San Francisco Archbishop George H. Niederauer addresses recent comments made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

[kellicouch77]

Ultimately, we will be judged by our Creator for our actions on this Earth. This applies to Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Newsom, and to the Bishop. The Bishop needs to have a stronger backbone in dealing with the errant Catholics amongst his flock. Refusing to stand up for the Church is wrong, and those who sit on the sidelines will answer for this. With that being said, I do believe I will allow God to handle it.

Also worth noting is this: actions speak louder than words, so the actions of the errant Catholics and the bishop show people what they are really like. Unfortunately, non-Catholics lump us all together and the rest of have to bear that cross.

My prayers are for those who blatantly go against the teachings of the church.

Quick question: If Pelosi and Newsom don’t agree with the church’s teachings, why are they Catholic? Can’t they find a nice liberal protestant church to join? Why not make up their own church? This is America!

 

[elts1956]

If you don’t know anything about him why do you assume that he is “hiding from the controversy about Catholic politicians in his dioceses making false statements about church teachings when other Bishops around the country are speaking up”

John

Have you read his much publicized article regarding Ms. Pelosi’s many inaccurate statements regaring CHURCH TEACHING on Tom Borkaw’s news show a couple of week ago? I hope you aren’t one of those who believe "Conscience takes precedence over Church laws and statements as Bishop, George Hugh Niederauer did in his article defending Pelosi regarding her statements about abortion.

 

[elts1956]

If you don’t know anything about him why do you assume that he is “hiding from the controversy about Catholic politicians in his dioceses making false statements about church teachings when other Bishops around the country are speaking up”

John

We dont know anything, he maybe actively trying to convert her through private consultation, prayer and may not like being in the limelight, like other bishops who seem to enjoy it or who are called for that formof ministry. Why dont we give him the benefit of the doubt too, since he is a bishop and chosen by God to take care of a certian person and the others bishops though vocal are not in charge of that wayward sheep.

Since when should we give leeway to one, although deemed a “Prince of the Church”, who disobeys the laws and beliefs of the Church he has bound himself to uphold? He has not only given scandal to the Church, he probably has also given many Catholics the excuse that one can believe abortion is right if one’s conscience says so.

 

[elts1956]

Ultimately, we will be judged by our Creator for our actions on this Earth. This applies to Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Newsom, and to the Bishop. The Bishop needs to have a stronger backbone in dealing with the errant Catholics amongst his flock. Refusing to stand up for the Church is wrong, and those who sit on the sidelines will answer for this. With that being said, I do believe I will allow God to handle it.

Also worth noting is this: actions speak louder than words, so the actions of the errant Catholics and the bishop show people what they are really like. Unfortunately, non-Catholics lump us all together and the rest of have to bear that cross.

My prayers are for those who blatantly go against the teachings of the church.

Quick question: If Pelosi and Newsom don’t agree with the church’s teachings, why are they Catholic? Can’t they find a nice liberal protestant church to join? Why not make up their own church? This is America!

QUOTE=kellicouch77;4149918]Ultimately, we will be judged by our Creator for our actions on this Earth. This applies to Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Newsom, and to the Bishop. The Bishop needs to have a stronger backbone in dealing with the errant Catholics amongst his flock. Refusing to stand up for the Church is wrong, and those who sit on the sidelines will answer for this. With that being said, I do believe I will allow God to handle it. Yes, God will handle it, but God also works through His people. I think we have sat back long enough (for over 30 years) without making our voices heard.

Also worth noting is this: actions speak louder than words, so the actions of the errant Catholics and the bishop show people what they are really like. Unfortunately, non-Catholics lump us all together and the rest of have to bear that cross. If people don’'t KNOW these are ERRANT Catholics and Bishops how will they, the people, know which behavior is correct?
My prayers are for those who blatantly go against the teachings of the church.

Quick question: If Pelosi and Newsom don’t agree with the church’s teachings, why are they Catholic? Can’t they find a nice liberal protestant church to join? Why not make up their own church? This is America! They have it too easy getting by in the faith “which means so much to them.”

