Pro-abortion Pelosi insults Catholic Faith

[KathleenElsie]

Anyone that receives the BODY & BLOOD of our LORD unworthily will have to answer to GOD. Each of us will stand before GOD to be judged and there is no special dispensation for politicians.

 

[Elzee]

Any update on what happened?

 

[BlestOne]

Oh I hope you didn’t misunderstand me! I remember you talking wonderfully about your Bishop. He seems like the type would might take a strong public stand on this issue and my hope was if he and others near Chicago (especially in Illinois) did, then perhaps Cardinal George would be encouraged to do it also.

Sorry… no I didn’t misunderstand, I just got excited to share about my bishop with a backbone… He really is awesome and yes he does take stands when needed… I think Chicago priests must think like Chicago politicians and citizens… they think they are the only ones of importance in our state… but I won’t go on that rant, not here anyway.

 

[Dale_M]

Any update on what happened?

The hoopla about Pelosi’s ascension to Speaker seems to have overshadowed the controversy. I did find one source which followed up on the issue of Mass.

“We are hopeful that Archbishop Wuerl will intercede in this situation and prevent Rep. Pelosi from adding to an ongoing scandal.,” Brown said.
But Brown’s hopes never materialized into reality.
Pelosi, however, did celebrate the special Mass at the chapel on Trinity’s campus. A spokesperson from the Archdiocese stated that it had no real authority over who can have a Mass at the university and referred comment on the matter to Trinity Washington University. Further, the spokesperson explained that it was the impression of the Archdiocese that alumni could participate in a Mass on campus.

link

The article doesn’t explicitly say whether or not she received the Eucharist, but I think the tone of the article suggests she did.

 

[Elzee]

Sorry… no I didn’t misunderstand, I just got excited to share about my bishop with a backbone… He really is awesome and yes he does take stands when needed… I think Chicago priests must think like Chicago politicians and citizens… they think they are the only ones of importance in our state… but I won’t go on that rant, not here anyway.

 

[stbruno]

Sorry… no I didn’t misunderstand, I just got excited to share about my bishop with a backbone… He really is awesome and yes he does take stands when needed… I think Chicago priests must think like Chicago politicians and citizens… they think they are the only ones of importance in our state… but I won’t go on that rant, not here anyway.

As an Illinoisan, it always boggles my mind what some of our priests are able to do…like have syndicated columns in newspapers that denigrate the Catholic faith…but that’s another story…like Andrew Greeley…arrgh!

 

[OriginalJS]

Here’s the root of the problem as I see it. The Church, whether for good or ill, is heavily involved in both state and federal politics, particularly in attempting to promote the economic ends of Catholic Social Teaching. Our own diocesan newspaper in the Twin Cities, The Catholic Spirit, manifests these efforts. One widely known Catholc columnist, Kathy Tomlinson, writes about politics every week the paper is published. The gist of her editorials is that govenment must do more for the poor.

The politicians perceived as most likely to do something for the poor are Democrats. Given the time and treasure that is expended on efforts to improve the lot of the poor, the people pushing the Catholic Social Teaching agenda simply can not afford to humiliate and alienate powerful Democrats. They are concerned that if they do, they will lose whatever influence they now have.

It isn’t a pretty picture and it presents difficult choices. Which is worse: to allow Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi to receive communion or risk losing legislation that might help poor people feed their children? I think people of good will can opt for either, but the powers that be have decided to do what they deem most expedient under the circumstances.

 

[OriginalJS]

I would like to see some strong words from our priests, as our own did after the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. It was on a Friday, and our priest mentioned at the end of his Sunday homily that the Holy Day Masses were much smaller than the Sunday Masses. He said, “if you didn’t come to Mass on Friday and didn’t come to confession yesterday, then don’t add sacrilege to your sins by receiving the Eucharist.”

