I can't recommend this video of her with Tom Brokaw enough.
So much to say in review!
1) She's trying not to come across as an obvious cafeteria Catholic, but she's about as subtle as a dead skunk.
2) She's not a very good TV speaker, but at least she's better than Barack Obama.
3) Her response to the conundrum of her own creation is a jumbled mess. When I hear this kind of mishmash escape national politicians' lips, it makes me think I should move to DC and offer my own services. I'm 100% certain I could write way beyond whoever these bozos have working for them. And yet, since virtually all these politicians' positions are in some way indefensible, and perversely are examined at only the shallowest levels by the media and public-at-large, those responsible for thinking up these talking points are left trying to walk a bizarre and invisible fine line.
4) I love how she tries lamely to chuck a barb at Republicans near the end, about their reticence to "support contraception". Obviously she doesn't accept abstinence-only education. But I thought she was a self-proclaimed Catholic - what is she doing politicking for contraceptive programs?
5) Why does she want abortions to be rare (minute 2:35)?
This is YET ANOTHER case of cognitive dissonance in our society (by now I'm losing count) - Joe Citizen has this strange idea flittering on the periphery of his mind that abortion is distasteful or not the best option for contraception, but he cannot bring himself to make the statement that it is morally wrong and repugnant. So, because he cannot state this with finality, he says that women should have access to it. Yet Pelosi wants it to be rare?
Is it just because women are frequently psychologically damaged and traumatised?
Is it just because women so frequently have medical complications?
Is it just because abortion providers never give the co-conspirator to murder (yes, that would be the pregnant woman, in case you were wondering) full information about just what the procedure would entail?
Is it because we think that it just might be human life in there?
Is it too much to ask that the #3 official in the US government, the "most powerful woman in America" at least ask the right question in this and any other discussion related to abortion? Is this a human being that is being dismembered/burned with saltwater/shop-vac'ed out of the woman? If not, then let's allow abortion to be the norm - who cares whether it's rare? I don't see her campaigning to make appendectomies rare. Let's have abortion parties and forget parental consent and all of that nonsense!
6) "Archbishop George Niederauer, in Pelosi's hometown of San Francisco will take up the issue in the Sept. 5 edition of the archdiocesan newspaper, his spokesman said."
Let's be clear here - if she were a member of my Babdist church, she would long ago have been excommunicated. We're not real fond of accomplices to murder. That's just how we roll.
I'm looking forward to seeing how this Archbishop reacts to this.
7) What in the world is he waiting for? Is he willfully ignorant of Pelosi's stance on abortion? How about on contraception? How has she escaped being called out and being forced to choose between repentance or excommunication on these issues until this time?
The Eucharist is the "medicine of immortality", and this accomplice to murder is able to take it, no problem? Why is it that I, Mr. Sola Fide, have to remind the Roman Church to take action (ie, to work)?
8) At least she said "Augustine" properly.
Posts
20 comments:
Nancy Pelosi may be one of ours, but Jimmy Carter is one of yours.
I don't claim him at all.
One wishes Rome were as finicky with regard to whom it embraces.
lhHi Rhology,
Nancy Pelosi, Joseph Biden, John Kerry and their ilk are not even cafeteria Catholics~they are more like the dumpster diving variety.
As far as your excoriation of Bishop Niederauer, I agree with you on this one. The archbishop of San Fransisco has been very weak when it comes to disciplinary matters. It's remarkable that a man of his position is more interested in being liked by sinners than being concerned for their souls.
In contrast, Senator Biden's bishop has already advised him that he is not to take communion nor is he allowed to speak in Catholic schools because of his similar viewpoints. Also, a number of other bishops have already castigated Pelosi for her grossly irresponsible statements. I welcome such a response and hope that they continue to remind these folks what the Church teaches.
Nevertheless, the gravely sinful behavior of many Catholic politicians and the historically weak response to it by the bishops in this country is something that you have the right to point to and deride. These men forget that a shepherd is given a staff for a reason and a man who is afraid to use it defend his flock should reflect on the consequences of their inaction.
This Catholic thanks you for this surprisingly ecumenical post.
Paul,
Do you wish that they would wield the excommunicatory power more freely?
It looks like you do... I'd like to ask - Who are you to question what the Church that Christ founded does?
(I'm serious, not being sarcastic.)
Rhology,
I am in agreement with Paul Hoffer on this. I rarely comment in here and it's usually in disagreement but I do think this post was relatively fair handed.
In response to your question, if a member of the Clergy is doing something wrong--whether it is shuffling priest pedophiles around in different parishes or not excommunicating government officials who should be excommunicated, we as Catholics have the obligation to speak out against what they are doing.
The Catholic Church is made up of weak men and women who sin daily. