Nancy Pelosi mistates the Church's position

[Bella3502]

I might be wrong, but it is a logical conclusion- all good Catholics are anti abortion and contraception, and she is neither, by her own words. A reasonable Catholic will have to decide for him/herself if she feels it is more important for her to keep her congressional seat, or live up to her Catholic beleifs, by voting against abortion at EVERY oppurtunity.

That is NOT a logical conclusion.

Most Catholics of childbearing age use some form of artificial birth control and they are in church every Sunday. They are no different than Pelosi.

 

[Jerome42]

I think the worst problem is that she spoke as if she were representing the Church. Absent a direct rebuttal by someone in the hierarchy (Archbishop Niederauer or Archbishop Wuerl or Cardinal Levada or the Pope), her comments will mislead some and many Catholics may use this to justify their own positions and their actions.

Let’s get on Archbishop Niederauer’s/Wuerl’s case! This is a job for the Church Militant. Cardinal Burke has already stated the Vatican’s position on this.

 

[Fitswimmer]

It’s not really a political statement. It is a “faith” statement. It is important to be very clear about Church teaching, especially when it comes to intrinsic evil. Allowing Catholic politicians, who are very visible to the public, to bring scandal to the Church by receiving communion in a publically visible state of mortal sin, is not good for the faith of the Church. This is especially true when it comes to intrinsic evil.

How is it not a political statement when it comes in an election year? It smacks of attention seeking-or he would have spoken to her privately rather than making this announcement public.

I separated the two sentences above, because I think it is important to see what you wrote. Would you have a problem “enshrining the beliefs of our Church into civil law” regarding social justice issues? My point, in case it isn’t obvious, is that a pluralistic society such as ours requires people of faith to vote their faith. Through that process, we agree on legislation that we can all live with. If we give up our beliefs in a false sense of “equality of views,” we will sink into relativism and might as well abolish all laws, so as not to offend someone’s beliefs.

I refer to decisions where even the religions do not agree. Laws where there is societal consensus aren’t the issue. Abortion, homosexuality, stem cell research, divorce…the position of all religious denominations in this country aren’t even the same-let alone those citizens who follow no religion.

No one is questioning the right to worship as we choose. Abortion is not worship.

It may not be worship, but as we’ve seen it is an issue that can lead people to be dismissed from the sacraments for voting-whether the intent was to vote for a pro abortion candidate or not. It certainly affects our worship.

 

[rpp]

BamaRider;4098167:

I might be wrong, but it is a logical conclusion- all **good **

Catholics are anti abortion and contraception, and she is neither, by her own words. A reasonable Catholic will have to decide for him/herself if she feels it is more important for her to keep her congressional seat, or live up to her Catholic beleifs, by voting against abortion at EVERY oppurtunity.

That is NOT a logical conclusion.

Most Catholics of childbearing age use some form of artificial birth control and they are in church every Sunday. They are no different than Pelosi.

Notice BamaRider use the word “good” to qualify his statement. Catholic who use contraception or favor abortion rights cannot be considered “good” Catholics. Even if the unproven assertion that most Catholics of child-bearing age use contraception is true, it does not make it any less of a grave sin. Furthermore, if most of them are like Pelosi, then shame on them for betraying their Catholic faith as Pelosi has done.

 

[whatevergirl]

Revealing slip of the tongue.

Truth has a way of doing that! Good catch!

 

[rlg94086]

How is it not a political statement when it comes in an election year? It smacks of attention seeking-or he would have spoken to her privately rather than making this announcement public.

What “he” are you talking about? Her Bishop? I don’t know if he’s spoken with her, but I also haven’t seen anything in the news where he has publically called for her not to receive communion. Are you talking about Archbishop Chaput? He only used her name to refute her misstatements, which were very public. He has spoken to politicians within his diocese, and he does support the general notion of withholding communion from pro-choice politicians. If they are in his Diocese and present themselves to him (or anyone else in his diocese if he has so instructed), then he will probably deny them communion.
Fistswimmer:

I refer to decisions where even the religions do not agree. Laws where there is societal consensus aren’t the issue. Abortion, homosexuality, stem cell research, divorce…the position of all religious denominations in this country aren’t even the same-let alone those citizens who follow no religion.