Last Sunday morning at Mass there were 300 to 400 in attendance. I watched as everybody with the exception of three adults (myself included) and eight or nine children marched up and received communion. I see this all the time. It seems to me that the seriousness of receiving communion is being lost and that, sadly, many see it as merely “what Catholics do.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Here’s the root of the problem as I see it. The Church, whether for good or ill, is heavily involved in both state and federal politics, particularly in attempting to promote the economic ends of Catholic Social Teaching. Our own diocesan newspaper in the Twin Cities, The Catholic Spirit, manifests these efforts. One widely known Catholc columnist, Kathy Tomlinson, writes about politics every week the paper is published. The gist of her editorials is that govenment must do more for the poor.

The politicians perceived as most likely to do something for the poor are Democrats. Given the time and treasure that is expended on efforts to improve the lot of the poor, the people pushing the Catholic Social Teaching agenda simply can not afford to humiliate and alienate powerful Democrats. They are concerned that if they do, they will lose whatever influence they now have.

It isn’t a pretty picture and it presents difficult choices. Which is worse: to allow Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi to receive communion or risk losing legislation that might help poor people feed their children? I think people of good will can opt for either, but the powers that be have decided to do what they deem most expedient under the circumstances.

There are several things wrong with this brand of “social justice.”

1. It makes the Church irrelevant. If government does everything, what need for Catholic charities? Just what is our role in such a system – to act as cheerleaders while someone else advances the ball?
2. It puts us in bed with some very strange characters – as you pointed out. “Well, yesss, abortion is wrong. But Senator Pzartz is also for raising the minimum wage.”
3. It leads into a partnership with government – exactly where we don’t belong, because government becomes the senior partner. We become dependent on government money, and hence liable to government control, even in moral issues. “Who takes the King’s shilling is the King’s man.”
4. It establishes a new source of doctrine. It is permissible to say, “Abortion should be a woman’s choice.” or “Gay marriage is simply another loving relation.” But it becomes heresy to say, “Welfare programs actually** hurt** the poor.”

 

[Listener]

I would like to present an opposite viewpoint on Nancy Pelosi. My understanding is that she married young and had five children under the age of six at one time. Personally, when it comes to politicians, I believe that actions speak louder than words. I assume that when she had those children, she had a choice to keep them or have abortions. Apparently, she chose to keep them, and that was the correct “choice”. So, to my way of thinking, even though she may say she is “pro choice,” she is really pro-life. Somehow, I can’t imagine anyone who has five children under the age of six being anything other than pro-life. I believe that way about all politicians. They can say anything they want to about being pro choice or pro life, but it is the way they actually live their lives that counts.

So I am giving the opposite viewpoint here. Even though Nancy Pelosi may be too liberal for many people’s tastes, I think it is rather cool that a stay-at-home mom actually made it to such a high position.

I might add that it says in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that we are to think highly of people and give them the benefit of the doubt rather than call them terrible sinners behind their back.

A recent survey I read about in the paper said that a huge number of abortions are had by poverty stricken women.

 

[rlg94086]

1. Not that she would have chosen abortion, but I don’t think it was a legal option when she had her kids.
2. She lives her life as a strong pro-choice advocate, so that is the way “she actually lives her life” - promoting death.
3. How does the tragic number of abortions among the poor have anything to do with the morality of abortion?

I would like to present an opposite viewpoint on Nancy Pelosi. My understanding is that she married young and had five children under the age of six at one time. Personally, when it comes to politicians, I believe that actions speak louder than words. I assume that when she had those children, she had a choice to keep them or have abortions. Apparently, she chose to keep them, and that was the correct “choice”. So, to my way of thinking, even though she may say she is “pro choice,” she is really pro-life. Somehow, I can’t imagine anyone who has five children under the age of six being anything other than pro-life. I believe that way about all politicians. They can say anything they want to about being pro choice or pro life, but it is the way they actually live their lives that counts.

So I am giving the opposite viewpoint here. Even though Nancy Pelosi may be too liberal for many people’s tastes, I think it is rather cool that a stay-at-home mom actually made it to such a high position.

I might add that it says in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that we are to think highly of people and give them the benefit of the doubt rather than call them terrible sinners behind their back.

A recent survey I read about in the paper said that a huge number of abortions are had by poverty stricken women.

