Nancy Pelosi mistates the Church's position

  • Thread starter Thread starter Confiteor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fitswimmer, as much as I firmly disagree with you on many issues I certainly would not wish you left the Church. I don’t think lukewarm Catholics should leave but they also can’t expect us to become more lukewarm to accommodate them.
 
A pro-abortion liberal feminist misrepresented Catholic teaching?!

:eek: I am SHOCKED! SHOCKED, I tell you!

😉
 
ON THE SEPARATION OF SENSE AND STATE:
A CLARIFICATION FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE CHURCH
IN NORTHERN COLORADO
To Catholics of the Archdiocese of Denver:

Catholic public leaders inconvenienced by the abortion debate tend to take a hard line in talking about the “separation of Church and state.” But their idea of eparation often seems to work one way. Infact, some officials also seem comfortable in the role of theologian. And that warrants some interest,not as a “political” issue, but as a matter of accuracy and justice.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a gifted public servant of strong convictions and many professional skills. Regrettably, knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them.

Interviewed on *Meet the Press *August 24, Speaker Pelosi was asked when human life begins. She said
the following:

*"I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time.And what I know is over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. . . St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have *an impact on the woman’s right to choose."

Since Speaker Pelosi has, in her words, studied the issue “for a long time,” she must know very well one of the premier works on the subject, Jesuit John Connery’s

Abortion:

*The Development of the **Roman Catholic Perspective *(Loyola, 1977). Here’s how Connery concludes his study:

*"The Christian tradition from the earliest days reveals a firm antiabortion attitude . . . The condemnation *
*of abortion did not depend on and was not limited in any way by theories regarding the time of *fetal animation. Even during the many centuries when Church penal and penitential practice was based on the theory of delayed animation, the condemnation of abortion was never affected by it. Whatever one would want to hold about the time of animation, or when the fetus became a human being in the strict sense of the term, abortion from the time of conception was considered wrong, and the time of animation was never looked on as a moral dividing line between permissible and impermissible abortion."

Or to put it in the blunter words of the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

*"Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God hasbestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a *human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended tocreate a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder."

Ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the
Christian tradition *overwhelmingly *held that abortion was grievously evil. In the absence of modernmedical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the unborn child might be animated or “ensouled.” But *none *diminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong.

Of course, we now know with biological certainty exactly when human life begins. Thus, today’s religious
alibis for abortion and a so-called “right to choose” are nothing more than that - *alibis *that break radically with historic Christian and Catholic belief.

Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it - hether they’re famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.

The duty of the Church and other religious communities is moral witness. The duty of the state and its officials is to serve the common good, which is always rooted in moral truth. A proper understanding of the “separation of Church and state” does not imply a separation of faith from political life. But of course, it’s always important to know what our faith actually teaches.

Archbishop Chaput
August 25, 2008
 
While we’re at it emailing Pelosi about her stupidity, why not email the bishop of Biden’s diocese and ask him why he’s not doing something to fight the scandal caused by Biden being plastered all over tv going to Sunday mass while still supporting pro-choice, anti-church policies?
 
estesbob said:
ON THE SEPARATION OF SENSE AND STATE:
A CLARIFICATION FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE CHURCH
IN NORTHERN COLORADO
To Catholics of the Archdiocese of Denver:

Catholic public leaders inconvenienced by the abortion debate tend to take a hard line in talking about the “separation of Church and state.” But their idea of eparation often seems to work one way. Infact, some officials also seem comfortable in the role of theologian. And that warrants some interest,not as a “political” issue, but as a matter of accuracy and justice.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a gifted public servant of strong convictions and many professional skills. Regrettably, knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them.

Interviewed on *Meet the Press *August 24, Speaker Pelosi was asked when human life begins. She said
the following:

*"I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time.And what I know is over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. . . St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have *an impact on the woman’s right to choose."

