Pope Benedict XVI strongly rebukes Pelosi over abortion

[averheyen]

I think people are seeing it for exactly what it was-a stern rebuke of a woman who claims to be an ardent Catholic who supports the killing of the unborn.

Not saying your wrong, just playing devil’s advocate here.

 

[averheyen]

So I guess that Catholic politicians stand in a different place than other nonRoman Catholic politicians? They must represent the catholic Church rather than their constituents? Since the majority of the American public supports the right to choose, you are saying that Pelosi cannot represent those citizens but must adhere to your church’s position? Does not this mean that contrary to JFK, Roman Catholic politicians do get their orders from Rome? I would hate to see fine Roman catholic politicians being denied the right to run for office because they cannot morally fullfill their duties. This would be a violation of the non-establishment clause in my opinion.

What do you think spiritmeadow? I think you can answer your own questions on that one preeeeety easily as to why a Catholic politician oughta be that way. You’re obviously an intelligent person, and it’s not too difficult to understand.

 

[Another_Mary]

Has Rep. Pelosi released her statement yet?

Pelosi Statement Following Meeting With Pope Benedict XVI

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today following a meeting at the Vatican with his Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI:

“It is with great joy that my husband, Paul, and I met with his Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI today.

“In our conversation, I had the opportunity to praise the Church’s leadership in fighting poverty, hunger, and global warming, as well as the Holy Father’s dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel.

“I was proud to show his Holiness a photograph of my family’s Papal visit in the 1950s, as well as a recent picture of our children and grandchildren.”

From: speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1015

 

[bellesjoy]

would it be insulting if the U.S. President made time for the pope? No president has ever stated that he “made time” for the Pope. They each have shown more respect than that. The Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives is the leader of the Congress and head of the People’s Branch of Government and is on equal footing with the U.S. President. No she is isn’t. She is more busy than the pope. You have no idea who is “more” busy and it is irrelevant. The Pope is a far more important and respected figure that Nan.What I read about the previous pope was that he had time to pray lots, meditate lots, walk (when he was healthy) as he prayed, etc.Perhaps you under estimate the power of prayer and if it qualifies as important. When he was more healthy he also did a lot of sports and had a swimming pool built. It doesn’t sound like you understand much about the role of the Holy Father.

You don’t think it’d be an honor for the pope to meet anyone? Where is the honor in meeting a woman who advocate murdering the innocent unborn?I said it was an honor for both the Speaker and for the pope.It should be an honor for her.

What I like about the current U.S. President is that he wears the mantle of the Presidency lightly, sometimes seen in casual wear, even in the Oval Office What does that have to do with anything?. He is a model of humility. The Pope is the model of humility and Christ’s charity, not a man who has reinstated funding for abortions worldwide and seeks that FOCA becomes law. I hope that if he has time, he has a chance to chat “chat”?Your references to an audience with the Holy Father are flippant and disrespectful more with the pope as well, and that they can both learn from each other.POTUS is an important office, but not on par with the Papacy.

Speaker Pelosi probably chose not to release any pictures and asked the Vatican to not release any b/c she was intimidated by all the criticism that she was going for a “photo op.” No, the Vatican refused to allow pictures, it was not her option. She already has pictures from a previous meeting with the pope from years back. She kept these pictures all these years (almost 60 years? … I didn’t know she was that old). So this is a personal thing for her. She is an “ardent” She is a dissident, unfaithful Catholic Catholic and as that other thread says (some Catholic university president was it? who said this) pro-life is not an infallible teaching Abortion is mortal sin and all Catholics are obliged to defend all life from conception to natural death as the Pope stated…and this Vatican press statement doesn’t say it is so I think she’s in the clear.I think either your post is a hoax or you truely don’t have a clue what it means to be a Catholic. Catholic theology isn’t found in press releases…try the CCC.

But she and her bishop are planning on meeting a second time. If she was not sincere, why would she meet her bishop a second time?For appearances And why would she have kept her first meeting so quiet?Ditto…or perhaps she thinks she can teach him something (tongue in cheek)

And she was not spinning the meeting.All we can go by is her press release which did not even mention abortion, while the Vatican’s press release emphasised it…now let me think, who do we believe??? People already knew about the other part of the meeting since that was announced by the Vatican press office. She was just adding to that and emphasizing the positive and what she personally got out of the meeting.Your right about that. It was all about her and what she had to say…How sad that this holy man who wears the ring of Peter took the time to explain the error of her ways to save her soul, and she could only hear her own voice./quote]

 

[vs_trumpet]

No president has ever stated that he “made time” for the Pope. They each have shown more respect than that.

I don’t know what words may have been used, but President Clinton made time for the pope.