 

[elts1956]

Ultimately, we will be judged by our Creator for our actions on this Earth. This applies to Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Newsom, and to the Bishop. The Bishop needs to have a stronger backbone in dealing with the errant Catholics amongst his flock. Refusing to stand up for the Church is wrong, and those who sit on the sidelines will answer for this. With that being said, I do believe I will allow God to handle it.

Also worth noting is this: actions speak louder than words, so the actions of the errant Catholics and the bishop show people what they are really like. Unfortunately, non-Catholics lump us all together and the rest of have to bear that cross.

My prayers are for those who blatantly go against the teachings of the church.

Quick question: If Pelosi and Newsom don’t agree with the church’s teachings, why are they Catholic? Can’t they find a nice liberal protestant church to join? Why not make up their own church? This is America!

He has an article about it which will be published on Sept 5th. Many of us assume that the reason for the delay is so he could counsel Speaker Pelosi one-on-one first.

Well that little fairy tale wish apparently didn’t happen seeing his article on Sept. 5.

 

[maggiemay2u]

**September 7, 2008
Twenty-third Sunday in Ordinary Time
Reading 1
Ez 33:7-9

Thus says the LORD:
You, son of man, I have appointed watchman for the house of Israel;
when you hear me say anything, you shall warn them for me.
If I tell the wicked, “O wicked one, you shall surely die, ”
and you do not speak out to dissuade the wicked from his way,
the wicked shall die for his guilt,
but I will hold you responsible for his death.
But if you warn the wicked,
trying to turn him from his way,
and he refuses to turn from his way,
he shall die for his guilt,
but you shall save yourself.**

After Mass this evening, I approached the priest and told him while I enjoyed his sermon, I was a little surprised by the direction. I really thought it was going to be “Bishops Sunday” based on the readings. He kind of smiled and said, “Oh, Ezechiel…I concentrated on the gospel, but I think tomorrow, I may incorporate all three”

My sister was amazed that he knew exactly what I was talking about. I wasn’t.

 

[elts1956]

And who are you and what is your background to say what bishops do and do not believe. I have been trying to stay out of exchanges such as this, but your statement was just too judgmental and self righteous to let go unchallenged. Remember you cannot read others hearts. And if you can or think you can, beware of where this non gift is coming from. You will remain in my prayers. Further, this is not the topic of this thread. Do not try to lead it away from the issue. The belief of bishops is not the topic and never should be.

Deacon Ed B

With all due respect Deac. even though we cannot read the thoughts of individuals, including clergy, Archbishop George H. Niederauer of SFO gives the appearance, to me, of lacking backbone in the name of relativism.

Although at the beginning of his article on Sept. 5, he did say in reference to Pelosi’s mistatements regarding the teachings of the Church on abortion, on Tom Brokaw’s show of a week or so ago, “However, her recent remarks are opposed to Church teaching”, I have much difficulty accepting his attitude on the following paragraphs tying into one another to make an article that is logical.

"The very first generation of Christians saw the need to examine one’s conscience regarding one’s worthiness to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord. Writing around 57 A.D., St. Paul told the Corinthians, “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. ]A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.” (1Cor. 11;27-28) and, "However, the unity nourished and expressed in Holy Communion can be broken by serious sin, hence .

If one is ignoring a church teaching does the examination of conscience help since it is NOT a right conscience? and to seek out the Sacrament of Reconciliation before eating the bread and drinking the cup."

Does the following from Niederauer’s statements from his first paragraph form a bridge? It doesn’t to me.

The practice of the Church is to accept this conscientious self-appraisal of each person (Canon 912). Thus, in this matter the state of the person’s awareness (Pelosi lives in a vacuum?") of his or her situation is of fundamental importance. As the bishops say most forcefully in the 2006 document, we should be cautious when making judgment… which then leads to this:

Nevertheless, the bishops go on to say: “If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of the Church, or knowingly and obstinately repudiate her definitive teachings on moral issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the Church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the Eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain.”

I am under the impression for the past sixty years or so, that if anyone did not agree with the Church on a teaching, one was not to be overtly vocal in their defiance, but to follow the teaching of the Church until the dilemma was resolved or not resolved within oneself. but silence is the only option. This should stand for politicians especially since they are in the public eye and have the public exposure to give grevous scandal.