Since Speaker Pelosi has, in her words, studied the issue “for a long time,” she must know very well one of the premier works on the subject, Jesuit John Connery’s

Abortion:

*The Development of the **Roman Catholic Perspective *(Loyola, 1977). Here’s how Connery concludes his study:

*"The Christian tradition from the earliest days reveals a firm antiabortion attitude . . . The condemnation *
*of abortion did not depend on and was not limited in any way by theories regarding the time of *fetal animation. Even during the many centuries when Church penal and penitential practice was based on the theory of delayed animation, the condemnation of abortion was never affected by it. Whatever one would want to hold about the time of animation, or when the fetus became a human being in the strict sense of the term, abortion from the time of conception was considered wrong, and the time of animation was never looked on as a moral dividing line between permissible and impermissible abortion."

Or to put it in the blunter words of the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

*"Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God hasbestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a *human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended tocreate a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder."

Ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the
Christian tradition *overwhelmingly *held that abortion was grievously evil. In the absence of modernmedical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the unborn child might be animated or “ensouled.” But *none *diminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong.

Of course, we now know with biological certainty exactly when human life begins. Thus, today’s religious
alibis for abortion and a so-called “right to choose” are nothing more than that - *alibis *that break radically with historic Christian and Catholic belief.

Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it - hether they’re famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.

The duty of the Church and other religious communities is moral witness. The duty of the state and its officials is to serve the common good, which is always rooted in moral truth. A proper understanding of the “separation of Church and state” does not imply a separation of faith from political life. But of course, it’s always important to know what our faith actually teaches.

Archbishop Chaput
August 25, 2008
Click to expand...
Wow!
 
Just saw this thread, and I was supprised that no one has commented on Rush and what he said.\

He played the Pelosi clips, and said quite bluntly that she is either lying about her study of Church History, or she studied, and now purposely is misrepresenting what the Church teaches.

Rush went on to say that the Catholic Church has said no to all abortion since at least 70AD !!👍

Further he said that not even Kerry or Kennedy is so stupid as to “speak for the Church”. But Pelosi is now showing what kind of Catholic she really is.

GO RUSH

.
 
MrS said:
Just saw this thread, and I was supprised that no one has commented on Rush and what he said.\

He played the Pelosi clips, and said quite bluntly that she is either lying about her study of Church History, or she studied, and now purposely is misrepresenting what the Church teaches.

Rush went on to say that the Catholic Church has said no to all abortion since at least 70AD !!👍

Further he said that not even Kerry or Kennedy is so stupid as to “speak for the Church”. But Pelosi is now showing what kind of Catholic she really is.

GO RUSH

.
Click to expand...
I do not believe that Rush Limbaugh is a Catholic. But even a Baptist who knows anything about the Catholic Church knows it has always been against abortion.
 
No, Rush is not Catholic. But he gets it right when he talks about this issue.

If you are going to take people to task for misrepresenting the Church position, can’t you give kudos to those who get it right?

Does someone HAVE to be Catholic to speak at all? Sometimes I wonder about that. It seems that when a non-Catholic source is offered, many on these boards will caution against it, as if anything that does not come from an explicitly Catholic source has no value at all. What a narrow and prejudiced view.
 
Confiteor said:
on when life begins and as a self-proclaimed “ardent, practicing Catholic” offers up contraception as the solution to abortion.

From her Meet the Press interview with Tom Brokaw:
msnbc.msn.com/id/26377338/page/3/

“Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?”

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

MR. BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it…

REP. PELOSI: I understand that.

MR. BROKAW: …begins at the point of conception.

REP. PELOSI: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions. That’s why we have this fight in Congress over contraception… If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must–it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think. But that is not the case. So we have to take–you know, we have to handle this as respectfully–this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been–and I’m not saying Rick Warren did, because I don’t think he did, but others will try to.
Click to expand...
“her god?” Just Pelosi saying that statement alone, causes me to tune out. I never thought I’d see the day when being PC comes before a baby’s life. Too bad a baby has no “right” to choose…it would choose life, I’m sure. When did terminating a pregnancy become a right?

Scary stuff.
 
I have a lot of appreciation for Rush even given the fact that he is a pretty flawed individual.

In the early 90’s when I was a completely clueless youth, listening to him helped me begin to come back to my faith and find a direction in life.

