Pope Benedict XVI strongly rebukes Pelosi over abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eucharisted
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gerry_Hunter said:
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.
Click to expand...
Michelle Malkin defends the internment and has written a book on it. The Supreme Court precedent upholding the internment has never been reversed. I have no opinion on it and my opinion doesn’t matter much since I’m not a constitutional legal eagle.

I don’t understand how the Court could uphold the internment and yet not uphold the seizing of some manufacturing plant for war-making purposes.

I don’t understand you. You say right is not determined by majority political vote. But – I assume – you don’t like it when Courts overturn majority political vote like happened in California and might happen again there soon. Maybe you think Courts should uphold right regardless of what voters think and maybe you are right but that is exactly the California Supreme Court did, saying they viewed marriage as a natural right.
 
redrosetea said:
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…:mad:

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
Click to expand...
As far as we know he didn’t sleep with her. He had oral sex. Sleeping with is more intimate. Though both can transmit diseases.

But the way he actually put it, he did lie or at least mislead us, but just as with the other thing he isn’t the first person to lie and wasn’t the last. He also isn’t the first politician to lie: Remember: “Read my lips, no new taxes”? And he also wasn’t the last. Politicians have always lied even to entire nations and even on national TV. The only exception I can think of right now is President Obama (so far)

He also has said the reason he lied or misled was b/c he felt the conservatives were determined to bring down his presidency.
 
Why do you excuse on liar by quoting another?

It certainly doesn’t strengthen your case…Bill Clinton was a slimy toad…He toyed with words, and spun huge lies

I have no respect for him at all
 
redrosetea said:
Bill Clinton was a slimy toad.
Click to expand...
That is no way to speak of a living U.S. President. I wouldn’t call the pope or a living former pope a “slimy toad” and I wouldn’t say that of any living foreign leader. Can you call the pope a “slimy toad” and say “But I still respect the pope’s office”? No. The same is true of a U.S President.
 
It is insulting for you to compare the Pope to that odious man…Who was nothing more than a serial adulterer, and thought he could lie his way out of it
 
Til2morrow said:
I doubt that he nailed her to the wall and “rebuked” her personally–it is just not his style.
Click to expand...
I agree. I imagine he was honest and sincere, but firm and forthright. I doubt he “schooled” her or “rebuked” her, or took her to task like an angry father scolding a child. I just don’t see him using that kind of tone.
 
I have said this on this thread or another similar to this. The Pope cannot take Pelosi out and excommunicate her just like that. She is the Speaker of the House of the USA and the third person in the chain of command.

The Vatican has diplomatic ties to the USA and it wants to preserve them. They are important for the good of the Church in the country. To make an enemy of a powerful figure in government would not further the cause of life, especially if he is not excommunicating Catholic leaders from other countries. The idea is always to make the best choice between two goods.

The choices between excommunicating her and informing her of her moral obligations were very clear. The Holy Father made the choice that would do the most good for the pro-life cause. He spoke the truth and did not compromise the Church’s relationship with the government of the United States. If that relationship is compromised, our cry for life could be significantly weakened. An excommunication could be interpreted around the world as the Church using her spiritual authority to run secular states. That’s not what the Church wants to do.

As to excommunication, every well educated Catholic knows that there is an automatic excommunication for supporting abortion or participating in it. To excommunicate someone who MAY have already excommunicated herself, would be useless.

The Church does not use excommunication to get back at people. She uses it as a form of discipline when it is appropriate and when she hopes that it will do some good.

Fraternally,

JR 🙂
 
piperspop said:
I hate to pour cold water on the celebration of Pelosi’s “rebuke”, but I seem to recall a stern letter from Cardinal Egan a few months ago, and letters from her own archbishop.

Now the pope lectures on morals and the church’s position on life.

When will someone step to the plate, tell her she is a public scandal to the church, and EXCOMMUNICATE HER?

THAT would be a statement!

Will no one rid us of this meddlesome congresswoman?
Click to expand...
As I under stand it the Archbishop of SFO is now the one to deny her communion/deal with her excommunication. So write your email to Niederauer.
 
Let’s not kid ourselves here. When Pelosi went to the Vatican, it was nothing more than what they used to call a “publicity stunt”.

Her track record speaks for itself. She is rabidly pro-abortion and a Catholic in NAME ONLY. Her political agenda is more important to her than her faith and we all know it. She is a disgrace to the church and everything it teaches.

Like JR said, she has ALREADY excommunicated HERSELF. The Pope doesn’t need to do it publicly. It probably made his skin crawl to be in the same room with her. It would mine.

She’s as deranged and evil as she looks.

I can’t wait until she presents herself for communion (another piblicity stunt) and get’s refused. It will happen eventually and I can’t wait to see the media coverage of that…as well as her pathetic reaction.

