Why not to keep going on with discipline after a member leaves

The discussion on the blogs regard Rebecca Hancock has been about the right of the member to leave a church. But I think a more general discussion is called for. Why is a bad idea to continue church discipline on non members?

First off it is violation of domestic law. Religion in American is a consensual affair at all times not permanent contract. A person's relationship with a religion ends the moment they say it ends. It is a violation of first amendment rights to assert religious authority over someone without their consent. Marian Guinn vs Church of Christ Collinsville is an important case where the courts were definitive, "No real freedom to choose religion would exist in this land if under the shield of the First Amendment religious institutions could impose their will on the unwilling and claim immunity from secular judicature for their tortious acts." A similar case involving a Mormon was Norman Hancock, with the same result the Hancock was awarded damanges as the court saw continuing a disciplinary process on a non member to be a violation of their civil rights.

Permanent church covenants or statements that discipline will continue after a person tries to leave in no way alter any of the above. They are useful for establishing informed consent to starting a disciplinary process, and continuing it while someone remains a member. But, the law and the courts don't consider religious practice and affiliation to be a contract but rather a civil right. You can't sign away your right to quit a church any more than you can sign away your right to sue for sexual harassment in the workplace. Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology which was twice appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court was unequivocal in its finding that permanent consent cannot be granted. Consent to being disciplined, is like consent to being subjected to any other religious practice and can be revoked at will. For an older case, O'Moore v. Driscoll established that lack of consent to a ritual instantly removes privilege. In Scolinki the courts found that church discipline arises from common interest. A person voluntarily leaving the religious community has severed their common interest, which is why I frequently say that churches can excommunicate immediately or record what they want when a person leaves but not engage in an ongoing process.

Second it is a violation of international human rights law: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18).

The Organization of American States is even more explicit:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience and of religion. This right includes freedom to maintain or to change one's religion or beliefs, and freedom to profess or disseminate one's religion or beliefs, either individually or together with others, in public or in private.

2. No one shall be subject to restrictions that might impair his freedom to maintain or to change his religion or beliefs. (American Convention on Human Rights, Article 12)

Third it is a violation of religious tradition:

Every man has a right to withdraw from the Church whenever he pleases, in the sense explained in our former article -- a right in the sense that no human authority has the right to detain him. As before God, he has no more right to apostatize than to commit any other sin. He is bound to believe and keep the commandments. But men have no commission to force him to do either. If he wants to go, they must let him go. "They went out from us," says the Apostle -- not that they were expelled, but they went out of their own accord, freely, voluntarily -- "because they were not of us." They found themselves in the wrong place, and they left it. (The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, Vol.4: Ecclesiastical, p. 370.)

To pick a Baptist quote:

Baptists have one consistent record concerning liberty throughout all their long and eventful history. They have never been a party to oppression of conscience. They have forever been the unwavering champions of liberty, both religious and civil. Their contention now, is, and has been, and, please God, must ever be, that it is the natural and fundamental and indefeasible right of every human being to worship God or not, according to the dictates of his conscience, and, as long as he does not infringe upon the rights of others, he is to be held accountable alone to God for all religious beliefs and practices. Our contention is not for mere toleration, but for absolute liberty. There is a wide difference between toleration and liberty. Toleration implies that somebody falsely claims the right to tolerate. Toleration is a concession, while liberty is a right. Toleration is a matter of expediency, while liberty is a matter of principle. Toleration is a gift from God. It is the consistent and insistent contention of our Baptist people, always and everywhere, that religion must be forever voluntary and uncoerced, and that it is not the prerogative of any power, whether civil or ecclesiastical, to compel men to conform to any religious creed or form of worship, or to pay taxes for the support of a religious organization to which they do not believe. God wants free worshipers and no other kind. (By George Truett, Southern Baptist Convention, May 16 1920).

Among Presbyterians the notion of "erasure without consent of the session" or renouncement of jurisdiction is a well established right. For example the largest Presbyterian denomination, the PC(USA) is unequivocal that, "Members, church officers, elders and ministers have the right to renounce jurisdiction at any time. " To pick from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum the Orthodox Presbyterian Church considers leaving without permission of the session to be an erasure but not an excommunication, a termination of membership (Book of Discipline II.B.3.d.1,3,5).