And then Niederauer says,: "In his or her conscience, properly formed, a Catholic should recognize that making legal an evil action, such as abortion, is itself wrong.
The church, through Niederauer, is speaking here but gives Pelosi and himself a way out saying:"What of Catholics who find themselves questioning the teachings of the Church, or experiencing uncertainties and questions about them? The bishops answer, “Some Catholics may not fully understand the Church’s doctrinal and moral teachings on certain issues. They may have certain questions and even uncertainties. In situations of honest doubt and confusion, they are welcome to partake of Holy Communion, as long as they are striving to understand what the Church professes and to resolve confusion and doubt.”

Again, I am under the impression that for the past sixty years or so, as long as I have been aware of the teaching, if anyonedid not agree with the Church on a teaching, one was not to be overtly vocal in their defiance, but to follow the teaching of the Church until the dilemma was resolved or not resolved within oneself, but silence is the only option. This should stand for politicians especially since they are in the public eye and have the public exposure to give grevous scandal.

Pelosi’s way out to follow her conscience were Niederauer’s words: “not fully understand”, “may have certain questions and even uncertainties”, “situations of honest doubt and confusion” “striving to understand”. So now I can salve my conscience when I don’t agree with a Chruch teaching by not fully understanding, have certain questions and uncertainties, experience situations of honest doubt (denial) and confusion and my attitudes and actions will not give slander??? Right.

.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Ultimately, we will be judged by our Creator for our actions on this Earth. This applies to Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Newsom, and to the Bishop. The Bishop needs to have a stronger backbone in dealing with the errant Catholics amongst his flock. Refusing to stand up for the Church is wrong, and those who sit on the sidelines will answer for this. With that being said, I do believe I will allow God to handle it.

Also worth noting is this: actions speak louder than words, so the actions of the errant Catholics and the bishop show people what they are really like. Unfortunately, non-Catholics lump us all together and the rest of have to bear that cross.

My prayers are for those who blatantly go against the teachings of the church.

Quick question: If Pelosi and Newsom don’t agree with the church’s teachings, why are they Catholic? Can’t they find a nice liberal protestant church to join? Why not make up their own church? This is America!

Yes they could start their own community. But when it comes to getting the votes they need to stay in power a new community of two just does not have the same power of the word “catholic”.

People vote for others for many reasons and one of them being a perceived similarity or loyalty to an organization. The saying “race, religion and national origin” shows in the voting records of many of us. If we follow the “race, religion and national origin” then we don’t have to think just follow blindly in many cases. As humans we sometimes tend to take the easier road.

In the case of those that don’t actually believe what is basic in the faith just the showing up and being visible (newspapers, magazines, books tend to all give the impression of a belonging to one faith without actually looking into the beliefs of the person) seems to make people think they are something that they are not. It is only those that look past the beautiful false picture that see the true person and faith.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

With all due respect Deac. even though we cannot read the thoughts of individuals, including clergy, Archbishop George H. Niederauer of SFO gives the appearance, to me, of lacking backbone in the name of relativism.

Does the following from Niederauer’s statements from his first paragraph form a bridge? It doesn’t to me.
As the bishops say most forcefully in the 2006 document, we should be cautious when making judgment… which then leads to this:

Nevertheless, the bishops go on to say: “If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of the Church, or knowingly and obstinately repudiate her definitive teachings on moral issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the Church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the Eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain.”

I am under the impression for the past sixty years or so, that if anyone did not agree with the Church on a teaching, one was not to be overtly vocal in their defiance, but to follow the teaching of the Church until the dilemma was resolved or not resolved within oneself. but silence is the only option. This should stand for politicians especially since they are in the public eye and have the public exposure to give grevous scandal.

The church, through Niederauer, is speaking here but gives Pelosi and himself a way out saying:"What of Catholics who find themselves questioning the teachings of the Church, or experiencing uncertainties and questions about them? The bishops answer, “Some Catholics may not fully understand the Church’s doctrinal and moral teachings on certain issues. They may have certain questions and even uncertainties. In situations of honest doubt and confusion, they are welcome to partake of Holy Communion, as long as they are striving to understand what the Church professes and to resolve confusion and doubt.”

