Transcript of interview of Rep. Nancy Pelosi by Joe Feuerherd

[bones_IV]

Can you believe this? What a bunch of drivel. A conservative Catholic? NOT.

[natcath.org/ma(name removed by moderator)age/specialdocuments/Pelosi.htm](http://www.natcath.org/ma(name removed by moderator)age/specialdocuments/Pelosi.htm)

 

[carol_marie]

I didn’t totally understand when she was talking about receiving communion… does she or doesn’t she (at her home parish?) She talked about being a “moving target” and homilies she’d hear in the South… what was that?

I liked that her family disagrees with her stand on abortion. Good for them.

 

[johnnycatholic]

A “Conservative Catholic” who wants women priests? Now i see how Hilary Clinton is a “moderate”.

 

[Lonevoice]

I didn’t totally understand when she was talking about receiving communion… does she or doesn’t she (at her home parish?) She talked about being a “moving target” and homilies she’d hear in the South… what was that?

She’s just playing a poor game of CYA and “I did it/do it because of someone else”.

Sheesh. What do we have to look forward to for the next 2 years? The only bright spot is that now the world can see what she and people like her will do once given the reins of power.

 

[Riley259]

How very sad and scary. She calls herself a conservative Catholic but boldly proclaims herself as “pro-choice” and is confident that the Church will allow women priests. Hasn’t she read any of the Church’s documents or even cracked a catechism? If she had, she would know that being pro-abort and Catholic is a complete contradiction in terms and she would also be aware that women priests are an impossiblilty. This is a scandal to have her in such a high position in the House of Representatives and to try to influence other Catholics with her dissident views. Pray that she’ll eventually come to know the truth.

 

[Karianne]

How very sad and scary. She calls herself a conservative Catholic but boldly proclaims herself as “pro-choice” and is confident that the Church will allow women priests. Hasn’t she read any of the Church’s documents or even cracked a catechism? If she had, she would know that being pro-abort and Catholic is a complete contradiction in terms and she would also be aware that women priests are an impossiblilty. This is a scandal to have her in such a high position in the House of Representatives and to try to influence other Catholics with her dissident views. Pray that she’ll eventually come to know the truth.

No, I’ll pray that Bush is impeached along with Cheney for their war crimes and that she becomes president.

 

[Strummer]

I’m curious…do those of you berating now-Speaker Pelosi believe it impossible to be simultaneously pro-choice and still abhor abortion?

 

[Karin]

Riley259 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cab/viewpost.gif
How very sad and scary. She calls herself a conservative Catholic but boldly proclaims herself as “pro-choice” and is confident that the Church will allow women priests. Hasn’t she read any of the Church’s documents or even cracked a catechism? If she had, she would know that being pro-abort and Catholic is a complete contradiction in terms and she would also be aware that women priests are an impossiblilty. This is a scandal to have her in such a high position in the House of Representatives and to try to influence other Catholics with her dissident views. Pray that she’ll eventually come to know the truth.

No, I’ll pray that Bush is impeached along with Cheney for their war crimes and that she becomes president.

 

[Rach620]

I’m curious…do those of you berating now-Speaker Pelosi believe it impossible to be simultaneously pro-choice and still abhor abortion?

The old ‘personally pro-life, politically pro-choice’ position. Sure, people can claim to believe such a thing, but it makes me question how much they actually value human life. If you abhor abortion so much that you yourself won’t choose it–why is that? If it is because you believe a human life is ended, then morally the only step you could take would be to prevent others from ending human life.

‘Tolerance’ and ‘live and let live’ sound oh-so-nice, but the implications of that kind of relativism are apparent throughout the Pelosi interview. The difference between liberals and conservatives (not necessarily Democrats & Republicans, though) is that one denies an objective moral order, while the other would organize society based upon it.

Besides the fact that I can’t stand to listen to Nancy Pelosi speak for more than two minutes, her presidency (or Hillary’s…) is not something I think any Catholic could look forward to.

 

[Wolseley]

No, I’ll pray that Bush is impeached along with Cheney for their war crimes and that she becomes president.

 

[Rach620]

Oh dear, I just got to the end of the interview–the question about the difficulty of being a pro-choice Catholic today, compared to a decade ago.

Q: Is it more difficult today to be a pro-choice Catholic then it was, say, ten years ago?
A: It’s about the same. Now when I traveled across the country when I was campaigning for candidates this last time, when I was in another city on a Sunday, I would try to find a Catholic church nearby. I heard some of the sermons in some of the churches down south, so I understand what some of our colleagues undergo in the church – it was difficult. We’ve had those sermons in California, but a little more subtlety than I was hearing down south. It gave me a better understanding of what some of my colleagues are going through.

“Those sermons.”

It’s that silly teaching authority, it’ll get you every time, Rep. Pelosi

 

[Strummer]

The old ‘personally pro-life, politically pro-choice’ position. Sure, people can claim to believe such a thing, but it makes me question how much they actually value human life.

Not quite. I wasn’t thinking that at all (but I do understand how i might have been misunderstood). What I’m thinking about is this: historically, when this nation has made abortions more difficult to obtain, then numbers of actual procedures either decreased only slightly or actually increased. However, when we addressed the root causes and contibuting factors of abortions and NOT the procedures themselves, the number decreased significantly. So, logically, if one truly wants to eliminate abortions, we should elect Democrats’ as their economic policies bring about the results we desire.