To appreciate the breadth and unanimity of this I'll note that Jehovah's witnesses have a similar notion with different terminology. A member who is excommunicated is called, "disfellowshiped" while one who leaves on their own is "disassociated". There is a clear understanding that the Watchtower bible and tract society cannot claim disciplinary authority over a person who no longer considers themselves a member of the society (see wikipedia for more details).

And again to indicate the breadth, a person who declares themselves to no longer be a member of the church of the latter day saints is a "disaffiliate", and not subject to a disciplinary council (which can pronounce excommunication), "Nor are [Disciplinary Councils] held for members who demand that their names be removed from Church records or who have joined another church; that is now an administrative action." (from A Chance to Start Over: Church Disciplinary Councils and the Restoration of Blessings)

To summarize, it may be the case that the church views the status of one who voluntarily left as having excommunicated themselves, "erasure is an excommunication", or to quote Jim West, "The New Testament identifies two classes of excommunicates: first, those who have been formally sentenced by the Church of Christ (1 Corinthians 5:5). Second, those that excommunicate themselves by leaving the pale of the visible church in order to feast in the world (1 John 2:19)" (link). But the right to leave without engaging in an extended process, is guaranteed by church tradition.

Fourth, treating excommunication as more than simply leaving a church confuses excommunication and anathema. Excommunication is an involuntary separation of communion from a particular group of brethren. Anathema is a separation from God. If a person chooses to separate communion themselves then they are in some sense self excommunicating, by continuing an official process the church is asserting an authority over the status of their spirit, an authority they should not claim to possess. Pope John VIII makes this clear in the decree of Gratian (c. III, q. V, c. XII), "... excommunication, which separates her from the society of the brethren, but under the anathema, which separates from the body of Christ, which is the Church". There is an earlier article on this site which addresses the distinction in more detail.

Fifth, it is unbiblical. Almost every passage dealing with discipline is specific to a church. For example Rev 2:20 the condemnation for the false teacher is only against the church of Thyatira and not against the church universal. 1Cor 5:12, "For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Are you not to judge those inside?" gives churches the responsibility to judge those within the church and excludes those outside the church. So to argue that judgment should continue is to argue that one can be part of a church even though openly leaving it. But 1John 2:19 says the exact opposite, "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us, because if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But they went out from us to demonstrate that all of them do not belong to us."

Sixth, it is seen by the world as harassment and thus a negative witness. The cartoon I opened this with gives a good picture of how the world sees this. Churches enjoy substantial latitude in the United States because they are voluntary associations, that is everyone is a member because they have chosen to be a member and are in no way coerced into remaining members. Organizations that are mandatory or make it difficult to leave for example: places of employment, business partnerships, condominium associations are subjected to substantially higher levels of regulation and oversight. Society believes people need protections against organizations that are compulsory in a way they do not in organizations that are voluntary. Americans regardless of their affiliation believe strongly in the notion that religion is voluntary, religions that are seen in any way to move towards compulsory are thought of quite negatively and treated quite harshly.

To help Christians from disciplining communities see this the way the world sees it, lets use an analogy. Picture a person who at one time had joined a coven and agreed forever to allow themselves to be bled into a common chalice during circle rites. They quit the coven, does the coven have the right to continue to bleed them?

I'll close with a quote:

We read not that Christ ever exercised force but once, and that was to drive profane ones out of His temple, and not to force them in. - John Milton (1608 – 1674)

Rebecca Hancock

Rebecca Hancock is a 49 year old divorced woman who was formerly a member of Grace Community Church in Jacksonville, Florida. She got involved in a sexual relationship with a man, by the name of Frank Young, and told her church mentor about it. The mentor advised her to break off the relationship and she claims, “I must have gone through 10 breakups trying to end it, but after not having the power to do it I would go back, It was hard to give up somebody I love.” Hancock evidentally believed these conversations were confidential. In October '08 the mentor pulled her into the second phase of church discipline. There was an argument and Hancock told the membership, "I cannot believe you people are doing this. I’m not going any further — I’m never coming here again." The pastor then began to call to contact her and Young told him, "she [Hancock] would appreciate it if neither he nor any member of his church contacted her ever again." The church on December 8th issued a letter indicating they would move on to the third stage of discipline (tell it to the church) in January if she hadn't resolved the issue. At which point Miss Hancock concerned that her 18 and 20 year children who were members of the church would be embarrased by a public revelation in church took the issue public by telling Fox News (see Fox News Story). Since then it has spread to various Christian and secular sites.

