Pelosi vs. the Pope
UPDATE, 2/20, 12:20p: CNSNews.com is reporting Fr. Thomas Euteneur and Human Life International have sent a letter to the Pope requesting the “formal excommunication” of Nancy Pelosi.
_______________
UPDATE, 2/20, 11a: Last night Laura Ingraham, discussing the “Pelosi and the Pope” topic with Bill O’Reilly, thought by the Pope’s strong statement to Pelosi a page has been turned on how American Cafeteria Catholic pro-abortion politicians will be tolerated in the future…
Ingraham corroborated her belief by mentioning we now know Pelosi met with her Bishop before making the trek to Rome, as LifeSiteNews.com reported February 18.
[HT: Gateway Pundit via Carder]
_______________
2/19, 5:40p: Last night Fox’s Bill O’Reilly did a decent job covering Nancy Pelosi’s visit with the Pope. Pelosi is the pro-abortion, Catholic, 3rd in line to the US presidential throne Speaker of the House….
My only complaint was O’Reilly constantly referred to abortion as a constitutional right. It is not.
The right to abortion is listed nowhere in the Constitution. The Supreme Court found the right to abortion not too long after it found the right to privacy, which it determined gave mothers the right to abortion. The Supreme Court stated at the time that if preborn humans were ever determined to be preborn humans, the Roe v. Wade decision would crumble. We work for that in the short-term and in the long-term for the recognition of all humans from conception as constitutionally protected persons.
Legislators can either disagree that abortion is a right and work to confine or dispense with it, or they can agree with it and welcome it with open arms. Pelosi is a member of the latter camp, going so far as to push for taxpayer funding of abortion and human embryo experimentation.
Fr. Jonathan Morris did an adequate job dismantling Pelosi et al’s “I’m personally pro-life but have to go along with public policy” line. He also gave a little tidbit: There are no pictures of the Pope and Pelosi. The Pope did not allow Pelosi to use him for a photo op. Astute. And I’m, of course, grateful the Pope told Pelosi like it is. Read his statement.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The video was removed.
I was furious with O’Reilly, with the way he spoke of abortion and the Constitution. If you believe that life begins at conception as the Catholic Church and the Bible clearly teaches (I am christian not Catholic) then the Constitution clearly protects the baby for the Constitution protects life!
I was proud of the priest as I was proud of the Pope and have been of the Catholic church for its strong stand on this vital issue.
It’s not Pelosi’s job to force her non-Catholic constituents to follow Catholic rules.
abortion can be a HUMAN rights issue, reality. And anyway, scientific advances (3D and 4D ultrasound technology especially) have shown there’s clearly a **human being** in the womb of a human mother.
What species were you when your mother was pregnant?
Just a reminder. Repeat a falsehood often enough gullible people will take it as fact.
“most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings”
this ruling was tied to a stretched interpretation of “privacy” rights. It seems we can’t use the “privacy rights” to protect from intrusive narcotics busts.
Reality,
How many times have we been over this? Abortion is not a religious issue, but a human rights issue. But it does function as a nice strawman for those who don’t give the issue much thought. Just look at this website http://godlessprolifers.org/home.html
Abortion is not a religious issue
Obviously it is, or the Pope wouldn’t be trying to get Nancy Pelosi to enforce Catholic rules on non-Catholic citizens of the United States.
but a human rights issue.
The human rights issue was settled 30 years ago: abortion is legal because human beings have the right to control what goes on inside their bodies.
“Obviously it is, or the Pope wouldn’t be trying to get Nancy Pelosi to enforce Catholic rules on non-Catholic citizens of the United States. ”
Would you make the same argument if slavery was in question? So what you’re saying is that “If a religious leader wishes for something, then that something is EXCLUSIVELY a religious issues.” That is clearly false. The Pope would be just as much on Pelosi if she was for slavery, rape, pedophilia, theft, or anything else that the rest of the world and the Church “happen” to agree on.
“The human rights issue was settled 30 years ago: abortion is legal because human beings have the right to control what goes on inside their bodies. ”
Would you have taken this attitude during the civil rights movement? “The issue was settled; blacks are 3/5 of a person.”
It is both a religious and a political issue and not an either or.
The Bible is clear that God knows the people who are formed in the womb long before they are born. Some like John the Baptist, Christ, David and others were named and some of their calling and destiny was outlined long before they were born.
On the Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade we can only guess that the Supremes had a lapse of judgment.
In a recent article on my own site http://www.americanprophet.org I posted an article with a reminder that Roe v. Wade has caused more death to humans than all those who died at the atomic destruction of Hirosima and Nagasaki in WWII.
Americans have aborted over 50 million since Roe and now abort the un-born at the rate of 4000 per day.
I would venture to say that if we began tearing out the unborn in animal species like dogs, cats etc, animal rights activist would react violently. With our own species its OK?
This selfish generation will one day rue this absurd life crushing “choice” to kill.
I too am not Catholic (although raised as one) but I am now a protestant believer but I can only commend the Catholic Church for holding the line on this issue in a way I wish others would emulate.
