Bishop on Nancy Pelosi:

[Thadd1]

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

I define “disorderly conduct” as action that would threaten the rights of any given person in a society, but more specifically, threaten the safety of the members of said society. For example, there is a law in my state that requires an individual to take a 30 minute break after 6 hours of work. The law wasn’t written because it is immoral to work for seven hours without thirty minutes of rest, but rather because it would be statistically unsafe to do so.

The question, then, is “Who is a member of society? Who is eligible to receive the protection of our government?” Of course, we believe that life begins at conception, so one becomes human at that exact moment.

It is easy to determine that the other people we speak about on this thread (Blacks, Native Americans, the elderly, etc) are human. We can see and interact with them person. It is not so easy with the unborn. For every thousand scientists who agree with us, there are a thousand more who disagree. The people we are speaking of, and trying to protect, are sometimes no bigger than a lima bean, and cannot, at that stage, live outside their mothers’ womb. Having no scientific credentials, if one were to say that the baby is actually a member of society and deserves rights, implies faith. Faith, of course, is tantamount to religion, and (lets be honest with ourselves), religion does not have a good track record in the field of science (see – sun revolves around earth).

With this in mind, our government is not inclined to believe any religion’s view on science. Since abortions take place with the full consent of all parties (that the government deems human) involved, it is not seen as disorderly.

Now, on to Ms. Pelosi, who is in quite a pickle. To describe our government simply, we have a representative democracy. We elect people who will speak on our behalf, and share our views. Ms. Pelosi was elected by a constituency that, by its very election of her, is pro-choice. She is however, Catholic. If she votes against pro-life legislation, she would be subject to excommunication (CCC 2272) – and rightfully so. If she votes for or introduces pro-live legislation, it would be an abuse of power and she would probably be voted out of office – and rightfully so. This is the interesting thing about democracy – it looks wonderful on paper to give the people the ability to choose the leaders they want, but you probably won’t like what happens.

 

[Thadd1]

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.

To clarify my usage of the term “intervention”, I used it in the same context that a family would intervene when one of its members had a problem with drugs, alcohol, illicit sex, or any other vice.

For the record, however, the Indian Treaties never worked out very well for the Indians, and was probably a poor example.

 

[chevalier]

My mother, throughout her entire life, has been faithful o the Church, even though the Church has not been that faithful to her because of her politics. And I think that takes a lot of perseverance. And still, people protest her right to go to her own church."

What a load of err… poor logic!

The assumption the daughter makes is that politics are outside of the scope of morality and whatever falls under politics should not be judged morally. That’s a core precept of relativism, an ideology opposed to the Church’s view of there being absolute truth and objective morality, for all I can say.

Additionally, opposing the teaching publicly is not being faithful to the teaching. Not being faithful to the teaching is not being faithful to the Church. Is there a willing fallacy there or just wishful thinking? Whatever. It’s poor logic.

 

[kangnamdragon]

Bishop Vasa is my parents’ bishop. He’s great. He gave a lecture to a parish because they were complaining that their priest is conservative and follows the rules. We need more bishops to bring on the “smack down” and give some tough love to the people.

 

[chevalier]

Bishop Vasa is my parents’ bishop. He’s great. He gave a lecture to a parish because they were complaining that their priest is conservative and follows the rules.

Wow!

 

[KatieD]

He sounds like a great bishop - we should have more like him!

Apparently Ms. Pelosi (the daughter) either went to a very odd Catholic school or didn’t learn very well. Her mother’s very public role in advocating abortion is certainly not being faithful to the Church. And what in the world is meant by the Church not being faithful to her because of her politics? SHE is supposed to be faithful to the Church. People don’t protest her right to attend her Church, they protest her extremely outspoken defiance of the Church while holding herself up as a faithful Catholic.

 

[joeganshert]

People don’t protest her right to attend her Church, they protest her extremely outspoken defiance of the Church while holding herself up as a faithful Catholic.

I really hate to judge her, but I feel that her “holding herself up as a faithful Catholic” is just a political gimic to get votes from social conservatives.

 

[m134e5]

Alexandra was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle on January 17 as saying that according to her Catholic school education neither abortion nor homosexuality were wrong, “They were just choices.”

Hell is not wrong either. No one should go there, but it’s there for a reason. “It’s just a choice”. I pray those who taught in that Catholic School change their minds before their “choice” gets them somewhere they don’t want to be.

 

[KatieD]

I would really like to know what Catholic school this woman attended and whether this is what she was actually taught at the school. The administration of the school should speak up and either confirm or deny these assertions. It sounds more like Pelosi learned about these “choices” at home, not at school.