OK so lets look at the legalities here. First off there is no legal right to confidentiality here (see Penley v. Westbrook), and again I'd caution readers that saying something in church waives legal right to privacy with very few exceptions. On the other hand it appears there was an expectation of privacy in the mentor relationship and it appears either the mentor did a bad job or the membership class didn't address the issue of discipline well enough. The membership class should have explained to Miss Hancock that she was joining a discipling church. Miss Hancock's statements to Fox seem to indicate genuine shock and total ignorance of the discipline proess. That being said nothing in the letter seems unusual for 3rd phase discipline.

The only issue here is whether she is still a member. She has seemed to indicate a desire to permanently sever all relations with the church, and her boyfriend is unequivocal that she no longer regards herself in a pastoral relationship with Grace Community Church. Further she is now active in another church and refers to herself as "no longer a member" (see news 4 story). The news story isn't specific enough for me to know for show whether she has qualified in leaving the church under church law (see how to leave a church) or whether her transfer with irregularities was conducted properly. But I would say that her statements were so strong that under secular law she most certainly did sever her relationship and had they "told it to the church" Grace could be subject to a civil suit (see Guinn v. Church Christ of Collinville). However, at this point she converted herself into a news story so the civil issue dealing with slander is dead.

It is hard to make many more conclusions because Fox News didn't dig. I'm not sure how clearly discipline is explained in the membership class. I would have to say that for a woman who is concerned about the embarrassment of being publicly outed, presenting her story to the national press, seems odd. That is, I don't quite understand how she believes revelation in the national media is going to be less difficult for her children, so her expressed rationale could have been better probed. Still, I applaud her becoming cause of her life rather than an effect. Having taken that attitude earlier would have killed the discipline outright, i.e. taking ownership via. a letter of termination likely would have given her the same level of control without the need of national press coverage. Its also unclear how the transfer / membership termination process got so botched up.

I'll offer Grace Church a chance to comment on this article. But what this smells like is a lack competence but no actual misconduct on the part of the church. On the other hand Mrs. Hancock's story has holes in it which make her sound like either a fool or a bit of a nut job. But in the end this may be editing from the news article.

Web discussions on this:

• Pyromaniacs
  
• Dallas News
• Seventh Sola
• 9-Marks
• John Aron Martin
• Hot Air
• Sharper Iron
• From my heart, out of my mind (Don Bryant)
• Alpha and Omega (James White)

Mark Strauss on the ESV

I've attacked the ESV quite a bit on this blog. Better Bibles has been a strong ESV critic as well, and Mark Strauss put together a well written piece on problems in the ESV, called Why the English Standard Version (ESV) should not become the Standard English Version. For those interested in reading my earlier posts on the ESV

• Is the ESV "essentially literal"?
• Mark 1:41 and the ESV

Review of the Tyndale Live Bible (teen)

Tyndale mailed me a copy of the Live teen bible to do a review of. And the first word that comes to mind is tasteful. The Live bible is a a mix of the full NLT bible with photos, devotional poetry, study questions with a dash of a teen oriented devotional intermixed. The closest analogy I can think of is the Revolve bible (see inside) And "the revolve done better" is I think a fair way to describe this bible. There is nothing garish about this bible at all, which is a difficult line to walk mixing both extra interest and the bible in a layout that is fun but resptful. For example the non biblical text is separated off from the biblical text using different background colors and fonts so no one is likely to confuse the two (see inside view). One major distinction is that the Live bible is aimed at both sexes and there are no explicitly girl or boy topics.