The difference between liberals and conservatives (not necessarily Democrats & Republicans, though) is that one denies an objective moral order, while the other would organize society based upon it.

Now here’s an interesting predicament for you then as the Constitution prohibits governence based (directly) upon “an objective moral order” should that order be codified into an organized religion. We’re between a rock and a hard place.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m curious…do those of you berating now-Speaker Pelosi believe it impossible to be simultaneously pro-choice and still abhor abortion?

Not impossible, just illogical. If you abhor abortion for the murder that it is, how could you possibly be in favor of someone choosing to murder?

It is also scandalous:

**2284 **Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

But, that is not the only problem with Speaker Pelosi considering herself a “conservative Catholic.”

Q: Women as priests?
A: Oh absolutely…Why not? Why not?

Married priests, which was lumped in with it, is not a problem, but women as priests will not and can not happen.

 

[Strummer]

It’s that silly teaching authority, it’ll get you every time, Rep. Pelosi

Any respectable prof will tell you, it’s the best and brightest students that will argue with you all the time. And often they make good points.
It’s “teaching authority” not mandated conformity for that would eliminate Free Will and without that there’s no true act of Faith.

 

[rlg94086]

Any respectable prof will tell you, it’s the best and brightest students that will argue with you all the time. And often they make good points.
It’s “teaching authority” not mandated conformity for that would eliminate Free Will and without that there’s no true act of Faith.

You obviously don’t understand what dogma means. Yes, she has Free Will; however, she is in grave error according to God’s laws.

 

[Strummer]

I was speaking in general terms. I do not doubt that she has commited grave error along the way and hope she has taken that to her confessor. Her position makes it difficult to hold a contrary idea in her heart and not be required to publicly proclaim it. It’s a fine line between disagreement and disobedience.

 

[rlg94086]

I was speaking in general terms. I do not doubt that she has commited grave error along the way and hope she has taken that to her confessor.*** Her position makes it difficult to hold a contrary idea in her heart and not be required to publicly proclaim it. It’s a fine line between disagreement and disobedience***.

I don’t understand what you are saying. Do you believe she is not really pro-choice - just lying about it? She has stated pro-choice beliefs and publically proclaims it. If she was not pro-choice, what would keep her from publically proclaiming it?

 

[Strummer]

I don’t understand what you are saying. Do you believe she is not really pro-choice - just lying about it? She has stated pro-choice beliefs and publically proclaims it. If she was not pro-choice, what would keep her from publically proclaiming it?

No, not quite. My understanding of Church teaching is that while Free Will allows that we may not all accept every teaching of the magisterium, we should no promote our opinions in such a way as to lead others into scandal. I believe Speaker Pelosi is pro-choice in her heart and cannot represent herself any different. However, being a public figure she must then publicly act in a way that may well lead others.
Is that clearer? Perhaps my understanding is incomplete.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m curious…do those of you berating now-Speaker Pelosi believe it impossible to be simultaneously pro-choice and still abhor abortion?

How could it be otherwise?

Would it be possible to say your neighbor has a right to kill his children, and still abhor murder?

Pro-choice and pro-abortion are the same thing, just dressed in different colors.

 

[Rach620]

Not quite. I wasn’t thinking that at all (but I do understand how i might have been misunderstood). What I’m thinking about is this: historically, when this nation has made abortions more difficult to obtain, then numbers of actual procedures either decreased only slightly or actually increased. However, when we addressed the root causes and contibuting factors of abortions and NOT the procedures themselves, the number decreased significantly. So, logically, if one truly wants to eliminate abortions, we should elect Democrats’ as their economic policies bring about the results we desire.

I’ve never seen any sort of study which correlates Democratic social/econ policies with lower abortion rates, but if you know of anything I’d be interested.

I understand that economic circumstances have a lot to do with many women’s choices to have abortions–but I disagree that this is the main cause. If there were an understanding that human life and personhood begin with conception, abortion wouldn’t even be an option for women, even those in the worst of financial or other circumstances. I agree that there should be support, in the form of welfare and the like, for those who really need it, but the point of any government policy is not to continually supplement its citizens’ income. Any government support for individuals should really just allow them to become self-supporting, contributing citizens. The answer to eliminating abortion, however, is not going to be economic policy, but rather a change of culture.

Now here’s an interesting predicament for you then as the Constitution prohibits governence based (directly) upon “an objective moral order” should that order be codified into an organized religion. We’re between a rock and a hard place.

I wasn’t speaking of an objective moral order as codified into a specific organized religion. An objective moral order is just that–an objective one. Any human being can see that, for example, ending another’s life is wrong.

At any rate, the Constitution does not forbid the government from continuing to operate on the Christian principles on which it was founded. The Constitution did, in fact, only prohibit the establishment of a national religion and allow for the free exercise of religion of Americans. It’s not unconstitutional to justify the constitutional right to life with the fact that all human beings were created by God. That’s the way it should be, and forgetting it and trying to legislate around it is where all our problems have come in.