AmericanPapist Comments
Looks like I'll have to make a trip to confession this week - my anger over this is elevating to degrees I don't like - and I'm afraid my thoughts of Pelosi during this time have been less than charitable. So frustrating. I find myself wondering how St. Therese would have responded to all of this...or Catherine of Siena!
Crazy...
"“While Catholic teaching is clear that life begins at conception, many Catholics do not ascribe to that view."
True, but does that make it OK?
Prayers for Pelosi. She obviously needs them.
I'm a dissenter, but so are others... that's her argument? Oh, and that passage by Augustine that doesn't directly address the issue at all! Her two fold argument fully unveiled. But at least she's willing to work with the Church in other areas - just not the one dealing with killing children in their mother's womb. It's the old "solve poverty through abortion and contraception" philosophy. Nothing could be more antithetical to the consistent teaching of the Church she professes to belong to.
Dissenters often take the approach of "safety in numbers."
For another example, see this quote from Catholics for Choice.
Small problem: truth isn't decided by ballot.
Holy Cow... Is she serious? I agree that she's testing the waters, though I'd use different words: "Setting up her underling to take a bullet for her" Happens all the time on the Hill... (I almost feel bad for her spokeswoman... as she's gotta be thinking "Geez I hope I don't get the axe tonight")
Anyway, I hope the already vocal bishops fire back with "That's nice, but you're still wrong, and now more so", and that other Bishops also join the chorus. Definitely praying for the continued display of Episcopal Spine!
She must be tried and found guilty of heresy, and excommunicated ferendae sententiae. The scandal she is causing is enough for this, but she is teaching heresy publicly.
Working rule of precedence in Washington: Good news is always announced by the highest possible source. Bad news is always announced by the lowest possible source. This is why the announcement was put out by a flunky.
In a way, it's too bad we can't burn heretics anymore. But if she were a member of the "Religion of Peace" they'd cut her head off. Tom
I have to agree with a previous comment on one of these Pelosi posts. This is SUCH a teachable moment for the Church. I pray for our Bishops that they continue to correct what is wrong and bring to clear view what the teachings of the Church are. "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade".
This is playing out in a very interesting way.
As I have observed in the past, many Catholic Dems who openly support abortion claim to be "personally opposed," but unwilling to "impose" their views on others. (I have called them "POTABs," for "Personally Opposed To Abortion, But . . .")
Of course, that is an absurd position, but it is very commonly espoused by Catholic Dems who crave acceptance by the rigidly pro-abortion leaders of their party.
Pelosi's position appears quite different.
She's not saying that she's personally opposed; instead she seems to dissent quite openly from the teaching that an individual human life begins at the time of conception.
She seeks to justify this by claiming -- falsely, of course -- that this has been a subject of open debate within the Church as recently as fifty years ago.
I will give her credit, at least, for the fact that her conclusion -- basically that abortion is always OK -- actually follows from her premise that a fetus is not a human life.
But of course, because her premise is so indefensible, it leads her to a gravely erroneous conclusion.
When will Sen. Biden be asked to weigh in on this topic?
Yeah, it is odd that, in contrast to most CINO politicians, her logic is actually better than "personally opposed, but..." which is logically indefensible.
If she truly believes that the unborn child is not human, then there is no reason why we can not kill them. Besides the original premise on which the conclusion is based being completely false, there is the issue that if it's not wrong, then why are we obligated to limit abortion? Then when you throw in the brutal "defense" of her position using a single quote of a Church Father, all hell breaks loose.
Small problem: truth isn't decided by ballot.
Small problem: truth isn't decided by ballot.
One blogger noted that there is only one poll in the New Testament, only Simon Peter got it right and he needed help.
“The Speaker is the mother of five children and seven grandchildren and fully appreciates the sanctity of family.
Funny. I thought that it was a question of the sanctity of life. Is the wording an attempt at evasion? Or is the sanctity of the family dependent on a woman's fiat, whereby she condescends to let her children live?