This is not a study bible (though Tyndale makes a very good NLT Study bible) but it does include a reasonable concordance, daily reading plan and 6 page topical study guide. The concordance is an abridged version of the one from the study bible, where a substantially smaller percentage of the words are linked through but this is probably good enough to get a teen used to using concordance. The reading plan is very abridged with one selected chapter being read each day, so aiming for 5 min per day or less. The check boxes next to the books I think are a good touch. There is the topic index and this does appear to be all new material, based on the sorts of issues likely to confront a teen/tween. While short this does seem useful. Finally the pages themselves are marked on the lower outer margin with the chapter number which is useful for inexperienced bible reader's navigation, a very good feature one rarely finds in any book anymore.

In terms of the NLTse as a translation I've spoken elsewhere but here is my opinion. I generally prefer British (REB/NEB) to American evangelical translations in terms of translational accuracy. As far as American evangelical translations go the NLT, HCSB and TNIV are all roughly as accurate as one another and all more so than most other evangelical translations. All 3 read well but the NLT has a slight edge here. Given that this is a teen bible I'd attach more weight to readability than I normally would and say that in terms of translations the NLT is likely the best choice for the target. The teen bible does include translator footnotes which are uniformly good in the NLT. In particular since the comparison is to Revolve, the NCV is substantially less accurate in exchange for a much more limited vocabulary than the NLT. For a preteen or younger child this might be an acceptable trade off but few teens need the text simplified to the extent of the NCV. And frankly Revolve is too teenage in its topics (boyfriends, makeup, how far to go on dates...) to be good for a girl of say 8-11.

Finally the bible encourages membership in a teen site called rough edit, which is a online community for readers of the Live bible where kids post their biblical creative work and essays. Sort of a online biblical youth group for mainstream evangelical teens. It seems like a nice extra, sort of a safe myspace. Activity seems moderate at this point.

So would I recommend it? For an individual teen I'd have to go with the NLTStudy bible, or more of a pure devotional. That being said, Revolve was the top selling bible in 2003 and so this style of bible is popular. I think the Live Bible does capture the bible / teen devotional mixture better than Revolve with better content in the sidebars and a vastly better translation for a teen than the NCV/Revolve. Where I really think this bible could shine is in the Middle School and High School church youth group. The little add ons would work there when the kids get distracted and at the some time continue with a devotional theme. For this use I can recommend with any hesitation.

A tasteful teen bible that is fun is quite an accomplishment and Tyndale deserves credit.

Joe Vogler

Since we keep hearing that quote from Vogler "about the fires of hell" as a smear against Gov. Palin I thought I should quote the founder of the Democratic party

"My original convictions upon this subject have been confirmed by the course of events for several years, and experience is every day adding to their strength. That those tribes can not exist surrounded by our settlements and in continual contact with our citizens is certain. They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race, and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear." -- Andrew Jackson Dec 3 1833, 5th annual message to congress

If one believes it is fair to attribute Vogler's opinions to Palin than it seems reasonable to attribute the above to Obama. But I see no reason to believe that Barak Obama supports the above feelings regarding native Americans, and given Gov. Palin's attitude I see no reason to believe she supports Vogler's opinions on seperation.

How to cure the pain

One of the questions that arises a lot in discussions of people who are breaking away from abusive churches is how to deal with the pain. I was reading an article on counseling x-cultists where Dr. Martin identified 3 views that are shattered as the result of leaving Christian faith based cults:

1. The belief in personal invulnerability,
2. The perception of the world as meaningful,
3. The perception of oneself as positive

The article goes on to give a Christian approach to counseling that sounds quite long term. In looking at the above list another possibility popped into my mind as being potentially an excellent response to this list and I thought I would open up a discussion on it. The Landmark forum is a 3 day intensive program that produces a Zen Satori experience, that is a transformation in a person's way of thinking viewing the world and themselves. In particular it addresses all 3 of the above very very directly. For the x-cultist:

• Rather then seeing themselves as having had to have been invulnerable they will be hearing from all walks of life that trauma is a fundamental part of human existence and formative, "you are a meaning making machine" and the theory of winning formulas.
  
• Landmark is well known for their belief that meaning comes from man not the world itself, "life is empty and meaningless". That is they teach Heidegger / Existentialism as a philosophical approach.
  