God help this faltering country of ours.
Rev Michael Bresciani
the same supreme court that found abortion in the constitution declared that blacks weren’t human, over 140 years ago. That’s what we are working to reverse, but in this case, it is the declaration of humans in the womb not being human beings.
I don’t know what else they could be…..when my sister was pregnant with #1, I am pretty sure my niece was a human. I remember when I felt her HICCUPING.
I thought the Denver bishop did a better and stronger job of discussing the meeting with the Pope and Speaker Pelosi. He was much more adamant that this is the teaching of the church and she should not present herself for communion if she cannot support this teaching.
Roe vs. Wade basically stated that a woman has dominion over her preborn child in the womb. Her wants/wishes/needs etc. takes precedent over the right of the child (fetus…young one ) to exist.
People have an assumption that if something is legal that it must be alright (moral). People presume that if it was wrong that it would be illegal.
We are by nature selfish and with nothing to prohibit us and our selfish nature it is easy to slip from abortion to infanticide to euthanasia etc.
It’s not Pelosi’s job to force her non-Catholic constituents to follow Catholic rules.
Posted by: reality at February 19, 2009 7:59 AM
well said reality
“The human rights issue was settled 30 years ago: abortion is legal because human beings have the right to control what goes on inside their bodies”
Just how do you think that baby gets in there?
Catholic rules? Uh…what about God’s commandments, as in “Thou shalt not kill?”
The ‘human rights’ issue in regard to the pre-natal human embryo/fetus has obviously NOT been resolved.
No, intellectually honest person can assert that the issue has been ‘resolved’. The divisions are deeper, the repective positions more entrenched, and intensity of the conflict as demonstrated on this web site alone discredits the wishfull thinking of the proponents of that myth.
If the ‘issue’ has been resolved, then why are you here, then why are you here contending that it has been resolved?
yor bro ken
xppc, 8:15a: I agree. I was being sarcastic in my original post when saying the Supreme Court “found” a right to privacy in the Constitution.
Abraham Lincoln commented on the Dred Scott decision by the SCOTUS which was supposed to have ‘resloved’ the issue of the personhood of the black human held in slavery.
I will paraphrase: If the american people are expected to fall into lock step agreement with this court the moment they issue a judgement concerning issues like these then they will have effectively surrendered this republic into the hand of that eminent tribunal.
The Civil War did not completely ‘resolve the issue’. It is still being resolved today.
Thomas Jefferson said, and again I will paraphrase: The first responsibility of government is the protection of human life.
Nothing particularly religious about either of those two statements.
Do you think the Pope invited ms Pelosi to come to his house for tea? Do you think ms Pelosi really cares what the Pope thinks or says or does unless it advances her personal and political agenda.
Do you think she would have been granted an audience if she were not the Madam Speaker?
It was more a diplomatic gesture on the part of the Vatican than a counseling session between a cleric and one of his parishoners.
yor bro ken
PS – I found another YouTube video of the O’Reilly Pelosi/Pope discussion and replaced the one taken down. Not sure how long this one will stay up, but there you go.
Thanks Jill! I was able to view it.
Good for Father Morris and great for the Pope to refuse pictures. Pelosi would have only used them to say “See the Pope agrees with me!” when obviously he doesn’t.
Jill,
You were correct. The Supreme Court did invent the “right to privacy”. You will not find it anywhere in the Constitution. It was the 4th Amendment’s prohibition against search and seizure without a warrant that the justices stretched into a “privacy” right. To say that the government is not allowed to seize your property without just cause is a far cry from saying that a woman can kill her baby if she wants to. It is absurd.
The 14th Amendment’s “due process” clause is what pro-lifers are fighting for. Would that someday we would define the preborn as human beings, the 14th Amendment guarantees their equal protection under the law and asserts that the preborn have the right to life that cannot be abridged without due process of law.
Abortion is a constitutional right because the Supreme Court says so. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is and is not constitutional, whether you or I agree with their reasoning or not. Them’s the rules. The Catholics have their rules and we Americans have our rules.
O’Reilly did a very good job in the video articulating a creditable Catholic pro-choice position, one which honors both the Catholic rules and the American rules.
Interestingly, Catholic politicians once had quite a hard time getting elected due to the fear that they would take their orders from Rome. President Kennedy did much to dispel those fears, but apparently the Bishop of Denver is happy to have those doubts raised again.
Posted by: Linda DeMerle at February 19, 2009 9:22 AM
Catholic rules? Uh…what about God’s commandments, as in “Thou shalt not kill?”
——————————————————
If you go back to the original language from which that particular passage was translated, the word ‘kill’ is not the most accurate expression of the original language.
The more accurate expression is ‘do no murder’.
The word in the original language means to lie in ambush for your intended victim and to smash him to pieces with a stone or metal instrument/weapon.
Adds a little more fullness to the meaning, especially in the context of a discussion of elective abortion on demand.
yor bro ken
Posted by: Prochoicer at February 19, 2009 11:53 AM
‘Interestingly, Catholic politicians once had quite a hard time getting elected due to the fear that they would take their orders from Rome.’
