Consistency and the Culture of Life

Tim Russert tackled "Faith in America" on Meet the Press this Easter Sunday.

Among Russert's guests was Sister Joan Chittister of the Order of St. Benedict and author of Called to Question: A Spiritual Memoir.


Transcript

Certainly, a variety of opinions makes for an interesting discussion, but when the fringe voices are highlighted, it presents a misleading image of mainstream religious thought. Such is the case with Sister Chittister.

MR. RUSSERT: Sister Joan, you wrote an open letter when our new pope was selected: “Dear Pope,” and in it, “Do not make enemies of us.” Are you concerned that some Catholics do not feel welcome in their church because they have disagreements on issues like stem cell research or on gay rights or AIDS and condoms, or abortion or death penalty?

SISTER CHITTISTER: I, I’m simply asking that all of us realize that the answers we have right now in those arenas may well not be final answers. That we’re all struggling to find the best answers. We all say that, that life is, is our greatest value, but life has never been an absolute value. It’s not an absolute value in war, it’s not an absolute value in prisons, it’s not an absolute value in self-defense, for instance. So now all of a sudden you have a completely new set of life questions that some of us want to absolutize. I, I consider that a holy act. But another—others of us, out of a completely and equally sincere concern for life, answer those questions differently.

MR. RUSSERT: Abortion?

SISTER CHITTISTER: Anything. Stem cell research, abortion, any of those. At one time, for instance, the church was against dissection for the sake of, of medical research. We grew. I’m saying that this is a time of a lot of new questions. I’m agreeing that we’re in this together, that, that we have to see life as, as our basic value that we have. We’re politicizing religion. Having religion in the public arena is one thing, politicizing it is another. If we, if we do that, we’ll lose pluralism for Puritanism. We don’t want to do that. We’re risking the country at the same time.

The function of the church is to form and shape consciences. We have two different kinds of laws. We have laws that require and laws that permit. Nobody—when Catholics did not believe in divorce—do not believe in divorce.

We never asked the United States government to outlaw the divorce procedure. We never said that’s the only way this can be an honorable nation. Now we’re back into those kinds of questions. If we’re looking for, for, for a moral standard, we have to do something about looking at the national budget. Your national budget is theology walking. If we’re really a pro-life country and not a pro-birth country, we, we won’t be taking from all the life bodies in order to feed a war body. Somehow or other, we have got to be willing to live in our denominations the best we can in those denominations, growing—open to growing into answers that are coming to us from other people, other places, other sciences. That’s, that’s my great concern. I believe it’s you all come. I don’t want anybody in a, in a time of great newness and emerging ideas to say, “Everybody, but you.”

When Sister Chittister says, "The function of the church is to form and shape consciences," she sounds like a liberal professor rather than a Catholic nun.

She speaks of the mind in secular terms, rather than of the soul in spiritual terms.

I've heard many priests and nuns use their positions to promote a politically liberal agenda and to campaign against conservative politicians.

So often, while they condemn pro-lifers for lacking consistency in terms of their views, they fail to admit their own inconsistency; and worse, they claim moral superiority.

For instance, while condemning wars, they conveniently dismiss the torture and suffering of civilians under tyrannical regimes. Is it moral to stand idly by while witnessing atrocities and genocide?

They preach social justice, but at times are oblivious to fundamental teachings of the Church.

With all due respect, Chittister's use of the divorce example to argue that the Church needs to evolve in its stance on abortion is very weak.

Divorce is not on the same moral plane as abortion. Furthermore, Chittister gives a muddled explanation of divorce and the Catholic Church.

People can divorce, but they can't remarry, unless the first union is annulled. The Church hasn't altered its position as she implies.

I'm not surprised by her attempt to rationalize the Church's need to accept abortion or embryonic stem cell research.

Sister Joan Chittister is a liberal activist within the Church.

Read her Address at the Women’s Ordination Worldwide conference in Dublin, June 30, 2001.

This exchange between Sister Chittister and Reverend Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things, and author of Catholic Matters: Confusion, Controversy and the Splendor of Truth, is quite telling. It exhibits how extreme Chittister is.

Russert asks about the criticism that some Catholic U.S. Senators receive for not abiding by Catholic teaching and for working to write and support legislation that undermines it.

REV. NEUHAUS: ...[W]hen you have, for example, a Catholic senator or congressperson who stands up and persistently, publicly, unapologetically, defiantly, again and again, says, “I do not believe what the church believes with regards to the moral imperative of protecting innocent, unborn human life.”

If you have a senator who says, or a congressperson who says, “Yes, I agree that the goal is and, as a Catholic, I am convinced in conscience that the goal is every unborn child protected in law and welcomed in life, but I disagree with the bishops as to how we might get to that goal,” that is a different thing and their the—his or her relationship with the church is not compromised or impaired. But when you have, as we do have, many Catholic political figures persistently defying the very teaching of the church, the most fundamental teaching of the church with regard to the dignity of the human person at every stage of development and decline, then you have a problem where the bishop is required, because the bishop’s a pastor, is required to say to that person, “Hey, we better talk, because you are compromising your relationship with the church.” It’s not a political issue; it’s a ecclesial issue. It’s an issue with regard to the integrity of the life of the church.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you agree with that, Sister?

SISTER CHITTISTER: I, I, I think the distinction is a good one. I don’t think that it’s, it’s totally accurate. Fact of the matter is that a legislator can work very, very hard for these issues that, that mean so much to, to all of us; at the same time, have to work, as Father said later, differently in that arena. At the same time, you, you have parallel situations where it’s not being applied. You have Governor Kaine from Virginia, who is a Catholic, who says that he is opposed to capital punishment, but he will maintain the law. That...

REV. NEUHAUS: But, you know, Sister, capital punishment and abortion are not at the same level of teaching weight.

SISTER CHITTISTER: Well, I don’t know that, see. I think that...

REV. NEUHAUS: Oh, really?

SISTER CHITTISTER: Yeah. I think they are at this...

REV. NEUHAUS: Oh I, I—consult the catechism.

SISTER CHITTISTER: I think they, I think that they are not at the same level of teaching weight. I’m saying I’m not sure why.

REV. NEUHAUS: Oh.

SISTER CHITTISTER: I’m not sure why they’re not at the same level of teaching weight.

REV. NEUHAUS: Ah.

SISTER CHITTISTER: Because either, either life is of value or it’s not of value. Are we saying get them all born, but you can kill them anytime afterwards and it won’t mean as much? I doubt that. I think that this is part of what I said at the beginning. These are new issues emerging. We need a lot of these good conversations, and we need a lot of awareness that, somehow or other, we’re, we’re growing into both a new country and, and a new religious network.

It appears that Chittister has some issues with nuance and complexities.

I agree with her that we "need a lot of these good conversations" because they reveal just how radical and illogical some liberal proponents within the Catholic Church in America really are.

Although the Church is clearly opposed to the death penalty, I question how a Catholic nun can even begin to equate capitol punishment with abortion.

How is executing a convicted criminal, a murderer for example, equivalent to killing an innocent unborn baby?

As a Catholic nun, Chittister should be promoting consistency in the Culture of Life. Rather than exploiting capitol punishment as a justification for the Church to rethink its positions on abortion and embryonic stem cell research, she should be condemning the death penalty, as well as the targeting of civilians in war.

I can understand Chittister's anti-war position, and her activism for peace and non-violence, as it relates to Catholic teaching. I don't understand how her thinking allows her to reconcile abortion and the destruction of human life as an expression of either peace or non-violence.

It's inconsistent.
________________________________

Read more about Sister Chittister as a "notorious dissenter."