Pelosi’s canonical gambit

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Dec 13, 2024

This week many Catholic news sites are commenting on the report that former Speaker Nancy Pelosi has appealed to the Vatican to reverse the edict of San Francisco’s Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone barring her from receiving Communion. This commentary is entirely based on a story posted by the National Catholic Reporter, running under the headline: “Nancy Pelosi’s Communion ban to be resolved by Vatican.”

Before we all plunge too deeply into how the Vatican might resolve the case, let me hit the brakes. We don’t know that the Vatican has the case. The Reporter is convinced that Pelosi has filed a canonical appeal. But we don’t know that. The story, as it appears on the Reporter site, does not justify the headline.

Here is the sum total of evidence that the Reporter presents to support the claim that Pelosi’s appeal is pending in Rome:

“My understanding, as long as Rome has the case, it hasn’t been resolved,” Pelosi said in an interview with the National Catholic Reporter.

That’s it. She did not say that she has filed a canonical case. She did not respond to a request for the identity of her canon lawyer—if in fact she has one. The journalist who wrote the story, whose sympathy for Pelosi is unmistakable, admits in his account that “it is unclear when she sought Vatican intervention.” In fact it is unclear if she sought Vatican intervention.

But if she has initiated a canonical appeal (and I don’t doubt it), her behavior is very odd for several reasons:

• If she has a case pending, and (an important condition) she takes it seriously, shouldn’t she be following it closely? Shouldn’t she be anxious to offer her argument—or at a minimum to direct reporters to the canon lawyer who could explain the basis for her appeal?
• If she is waiting for a decision from Rome, shouldn’t she be careful to avoid public statements that would annoy the prelates who will weigh the merits of her appeal? She did not make any new friends in Rome when she told the Reporter that her Catholic faith “has nothing to do with the bishops.” In fact one might question why someone who holds that view would bother to seek a judgment from the Roman Curia.
• And if she wanted to build a solid canonical case, wouldn’t Pelosi have taken the simple preliminary step of meeting with her archbishop to discuss the matter—which she has refused to do? Even if Pelosi has powerful friends in Rome today (and she does), the Vatican is not likely to overrule a pastoral decision by a bishop, when the petitioner has so blatantly flouted the bishop’s authority.

The logical conclusion from all the above is that Pelosi did not file a canonical appeal anticipating a positive result. She filed the appeal so that she would be able to answer questions from reporters who weren’t keen to press the details. And if someone in Rome files that appeal safely in a desk drawer, to gather dust for a few years—not an uncommon fate for delicate cases—then for her purposes, which are purely political, the appeal will have been successful.

Which is unfortunate. Because Archbishop Cordileone was not thinking about politics when he issued his directive. As he explained anew, in response to Pelosi’s statement, “As a pastor of souls, my overriding concern and chief responsibility is the salvation of souls.” Meanwhile as she waits for (or claims to be waiting for) a Vatican judgment that may never come, Pelosi is ignoring her archbishop’s order—to her spiritual peril.