I wouldn’t walk into the next room to see her.
 
piperspop said:
I hate to pour cold water on the celebration of Pelosi’s “rebuke”, but I seem to recall a stern letter from Cardinal Egan a few months ago, and letters from her own archbishop.

Now the pope lectures on morals and the church’s position on life.

When will someone step to the plate, tell her she is a public scandal to the church, and EXCOMMUNICATE HER?

THAT would be a statement!

Will no one rid us of this meddlesome congresswoman?
Click to expand...
vs_trumpet said:
As far as we know he didn’t sleep with her. He had oral sex. Sleeping with is more intimate. Though both can transmit diseases.

But the way he actually put it, he did lie or at least mislead us, but just as with the other thing he isn’t the first person to lie and wasn’t the last. He also isn’t the first politician to lie: Remember: “Read my lips, no new taxes”? And he also wasn’t the last. Politicians have always lied even to entire nations and even on national TV. The only exception I can think of right now is President Obama (so far)

He also has said the reason he lied or misled was b/c he felt the conservatives were determined to bring down his presidency.
Click to expand...
bo lies every time says he wants to unify the citizens of the US while dividing us using moral issues as his weapons. Remember that A word?
 
vs_trumpet said:
I read it and it doesn’t actually say Pelosi is doing anything wrong. It speaks of general obligations of all kinds of people, including judges and ordinary people as well as legislators. Pelosi met with her bishop recently. It took some time for Pelosi to make time for the bishop since as Speaker you can imagine she is a busy woman. I am glad she made time to meet with the pope; I’m sure it was a source of blessing and honor for both her and for the pope.???

This is just my speculation, but maybe after Pelosi chatted with her bishop, the bishop encouraged her to talk about the issue further with the pope and so maybe Pelosi brought it as well as other things up with the pope. Instead of knocking her, we of all faiths should be giving her our full support. All our leaders deserve our full support.
Click to expand...
Right, uh huh. On one webpage, around this same time, I noticed our Pope sitting down in a chair, drinking a glass of liquid. It looked like water and alka seltzer.
 
vs_trumpet said:
I read it and it doesn’t actually say Pelosi is doing anything wrong. It speaks of general obligations of all kinds of people, including judges and ordinary people as well as legislators. Pelosi met with her bishop recently. It took some time for Pelosi to make time for the bishop since as Speaker you can imagine she is a busy woman. I am glad she made time to meet with the pope; I’m sure it was a source of blessing and honor for both her and for the pope.

This is just my speculation, but maybe after Pelosi chatted with her bishop, the bishop encouraged her to talk about the issue further with the pope and so maybe Pelosi brought it as well as other things up with the pope. Instead of knocking her, we of all faiths should be giving her our full support. All our leaders deserve our full support.
Click to expand...
vs_trumpet said:
I didn’t mean the Vatican was knocking her, I meant that some people here were. I don’t think the Vatican knocked her at all. If you aren’t knocking her, great!
Click to expand...
I’m knocking her. I despise the woman. I can’t stand her phony smiles while she is trying to get legislation passed for contraceptives.
 
Dale_M said:
Rebuke:
1 a: to criticize sharply : reprimand b: to serve as a rebuke to
2: to turn back or keep down : check
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rebuke

Please provide a quote from the Vatican’s statement (or the CNA article) which indicates that Pelosi was rebuked.
Click to expand...
I would imagine Pelosi had a hard time keeping her face from turning red. I am hoping she considered what the Pope said a rebuke, although he may not have been yelling and shaking his fist at her.:rolleyes:
 
Dale_M said:
Rebuke:
1 a: to criticize sharply : reprimand b: to serve as a rebuke to
2: to turn back or keep down : check
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rebuke

Please provide a quote from the Vatican’s statement (or the CNA article) which indicates that Pelosi was rebuked.
Click to expand...
vs_trumpet said:
would it be insulting if the U.S. President made time for the pope? 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. She is more busy than the pope. 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. When he was more healthy he also did a lot of sports and had a swimming pool built.

You don’t think it’d be an honor for the pope to meet anyone? I said it was an honor for both the Speaker and for the pope.

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. He is a model of humility. I hope that if he has time, he has a chance to chat more with the pope as well, and that they can both learn from each other.

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.” 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” Catholic and as that other thread says (some Catholic university president was it? who said this) pro-life is not an infallible teaching and this Vatican press statement doesn’t say it is so I think she’s in the clear.

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? And why would she have kept her first meeting so quiet?