 

[mdgspencer]

I’m amazed that some people at a Catholic forum say that abortion should be kept legal. I wonder how many of these people are Catholics? I hope none of them are.

 

[Transformer]

Thadd1:

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.

Then why was slavery outlawed? That system worked quite well for the American South. It certainly wasn’t disorderly. Society functioned well with slavery in place.

No, the only reason slavery was made illegal is because it is a clear human rights violation.

Thadd1:

There have been laws in place to force us to mass, force our teens to chastity, and force our women to choose life. These no longer exist, because it was not our government’s responsibility to legislate morality, nor should it be.

Those three things are not at all in the same category. To choose life over violence and death is an obligation - not just for a moral society, but for an orderly one, too. So even if your argument had any merit, it would itself lead to the conclusion that abortion ought to be illegal.

Thadd1:

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.

Asinine and dangerous nonsense. Do you really believe that there’s no connection between immorality and a lack of proper order?

Not to mention the fact that you seriously claim that slavery was made illegal only because it was disorderly. It was made illegal because it was a heinous violation of human rights. No one who honestly looks at history will claim otherwise. And that’s just fine in a secular society - you don’t need religion to recognize the existence of inherent human rights.

Besides, you have yet to say anything which even suggests that something like slavery was disorderly. It worked just fine for slave owners. In what sense was it “disorderly?”

And abortion does result in suffering, disorder, and strife.

Thadd1:

That path leads to what will eventually be a theocracy.

Such an assertion would be laughable if not for the sobering fact that the attitude it represents leads to the legal slaughter of innocents.

Morality is not the same as religion; you do not need religion for morality. An atheist may not be able to explain where objective, absolute human rights come from, but he can easily recognize and defend them.

A society that protects human rights is not necessarily a theocracy. The very idea is preposterous.

Thadd1:

We created government to protect the rights of individuals after they are born, because violence disrupts the order of society.

A) After they are born? Says who? Putting qualiications on which human beings have rights leads to suffering, the rationalization of evil, and yes - disorder.

b) Abortion is part of the “violence [that] disrupts the order of society.”

Thadd1:

I define “disorderly conduct” as action that would threaten the rights of any given person in a society, but more specifically, threaten the safety of the members of said society.

Great. Then you yourself just proved that abortion is disorderly - it threatens the most fundamental human right of an entire class of people who are incapable of defending themselves.

 

[Transformer]

The unborn are people who are a part of our society, too. You address this very point yourself:

The question, then, is “Who is a member of society? Who is eligible to receive the protection of our government?” It is easy to determine that the other people we speak about on this thread (Blacks, Native Americans, the elderly, etc) are human. We can see and interact with them person. It is not so easy with the unborn. For every thousand scientists who agree with us, there are a thousand more who disagree.

Untrue. The most sophisticated abortion advocates admit what you and I already know - that even a one-celled human zygote is

a) alive
b) of the species homo sapien sapien.

Science conclusively proves that any other dividing line concerning the beginning of human life besides conception is arbitrary, political, and dehumanizing.

Having no scientific credentials, if one were to say that the baby is actually a member of society and deserves rights, implies faith.

No, it doesn’t. Logic shows us that there are only three ways to justify abortion:

1. Prove that the unborn - at any stage - are not alive.
2. Prove that the unborn are not human.
3. Reject the idea that there are human rights that can be violated.

Science is conclusively against the first two - as even the most rabid abortion supporter will admit (if they’re not ignorant), and no one I know of seriously claims #3.

Faith, of course, is tantamount to religion, and (lets be honest with ourselves), religion does not have a good track record in the field of science (see – sun revolves around earth).

That the unborn are living humans (human organisms made of living cells) is not something that need be taken on faith, as countless people have demonstrated.

Once again, morality is not the same thing as religion. The only religious “faith” that is required for a person to know that abortion is wrong is that there are implicit human rights. Not even abortion advocates deny that.

With this in mind, our government is not inclined to believe any religion’s view on science. Since abortions take place with the full consent of all parties (that the government deems human) involved, it is not seen as disorderly.

It’s not a matter of “any religion’s view on science.” The science itself is conclusive. Abortion advocates admit this. I read an abortion debate in a major news magazine a few years ago between two well-educated individuals. The pro-choice advocate answered the question “Are the unborn alive?” by saying, “Well, technically, even a tumor is alive.”

