Bishop on Nancy Pelosi:

[fix]

This is a popular argument, but nonetheless, ridiculous. It is the responsibility of our government to maintain order. Laws against rape, murder, theft, speeding, and the like are for that purpose. It is our responsibility as Christians to promote moral behavior.

All laws are based in some form of morality. Even so called order is accepting there is a right way and wrong way to maintain society.

The question is not whether woman should chose life, a teen should remain chaste, or a Catholic should attend mass. The answers to these (for us, at least), are obvious. The real question, then, is why.

What does that mean? Why should we outlaw murder? I hope the answer is self evident.

2273 "The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81

 

[Thadd1]

We recognize that rape is immoral, not just against ‘maintaining order’, and thus make it illegal.

We can historically see cultures that allowed for forced concubinage, which is a type of rape. But those societies were also able to maint ‘order’. So clearly laws against rape are not required, per se, to maintain socilogical order. But we have them none the less.

Slavery and concubinage give way to kidnapping, assault, rape and murder. Because of this, it is disorderly, and thereby (in most countries) illegal. The fact that it is also immoral is, to put it simply, coincidence.

If you read in the paper about such a society, how would you feel? Whould you objection be moralily based ( on the principle of human rights), or would it be based on ‘order’?

I would object on both accounts. Whether or not it is legal, it is still immoral.

Abortion and contraception violate the natural order, but are not, as far as society goes, disorderly. Therefore, it is our responsibility to curb this destructive behavior through education, intervention, and prayer. It is not the place of government to do our jobs for us, nor would I ask them to.

Does the fact that such concubinage would be legal in that country have a bearing on if it is moral or not?

Absolutely not. We both agree that even though abortion is legal, it is surely immoral.

But the 19thCentury Abolitionists advocated against slavery on MORAL grounds. And quite correctly so; no personal opinion, no law can override basic human rights.

I agree, and they were right. But, Lincoln freed the slaves to restore order and unity to a divided nation at war with itself. The fact that his decision satisfied the abolitionists and was morally right was, once again, coincidence.

Demanding that our government carry out our duty as Christians is a dangerous proposition. That path leads to what will eventually be a theocracy. To find examples of how dangerous theocracy is, we don’t have to reach back to the Middle Ages, but rather turn our eyes to the Middle East.

Theocracy aside, it also seems that our law enforcement has its hands full catching drug dealers, serial killers, and bank robbers. Let’s not begin demanding that they start rounding up doctors and unwed mothers as well.

 

[fix]

I find it beyond belief you fail to see that aborted children are innocent lives. Are they less valuable to society?

 

[Thadd1]

I think we can all agree that innocent lives are being taken in abortions. The issue, then, is who should save these lives. I believe that we, as christians, are obligated to save them through prayer, intervention, and education (as I said in an earlier post). We must not shirk these duties by demanding that our government outlaw disagreement with us.

Sure, it would be much easier for all of us if abortion were made illegal. It would also be much easier if the government sent people to my home to wash my dishes, cook my meals, and do my laundry. But personally, I will not demand the government do the work assigned to me.

 

[fix]

I think we can all agree that innocent lives are being taken in abortions.

Great. Now, why would you think the government should not prohibit such terrible things?

The issue, then, is who should save these lives.

As the CCC shows us the government, which ultimately derives its authority from God, has an obligation to interevene and protect life.

I believe that we, as christians, are obligated to save them through prayer, intervention, and education (as I said in an earlier post). We must not shirk these duties by demanding that our government outlaw disagreement with us.

Prayer is important, but it is not exclusive to all other things we must do.

Sure, it would be much easier for all of us if abortion were made illegal. It would also be much easier if the government sent people to my home to wash my dishes, cook my meals, and do my laundry. But personally, I will not demand the government do the work assigned to me.

I am sorry but that is absurd. It is not about usurping our duty. It is about the fact government must protect innocent lives. This is consistent with the natural law. While government cannot outlaw all forms of vice, government can and must protect life as that is the most basic element in society.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I think we can all agree that innocent lives are being taken in abortions. The issue, then, is who should save these lives. I believe that we, as christians, are obligated to save them through prayer, intervention, and education (as I said in an earlier post). We must not shirk these duties by demanding that our government outlaw disagreement with us.