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14283

“During the lead-up to the U.N. conference on population in Cairo in 1994, Pope John Paul II called Flynn to the Vatican on a Saturday morning to personally request a telephone conversation with President Clinton. Flynn relayed the request urgently to the White House that afternoon, and got no response,” he wrote.

After placing more failed calls, Flynn then flew to Washington where he was forced to wait outside Clinton’s office over a two day period.

“Finally,” Allen continued, “he was admitted to the White House’s pre-Cairo war room, where he was told by Assistant Secretary of State Timothy Wirth that ‘nobody is getting a chance to lobby the president on this one.’ Dumbfounded, Flynn explained that the Bishop of Rome is not a lobbyist, and that it would be seen as a profound act of disrespect if the president wouldn’t even get on the phone. After almost a week, Clinton finally agreed to take the pope’s call.”

So I think the U.S. President is more busy than the pope. The pope had to wait about one week to speak to the President and the initial requests by the pope to speak to the President were met with no response and the pope had to have someone physically go to Washington, but he was then made to wait another two days after he got there. Then the request was rejected. Then “after almost a week”, the President “finally agreed to take the pope’s call.”

I don’t know if you are American, but I think all Americans should believe that the Office of the President is at least on par in terms of the respect owed it as the papacy, no matter who occupies the Office.

The Vatican is a sovereign state and should respect the internal affairs and democractic process of other sovereign states. It shouldn’t tell Congress or the Supreme Court what to do. The way I read the Vatican statement, it was addressed not just to Catholic Congresspeople and Justices but also to non-Catholic ones, all of “good will”. At least she wasn’t excommunicated, that would be I feel interference in the internal political affairs of the United States government.

 

[bellesjoy]

I don’t know what words may have been used, but President Clinton made time for the pope.

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14283

“During the lead-up to the U.N. conference on population in Cairo in 1994, Pope John Paul II called Flynn to the Vatican on a Saturday morning to personally request a telephone conversation with President Clinton. Flynn relayed the request urgently to the White House that afternoon, and got no response,” he wrote.After placing more failed calls, Flynn then flew to Washington where he was forced to wait outside Clinton’s office over a two day period.“Finally,” Allen continued, “he was admitted to the White House’s pre-Cairo war room, where he was told by Assistant Secretary of State Timothy Wirth that ‘nobody is getting a chance to lobby the president on this one.’ Dumbfounded, Flynn explained that the Bishop of Rome is not a lobbyist, and that it would be seen as a profound act of disrespect if the president wouldn’t even get on the phone. After almost a week, Clinton finally agreed to take the pope’s call.”OH my gosh, you are right! Clinton was a big enough jerk to behave this way…no American should be proud of that tacky behavior and of course he was pro-abortion also…go figure!So I think the U.S. President is more busy than the pope. Again, you don’t seem to put a value on the things that occupy the Pope’s time and “busy” doesn’t even touch it. The pope had to wait about one week to speak to the President and the initial requests by the pope to speak to the President were met with no response and the pope had to have someone physically go to Washington, but he was then made to wait another two days after he got there. Then the request was rejected. Then “after almost a week”, the President “finally agreed to take the pope’s call.” And what a proud moment that was for all of us!

I don’t know if you are American, but I think all Americans should believe that the Office of the President is at least on par in terms of the respect owed it as the papacy, no matter who occupies the Office. I am Catholic first always, sorry. I am proudly American, but NO, the presidency is not even close to par with the Papacy.

The Vatican is a sovereign state and should respect the internal affairs and democractic process of other sovereign states. It shouldn’t tell Congress or the Supreme Court what to do. The way I read the Vatican statement, it was addressed not just to Catholic Congresspeople and Justices but also to non-Catholic ones, all of “good will”. At least she wasn’t excommunicated, that would be I feel interference in the internal political affairs of the United States government.

She has excommunicated herself. Your opinion of it has no effect on that at all. And the Holy Father has every right to explain to Catholics, especially Catholic politicians what their obligations are to remain Catholic.

This is a Catholic forum. If you don’t understand what it means to be Catholic, ask. Don’t assume and don’t expect orthodox Catholics to think it is okay to disrespect the Holy Father.
I’m done with this pointless aspect of this thread.