Now, on to Ms. Pelosi, who is in quite a pickle. To describe our government simply, we have a representative democracy. We elect people who will speak on our behalf, and share our views. Ms. Pelosi was elected by a constituency that, by its very election of her, is pro-choice. She is however, Catholic. If she votes against pro-life legislation, she would be subject to excommunication (CCC 2272) – and rightfully so. If she votes for or introduces pro-live legislation, it would be an abuse of power and she would probably be voted out of office – and rightfully so. This is the interesting thing about democracy – it looks wonderful on paper to give the people the ability to choose the leaders they want, but you probably won’t like what happens.

Well said.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

Great reply, Transformer.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)

 

[Jaypeeto3]

**Now, on to Ms. Pelosi, who is in quite a pickle. To describe our government simply, we have a representative democracy. We elect people who will speak on our behalf, and share our views. Ms. Pelosi was elected by a constituency that, by its very election of her, is pro-choice. She is however, Catholic. If she votes against pro-life legislation, she would be subject to excommunication (CCC 2272) – and rightfully so. If she votes for or introduces pro-live legislation, it would be an abuse of power and she would probably be voted out of office – **

Which brings us directly to another question,
What does Ms. Pelosi love more?
Her political career?
Or her Lord and Savior?

 

[vern_humphrey]

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.

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.

There have been laws in place to force us to mass, force our teens to chastity, and force our women to choose life. These no longer exist, because it was not our government’s responsibility to legislate morality, nor should it be.

If one is chaste, attends mass regularly, and follows the rest of Christ’s teachings because it is illegal not to, what does that prove? Would only lawmakers and policeman go to heaven then?

Simply put, I would not look to my local sheriff for spiritual guidance any more than I would call my parish priest if someone were breaking into my home.

So if someone were breaking into your home, you would not call the sheriff? You do not think there should be a law against burglary?

And if that person were to kill a member of your family, you still would not call the sheriff? You do not think there should be a law against murder?

 

[mary_bobo]

I really hate to judge her, but I feel that her “holding herself up as a faithful Catholic” is just a political gimic to get votes from social conservatives.

This could be, but I don’t think she is deluded enough to think she is going to get any votes from conservatives, social or otherwisJMO.

 

[vern_humphrey]

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.

How do we have less of a duty to protect innocent children than we do to protect, say elderly adults?

Do you object to the laws protecting the residents of nursing homes? Or do you think the government should stay out of it and it’s your job to inspect nursing homes and patrol the halls?

 

[KatieD]

I would like to think that Pelos is in a pickle and that she might actually change her position on abortion. However, the reality is more likely that she isn’t in a pickle at all, because there are no bishops in her diocese or where she may attend in Washington that would deny her the Eucharist. We see it all too often.

 

[otjm]

I would like to think that Pelos is in a pickle and that she might actually change her position on abortion. However, the reality is more likely that she isn’t in a pickle at all, because there are no bishops in her diocese or where she may attend in Washington that would deny her the Eucharist. We see it all too often.

This issue has been disscussed on another thread at some length.

The issue was thoroughly vetted during the last presidential election, and then subsequently by the bishops as a group in consultation with Rome.

The bishop has to weigh more than one issue in the process, and one of the most difficult is that of the public backlash, by both Catholics and non-Catholics who perceive denial of Communion to a public official as a direct attempt by the Church to manipulate politics.

Many Catholics and most non-Catholics do not understand Canon Law if they are even aware of it. The issue lies within the prudential judgement of the bishops. We may not agree with the prudential judgement; or we may not be aware of what steps the bishop has taken (which are taken in private, not public), and it is possible to judge the issue without having all of the facts, and with having none of the responsiblity for the results. In other words, there are a lot of Monday Morning quarterbacks calling the plays. I understand the frustration. I do, however, also understand the hesitancy of the bishops to impose a penalty on a very small number of Communicants when they perceive the potential harm that could come to whatever influence the bishops may have in leading us through the process of dealing with the abortion issue.

South Dakota just went through the abortion issue with the attempt to make some ground, and lost the whole thing because some few wanted an all or nothing approachand used political pressure to get what they wanted. The few succeeded in getting nothing. The potential Supreme Court face off on part of the abortion issue is gone. The damage is done and we have been set back further.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The bishop has to weigh more than one issue in the process, and one of the most difficult is that of the public backlash, by both Catholics and non-Catholics who perceive denial of Communion to a public official as a direct attempt by the Church to manipulate politics.

A backlash? Like when Catholics refused to sacrifice to pagan Gods?

“[The pagans] suppose that the Christians are the cause of every public disaster, every misfortune that happens to the people. If the Tiber overflows or the Nile doesn’t, if there is a drought or an earthquake, a famine or pestilence, at once the cry goes up, ‘The Christians to the lion’.” (Tertullian 26f. cf. nn. 136, 137)