How do you think we come to “concensus?” We all vote our conscience - majority view wins, as long as it is constitutional. “Concensus” is not a static state. Should anti-slavery and/or anti-segregationists have kept quiet because there wasn’t “consensus” among all religions? Of course not. Thankfully, society came to a consensus, and those evils were eliminated.

Fitswimmer:

It may not be worship, but as we’ve seen it is an issue that can lead people to be dismissed from the sacraments for voting-whether the intent was to vote for a pro abortion candidate or not. It certainly affects our worship.

Of course it affects our worship. You are totally off-base here. We have the freedom to worship as we want in this country. We do not, as Catholics, have the freedom to do whatever we want and stay in communion with the Church. They are separate issues. That is what the First Amendment is all about. The government can’t step in and tell the Catholic Church that they must accept Pelosi’s views. Pelosi has the freedom to disobey the Church, leave the Church, etc; but that does not mean that the Church must tolerate her views.

 

[rlg94086]

but that does not mean that the Church must tolerate her views.

btw…my own use of the word “tolerate” made me recall something else that Archbishop Chaput said in his interview on World Over:
theblogofthecourtier.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-points-by-archbishop-chaput.html

“Tolerance is not a Christian virtue.” A potentially explosive statement, but one sees his point. Archbishop Chaput explained that if he said to Raymond Arroyo, “Raymond I tolerate you…” that Raymond would not find that a very positive statement. In fact, more likely he would find that statement rather insulting. The Archbishop pointed out that we are not supposed to tolerate, but to love. And sometimes, love requires saying the truth about something that another may not want to hear.

 

[duskyjewel]

Most Catholics of childbearing age use some form of artificial birth control and they are in church every Sunday. They are no different than Pelosi.

HOLD THE PHONE!!!

A person who is merely preventing conception, even using immoral means, is not KILLING BABIES nor advocating for them to be killed. And don’t start on the ABC as abortifacient… I know that and do not argue with that. Hormonal birth control can cause early pregnancy loss/abortion.

The Church will say that a person who is sterilized or using a condom is in mortal sin, just as a person who has had an abortion or advocates abortion. But I personally see a huge amount of moral difference between preventing conception and actually killing a child that is already living.

 

[Fitswimmer]

What “he” are you talking about? Her Bishop? I don’t know if he’s spoken with her, but I also haven’t seen anything in the news where he has publically called for her not to receive communion. Are you talking about Archbishop Chaput? He only used her name to refute her misstatements, which were very public. He has spoken to politicians within his diocese, and he does support the general notion of withholding communion from pro-choice politicians. If they are in his Diocese and present themselves to him (or anyone else in his diocese if he has so instructed), then he will probably deny them communion.

How do you think we come to “concensus?” We all vote our conscience - majority view wins, as long as it is constitutional. “Concensus” is not a static state. Should anti-slavery and/or anti-segregationists have kept quiet because there wasn’t “consensus” among all religions? Of course not. Thankfully, society came to a consensus, and those evils were eliminated.

Of course it affects our worship. You are totally off-base here. We have the freedom to worship as we want in this country. We do not, as Catholics, have the freedom to do whatever we want and stay in communion with the Church. They are separate issues. That is what the First Amendment is all about. The government can’t step in and tell the Catholic Church that they must accept Pelosi’s views. Pelosi has the freedom to disobey the Church, leave the Church, etc; but that does not mean that the Church must tolerate her views.

I think my comment about worship wasn’t presented right-but rather than continue to carry this thread off topic I’ll let it go. I can PM a better explanation of what I meant if you want to talk about it.