—————————————————–
Not too quibble too much with words and history and accuracy, but your statement is not accurate unless you insert ‘to national office’ between ‘elected’ and ‘due’.
I suspect that Catholics have never had a difficult time winning elections in certain parts of the country. In deed, they may have had an easier time getting elected in those certain parts of the country.
You know kind of like the way Mormons do not have a difficult time being elected in Utah and do have a difficult time being elected in say, Alabama.
yor bro ken
kbhvac at 12:25 p.m.
Fair enough quibble. I thought about that, but I think in many parts of the country perhaps even today, Catholics would have trouble in local elections today. But certainly in many other areas (including my home state) it is unlikely that Catholics had any trouble locally.
If your interested in accuracy, then I am sure there is a web site somewhere that lists state and federal elected officials who are ‘Catholic’.
Disclaimer: Opinion based purely on my feelings or beliefs.
Most americans pay very little attention to a
candidates religious affiliation and pay more attention to his political affiliation and his positions on the issues that are near and dear to them.
You would think the framers of our government actually designed it to work that way. If they did, then that is pretty good evidence of intelligent design.
yor bro ken
O’Reilly is a secular, hypocritical, anti-Christian moral idiot. For an example of what I am saying go plese here:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=503
Comments welcome.
John Lofton, Editor
TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
John,
Are you the same John Lofton who wrote “Why I became an Atheist”?
kbhvac,
My point isn’t really so much about whether Catholics are successful in politics TODAY. My point has to do more with whether voters might become skeptical of Catholic politicians if there was evidence that their politics could be controlled by threats from their church (such as the withholding of communition). If that started happening, voters would darn well start caring whether an official was Catholic.
you’re confusing O’Reilly with Maher, who is the REAL anti christian. O’Reilly is fairly decent and one thing I am glad for: he has constantly had stories that exposed George Tiller!
prochoicer, I’m more inclined to think that those catholics would leave the church if threatened rather than change their politics. And I think the church knows this so it doesn’t push …. plus it knows it’s own parishoners might not agree
“Abortion is not a religious issue,”
I think Jill might disagree. She seems to keep claiming that being an Atheist means lacking the morality you need to be against abortion. She also uses this twisted logic to assume that Darwin and Lincoln are responsible. (?)
Prochoicer, you have a very good point. I think that the whole “denying communion” is simply a public stunt by bishops with an agenda. You don’t see them hunting down which PP volunteers go to Catholic churches so they can deny them communion.
But I’m not a Catholic, so what do I know.
Just read Bobby Bambino’s comment on another thread.
Abortion is not a religious issue, it’s a human rights issue.
I do like that Bobby!!!
prochoicer, I’m more inclined to think that those catholics would leave the church if threatened rather than change their politics. And I think the church knows this so it doesn’t push
asitis, I’m curious — do you think the Church cares if people leave it? I don’t mean in a theoretical “we care about all lost souls” sort of way, since I suppose that the Church probably views pro-choice Catholics as lost in the first place and thus would not view them as particularly more lost if they renounced Catholicism altogether. If you think the Church cares, what would you guess her reasons for caring are? Do you think it’s a money thing, a PR thing (public figures making a statement by leaving), what?
I’m not trying to like, incite something — I’m honestly curious. As an outsider, my view of the Church has always been kind of similar to how I view the high school classes my partner teaches. He’s always sad to see a kid drop out in a “I wish I could have helped him appreciate this subject” sort of way, and sometimes in a “that kid was really cool and I’ll miss him” sort of way, but he doesn’t particularly miss having to deal with an unenthusiastic student. As such, he’s more happy than not to have reluctant or bored kids drop out of his classes than stay in them and complain the whole time.
Sorry, I did have a point in that second paragraph. It was, namely, that while he’s usually sad to see a student go, it’s the student’s choice — he won’t alter his subject matter, or the methods he uses to teach it, beyond reasonable expecations, just to please one student — or several. If they don’t want to learn about lighting design, then he doesn’t just say, “Oh, okay! We’ll do sound design instead.” He says, “Well, unfortunately, lighting design is part of the course you signed up for. I’d love for you to stay, especially so you can come to understand why you need to know something about lighting; but the door is right there if you really can’t deal with this.”
“I think that the whole “denying communion” is simply a public stunt by bishops with an agenda. You don’t see them hunting down which PP volunteers go to Catholic churches so they can deny them communion.”
Well, here’s the thing PiP. The “denying communion” deal is based on Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law which states:
“Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”
OK, so what does that mean? Our new priest here in Hanover is a canon lawyer with a very sharp mind, and he told me that in order to interpret canon law, one needs to go back and look at the drafts for the particular canon to see what the writers had in mind. According to him, if you look back at the drafts for canon 915, you will see that the particular example they had in mind was those Catholic who are divorced and remarried without an annulment; in other words, a PUBLIC manifest grave sin.
Now what counts as public manifest grave sin? Well, that’s a tough question. It is difficult to argue that PP employees don’t fit that bill, indeed. However, public politicians are very, very public, much more so than PP employees. Still, how public is a divorced and remarried couple? These are difficult questions. I’m not claiming to have any answers. Just more to think about.