• Landmark reconstructs for people a positive view of themselves outside of past errors in judgment, that is a method to really, "leave the past in the past".
  

It also could help with many of the other regular issues one encounters:

• How to fix relationships broken with family and friends: Landmark is very good at reigniting past or damaged relationships. That is there is a real possibility of quick fixes.
• Regret for wasted years help to deal with it
• How to deal with issues of guilt
• How to reconstruct a value system independently of the dogmatic views held by the cult.
  

And again we are talking about these sorts of results in a weekend not over an extended period of time. There are however 2 objections that are worth bring up. The first is theological, Landmark doesn't directly contradict Christianity but as Alex Churchill puts it, "They freely admit that they're only concerned with life before death, which from a Christian point of view seems short-sighted". Moreover there isn't a single reference to the bible in the course, for those with a strong opinion on the sufficiency of scripture they may find this upsetting. I happen to think this might be helpful, in that it would allow people to look passages a different way with less resistance and thus break certain cultic theological positions.

The second problem is that Landmark itself has a very hard sell approach and can be consuming. That is while Landmark is not a cult, it is possible to relate to Landmark like a cult. However, I think that is unlikely to happen for most of the people who read this blog; for one thing they likely lack the financial resources to spend thousands a year on courses. For another thing most people involved in Landmark are liberal Christians / Jews / Hindu / Muslims, new agers or atheists. Socially people with strong traditional values just aren't likely to see Landmark as anything more than a workshop, the social aspects would stop them from getting too involved in the social circle.

So before throwing this out more generally I would love to open up the floor. This does seem like a really good way for people to break out of cultic and post-cultic mindsets almost instantly. It would be wonderful to tell people they could get over a good chunk of the emotional trauma in a weekend. Anyone have an opinion?

Links:

• Landmark Education

Republican Vice Presidents

A lot of people are downplaying the importance of Republican vice presidential nominees. I thought I would make a short list of the recent ones and what they went on to do:

• 1948 Earl Warren -- Possibly the most important Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ever
  
• 1952 Richard Nixon -- President of the United States
  
• 1960 Henry Cabot Lodge Jr -- Ambassador to Vietnam for the Kennedy and Johnson administration Orchestrated the coup to replace Ngo Dinh Diem and headed the peace negotiations. Later became Ambassador at large.
  
• 1964 William Miller -- Nothing
  
• 1968 Spiro Agnew -- Indicted and removed from office, career ended. Prior to this he was the front runner for the 1976 Republican nomination.
  
• 1973 Gerald Ford -- Became President in 1974
  
• 1974 Nelson Rockefeller -- Got sick and died within a few years after his term completed.
• 1976 Robert Dole -- Charirman of the Sentate finance committee, Senate Majority leader. Republican Nominee for President 1996.
• 1980 George Bush -- Became President in 1988.
  
• 1988 Dan Quayle -- Nothing.
  
• 1996 Jack Kemp -- Founded Empower America, a free market advocacy group. Sits ont he council of foreign relations. Sits on many large corporate boards. In 2008 became a king maker as one of the strongest supporters for John McCain
  
• 2000 Dick Cheney -- Possibly the most powerful vice president ever. Still in office.
  

Pelosi was right

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator--St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child--first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There's very clear distinctions. This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and--to--that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who've decided...

The claim is being made repeatedly that Pelosi is incorrect in these statements. The reality is whatever one's current opinion may be her knowledge of history and doctrine is accurate. For example in Summa Theologica Aquinas unequivocally rejects the opinion that semen carries with it some supernatural force that causes ensoulment. Rather in his opinion ensoulment occurs almost 2 months after coitus / fertilization. He separates off the sensitive soul, that is the soul capable of responding to sense input from the intellectual soul, that is the soul capable of engaging in reason. So in his view sex produces a human like animal by itself but the creation of an actual human requires the work of God and has a non material component. He goes so far as to consider the current right to life position (that the intellectual soul is created by fertilization), traducianism, a heresy:

I answer that, It is impossible for an active power existing in matter to extend its action to the production of an immaterial effect. Now it is manifest that the intellectual principle in man transcends matter; for it has an operation in which the body takes no part whatever. It is therefore impossible for the seminal power to produce the intellectual principle.