 

[dixieagle]

How is it not a political statement when it comes in an election year? It smacks of attention seeking-or he would have spoken to her privately rather than making this announcement public.

It seems that she has been pretty darn public about her statements mis-stating the Church’s position re: abortion, and touting her own view as acceptable for “ardent Catholics.”

I refer to decisions where even the religions do not agree. Laws where there is societal consensus aren’t the issue. Abortion, homosexuality, stem cell research, divorce…the position of all religious denominations in this country aren’t even the same-let alone those citizens who follow no religion.

It is the duty of Church leaders to speak out and make abundantly clear the position of the Church on matters of faith and morals, and the obligations of those who purport to be members of that Church with regard to those matters. Should Church leaders skulk around, apologizing for what the Church teaches? I think not.

It may not be worship, but as we’ve seen it is an issue that can lead people to be dismissed from the sacraments for voting-whether the intent was to vote for a pro abortion candidate or not. It certainly affects our worship.

There are certain non-negotiables, and opposition to abortion is one of them. Anyone professing to be Catholic, and who supports abortion, has, in effect, already excommunicated him/herself. They have made the choice which “affects their worship” themselves.

(In certain instances, after serious examination of conscience, one *may *be able to vote for a candidate *in spite of *that candidate’s support for abortion if other positions and policies could be viewed as promoting great good. Couldn’t bring myself to do that, though.)

 

[redrosetea]

I would never lose my faith over people that choose power over obedience

Pelosi doesn’t wish to serve God, she wants to be God…You can’t have it both ways…Ananais and Saphira were stricken dead because they thought they could do what ever they pleased,instead of what God willed

 

[Fitswimmer]

It seems that she has been pretty darn public about her statements mis-stating the Church’s position re: abortion, and touting her own view as acceptable for “ardent Catholics.”

But she didn’t just start doing it recently, she’s been doing it all along. How come this only happens during an election year? We heard about it in 2004, then nothing until just recently. If it wasn’t political, this would have happened a LONG time ago, perhaps when she was elected or when she became Speaker? No, it only happens during a Presidential Election year.

It is the duty of Church leaders to speak out and make abundantly clear the position of the Church on matters of faith and morals, and the obligations of those who purport to be members of that Church with regard to those matters. Should Church leaders skulk around, apologizing for what the Church teaches? I think not.

See above. If they were doing it for “the faith” they would be doing it in years other than Presidential election years.

There are certain non-negotiables, and opposition to abortion is one of them. Anyone professing to be Catholic, and who supports abortion, has, in effect, already excommunicated him/herself. They have made the choice which “affects their worship” themselves.

Yes, for those who ACTIVELY support abortion, they have. Yet those of us who do not ACTIVELY support abortion, yet sometimes vote Democratic are still considered “evil”

(In certain instances, after serious examination of conscience, one *may *be able to vote for a candidate *in spite of *that candidate’s support for abortion if other positions and policies could be viewed as promoting great good. Couldn’t bring myself to do that, though.)

Not according to the Bishops in Kansas City or those who cheerfully pat them on the back for calling voters “evil” no matter what their reasons were for choosing a candidate that supports abortion.

 

[BamaRider]

From Meet The Press- 8-24-08

Tom Brokaw asked, " saying the question of when life begins is above his ‘pay grade,’ when whether you’re looking at it ‘scientifically or theologically,’ if he were to come and say, ‘Help me out here Madam Speaker,’ what would you tell him?"

PELOSI: *As an ardent practicing Catholic, uh, 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, uh, senator – uh, I’m – senator – Uh, St. Augustin’ (sic) said at three months. We don’t know. The point is is that it shouldn’t have an impact on a woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child – uh, eh, er, first trimester, certain considerations second trimester, not so third trimester. The – the – there’s very clear distinctions

This is ridiculus. THE Church has NEVER waivered on when life begins since 70AD. I dont’ know what planet she has been on.

The gall of Pelosi trying to redefine Catholic Doctrine and Faith.

