote people claiming one thing, and then the reporter will follow-up with a line that reads "but records show...[that the person is wrong]."

In other words, the truth of the claim made by the bishops is not solely dependant on their having said it. External corroborating evidence exists, and overwhelmingly favors them, not Pelosi.

Archbishop Niederauer invites Pelosi to "a conversation" {updated}

{updated 10:45AM - see below.}

As previously reported and commented upon, Archbishop George Niederauer has released his statement:

Following is a statement by San Francisco Archbishop George H. Niederauer in response to recent comments on abortion, Catholic teaching on the beginning of life, and other life issues made by U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi. This statement by Archbishop Niederauer was published in the Sept. 5, 2008 issue of Catholic San Francisco, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

Click here for the full text.

The conclusion of his column (underlining mine with my commentary interspersed):

I conclude that it is my responsibility as Archbishop to discern and decide, prayerfully, how best to approach this question as it may arise in the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

Respectfully, the archbishop has had since the time of his installation to discern and decide how best to approach this question. He's even had twelve solid days since Pelosi made her most recent comments. What conclusion has he arrived at? Or has he already arrived at it, and is telling us, essentially, that he plans to do nothing?

I regret the necessity of addressing these issues in so public a forum, but the widespread consternation among Catholics made it unavoidable.

I regret that the Archbishop apparently made no effort to address this matter privately for such a lengthy period of time so that now the only way to address it is publicly. Who's failing is that? The consternation of Catholics, or the archbishop's neglect of his duties?

Speaker Pelosi has often said how highly she values her Catholic faith, and how much it is a source of joy for her.

Ah, but *why* does she value it and find in it a source of joy? For expedient reasons? Might those reasons just as reasonably evaporate when the going gets tough?

Accordingly, as her pastor, I am writing to invite her into a conversation with me about these matters.

This is his great solution? It provides no timetable, no demands, no expectations. It gives her the opportunity of delaying this conversation for, oh, at least 60 days. But the simple fact of the matter is that she has been invited into conversation with the American bishops and has refused to change her position. One cannot invite someone into a conversation who has made it clear they see no reason to have one.

It is my obligation to teach forthrightly and to shepherd caringly, and that is my intent. Let us pray together that the Holy Spirit will guide us all toward a more profound understanding and appreciation for human life, and toward a resolution of these differences in truth and charity and peace.

It's hard for me to hear these lines and believe the Archbishop feels any sense of urgency from the ongoing slaughter of millions of unborn children. The goal of arriving at "a profound understanding and appreciating for human life", let alone a mutual "resolution of differences", might be reasonable if this were a theological/doctrinal dispute. In actuality, this debate is about remedying (or condoning) mass murder.

This seems like far too comfortable a plan of action for a situation of such grave injustice.

update: Carl Olson adds his helpful commentary.

AmP readers have made some pointed observations in the comment box:

"It is my obligation to teach forthrightly..." - He's telling us that or trying to convince himself? - Nan

"We waited a week for this! She punches him in the nose and he invites her to coffee?" - Kelly Asan

As Diogenes pointed out last week, Archbishop Niederauer demurred in February 2007 that Pelosi's stance on abortion was something he hadn't "had a chance to talk to her about" yet. Eighteen months later, it took a direct misrepresentation of Catholic tradition on global TV, a spokesman's flip-off to the USCCB and half the American bishops coming down on Pelosi to jump-start that long-delayed conversation, or at least to spark an invitation. - SDG

"Denying someone communion can often be the best "pastoral" move possible. It is a medicinal action, intended to sear the conscience of the person involved. Inviting them to coffee does not have that effect - it makes the person in grave error think she is just wrong about something as trivial as the weather forecast." - Francis

AmP reader Desiderius asks:

"Note the Abp's message was printed simultaneously in The Tidings (Los Angeles), obviously [well, reasonably - AmP] a coordinated effort. Might one conclude this suffices as Cardinal Mahony's response to Nancy Pelosi?"

The Tidings is a weekly newspaper serving Southern California Catholics.

Eve of the 5th: All Eyes on Archbishop Niederauer

When Pelosi-Gate erupted on August 24th, attention quickly focused on her local archbishop, George Niederauer of San Francisco, as the pastor of souls who is primarily responsible for ensuring that the most prominent Catholic in his archdiocese understands the teachings of the Church.

So far the only public action taken by the archdiocese of San Francisco has been to reprint the (first) statement issued by the USCCB and link to a good article by Rick DelVecchio (and not just because he mentions AmP). The archdiocesan newspaper, in addition, has reprinted a statement made by Niederauer in 2007.

Niederauer's spokesman, however, has promised that Niederauer will take up the issue in tomorrow's edition of the archdiocesan newspaper, twelve days after Pelosi made her comments.

It goes without saying that I'll be posting it as soon as I have access to the text.

At this point, twenty-four bishops, archbishops and cardinals have publicly corrected Pelosi, in various ways (see my updated list here), including the President of the USCCB, the chairman on Pro-Life Activities, the chairman on Doctrine, and the Archbishop of Washington (multiple times, in fact).

Now pardon my loose claims about Church law, but it is my general understanding that, while the duty to instruct the faithful falls equally upon all bishops, it falls particularly on the local bishop. And the duty to discipline lies particularly, and normally exclusively, with the local bishop.

That having been said, we eagerly await Archbishop Niederauer's column of tomorrow morning.

See my previous posts on Pelosi-Gate here.

Related: And while we are waiting tonight, I recommend listening to Fr. Dominic Legge, O.P. on the topic.

Update 7:30pm: Archbishop George Niederauer has released his text.

Neideraurer in 2007: I haven't had a chance to talk to Pelosi yet

Diogenes notes a February 2007 interview where Abp. Niederauer explains why, a year into his new assignment, he still had not spoken with Pelosi about her ardent pro-abortion advocacy:

Archbishop Niederauer: "Well, I have met on one occasion, with Speaker Pelosi, before she was Speaker Pelosi. It was last year. And I -- we've -- exchanged viewpoints on a number of things. At that time, it was last spring, and it was principally about immigration, because that was very much the hot-button topic of the time. We haven't had an opportunity to talk about the life issues. I would very much welcome that opportunity, but I don't believe that I am in a position to say what I understand her stand to be, if I haven't had a chance to talk to her about it."

I sure hope Pelosi's recent comments were made without the help of the Archbishop.