Again, I am under the impression that for the past sixty years or so, as long as I have been aware of the teaching, if anyonedid not agree with the Church on a teaching, one was not to be overtly vocal in their defiance, but to follow the teaching of the Church until the dilemma was resolved or not resolved within oneself, but silence is the only option. This should stand for politicians especially since they are in the public eye and have the public exposure to give grevous scandal.

Pelosi’s way out to follow her conscience were Niederauer’s words: “not fully understand”, “may have certain questions and even uncertainties”, “situations of honest doubt and confusion” “striving to understand”. So now I can salve my conscience when I don’t agree with a Chruch teaching by not fully understanding, have certain questions and uncertainties, experience situations of honest doubt (denial) and confusion and my attitudes and actions will not give slander??? Right.

.

As you can tell, I deleted several of your paragraphs for the sake of room. Your understanding of the Churches position is correct. That said, I will again point out that to question the core beliefs of the bishops is the issue I am addressing. That and that alone. It is highly presumptuous to do so and places one in a position of being judge and jury over people whom the accuser does not even know, never spoke with, never met or had any dealing with. That is what I am addressing. To make blanket statements such as were made is beyond the pale. We may not agree with the disciplinary actions or lack thereof, but that is a far cry from the presumption , which in my opinion is sinful, especially when vocalized or put in writing such as this was, that the actual beliefs of bishops, who make up the magisterium, are not orthodox. Then to even question the appointment of bishops by popes is to think that one has all the answers and the ones chosen by the Holy Spirit are somehow lacking. If you cannot see that or understand that, then I can only say you are in my prayers, which you are anyhow.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[maggiemay2u]

As you can tell, I deleted several of your paragraphs for the sake of room. Your understanding of the Churches position is correct. That said, I will again point out that to question the core beliefs of the bishops is the issue I am addressing. That and that alone. It is highly presumptuous to do so and places one in a position of being judge and jury over people whom the accuser does not even know, never spoke with, never met or had any dealing with. That is what I am addressing. To make blanket statements such as were made is beyond the pale. We may not agree with the disciplinary actions or lack thereof, but that is a far cry from the presumption , which in my opinion is sinful, especially when vocalized or put in writing such as this was, that the actual beliefs of bishops, who make up the magisterium, are not orthodox. Then to even question the appointment of bishops by popes is to think that one has all the answers and the ones chosen by the Holy Spirit are somehow lacking. If you cannot see that or understand that, then I can only say you are in my prayers, which you are anyhow.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

You, son of man, I have appointed watchman for the house of Israel;
when you hear me say anything, you shall warn them for me.

I was reflecting upon your words, and my own harshness in dealing with His Grace, and began saying my rosary when the message of todays first reading clanged in my head.

We are the watchmen.

I don’t wish any harm or disdain to anyone, least of all, to a prelate. To see one of our shepherds, or in this case, many of our shepherds, bring scandal to the Church by their lack of strength is disheartening. How sad it is, that we triumph the handful of our bishops who address evil as evil and do what is required of their office. How long has it been since the 50 or so legislators signed their defiance of Church teaching regarding abortion. How many bishops responded through the pulpit that this was inconsistent and would merit grave consequences? (that, by the way, is a real question, do you happen to know?)

Madame Speaker has given our bishops the perfect opportunity to request meetings with all our pro-abortion legislators.

Let our public officials exercise their right to “vote their conscience”, knowing that in keeping their conscience they have separated themselves from their "chosen " religion. And let our bishops exercise the duty of their office.

And let us act as watchmen, reminding our shepherds that we need their public guidance.