Sure, it would be much easier for all of us if abortion were made illegal. It would also be much easier if the government sent people to my home to wash my dishes, cook my meals, and do my laundry. But personally, I will not demand the government do the work assigned to me.

Thadd, there is some wisdom in what you say. We should not demand that the government do the work assigned to you by Christ. Each and every day we should be walking and talking a Gospel message to everyone we meet. I couldn’t agree more.

But in your wisdom, you need to understand that WE formed government to assist us in what needs to be done. We did this so that certain things are done by vigilantes (those who intervene as you say above).

We have child welfare laws so that we don’t have vigilante’s seizing kids from abusive homes. We have anti-discrimination laws so that there aren’t vigilantes aren’t doing something (I can’t imagine actually what an individual can do to protect but vigilantes are by nature pretty creative) to protect peoples individual rights.

Along the same line of thinking, we can’t have vigilante’s going out to save soon to be aborted babies. You yourself say that innocent life is being taken but you seem to think it is about education.

Do we rely solely on education to protect abused children? Do we rely solely on education to protect people’s individual rights? Why is it rational to rely on education solely to protect unborn babies?

By the way, yes we should have prayer. But sometimes Christ expects us to provide a little temporal elbow grease.

 

[Thadd1]

As the CCC shows us the government, which ultimately derives its authority from God.

Some governments do derive their authority from God (Vatican City, for example). America’s, however derives its authority from men. To avoid insulting the intelligence of those in this forum, I won’t give examples of evil men in government.

The assumption that America’s government derives authority from God is simply illogical. If it did, then abortion would already be illegal.

 

[fix]

Some governments do derive their authority from God (Vatican City, for example). America’s, however derives its authority from men. To avoid insulting the intelligence of those in this forum, I won’t give examples of evil men in government.

That men do evil does not prove lawful authority of the state does not come ultimately from God. There are evil men in the Vatican as well at times.

1. Moreover, the highest duty is to respect authority, and obediently to submit to just law; and by this the members of a community are effectually protected from the wrong-doing of evil men. Lawful power is from God, "and whosoever resisteth authority resisteth the ordinance of God’ ;(6)
   vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html

The assumption that America’s government derives authority from God is simply illogical. If it did, then abortion would already be illegal.

It seems you misunderstand my point. God is not ruling American by fiat. The power and authority civil authorties use is from God. That it is misused does not mean all just laws are not ultimately derived from God as all truth is from God.

Now, that unjust laws exist is a fact of life. They should be revoked and replaced with just laws. Laws that allow abortion are unjust, contary to the natural moral law, and contrary to Christ’s teaching as is taught through His Church which I have posted above from the CCC.

 

[Thadd1]

Along the same line of thinking, we can’t have vigilante’s going out to save soon to be aborted babies. You yourself say that innocent life is being taken but you seem to think it is about education.

Do we rely solely on education to protect abused children? Do we rely solely on education to protect people’s individual rights? Why is it rational to rely on education solely to protect unborn babies?

I would shy away from words like “vigilante” in our quest to protect the unborn, as it implies disorderly conduct, and such conduct would be so hypocritical that any good done would be undone by the evil means used to do it.

We created government to protect the rights of individuals after they are born, because violence disrupts the order of society. But, there seems to be some confusion, even among people who “know”, on whether or not life begins at conception. Because of this scientific confusion, our government does not find abortion to be disorderly. This is where education is crucial.

 

[Fitz]

Link

Here is what Alexandra Pelosi has been up to with her added interest in religion and making fun of conservative Christians.
onenewsnow.com/2007/02/pelosi_accused_of_attacking_ev.php

 

[Thadd1]

The power and authority civil authorties use is from God.

One can argue that all things and ideas come from God in one way or another, since He is the creator of all things.

As for the power that civil authorities use, it is more or less granted by those who obey it. The proof of such, is in the motivation of those who obey. I pull over for police officers because I trust them to maintain the order that keeps us all safe. The fact that I have a moral obligation to do so is merely coincidence.