And she was not spinning the meeting. 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.
Click to expand...
Where are you coming from? The Pope is the head of our Church. If he didn’t welcome her with open arms, tea and crumpets, and make time for a longer interview than fifteen minutes, didn’t have a photo op with her, to me that constitutes a rebuke. After all, she is only three steps from the Presidency. I bet she left the Vatican in a big hurry and out of Rome as quickly as she could while holding a cold cloth to her head. The Pope didn’t have any extra alka seltzer to give her, he had taken the last one. Their meeting was NOT convivial, you can take that with you to the bank along with your reduced paycheck.
 
As a newcomer to this forum I have made a number of observations that may or may not be helpful. One is that, though we have all agreed to either stay on theme within threads or start a new one, there seems to be a lot of regression going on. I find it very difficult to carry on a discussion when I have to read through a lot of unrelated material. The second thought is one I have stated before in one of my initial posts and that is: what happened to the concept of respect and christian charity towards our fellow forum members AND to those we are discussing–Catholic, non-Catholic, alike (that is to say all of God’s created beings–fellow humans, fraternal sinners as it were). It seems to me a lot of “mud” is being slung in the name of Christianity. Let it be known that I am not the most virutous person on the face of the earth. I am a terrible sinner like many. I try to live my life according to the tenents I proclaim in our creeds and that I espouse to and I realize I do fail misurably at times but please my saintly friends, let us try to carry on discussions within the confines of fraternal love in Christ and attempt at least to maintain minimum levels of respect for even those who seemed to be clueless about their own sinfulness and other human faults. . . . .hummm? Please take this post in the nature to which I write it–not as one who stands above others but hopefully with others in this avenue of discourse and exchange. Thanks for reading and Gods Blessings to you all. I look forward to some good, heartfelt, exchanges of opinion.
In Christ,
Til2morrow
 
elts1956 said:
Yes, according to Pelosi, they talked about Social Issues such as Poverty and other issues, nothing about abortion, euthanasia etc.
Click to expand...
Pelosi’s statement was carefully worded give that impression but that is not wha tit said. She said she thanked the Pope for the church’s commitment to-and thens he recited the usual liberal social issues talking points. Notice she never said that the Pope discussed these issues with her.-I seriously doubt that the Pope was very interested in discussing global warming with Nancy Pelosi given her claim to be an ardent Catholic and her commitment to the slaughter of innocents. Hopefully he reminded her that such a stand can cause her to suffer warming much more severe than she claims is happening on the earth
 
Til2morrow said:
As a newcomer to this forum I have made a number of observations that may or may not be helpful. One is that, though we have all agreed to either stay on theme within threads or start a new one, there seems to be a lot of regression going on. I find it very difficult to carry on a discussion when I have to read through a lot of unrelated material. The second thought is one I have stated before in one of my initial posts and that is: what happened to the concept of respect and christian charity towards our fellow forum members AND to those we are discussing–Catholic, non-Catholic, alike (that is to say all of God’s created beings–fellow humans, fraternal sinners as it were). It seems to me a lot of “mud” is being slung in the name of Christianity. Let it be known that I am not the most virutous person on the face of the earth. I am a terrible sinner like many. I try to live my life according to the tenents I proclaim in our creeds and that I espouse to and I realize I do fail misurably at times but please my saintly friends, let us try to carry on discussions within the confines of fraternal love in Christ and attempt at least to maintain minimum levels of respect for even those who seemed to be clueless about their own sinfulness and other human faults. . . . .hummm? Please take this post in the nature to which I write it–not as one who stands above others but hopefully with others in this avenue of discourse and exchange. Thanks for reading and Gods Blessings to you all. I look forward to some good, heartfelt, exchanges of opinion.
In Christ,
Til2morrow
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forums.! What you see in these forums is what shapens in all Internet discussion groups regardless of what subject they cover. People get passionate about their views and often do come across as being less charitable. As one who started posting in newsgroups 25 or so years ago I can tell you that the level of discussion here is much more charitable and to the point that you will find that most of the discussion groups.on the internet.

You will also find that some forum areas are more contentious than others. You may also find that this type of online discussion is not for you.
 
Having been a theologian for more than 40 years and have also been involved in online, long distant teaching in the last 10 years or so I am well aware of how strongly opinioned and empassioned people can be. However, as I have stated before some of the less charitable language I have found only in the athletic, sports types of forums and less so on supposedly more sophisticated forums. I thank estesbob for his concern that this forum may not be for me, but I am certain that I will fit in just fine thank you. This thinly veiled comment matters little to me as I am interested in what people think rather than the inability of some to control their manner of speech. It seems to me that when rational language runs out for some, those are left with language of a less charitable nature to demonstrate their passionate opinion. I will continue to maintain that passionate discussion and opinion need not arrive to the bottomless level of insult praticed by some.
In Christ’s Fraternal Love to All,
Til2morrow
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top