 

[KathleenElsie]

1. Not that she would have chosen abortion, but I don’t think it was a legal option when she had her kids. I am not sure of this it seems that she has adult children around my kids ages or only a little older. Abortion was still scarce at the time but legal.
2. She lives her life as a strong pro-choice advocate, so that is the way “she actually lives her life” - promoting death.

This is the reason I pray for her conversion to pro-life. What a wonderful advocate she could become if her eyes and ears are opened.

1. How does the tragic number of abortions among the poor have anything to do with the morality of abortion?

IMHO abortion is a from of bigotry. It tends to kill more of those people of color then others. With the exception of Muslims. Thus making it twice as immoral.

 

[Jared123]

So its o.k. to kill babies if they are going to be born into poverty? I don’t know Nancy Pelosis personal life, but I do know her voting record. She has consistantly voted and pushed for legislation that favors a womens right to kill their unborn child. She is also an outspoken supporter of the Homosexual agenda. To say that Nancy Pelosi is pro-life because she didn’t kill her own children, but is all in favor of the local poor women down the street killing her unborn child is crazy.

 

[OriginalJS]

There are several things wrong with this brand of “social justice.”

1. It makes the Church irrelevant. If government does everything, what need for Catholic charities? Just what is our role in such a system – to act as cheerleaders while someone else advances the ball?
2. It puts us in bed with some very strange characters – as you pointed out. “Well, yesss, abortion is wrong. But Senator Pzartz is also for raising the minimum wage.”
3. It leads into a partnership with government – exactly where we don’t belong, because government becomes the senior partner. We become dependent on government money, and hence liable to government control, even in moral issues. “Who takes the King’s shilling is the King’s man.”
4. It establishes a new source of doctrine. It is permissible to say, “Abortion should be a woman’s choice.” or “Gay marriage is simply another loving relation.” But it becomes heresy to say, “Welfare programs actually** hurt** the poor.”

You are correct on all points. But the Church long ago opted to get in bed with government and do what it could to influence it. Whether that was wise or not I don’t know. Right now you have all manner of religious, Catholic and otherwise, pushing hard for Congress to raise the minimum wage. Once you are in the political arena, it is hard to get out and the essence of representative government is compromise.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You are correct on all points. But the Church long ago opted to get in bed with government and do what it could to influence it. Whether that was wise or not I don’t know. Right now you have all manner of religious, Catholic and otherwise, pushing hard for Congress to raise the minimum wage. Once you are in the political arena, it is hard to get out and the essence of representative government is compromise.

The great danger is we will compromise away all we have taught and upheld for 2,000 years. We don’t need to be married to government – we need to be about the Church’s business. Let us fund our own schools, hospitals, and so on, and place ourselves in a position where we cannot be blackmailed into compromising our Catholic teachings.

 

[KathleenElsie]

These are the people that sponsered the Mass.

Catholic Nuns and the Need for Responsible Dissent
by Jeannine Gramick

Jeannine Gramick, a School Sister of Notre Dame, co-founded New Ways Ministry, which promotes reconciliation between lesbian and gay Catholics and the Roman Catholic Church.

**

Priest and nun barred from ministry to gays - New Ways Ministry, run by a priest and nun, is banned by the Vatican because of its ministry with gays and lesbians - Brief Article