I got involved in politics and became a pro-life political activist.

Upon reflection I think he often is unnecessarily rude but the general message he speaks of is good. I took too much of an aggressive approach myself being influenced so much by him.

He would be more effective in my opinion if he took a slightly softer tone though. So would I for that matter 😉 I am trying though

I really have to give him credit for saving my life.
 
He is effective because he is forceful and unapologetic about his beliefs. Yes, he is deeply flawed… who among us is not?

If he spoke softly and made sure to “respect” every viewpoint without ever calling any of them the idiocy they are, his show would not have lasted five minutes, much less 20 years.

People say the same thing about Dr. Laura. If she said things like, “Oh, sweetie, you really shouldn’t abort your baby just to keep your slimeball live-in boyfriend happy, but if it’s what you really feel you have to do then go ahead and don’t feel guilty,” no one would listen to her. It’s because she says things the way she does, “How dare you even think of killing an innocent child to satisfy the selfishness of some bum who uses you as an unpaid whore!” that people listen. Sure, she shocks, but that is what gets people’s attention. And honestly, there are points where I disagree with her, but very little of what she says is anything a Catholic could argue with.

Soft and gentle just doesn’t work with some people. I would hazard to say most people. The reason Rush is successful is because he says out loud and forcefully what most people really think. He doesn’t shrink from it or state it in an apologetically soft tone of voice. Maybe if our priests and bishops took a page out of Rush and Dr. Laura’s books and were a lot more forceful and unapologetic about our most important moral teachings, we would have a lot fewer people going about ignorant, and a lot more people sitting up and noticing when people like Ms. Pelosi try to make the Church say something it doesn’t.
 
I am not saying that he should respect every viewpoint and be completely gentle. His approach does work and is probably why I started listening to him but he needs to show a little more restraint at times, thats all.
 
Enough for Rush already.! This is an important topic and I hate to see it derailed into a discussion of Rush Limbaugh
.
 
Confiteor said:
“Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?”

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. . .
Click to expand...
Revealing slip of the tongue.
 
I’m sorry but when did the Catholic Chruch get a women Pope? Oh that’s right we didn’t! Maybe someone should let speaker Pelosi know that.
She is showing her total lack of knowledge of the Church to which she belongs. Contraception was discourage in both the Didacay and Humane Vita and so was abortion. We must pray for her conversion.
 
MommaKat said:
I’m sorry but when did the Catholic Chruch get a women Pope? Oh that’s right we didn’t! Maybe someone should let speaker Pelosi know that.
She is showing her total lack of knowledge of the Church to which she belongs. Contraception was discourage in both the Didacay and Humane Vita and so was abortion. We must pray for her conversion.
Click to expand...
I guarantee you he was not invited to the convention.
 
:newidea: I’ve been pondering this since yesterday when I heard the interview and read the transcript to be sure I’d heard correctly. I think the emails to Nancy Pelosi will give her a sense of the righteous outrage that people have but will not undo the damage she’s done.

Therefore, I’m posting below the contact information for the Archdiocese of SF and the Archdiocese of Washington DC. It seems that IF she is publicly corrected by one of these Archbishops AND it makes the national news and newspapers, maybe, maybe it will serve to correct some of the public misperception. Phone calls or letters are best; these two archbishops don’t have personal emails posted, only an information office (but that’s better than none at all). If you are inclined to do so, you can also thank Archbishop Chaput who has been consistent (and often solitary) in his outspoken defense of our faith. Interestingly, he DOES has a personal email address posted and, in my experience, emails receive a response.
Archbishop of San Francisco
One Peter Yorke Way
San Francisco, CA 94109
(415) 614-5500
info@sfarchdiocese.org
(Sorry, SF doesn’t even list an email for its “Department of Communications and Outreach”
Archbishop of Washington:
Most Reverend Donald W. Wuerl
P.O. Box 29260
Washington, DC 20017-0260
(301) 853-4500

Susan Gibbs
Director of Communications
sgibbs@adw.org
Archbishop Chaput:
shepherd@archden.org
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top