Incidentally, Canon Lawyer Archbishop Burke, when he was still Bishop of St. Louis, wrote a great article about this. http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm
My point has to do more with whether voters might become skeptical of Catholic politicians if there was evidence that their politics could be controlled by threats from their church (such as the withholding of communition).
What threats? Pelosi makes a choice to follow Church teaching or not. It’s the same choice that I or any other Catholic make. If I engage in behavior that separates me from the Church, I have an obligation to reconcile myself sacramentally before I take communion again. Same goes for Pelosi. Sometimes I have to abstain, and every week I see others in the pews doing the same. No one, not even the Pope, is entitled to receive communion just because they are a member of the Church. They are expected to receive according to the laws of the Church or to abstain.
If Pelosi’s bishop instructs her priest to withhold communion because she lacks the self-restraint to do it herself, it’s hardly a threat to control her politics or her constituents. It’s to preserve the dignity of the Eucharist.
Pelosi is free to refer to herself as a former Catholic, a lapsed Catholic or a Catholic in name only. But if she or any public persona wants to refer to herself as a practicing Catholic, they should be held to the same standards that apply to the rest of us.
You don’t see them hunting down which PP volunteers go to Catholic churches so they can deny them communion.
But you do see a priest withhold communion from a parishioner sometimes. What do you expect, PIP? You want priests to violate the seal of the confessional so they can inform every eucharistic minister in the parish to look out for so and so? Or do you want priests to be heavy handed and not give those volunteers the opportunity to abstain voluntarily?
do I think the church cares if people leave alexandra? Yes, I think possibly that’s it. The fewer Catholics, the smaller their presence. The fewer catholic politicians, the lesser their influence. Though one could argue that the politicians arent all following the catholic church’s teachings ( no contraception, no IVF, no premarital sex, no abortion……) anyway…..
“Archbishop Burke”
UGH, I am so glad he is gone. Sorry, I don’t respect Burke much at all. He cared more about being put in the media spotlight than saving souls. In fact he is the main reason why I think these Bishops are being less than humble. Declaring to the papers, “I will refuse them Communion!! as if they are on a holy crusade” is just so self-centered. Not to mention hypocritical- as you don’t see them saying it to every Catholic who strays from the teaching (you kidding- every Catholic politician strays from the teaching (how many pro-DP Catholic politicians are there??). I also believe in every person there is a personal dissent to one or two of the things Popes say.) How about instead, they preach about about life issues’ importance in the Catholic Church; talk to them personally about their spiritual and public misgivings, and if asked, say that this is not Catholic teaching and they are misrepresenting it.
I was always taught that that part of Canon Law referred to a personal and spiritual loss of connection with the Eucharist (or that’s how I learned it). It is not up to individual bishops or priests to discriminate for them on this matter, we are not Puritans anymore. If anything I think people like Burke use their position to draw attention to themselves without having other people’s souls or well-being as their primary interest. I for one (of many here!) are so glad he was replaced.
*Communion!!” as if..
since you’re not Catholic, pip, you don’t understand what the Eucharist is or what it means to faithful Catholics. Archbishop Burke had a duty as Shepherd to his flock to protect the Eucharist and that means refusing to give Communion to those “CINO” who support anything contrary to Catholic teachings, including publicly supporting the destruction of the unborn whether its through destructive research or through deliberate killing of the child in the womb.
Liz, I grew up Catholic, and go to a Catholic school, so I do have an idea of what the Eucharist means.
I believe if the bishop or priest in question if they are going to go public with it, should at least be consistent. Go through the profiles of every public figure attending their congregations. Pick out those who personally use BC or are sterilized, or have ever said something positive about its use. Check out what their votes are for capital punishment. What their thoughts about war are. Go painstakingly through their voting choices and decide which ones aren’t “Catholic.” Then they can refuse communion to them, denounce them to the world, and everyone can be happy.
And its not just his actions relating to this topic that irks me about Burke. Almost everyone I knew, even some Jesuits, found many of the actions he took to be distasteful and were very happy when he left.
“I will refuse them Communion!! as if they are on a holy crusade” is just so self-centered.
If I were a bishop, I’d much rather be accused of being self-centered than turning a blind eye to sacrilege.
“they should be held to the same standards that apply to the rest of us.”
I for one have never seen a priest refuse communion to anybody. And I have never seen average laypeople’s personal beliefs scrutinized in public and declared “not Catholic”/worthy of communion. If there is any question over the state of someone’s soul, I would expect as I’ve seen in the past, the priest/bishop to approach them about it and discuss this with them and their duty as Catholics regarding Communion. It’s not the priests job to daily judge the state of your soul, only the individual knows a lot of this stuff. Making a big public display of it is only a display of self-righteousness rather than real concern for the lapsing Catholic.
Well Fed Up, you are allowed that opinion. I reserve the opinion that these Bishops only sound like modern day Pharisees to me.