Again, the seminal power acts by virtue of the soul of the begetter according as the soul of the begetter is the act of the body, making use of the body in its operation. Now the body has nothing whatever to do in the operation of the intellect. Therefore the power of the intellectual principle, as intellectual, cannot reach the semen. Hence the Philosopher says (De Gener. Animal. ii, 3): "It follows that the intellect alone comes from without."

Again, since the intellectual soul has an operation independent of the body, it is subsistent, as proved above (Question 75, Article 2): therefore to be and to be made are proper to it. Moreover, since it is an immaterial substance it cannot be caused through generation, but only through creation by God. Therefore to hold that the intellectual soul is caused by the begetter, is nothing else than to hold the soul to be non-subsistent and consequently to perish with the body. It is therefore heretical to say that the intellectual soul is transmitted with the semen. (Summa I.118.2.0)

Doctor Hogan of International Catholic University translates into modern language:

The soul is the substantial form of the human being. A substantial form requires matter capable of receiving it. In the case of the human being this means that the human soul can exist only in a highly organized body. What is being presented here is a theory of serial ensoulment -- first a vegetative soul, then a sentient soul, and finally a rational soul. The animation of the new being is immediate at fertilization. But the soul that animates the body is commensurate with the kind of life lived by the body and the degree of organization of the body. So in the early stages the body of the human being is animated by a vegetative soul which organizes the operations of nutrition and growth -- vegetative activities. As the new being develops in complexity and activities, such as sensation a new soul, an animal soul, replaces the vegetative soul. As the development in complexity continues and as the development of sense organs and nervous system progresses, another threshold is crossed. When the material substratum is sufficiently disposed, the rational soul appears and the human being as human being is constituted. (Medical Ethics / Abortion)

The Catholic Encyclopedia gives a very good description of how diverse the opinions have been on Creationism (soul is created by God and exists apart from the body) vs. Traducianism (fertilization creates a soul).

So much for the philosphical or purely rational aspect of Creationism; as regards the theological, it should be noted that while none of the Fathers maintained Traducianism -- the parental generation of the soul -- as a certainty, some of them, notably St. Augustine, at the outbreak of Pelagianism, began to doubt the creation by god of the individual soul (there was never any doubt as to the created origin of the souls of Adam and Eve), and to incline to the opposite opinion, which seemed to facilitate the explanation of the transmission of original sin. Thus, writing to St. Jerome, St. Augustine says: "If that opinion of the creation of new souls is not opposed to this established article of faith [sc. original sin] let it be also mine; if it is, let it not be thine" (Ep. clxvi, n.25). Theodorus Abucara (Opusc. xxxv), Macarius (Hom. xxx), and St. Gregory of Nyssa (De Opif., Hom., c. xxix) favoured this view. Amongst the Scholastics there were no defenders of Traducianism. Hugh of St. Victor (De Sacr., VII, c. xii) and Alexander of Hales (Summa, I, Q. lx, mem. 2, a. 3) alone characterize Creationism as the more probable opinion; all the other Schoolmen hold it as certain and differ only in regard to the censure that should be attached to the opposite error. Thus Peter Lombard simply says: "The Catholic Church teaches that souls are created at their infusion into the body" (Sent. II, d. xviii); while St. Thomas is more emphatic: "It is heretical to say that the intellectual soul is transmitted by process of generation" (I, Q. cxviii, a. 2). For the rest, the following citation from the Angelic Doctor sums up the diverse opinions: "Regarding this question various opinions were expressed in antiquity. Some held that the soul of a child is produced by the soul of the parent just as the body is generated by the parent-body. Others maintained that all souls are created apart, moreover that they are united with their respective bodies, either by their own volition or by the command and action of God. Others again, declared that the soul in the moment of its creation is infused into the body. Though for a time these several views were upheld, and though it was doubtful which came nearest the truth (as appears from Augustine's commentary on Genesis 10, and from his books on the origin of the soul), the Church subsequently condemned the first two and approved the third" (De Potentiâ, Q. iii, a. 9). Others (e.g. Gregory of Valencia) speak of Generationism as "certainly erroneous", or (e.g. Estius) as maxime temerarius. It should, however, be noted that while there are no such explicit definitions authoritatively put forth by the Church as would warrant our calling the doctrine of Creationism de fide, nevertheless, as a recent eminent theologian observes, "there can be no doubt as to which view is favoured by ecclesiastical authority" (Pesch, Præl. Dogm., V, 3, p. 66). Leo IX (1050), in the symbol presented to the Bishop Peter for subscription, lays down: "I believe and profess that the soul is not a part of God, but is created out of nothing, and that, without baptism, it is in original sin" (Denzinger, Enchir., n. 296). That the soul sinned in its pre-existent state, and on that account was incarcerated in the body, is a fiction which has been repeatedly condemned by the Church. Divested of this fiction, the theory that the soul exists prior to its infusion into the organism, while not explicitly reprobated, is obviously opposed to the doctrine of the Church, according to which souls are multiplied correspondingly with the multiplication of human organisms (Conc. Lat. V, in Denzinger, op. cit., 621). But whether the rational soul is infused into the organism at conception, as the modern opinion holds, or some weeks subsequently, as the Scholastics suppose (St. Thomas, Q. i a. 2, ad 2), is an open question with theologians (Catholic Encyclopedia)