I wrote on such motivations in my first post. I do not harm others, because it is morally wrong to do so. The fact that it is also illegal to harm others is also coincidence. Such laws exist to protect us from those who have not established, for one reason or another, the values that we have.

How does this relate to abortion? Those who consider abortion have obviously different values from ours (or none at all). While it would be much more convenient to ask the police to handle these individuals, realistically, this will probably not happen any time soon (if at all). This is why we must spend as much energy as possible convincing others that all life is precious, and begins at conception.

 

[fix]

One can argue that all things and ideas come from God in one way or another, since He is the creator of all things.

Yes, but that is not the argument here. We obey just authority and just laws because they are all from Christ.

As for the power that civil authorities use, it is more or less granted by those who obey it.

No, it is from God. Why do you think the CCC says:

**2238 **Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts: “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God.” Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.

The proof of such, is in the motivation of those who obey. I pull over for police officers because I trust them to maintain the order that keeps us all safe. The fact that I have a moral obligation to do so is merely coincidence.

That is a shame. You should obey as the Lord asks us, not as simply a coincidence because you subscribe to some philosophical view.

I wrote on such motivations in my first post. I do not harm others, because it is morally wrong to do so. The fact that it is also illegal to harm others is also coincidence. Such laws exist to protect us from those who have not established, for one reason or another, the values that we have.

1959 The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.

How does this relate to abortion? Those who consider abortion have obviously different values from ours (or none at all). While it would be much more convenient to ask the police to handle these individuals, realistically, this will probably not happen any time soon (if at all). This is why we must spend as much energy as possible convincing others that all life is precious, and begins at conception.

We must to it all. To deprive one part of the population the right to life is contrary to right reason, the natural moral law, and human dignity. Civil law must not contradict the natural moral law. That is not only a religious position it is consistent with logic.

 

[Lance]

It boils down to this. If mz. Pelosi were a member of a private club that had a dress rule for dinner that said that men must wear a coat and tie and that women must wear a dress no more than 2 inches above the knee and she showed up in shorts and a halter top she would not be allowed in. The church has rules, if she does not follow them why should she be allowed to eat there.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I would shy away from words like “vigilante” in our quest to protect the unborn, as it implies disorderly conduct, and such conduct would be so hypocritical that any good done would be undone by the evil means used to do it.

We created government to protect the rights of individuals after they are born, because violence disrupts the order of society. But, there seems to be some confusion, even among people who “know”, on whether or not life begins at conception. Because of this scientific confusion, our government does not find abortion to be disorderly. This is where education is crucial.

We created government to protect the rights of individuals. Unless your Constitution says something different than mine, there is no delineation between individuals born or unborn.

And we didn’t always do so very well as we for many years abused the rights of Native Americans, Blacks and immigrants. Right now we are not doing so very well with the unborn and in some cases the adult infirm.

You yourself said that innocent life is being taken. To use your logic, it would be defensible to not have laws protecting Native Americans, Blacks and immigrants and rely just on “education.”

Secondly, you said that the answer includes intervention. To use your logic, the Underground Railroad (illegal intervention) was preferable to the Emancipation Proclamation, Catholic and other Christian missionaries giving shelter and refuge to Indians (providing illegal sanctuary) was preferrable to the Indian Treaties, and a St. Vincent dePaul financed diaspora of Immigrants (intervention of necessity) to rural, unsettled areas was preferrable to legal protection. Today, you maybe think it was ok to intern Japanese Americans or would be ok to intern Muslim Americans.

If you believe that the government should defend your right to own property, you have a moral obligation believe the government should defend the right of all your neighbors to own property. If you believe the government should defend your right to life, you have a moral obligation to defend the right to life of all people.

Too often the argument is made that we believe that the unborn is life because of religious views, and thus we are inflicting our religious views on others. Using this logic, if my belief that Blacks should have the right liberty because of my religious convictions, I shouldn’t inflict my views on those who believe otherwise with regards to Blacks.

The basis of my conclusion is irrelevant to my moral obligation to advocate legal protection. This is where moral obligation is derived- my own conscience.

Furthermore, in our Declaration of Indepence and Consitution it refers to certain rights that are inalienable (can’t be denied even by a super-majority of the electors). Life is one of them.