Isn’t scandal a sin in the Church? That always seemed kind of sucky to me — like, how the heck is is your fault if other people are gossipy enough to concern themselves with your business, and dumb enough to be affected by it; I’d be much more concerned with reality than perception, personally — but I guess maybe a priest giving communion to someone who openly and vocally supports breaking religious rules could be seen as kind of scandalous? I mean if the idea is that scandal can help bring about the spiritual ruin of another person, maybe by normalizing “evil” behavior or causing the community to accept the evil behavior as neutral (or good), then perhaps a priest turning a blind eye to public (ie, not private) disobedience could qualify?
I mean, the thing about scandal is that it’s basically dependent on the public nature of it. Which sounds like what this is — the reason they’re not going after every contracepting couple is because those people aren’t getting up every day and vocally supporting contraception. They might vote in support of contraception, and use it themselves, but they don’t directly influence the behavior of others in doing so since it’s a relatively private matter.
What do I know, though? I’m not Catholic, and I’m one beer down, which is a lot when you weigh 105 lbs or so.
I guess the thing is, most Catholic politicians make concessions in their beliefs when they run for office because they realize that they are personal, religious, beliefs. If the church leaders are going to do something public about it they should do that regarding EVERY issue, not just two of them. That is what bugs me the most.
I don’t know much about Polosi in particular, but there are some Catholics who simply believe that in some cases what their people want is more important professionally than what they believe. If indeed holding this “pro-choice” view is sinful, then they should make it clear that this is a sin, but IMO they are contributing to this ‘causing scandal’ by appearing on TV and sending news reports that they will be refused communion if they dare enter their city gates.
And I have never seen average laypeople’s personal beliefs scrutinized in public and declared “not Catholic”/worthy of communion.
It’s not the belief, it’s the behavior, PIP. It’s the public scandal, hence the average layperson who’s not in the spotlight isn’t going to give as much scandal as someone who’s often in the news. If someone of public prominence chooses to publicly go against Church teaching, it’s an in-your-face act of defiance that the average member of the laity doesn’t engage in.
If there is any question over the state of someone’s soul, I would expect as I’ve seen in the past, the priest/bishop to approach them about it and discuss this with them and their duty as Catholics regarding Communion.
Agreed. That goes for the most famous or the most unknown member of the parish. So what do you suggest the Church do if the person defies the priest and bishop?
It’s not the priests job to daily judge the state of your soul, only the individual knows a lot of this stuff.
I agree that the priest is not my judge.
Making a big public display of it is only a display of self-righteousness rather than real concern for the lapsing Catholic.
Interesting that you point out that a priest may not judge you but that YOU may judge the motives of a priest or bishop for speaking out. Talk about hypocrisy, PIP.
I’d say that’s a pretty good assessment, Alexandra. Basically, groups like CFFC (Catholics for a Free Choice) and others confuse the laity as to whether or not it is acceptable to be a good Catholic and support abortion. Not every lay person can be on top of all Church teaching all the time, and so there is bound to be confusion. Well, most Catholics think a Bishops opinion is pretty valid and that a Bishop would not lead them astray. So if they see a pro-choice politician receiving communion from a good Bishop, it would tend to reinforce the “fact” that it is OK to be Catholic and support abortion.
Now that’s just an example to illustrate your scandal discussion above, but yeah, I think you have the basic right idea. God love you.
“If someone of public prominence chooses to publicly go against Church teaching, it’s an in-your-face act of defiance that the average member of the laity doesn’t engage in.”
See, I guess I don’t know much about Polosi. If a Catholic politician oversees a pro-choice and votes accordingly even if she thinks abortion is immoral, is she causing scandal?
“Interesting that you point out that a priest may not judge you but that YOU may judge the motives of a priest or bishop for speaking out. Talk about hypocrisy, PIP.”
Oh, the priest can judge actions, but not the state of someone’s soul.
And it is just my observation of people like Burke that they are indeed acting out in self-righteous motives.
A simple public statement like, “Pelosi by voting pro-choice, whether or not she thinks she is, is not following church doctrine on the issue and we advise her to consider this the next time she attends communion or reconciliation” would suffice.
“See, I guess I don’t know much about Polosi. If a Catholic politician oversees a pro-choice and votes accordingly even if she thinks abortion is immoral, is she causing scandal?”
Let me qualify that statement. If she oversees a pro-choice district and votes accordingly but does not do anything to publicly support abotion b/c she thinks its immoral, is she causing scandal?
Not every lay person can be on top of all Church teaching all the time, and so there is bound to be confusion.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 19, 2009 7:26 PM
But honestly Bobby, do really think it’s a matter of confusion? Or do you think they know what the Church’s teaching are and they are just choosing not to follow some. I mean don’t Catholics KNOW that the Church says abortion and birth control and IVF and sex outside of marriage and divorce are sins? And they choose them or at lease support the right to choose them themselves anyway?
A simple public statement like, “Pelosi by voting pro-choice, whether or not she thinks she is, is not following church doctrine on the issue and we advise her to consider this the next time she attends communion or reconciliation” would suffice.