It really bothers me non Catholic Americans, will now associate Church teaching with Pelosi.

 

[Confiteor]

That is NOT a logical conclusion.

Most Catholics of childbearing age use some form of artificial birth control and they are in church every Sunday. They are no different than Pelosi.

Besides the intentional killing involved in abortion (one might argue that certain methods of contraception are also abortifacients), most contracepting Catholics are not public figures (i.e. persistent public sinners) whose actions are news worthy. Thus the elements of scandal and misleading the faithful are not usually there. I think that’s an important difference between the Speaker of the House and the average Catholic.

 

[wanner47]

Pelosi describes herself as an “ardent Catholic”?

Would that make me an “ardent Mormon,” given that I do not believe or follow the doctrines of the Mormon church?

Seriously, what color is the sky in her world?

 

[lizaanne]

But I personally see a huge amount of moral difference between preventing conception and actually killing a child that is already living.

But the embryo killed by the pill or IUD is just as alive as the child at 20 weeks gestation. So - I don’t really see a difference. If there is one, please show me, I’d love to learn about it.

~Liza

 

[maggie2]

That is NOT a logical conclusion.

Most Catholics of childbearing age use some form of artificial birth control and they are in church every Sunday. They are no different than Pelosi.

Even though both abortion and contraception are grave sins, it seems that the Church believes that abortion is “worse” due to the fact that an abortion carries with it an automatic excommunication, doesn’t it?

The fact that Pelosi is knowingly misrepresenting the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion is not even comparable to the many contracepting couples, many of whom don’t know what the Church teaches about contraception (and I’d be willing to bet that these same couples would not claim to be “ardent Catholics” who have studied the Church’s teaching on contraception for a “long time”).
If they did know the teaching, made these claims, and were in a high profile position where they could influence thousands, if not millions of people into believing contraception was okay, it may be comparable to Pelosi. But still not as bad since it’s not referring to abortion…

On another note, has anyone posted the response from the Archbishop of Denver? Here it is:

archden.org/images/ArchbishopCorner/ByTopic/onseparationofsense%26state_openlettercjc8.25.08.pdf

 

[maggie2]

But the embryo killed by the pill or IUD is just as alive as the child at 20 weeks gestation. So - I don’t really see a difference. If there is one, please show me, I’d love to learn about it.

~Liza

I agree that there is no difference, biologically speaking. But morally speaking, I think most women who use contraception honestly are not aware that it can be abortive.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Even though both abortion and contraception are grave sins, it seems that the Church believes that abortion is “worse” due to the fact that an abortion carries with it an automatic excommunication, doesn’t it?

The fact that Pelosi is knowingly misrepresenting the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion is not even comparable to the many contracepting couples, many of whom don’t know what the Church teaches about contraception (and I’d be willing to bet that these same couples would not claim to be “ardent Catholics” who have studied the Church’s teaching on contraception for a “long time”).
If they did know the teaching, made these claims, and were in a high profile position where they could influence thousands, if not millions of people into believing contraception was okay, it may be comparable to Pelosi. But still not as bad since it’s not referring to abortion…

On another note, has anyone posted the response from the Archbishop of Denver? Here it is:

archden.org/images/ArchbishopCorner/ByTopic/onseparationofsense%26state_openlettercjc8.25.08.pdf

With all this clarification out there, it seems kind of hard for me to believe that any Catholic would have to rely on a politician to find out the teachings of the Catholc Church.

 

[maggie2]

With all this clarification out there, it seems kind of hard for me to believe that any Catholic would have to rely on a politician to find out the teachings of the Catholc Church.

I didn’t mean to infer that Catholics rely on politicians to consciously form their beliefs, but it would be ignorant to think that the media and people of high profile don’t influence those who are not strong in their faith or knowledge of Church teaching.

Whether we like it or not, there are many, many Catholics who are not familiar with the Church’s stance on contraception.