The most egregious problem with our current abortion law is that the question is never “is this unborn baby ‘life’.” The question is avoided. It isn’t about what a super-majority think, a simple majority or even what the mother thinks. Life is defined by something that transcends individuals or a collection of individuals.

While individual scientists might argue about whether or not an unborn baby is life, physical evidence is that it is human life by all practical definitions. It can live outside the womb with proper medical care or the care of the mother (a severely injured adult also only lives with proper medical care or the care of other people). If I deny care to my disabled mother in my home, I will be prosecuted. It has all the characteristics of human life (26 Chromosones). And with the passage of time, it will be able to function as only humans can. It can’t do and never will be able to do what fish or frogs can do. We don’t say that an injured person who can’t walk, talk, eat or breathe is no longer a person. We recognize that these are just “circumstances” but it doesn’t deny or change their personhood. Why would we say since the unborn can not yet do these things but will in the future deny or change their personhood?

In summary, if you believe that your life should be defended but not that of another person (unborn, born and healthy, or born and incapacitated), you are no different from those who didn’t think that the rights of Native Americans, Blacks and immigrants weren’t worthy of legal protection.

 

[Lance]

In summary, if you believe that your life should be defended but not that of another person (unborn, born and healthy, or born and incapacitated), you are no different from those who didn't think that the rights of Native Americans, Blacks and immigrants weren't worthy of legal protection.

Well said!:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[otjm]

And should follow it up with excommunication for both Pelosis if they don’t recant. Now, that would be something!

He has no jurisidictional authority over them. As in, he is not their bishop.

 

[Teelynn]

What would Jesus do in this situation? To me, I think the only job Catholics have in this situation is simply warn those that abortion, same sex marriage, etc., are wrong…and leave at that. Jesus commanded us to preach to the nations. He told his disciples, as they went door to door, to do just that. If the person rejects however, then we are to shake the dust off our feet and move on. We can give the Truth, but it’s up to the individual to accept it. It would be great to have anti-abortion laws, but then again, that would infringe on free will.

Should Nancy Pelosi receive communion? What about you? Is any of us worthy of receiving Christ? I ask because many people doesn’t want her to because of her political stance. Before you judge whether or not someone should receive communion, examine your own conscience.

Peace and God Bless

That is up to Nancy P. and God whether or not she should receive communion, but I think the Bishop is simply stating the “True Catholic Church’s” stance on the issue. It’s refreshing to see a clergy of the Church point out what’s right and what’s wrong. Let’s face it, true Catholic teaching, and what’s considered “sin” hasn’t been preached from alot of our pulpits for a very long time.

 

[Brendan]

Slavery and concubinage give way to kidnapping, assault, rape and murder. Because of this, it is disorderly, and thereby (in most countries) illegal. The fact that it is also immoral is, to put it simply, coincidence…

Thadd,

You keep using that term “disorderly” and seem to be oblivious to that fact that it too is a Moral term.

“Disorderly” indicates that the behaviour is not desired. The very determination if right behavior or wrong behavior is entirely a moral judegment.

Murder and Rape are disorderly BECAUSE
they are immoral. They are wrong (immoral) behavior.

Abortion is the same. It is immoral, therefore it is ‘disorderly’

I would challege you to define the term ‘disorderly’ is such a way as it is not making subjective moral judgements on the behavior.

And if we can outlaw murder based on a subjective moral judgement, why not abortion as well

 

[Ham1]

That is up to Nancy P. and God whether or not she should receive communion, but I think the Bishop is simply stating the “True Catholic Church’s” stance on the issue. It’s refreshing to see a clergy of the Church point out what’s right and what’s wrong. Let’s face it, true Catholic teaching, and what’s considered “sin” hasn’t been preached from alot of our pulpits for a very long time.

It’s also up to the Bishop whether to admit her to communion or not. Under canon 915, it would be perfectly acceptable to refuse communion to a pro-abortion politician. Even better, the bishop could follow the actions of Archbishop Hughes in the 1960’s and excommunicate pro-abortion politicians.

 

[iserve]

*If the person rejects however, then we are to shake the dust off our feet and move on.

*And the best way to get the dust off your feet is to sweep it right out the door to mingle with all that other dust!