In a perfect world that kind of gentleness would suffice. If only :-)
By the looks of these entries a sure way to rile up pro-aborts is to introduce the concept of authority. If anyone has teaching authority in the Catholic Church, it it the Pope. It is both his right and his duty to shepherd the flock. He was both charitable and firm with Ms. Pelosi. If the Speaker was earnest in her visit with the Pope it should not take too long for us to know.
“Theology of the Body” and “Good news about sex and marriage” should be required reading for ALL Catholics.
“A simple public statement like, “Pelosi by voting pro-choice, whether or not she thinks she is, is not following church doctrine on the issue and we advise her to consider this the next time she attends communion or reconciliation” would suffice.”
..and thats it PIP? what should be done next if she doesn’t listen? in your opinion..
He was both charitable and firm with Ms. Pelosi.
EXACTLY. Jesus wasn’t just about love and forgiveness. He was also about correction and conversion. “Go, and sin no more.”
..and thats it PIP? what should be done next if she doesn’t listen? in your opinion..
Posted by: Jasper at February 19, 2009 7:48 PM
I think what’s being said Jasper is that whatever they “do” to Pelosi for not following church doctrine they should do to every Catholic who is doing likewise… so the Church probably does’t want to “do” much
I really do think a lot of laity are confused, asitis (though I don’t think the issue of withholding communion is SOLELY about scandal). Just take a look at the CFFC website for example http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/ They really try and make it seem like Catholics can support abortion, contraception, IVF, etc etc. They create this HUGE confusion about the meaning of conscience and say that “conscience” (as the falsely define it) trumps any Church teaching. (Hence, conscience magazine) They love to take Church document quotes out of context and ignore 98% of the rest of the document in order to “prove from Church documents” that conscience is the ultimate arbitrator of morality. And when people in their hearts WANT to abort and WANT to contracept, it won’t take much to convince them that what they are doing is morally permissible according to their church.
I hear many, many callers on Catholic radio call in and tell about how they asked their parish priest if they could use contraception and he said it was up to them.
Or look at someone like Father Drinan. From Wiki
“Drinan’s consistent support of abortion rights drew significant opposition from Church leaders throughout his political career, who had also repeatedly requested that he not hold political office in the first place. [3] [1]Drinan attempted to reconcile his position with official Church doctrine by stating that while he was personally opposed to abortion, considering it “virtual infanticide,”[4] its legality was a separate issue from its morality. This argument failed to satisfy his critics. According to the Wall Street Journal, Drinan played a key role in having it accepted among the Kennedy aristocracy. [5]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Drinan
This dude had HUGE influence over people, as even wiki says he had over the Kennadys. So many Catholic intellectuals are dissenters; Daniel Maguire, Rosemary Rutherford, theologians as well as priests, and they have a lot of influence over people. I mean, this is why you can get intelligent people like Pelosi saying that the Church has never had a concensious on abortion. What???
So I really do think there is confusion among the laity; not everyone, but there are certainly some. As I mentioned, I’ve heard many people call up on Catholic radio and say that their priest or Bishop or CCD teacher or local theologian said so-and-so was OK and they believed them. So indeed, I do think it is a real issue.
The Pope’s actions were just fine. I am mainly talking about the American bishops here.
“I think what’s being said Jasper is that whatever they “do” to Pelosi for not following church doctrine they should do to every Catholic who is doing likewise… so the Church probably does’t want to “do” much”
Yes exactly. I’ll start accepting the whole “refusing communion” idea with EVERY SINGLE Catholic that steps out of line publicly on church teaching. Every single one that ends up in some sort of public realm. And that includes all of those catholic politicians that support the death penalty, torture, legal sperm/egg banks, legal birth control, and the like.
Sounds like a fun time!
(Until then, clergy should develop relationships with these politicians to guide them and if confusion arises send out some statements that clarify teachings).
Thanks Bobby. But maybe those laity really believe their interpretation. And maybe they also realize that Catholics are just going to do those things anyway ….
I agree, asitis. I very much believe that some laity believe that interpretation and also that some will just do it anyway.
“So many Catholic intellectuals are dissenters”
Bobby, there is room for dissent in the RCC; but you are right that it depends on what they are dissenting to. Theologians have to be at the cutting edge of this stuff to fully flesh out the ideas. They are not Catechists but they usually aren’t heretics either :P
PIP, Asitis,
But Pelosi has a public role in society. The decisions she makes effect many, many people.
So, there’s a difference.
Jasper, but other Catholic politicians also affect many, many people. I’m sure you agree that every one of them be scrutinized by all moral standards necessary for Catholics. If that were the case, I’d say go right ahead.
“Bobby, there is room for dissent in the RCC; but you are right that it depends on what they are dissenting to. Theologians have to be at the cutting edge of this stuff to fully flesh out the ideas. They are not Catechists but they usually aren’t heretics either :P”
Right, PiP. I’m not talking about everyone who has ideas that are iffy or who don’t agree on non-definitive teachings, but like the dudes who are CLEARLY teaching things contrary to the faith.