Christian Century, July 28, 1999

Robert Nugent, whose nearly 30-year ministry with gays and lesbians has been banned by the Vatican, says that because he is “a son of the church … with a vow of obedience,” he will accept the Vatican prohibition. But in a statement issued after the Vatican announced on July 13 that Nugent, 62, and Sister Jeannine Gramick, 57, co-founders of New Ways Ministry, could no longer provide pastoral care for the gay community, he rejected the Vatican’s charge that he had thwarted church teaching on homosexuality.
Nugent noted that in 1998 he gave the Vatican a written declaration in which he asserted that he had “never deliberately denied or placed in doubt any Catholic teaching which requires the assent of theological faith” and never “publicly rejected or opposed any proposition that is to be held definitively.” But he said the Vatican responded that the statement did not clarify his “internal adherence’” to church teaching that homosexuality is a “disorder” and homosexual activity a sin. The Vatican has been investigating Nugent and Gramick’s ministry for some 15 years.
Cardinal James Hickey of the Archdiocese of Washington, D,C., who first raised questions about New Ways Ministry 18 years ago, welcomed the Vatican action and called it “very unfortunate that Sister Jeannine and Father Nugent did not base their ministry on the fullness of Catholic teaching.” But the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, an umbrella organization of religious orders of nuns, said it was “deeply saddened” by the Vatican action. The ruling, it said, "adds to the anguish that many of our sisters experience who minister to those at the margins of our church and society. We regret the suffering and sense of alienation experienced now by those who found a reflection of God’s love for them in the ministry of Sister Gramick and Father Nugent
**

 

[fcbv]

I think some other important points are being overlooked.
Not only is Pelosi pro-abortion she is also pro stem cell research, and for gay marrage.
with this record I think she should not even be allowed in the church building until she repents .

I agree!

 

[mary_bobo]

So its o.k. to kill babies if they are going to be born into poverty? I don’t know Nancy Pelosis personal life, but I do know her voting record. She has consistantly voted and pushed for legislation that favors a womens right to kill their unborn child. She is also an outspoken supporter of the Homosexual agenda. To say that Nancy Pelosi is pro-life because she didn’t kill her own children, but is all in favor of the local poor women down the street killing her unborn child is crazy.

Mrs. Pelosi grew up in a very political family in Baltimore. Her father was mayor forever. Then she married very, very well and moved to California. She got into politics rather late as she did raise her kids first. Like so many others, she claims to know the plight of those less fortunate, I’m not sure that is possible when you are very wealthy.

 

[mary_bobo]

I would like to present an opposite viewpoint on Nancy Pelosi. My understanding is that she married young and had five children under the age of six at one time. Personally, when it comes to politicians, I believe that actions speak louder than words. I assume that when she had those children, she had a choice to keep them or have abortions. Apparently, she chose to keep them, and that was the correct “choice”. So, to my way of thinking, even though she may say she is “pro choice,” she is really pro-life. Somehow, I can’t imagine anyone who has five children under the age of six being anything other than pro-life. I believe that way about all politicians. They can say anything they want to about being pro choice or pro life, but it is the way they actually live their lives that counts.

So I am giving the opposite viewpoint here. Even though Nancy Pelosi may be too liberal for many people’s tastes, I think it is rather cool that a stay-at-home mom actually made it to such a high position.

I might add that it says in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that we are to think highly of people and give them the benefit of the doubt rather than call them terrible sinners behind their back.

A recent survey I read about in the paper said that a huge number of abortions are had by poverty stricken women.

I’m sure a percentage of abortions are because of poverty. But my experience has been different. While working in Medical Records in a big hospital, there were many abortions performed. The ones I saw were not due to poverty, but to the inconvenience of having a child at that time. Some of them were repeat patients. Many of those were paid by Medicaid. I don’t want my tax money paying for abortions. I have not said anything about the new Speaker personally, but I have been highly critical of those politicians who speak in favor of abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, etal. The ones who claim to be Catholics are scandalizing the Church by these very public proclamations. It has gotten to the point that judges who might possibly be pro-life are turned away. And now that Senator Leahy, proclaimed Catholic, has the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee and he has always said that no nominee who does not believe in a woman’s right to choose will not be voted out of committee.

 

[Bizzalou]

Sorry… no I didn’t misunderstand, I just got excited to share about my bishop with a backbone… He really is awesome and yes he does take stands when needed… I think Chicago priests must think like Chicago politicians and citizens… they think they are the only ones of importance in our state… but I won’t go on that rant, not here anyway.

Hello BlestOne,
I’m wondering if your new Bishop is our previous Bishop from Little Rock, Bishop Peter Sartain? I know that he left us this past summer to move to the Chicago area, and I’m wondering if that is to whom you are referring?