 

[redrosetea]

The office should be respected but that doesn’t mean we have to respect the person that occupies it, when they go against the grain of morality

There isn’t a president that I can recall since Clinton that hasn’t tried to use the pope to get what they wanted…Clinton wanted abortions , and to somehow make himself look respectable once again( I don’t know how he could have sat next to the Pope after the Monica scndal broke) and Bush wanted a war with the Popes blessing

Obama I don’t know what he wants, but I highly suspect anyone whose first action was to fund the forced murder of infants in China by abortion funding from the American taxpayers isn’t beyond trying to manipulate the Pope either

 

[estesbob]

I

“Finally,” Allen continued, “he was admitted to the White House’s pre-Cairo war room, where he was told by Assistant Secretary of State Timothy Wirth that ‘nobody is getting a chance to lobby the president on this one.’ Dumbfounded, Flynn explained that the Bishop of Rome is not a lobbyist, and that it would be seen as a profound act of disrespect if the president wouldn’t even get on the phone. After almost a week, Clinton finally agreed to take the pope’s call.”
So It.

Bill Clinton had lots of time for Monica Lewinsky but did nothave time to take a phone call from the Pope. That tells you all you need to know about Bill Clinton.

That you would consider this to be anything other than the height of rudeness tells us a lot about you.

 

[bellesjoy]

Bill Clinton had lots of time for Monica Lewinsky but did nothave time to take a phone call from the Pope. That tells you all you need to know about Bill Clinton.

That you would consider this to be anything other than the height of rudeness tells us a lot about you.

Well put, estesbob!

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

There’s so much askew with this that it’s hard to know where to begin straightening it out.

So I guess that Catholic politicians stand in a different place than other nonRoman Catholic politicians?

Presumably, they were elected to office as was every other office holder.

They must represent the catholic Church rather than their constituents? Since the majority of the American public supports the right to choose, you are saying that Pelosi cannot represent those citizens but must adhere to your church’s position?

They are certainly not called upon to represent the Catholic Church, but as Catholics, they are not free to check their beliefs at the door on the way into work. As for the issue of “representing those citizens”, there is a tacit assumption here that right and wrong is determined by a majority vote. To look back on the history of the US and Canada, during World War II there was no doubt majority support for interning citizens of Japanese origin. It was done, and it was the wrong thing to do. I think the majority came to recognize that decades later, but that did not make it either right or wrong in the first place. The idea that right and wrong is decided by a majority vote is very dangerous.

Does not this mean that contrary to JFK, Roman Catholic politicians do get their orders from Rome?

Not their orders, no. However, we do get, and are grateful to receive, infallible teachings concerning moral truths.

I would hate to see fine Roman catholic politicians being denied the right to run for office because they cannot morally fullfill their duties. This would be a violation of the non-establishment clause in my opinion.

I would hate to see any politician of any (or no) religion elected to office if they were incapable of morally fulfilling their duties. Amoral people can do every bit as much harm as the overtly immoral.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Bill Clinton had lots of time for Monica Lewinsky but did nothave time to take a phone call from the Pope. That tells you all you need to know about Bill Clinton.

That you would consider this to be anything other than the height of rudeness tells us a lot about you.

Did the Pope call while he was preoccupied with Monica Lewinksy? I guess I missed that story, when it came out.

Jim

 

[bellesjoy]

Did the Pope call while he was preoccupied with Monica Lewinksy? I guess I missed that story, when it came out. Jim

Read it again. Clinton spent plenty of time with Lewinksy. Clinton delayed returning a call to the Holy Father. It didn’t have to happen at the same time. Both are true.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Read it again. Clinton spent plenty of time with Lewinksy. Clinton delayed returning a call to the Holy Father. It didn’t have to happen at the same time. Both are true.

As Foghorn Leghorn would say;

It was a joke son. I say, you need to get the hole out your glove. the fast one’s are going right through ya.

Just to be clear, I was in no way defending Bill Clinton, whom I think was a disgusting president and was upset when the Senate failed to remove him from office.

Jim

 

[bellesjoy]

As Foghorn Leghorn would say;
It was a joke son. I say, you need to get the hole out your glove. the fast one’s are going right through ya.
Just to be clear, I was in no way defending Bill Clinton, whom I think was a disgusting president and was upset when the Senate failed to remove him from office.Jim

Sorry, I missed the smiley face! Funny part of your remark, is that it was probably true as you questioned it!

 

[estesbob]

Did the Pope call while he was preoccupied with Monica Lewinksy? I guess I missed that story, when it came out.

Jim

I suspect the truth is he was engrossed in a Bible study with Hillary…

 

[averheyen]

I was being a bit fascious. Some here use the Pope to bolster their argument, but then criticize him for not being conservative enough on other issues. The constant theme at CAF is to get rid of those who don’t believe as they do, for they are of course right, because they believe they are.

I don’t believe in changing people by rejecting them. But it’s your church not mine.