I mentioned Dan Maguire above, but an even more bizarre example of someone who dissented on theological issues (as opposed to moral) would be someone like the late Teilhard de Chardin, who had some very strange ideas and made up even stranger terminology to describe it :)
They guy was pretty kooky bobby!
**that
“I’m sure you agree that every one of them be scrutinized by all moral standards necessary for Catholics.”
Yes, I agree PIP. But not all of them are the #3 politician in the country…
But Jasper, does it matter whether they are number 3 or 30? They all have a vote.
“But Jasper, does it matter whether they are number 3 or 30? They all have a vote.”
Your right PIP. All pro-choice catholic congressmen/women should be in the same boat.
Being speaker of the house though does hold more weight when it comes to what/when bills are voted on etc…
True Jasper which is why she needs to develop a relationship with a priest or bishop; however, when it comes to speaking out against Catholic politicians that don’t hold to teachings, you shouldn’t discriminate based on party, standing, or specific teaching. Each should be scrutinized on their own.
But not all of them are the #3 politician in the country
Or #2 for that matter. Remember Biden’s standing ovation after Mass shortly before the inauguration?
Any Catholics out there know whether the USCCB task force on catholic politicians has put out any official statements recently? I can’t find anything more recent than 06.
you shouldn’t discriminate based on party
PiP, I think I’m correct in stating that in 2006 the USCCB sent every Catholic (both parties) in the House and Senate a copy of a book called Readings on Catholics and Political Life.
she needs to develop a relationship with a priest or bishop
Politicians are, well, politicians. As long as the bishops are not in unity about the correct way to handle this, then politicians will take advantage of that disunity. You can lead a horse to water (or lead a Speaker to the Pope) but you can’t make her drink.
“Remember Biden’s standing ovation after Mass shortly before the inauguration?”
Yes, I do Fed-up… sickening.
It was more a diplomatic gesture on the part of the Vatican than a counseling session between a cleric and one of his parishoners.
yor bro ken
ken, I am sorry that you feel that way. Had it simply been a diplomatic gesture then the press would have been allowed to be present to the meeting. Ms Pelosi lost out on an opportunity to be “seen” with the Holy Father via photos, which could have been used to somehow validate her position. Instead, the Holy Father did use that time to counsel and correct her, as a shepherd should, and the Vatican press immediately released a statement making that very clear.
Personally I don’t really care if the Church makes a big show of denying communion to people. Go for it! Make people aware of what you stand for — whether you consider it a positive or negative thing to stand for depends on your view, but IMO either way it’s better than being all squishy and deceptive about your position. Maybe fewer people will be open to the idea of Catholicism as a result, but more of the people who are open to it will probably be open to what it actually is, as opposed to just what they think it is. Honestly I don’t even have a problem with too many of the Church’s individual behavior requirements, more just the general beliefs, ie that there is a God and it’s the God they say it is.
Really the thing I dislike most about when the Church gets really vocal about something is that it means that people associate the rest of us who also behave or believe the same things with the Church. I have no religious reasons for avoiding birth control but — on the rare occasions the topic comes up — people automatically assume I’m religious and that they’ve thus been offending me with every swear and pro-Obama comment they’ve made over the course of our relationship, or something. But that’s a pretty minor complaint, and I don’t care enough about it to differentiate myself from the religion by changing my behavior or anything. ;)
“Make people aware of what you stand for — whether you consider it a positive or negative thing to stand for depends on your view, but IMO either way it’s better than being all squishy and deceptive about your position. Maybe fewer people will be open to the idea of Catholicism as a result, but more of the people who are open to it will probably be open to what it actually is, as opposed to just what they think it is.”
Alexandra, that is an excellent point. The RCC has never defined truth based on opinion polls.
“. I have no religious reasons for avoiding birth control but — on the rare occasions the topic comes up — people automatically assume I’m religious…”
Faith and reason are not mutually exclusively as the late great JPII has written. Scientific knowledge when pursued ethically and responsibly ultimately leads to the truth whose source is God.
Not trying to force you onto the “religious” side, Alexandra, but just trying to point out how reason can bring opposing sides together to some extent. :)
My husband’s grandmother, who died several years ago at 95, was known far and wide as a devout Catholic woman who attended Mass pretty much every day. When we asked her about abortion, she said she was pro-choice. My husband pointed out that the Pope said that position was contrary to Catholic teaching. Nana said, “Oh well, that’s just the Pope. I don’t really care what HE says about it.” I have a feeling that attitude characterizes a LOT of American Catholics even if they appear devoted to the church.
I am pretty sure the Church has the most to lose here if it wants to keep American Catholics in the pews (especially if the Church were to start clamping down on birth control).
The church should teach the doctrine, and not worry about keeping people in the church. Thats what got us into this mess in the first place. Now we have 50,000,000 dead babies on our hands.
…and that includes the cafeteria catholics in my own family.
No Jasper, the Church has no interest in “keeping people in the Church.” If she did, we would have seen her giving the go-ahead for artificial contraception years ago, as well as abortion, euthanasia, homosexual actions, “female priests”, etc. etc. progressivest’s dream etc. The Church is in the business of saving souls, not appeasing the masses. The numbers mean nothing when compared to teaching truth.