Her views on when life begins were informed by the views of Saint Augustine, who said: ‘…the law does not provide that the act [abortion] pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation…’ (Saint Augustine, On Exodus 21.22)
But St Augustine also wrote: "Some times (Latin: Aliquando) this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility (sterilitatis venena), and, if these do not work, extinguish and destroy the fetus in some way in the womb, preferring that their offspring die before it lives, or if it was already alive in the womb to kill it before it was born. - On Marriage and Concupiscence."
Since Augustine uses the term "offspring" and the phrase "die before it lives" in reference to what he thinks is an un-ensouled fetus, one has to ask if she understands what the Saint is saying. Also, was the law St Augustine was referring to Roman law, or canonical law? It seems to me that that is a distinction of obvious importance.
“While Catholic teaching is clear that life begins at conception, many Catholics do not ascribe to that view."
Then she and they ought to be considered as the heathen and the tax collector (Matt 18:17).
The Speaker agrees with the Church that we should reduce the number of abortions.
Reduce? One would think that an "ardent Catholic" so well studied on the subject would see the absurdity of claiming the Church thinks we should merely "reduce" abortions.
“The Speaker has a long, proud record of working with the Catholic Church on many issues, including alleviating poverty and promoting social justice and peace.”
The serpentine Matthew 25 argument. Unfortunately for those who invoke this argument, the Matthean Jesus insists that the disciple does all that is commanded, and towards that end he (who was endowed with all authority) sent His Church to teach all that He commanded, and with His authority.
Pelosi will issue this statement through an underling. She's still showing more backbone than her bishop.
Thank God for our faithful Bishops.
Am I reading this correctly?
". . . her sole source of argument is this obscure passage in Augustine? I have actually studied this passage of Augustine. In it, Aquinas is talking about . . ."
I don't get the jump from Augustine to Aquinas?
Thanks for the typo catch - it should be Augustine throughout.
What is wrong with all you dim-wiited, uncaring, unloving, closed-minded fools? This is the 21st century in case you haven't heard. You're all arguing as though you're still living in the 1st century. I'm sick of you all having say over my life as though you have that authority. Christ would never condone your narrow mindedness. Get real - there are other factors involved - there are other issues tearing this country apart. Why is it all these "pro-life" idiots would be the first to take or sacrifice a life (even an innocent woman's life) to protect a life, if life is so important?
What is wrong with all you dim-wiited, uncaring, unloving, closed-minded fools?
I may very well be all of the above. If that's the case, then it shouldn't be difficult to overthrow my ideas. Let's take a look.
This is the 21st century in case you haven't heard.
Well, I am aware of that, so perhaps I'm not quite that dim-witted.
You're all arguing as though you're still living in the 1st century.
We are? It was Pelosi that appealed to Augustine (who is later than the first-century by the way.). Now one might say that Austine is irrelevent, but if one is going to invoke him, they ought to get it right, and Pelosi blew it.
I'm sick of you all having say over my life as though you have that authority.
We do? Are papal Swiss Guards kicking down your door and making sure you go to mass?
Christ would never condone your narrow mindedness.
I'll will happily submit to His judgement. But Truth doesn't change with time.
Get real - there are other factors involved - there are other issues tearing this country apart.
Certainly there are other issues. Which ones are tearing the country apart?
Why is it all these "pro-life" idiots would be the first to take or sacrifice a life (even an innocent woman's life) to protect a life, if life is so important?
I believe you are misinformed. We are morally obligated to protect both mother and unborn child. There is no formula that allows us to to say, "we'll deliberately kill this innocent person in order to save this innocent person."
God bless you.
I love this line from her spokesperson:
"The Speaker agrees with the Church that we should reduce the number of abortions."
Technically, yes, the Church wants to reduce the number of abortions. Specifically, we want it reduced to zero - no exceptions, just right.
The main point of Augustine's statement was to theorize about whether (or how) Catholic doctrine would change if it is found that an embryo is not (yet!) human and at which point that does happen. The overall point, though, was that: until we know for certain, err on the side of human life, so you don't inadvertently condone murder.
Sounds to me like Ms. Pelosi "researched" until she found a single snippet that she felt agreed with her already established policy position. That's not how one learns - that's how one rationalizes.
Commenting by HaloScan