 

[onetruechurch]

**September 7, 2008
Twenty-third Sunday in Ordinary Time
Reading 1
Ez 33:7-9

Thus says the LORD:
You, son of man, I have appointed watchman for the house of Israel;
when you hear me say anything, you shall warn them for me.
If I tell the wicked, “O wicked one, you shall surely die, ”
and you do not speak out to dissuade the wicked from his way,
the wicked shall die for his guilt,
but I will hold you responsible for his death.
But if you warn the wicked,
trying to turn him from his way,
and he refuses to turn from his way,
he shall die for his guilt,
but you shall save yourself.**

After Mass this evening, I approached the priest and told him while I enjoyed his sermon, I was a little surprised by the direction. I really thought it was going to be “Bishops Sunday” based on the readings. He kind of smiled and said, “Oh, Ezechiel…I concentrated on the gospel, but I think tomorrow, I may incorporate all three”

My sister was amazed that he knew exactly what I was talking about. I wasn’t.

I went to a Catholic church outside my parish today and the priest gave an “ant-war” homily.

 

[geezerbob]

The war in Iraq is over and has been for years. We’re trying to establish a government and help the Iraqis rebuild, exactly what Pope John Paul II said we should do.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I went to a Catholic church outside my parish today and the priest gave an “ant-war” homily.

I know what you mean. Only our priest did not give a homily at all. We women were on our way to a Mass out of town and they guys went to our parish. There was a layperson that talked about mens bible study (short around 5 minutes). My husband was angry and upset.

 

[gakroeger]

Continuing to read Archbishop Charles J. Caput’s book…

He talks about two Archbishops who have had the courage to speak out against Catholic politicians and other high profile public figures who openly promote legalizing immoral activity against Church teachings. They speak even when they catch the most flack from self described Catholics

Archbishop Joseph Rummel of New Orleans in the 50’s desegregated Catholic schools in spike of the protests of his flock.

Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis while still bishop La Crosse Wis. in 2004; Asked three Catholic public figures to refrain from presenting themselves for Holy Communion until they reconciled themselves with the Church. He further asked Priest to withhold Communion from politicians who support abortion.

I looked up news stories on these events on line and found the same attempts at justification we see now for politicians. Invariably they claim it is not their personal view but they do not feel they can impose their beliefs on others. How magnanimous of them! The other common argument is the Church should not tell them or anyone else how to vote.

Isn’t it amazing how some people can justify anything in their own minds? Regarding the first argument; it is not their personal view, really? How do you so easily brush off your own personal view? I assume your personal view is also that adults should not be murdered; do you also think that there should not be a law against that? Why to you impose your views of murder on other?

Regarding the second argument; the Church should not tell anyone how to vote. The Church is not taking your choice; you are free to vote however you want. However, you must make another choice; if you want to be Catholic or not. You cannot have it both ways. Either you are Catholic or you are pro abortion. Or, if you prefer anti abortion but think others can be free to choose. Either way, you are not free to call yourself Catholic and then proceed to publicly announce your disagreement with Church teachings. If you insist on your pro abortion stance, fine, renounce your Catholic faith and do your dirty work, but do not denigrate the Catholic Church by preaching Heresy and claiming you are within and aligned with the Church.

Right is right and wrong is wrong. Politicians love to take black and white issues and muddy them up with all kinds of what if’s, hypothetical scenarios, and any other smoke and mirrors they can think of to hide the very simple but sometimes difficult to accept facts.

 

[davidcoit]

However, you must make another choice; if you want to be Catholic or not. You cannot have it both ways. Either you are Catholic or you are pro abortion. Or, if you prefer anti abortion but think others can be free to choose. Either way, you are not free to call yourself Catholic and then proceed to publicly announce your disagreement with Church teachings. If you insist on your pro abortion stance, fine, renounce your Catholic faith and do your dirty work, but do not denigrate the Catholic Church by preaching Heresy and claiming you are within and aligned with the Church.)/QUOTE]

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[rpp]

If Archbishop Niederauer does decide to take action, such as public interdiction or even (very unlikely) excommunication, he will probably wait until after the election cycle so as not to appear to be trying to influence the election.

If Pelosi, who represents San Francisco, is interdicted or excommunicated before the Fall election, that would probably increase the number of votes she gets. After all, San Francisco officially hates the Church.