The fact of the matter is that Nancy Pelosi is absolutely 100% correct in her assessment of Catholic history. Quite simply to hold the currently fashionable position that ensoulment occurs at fertilization is to deny that identical twins have unique souls. A position that was until recently absolutely denied by the church.

The argument is (again quoting Hogan):

First because the soul is the substantial form of the body, the rational soul cannot be present until there is a body present that is significantly complex and organized to receive the soul. Second, a formal cause is present only in a finished product. An actual human soul cannot be united with a virtual human body. Third, there is no human body in the zygote. Fourth inasmuch as all the positive features of the human body derive from the soul, until the soul is present there is no human being.

________
See also:

• Professor Pennington's list of church positions through time
• Religious Tolerance's list of Catholic positions
• Wikipedia, Christianity and abortion
• Bishops Respond to House Speaker Pelosi’s Misrepresentation of Church Teaching
• Cardinal Justin F. Rigali and Bishop William E. Lori Response from Catholic Bishops. This response is misrepresenting her argument. 

Early female leaders

One of the very first secular references to Christians and Christians practices at length is Pliney's letter 96 to Trajan (written between 111 and 113 CE). He is asking Trajan for instruction regarding religious persecution with regard to Christians. While he does not think highly of the religion one paragraph stands out quite strongly, where he describes how he interrogates the leaders of a small house church:

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

Vincent of Lérins on the perspicuity of scripture

[4.] I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

[5.] But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason,—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

[64.] Here, possibly, some one may ask, Do heretics also appeal to Scripture? They do indeed, and with a vengeance; for you may see them scamper through every single book of Holy Scripture,—through the books of Moses, the books of Kings, the Psalms, the Epistles, the Gospels, the Prophets. Whether among their own people, or among strangers, in private or in public, in speaking or in writing, at convivial meetings, or in the streets, hardly ever do they bring forward anything of their own which they do not endeavour to shelter under words of Scripture. Read the works of Paul of Samosata, of Priscillian, of Eunomius, of Jovinian, and the rest of those pests, and you will see an infinite heap of instances, hardly a single page, which does not bristle with plausible quotations from the New Testament or the Old.

[65.] But the more secretly they conceal themselves under shelter of the Divine Law, so much the more are they to be feared and guarded against. For they know that the evil stench of their doctrine will hardly find acceptance with any one if it be exhaled pure and simple. They sprinkle it over, therefore, with the perfume of heavenly language, in order that one who would be ready to despise human error, may hesitate to condemn divine words. They do, in fact, what nurses do when they would prepare some bitter draught for children; they smear the edge of the cup all round with honey, that the unsuspecting child, having first tasted the sweet, may have no fear of the bitter. So too do these act, who disguise poisonous herbs and noxious juices under the names of medicines, so that no one almost, when he reads the label, suspects the poison. (Vincent of Lérins, The Commonitory)