It’s not my Church, it’s Christ’s Church, first off. Secondly, as for “not believing in changing someone by rejecting them”, oh well, so what, sometimes that’s the way to get the job done. And, Thirdly, as for it being a consistant theme at CAF to get rid of those who don’t believe as they do, I’m not entirely sure where you’re going with that. CAF is a Catholic forum. I’d sincerely hope the devout and faithful catholics who frequent this forum approach issues through the prisim of a catholic understanding, rather than a melting pot of ideas based upon a loose understanding of what it means to be chrisitan. Catholicism is not so egalatarian. It’s orthodox. You’re either faithful, or you’re unfaithful. Now you can disagree with that one tennant all you want, but don’t be suprised when Catholics are just being Catholics. And if you can’t handle the idea that Catholics see things, well…Catholic (which would go without saying), then I’m unsure as to why you would post on CAF in the first place. You’d be helping no one, not even yourself.

 

[redrosetea]

It’s not my Church, it’s Christ’s Church, first off. Secondly, as for “not believing in changing someone by rejecting them”, oh well, so what, sometimes that’s the way to get the job done. And, Thirdly, as for it being a consistant theme at CAF to get rid of those who don’t believe as they do, I’m not entirely sure where you’re going with that. CAF is a Catholic forum. I’d sincerely hope the devout and faithful catholics who frequent this forum approach issues through the prisim of a catholic understanding, rather than a melting pot of ideas based upon a loose understanding of what it means to be chrisitan. Catholicism is not so egalatarian. It’s orthodox. You’re either faithful, or you’re unfaithful. Now you can disagree with that one tennant all you want, but don’t be suprised when Catholics are just being Catholics. And if you can’t handle the idea that Catholics see things, well…Catholic (which would go without saying), then I’m unsure as to why you would post on CAF in the first place. You’d be helping no one, not even yourself.

Applause… Applause!!! I suspect some only post out of anger because they couldn’t get their own way…sad really

 

[Til2morrow]

Firstly, when a U.S. public figure goes abroad on a diplomatic mission it can hardly be termed “traipsing”, as it is certainly in the interest of the entire American public, Catholics and non, to have and maintain discourse and diplomatic relations with the Holy See. I am certain that the Pope, as also the pastoral head of the Church, instructed Pelosi on Church teaching and most likely did it with his sincere charm (I have had the pleasure of being in his close presence on a number of occasions and he is definately charming and pastoral) and firm pastoral straight forwardness (as all truth must be addressed). However, I doubt that he nailed her to the wall and “rebuked” her personally–it is just not his style. I wish we could all, regardless of our opinions, be less quick to be so certain of things we actually no very little or nothing about. It was termed a private meeting therefore I am not one to state what happened between them, but I do know that the Pope is very sincere, he is a teacher (enough that one goes to one of his audiences and you can tell he is truly a pastor and a professor–his manner of speaking away from the text as he often does). Let us not speculate but pray that Pelosi received the proper instruction and hope that she will take into account that ones faith is part of who each of us is as a christian and a believer and apply our faith to all aspects of our lives–difficult and unpopular as that may be at times. These are the trials that one must confront when going into public service. I believe it is always best to be true to self and the truth really has never hurt anyone really. Til2morrow

 

[vs_trumpet]

Bill Clinton had lots of time for Monica Lewinsky but did nothave time to take a phone call from the Pope. That tells you all you need to know about Bill Clinton.

That you would consider this to be anything other than the height of rudeness tells us a lot about you.

The President is the most powerful man in the world. Not including the U.S. States and U.K. Countries etc., there are 150-200 sovereign states in the world. I’m sure many of the leaders of these, and sometimes leadership is separated into President and Prime Minister etc, would like to chat with the U.S. President. But the U.S. President’s task isn’t to hear all these foreign leaders, but to work for the good of the U.S. and the world. I’m sure many other foreign leaders who want to chat with the President are unable to immediately do so and many may just realize that and so only call when there is a true emergency. For more powerful foreign leaders, the U.S. President may speak to them more frequently.

President Clinton wasn’t the first man to cheat on his girlfriend/spouse and he wasn’t the last. His was a sin that most people have committed. And his sin had nothing to do with the delay in agreeing to take the pope’s call.

And maybe the woman seduced him and he found it difficult to resist.

 

[redrosetea]

President Clinton wasn’t the first man to cheat on his girlfriend/spouse and he wasn’t the last. His was a sin that most people have committed. And his sin had nothing to do with the delay in agreeing to take the pope’s call.

And maybe the woman seduced him and he found it difficult to resist.

He was the first to get on TV look us in the face and shake his finger at the camera and say I didn’t sleep with MS Lewinsky…

He could have remained silent instead of lying to the entire nation on nation TV

It just goes to show what little respect he has for us