 

[davidcoit]

If Archbishop Niederauer does decide to take action, such as public interdiction or even (very unlikely) excommunication, he will probably wait until after the election cycle so as not to appear to be trying to influence the election.

If Pelosi, who represents San Francisco, is interdicted or excommunicated before the Fall election, that would probably increase the number of votes she gets. After all, San Francisco officially hates the Church.

Jesus I Trust In You.

 

[estesbob]

Archbishop, Pelosi to talk about communion

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has accepted an invitation from San Francisco’s archbishop to discuss whether she should continue to receive communion at the Catholic Church in the wake of comments she made about abortion.

San Francisco Archbishop George H. Niederauer said he had received letters and e-mails from “many Catholics” expressing dismay over Pelosi’s remarks, in which she said the matter of when life begins remained controversial within the church. He said many of them questioned whether she should be able to receive communion from the church.

http://ad.thehill.com/adlog.php?ban...capping=0&cb=5e5f9cf44de71673710a2747d780ca23

Pelosi made the remarks in an Aug. 24 interview with “Meet the Press” host Tom Brokaw after Brokaw said that the Catholic Church believes strongly that life begins at conception.

Her comments have been criticized by several Catholic Church officials, and Niederauer described them as being “in serious conflict” with the church in the Sept. 5 issue of Catholic San Francisco.

Niederauer concludes that, based on Catholic Church statements, it is up to him as Pelosi’s pastor to address whether she may continue to receive communion. He then invites the Speaker “into a conversation with me about these matters.”

“Let us pray together that the Holy Spirit will guide us all toward a more profound understanding and appreciation for human life, and toward a resolution of these differences in truth and charity and peace,” Niederauer wrote.

In a Sept. 5 response hand-delevered to Niederauer on Friday, Pelosi thanks him for the invitation and his gracious remarks about hehr love for the church and her Catholic faith.
“I welcome the opportunity for our personal conversation and to go beyond our earlier most cordial exchange about immigration and needs of the poor to Church teaching on other significant matters,” she wrote. " I hope that we can meet at your earliest convenience.

“I join you in your hope and prayer that the Holy Spirit will guide our discussions in truth and charity and peace.”

Niederauer said he wrote the article because it is his responsibility “to oppose erroneous, misleading and confusing positions when they are advanced.” He described Pelosi’s comments as “opposed” to church teaching.

Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl earlier had issued a statement criticizing the comments, which he said “were incorrect.”

In an August interview on C-SPAN, Pelosi said that if communion were withheld from her, it would be “a severe blow.”

“It depends on the bishop or a certain region, and, fortunately for me, communion has not been withheld and I’m a regular communicant, so that would be a severe blow to me if that were the case,” she said.

Niederauer quoted a section of the catechism of the Catholic Church to underline his point that when life begins is not controversial within the church. “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception,” according to the catechism. “Since the first century the church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.”

Niederauer also criticized an Aug. 26 statement from Pelosi’s office about her comments on “Meet the Press.” In the statement, Pelosi’s office said that while the Catholic Church believes life begins at conception, “many Catholics” do not agree with this view.

“Authentic moral teaching is based on objective truth, not polling,” Niederauer wrote. He noted that in 1861, polls in different states showed different views on slavery, but this did not mean that slavery was moral in one state and not in another.

Niederauer praised Pelosi as “a gifted, dedicated and accomplished public servant” who has supported bills that have helped implement some of the Catholic Church’s social teachings.
He also noted that Pelosi has “often said how highly she values her Catholic faith, and how much it is a source of joy for her.”

thehill.com/leading-the-news/archbishop-wants-to-talk-to-pelosi-about-receiving-communion-2008-09-08.html

 

[davidcoit]

Archbishop, Pelosi to talk about communion

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has accepted an invitation from San Francisco’s archbishop to discuss whether she should continue to receive communion at the Catholic Church in the wake of comments she made about abortion.

Time now for prayer and fasting.

 

[estesbob]

Time now for prayer and fasting.

I think she has forced his hand.

Meanwhile another prominent Catholic politician said this weekend that he agrees with the church that life begins at conception but he does not think it is right to force his moral views on anybody else.