Bobby @ 1:58PM
Well said.
ditto!
well said, Bobby!
It’s always great when non-Catholics and bitter ex-Catholics talk about what the Catholic Church should do.
Look, it’s very simple. If you actually read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you will find that there are few sins you can commit that are as evil as abortion. Support for the Death Penalty is not even necessarily a sin (read the Catechism), while taking part in abortion results in AUTOMATIC EXCOMMUNICATION (read the Catechism).
Pelosi is not just a proud, public sinner, she even had the gall to go on national TV and tell the world that Catholic teaching on human life is arbitrary. She crossed that church/state line and presumed to speak for the bishops. If that’s not “scandal”, then the word has no meaning.
Furthermore, if you know what St. Paul wrote about Communion (read the Bible), you will see that a person who partakes of Communion unworthily EATS AND DRINKS DAMNATION UPON HIMSELF. In other words, Pelosi is condemning herself every time she presents herself for the Eucharist. So if you want Pelosi to burn in Hell, then complain about the bishops telling her to avoid Communion. However, if you don’t want Pelosi to burn in Hell, then you should agree with the bishops who say that she should avoid Communion until she repents.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at February 20, 2009 9:02 AM
ken, I am sorry that you feel that way. Had it simply been a diplomatic gesture then the press would have been allowed to be present to the meeting. Ms Pelosi lost out on an opportunity to be “seen” with the Holy Father via photos, which could have been used to somehow validate her position. Instead, the Holy Father did use that time to counsel and correct her, as a shepherd should, and the Vatican press immediately released a statement making that very clear.
——————————————————–
Eileen #2
I did not intend to denigrate either the process of the Pope.
My point was that I doubt that Madam Pelosi would have been able to get an audience with the Pope if she had not been the Speakier of the House of Representatives. The Pope’s interaction with her was more as meeting between heads of state than a pastor and a member of his congregation.
As I have read the commentary, it seems the absence of photos, which are the norm for a ‘state visit’ was an in your face rejection by the Pope and the Vatican of Pelosi’s attempt to use the occasion as a political photo opprotunity. The Pope was almost obligated to meet with the Speaker of the House, but he was not obliged to dance to her tune. She requested an audience with him. He was calling the steps.
If I misunderstood or miswrote please forgive me. I mean no disrspect……….. except to Madam Pelosi.
Someone earlier referred to Madam Pelossi as ‘stupid’. That is an intemperate thing to say.
You have insulted stupid peopel everyhwere and should aplogize immediately.
yor bro ken
oh,ken, I am sorry that I misunderstood your post — thanks for clarifying.
I have since heard that ms pelosi went ahead and put her own spin (lied) on the meeting. These people are intent upon outdoing themselves in stooping to even lower levels.
I respected John Paul II as a man and as a fellow believer based on the totality of his lifes work. He was a brilliant mind. He was a man of moral clarity and the courage of his convictions as demonstrated by his life.
Because he was ‘human’ I know he was not ‘perfect’. But he seemed to try to do the right thing as he understood it. He was not inconsistent.
I have to confess I know vert little about the presiding Pope. I have not seen his metal tested yet. Time will tell. But like the President the office he holds is to be respected regardless of the person who holds it.
Some one wiser than the pope once said to judge the tree by the enduring fruit it produces.
That sounds like pretty good advice to me.
yor bro ken
I am so glad the Pope reminded Pelosi of the dignity of human life. She has been so smug and righteous about her abortion stance and I have been humiliated that she calls herself a Catholic. I am also glad the Pope decided not to be photographed with her since she has gone out of her way to misstate Catholic Doctrine this year. Her version of why it is OK to be pro-abortion is heartbreaking. Here this woman has 5 kids and many wonderful grandchildren. She knows the joy of family and she makes it her business to support the evil of abortion for others. I think that the Catholic Bishops should speak out often to criticize the trend that our Catholic politicians have for voting pro-abortion. Even in a fairly Catholic city where Democrats that are pro-life could be elected, like Chicago, Democrats run as pro-abortion candidates. I think they are very hypocritical to personally be against abortion, but then push it in their voting record.
Hi Eileen F.! I just read yesterday in The National Catholic Register in an article by Kathryn Jean Lopez that Nancy Pelosi as much as states that she does not believe in the Real Presence. Is it any wonder then, that she misrepresents Church teaching? When one rejects what is the source and summit of our faith then the rest of one’s beliefs dissolve into nothing.
the issue is not for Ms. Pelosi to enforce the Church’s stance on abortion on all people. BUT she cannot call herself Catholic and vote for abortion. She needs to separate herself as a Catholic due to her pro-abort stance. It is her unwillingness to stand for the most helpless among us, is what makes her stance as a “Catholic” disingenuous and maybe even heretical.
Raymond Arroyo interviewed Bishop Robert Baker on the World Over Live Friday night and addressed the issue of Church heirarchy intervening with pro-abort “Catholic” politicians. It was a very interesting program that some of you might like to catch on EWTN this week. EWTN.com is still running last week’s show in their archive.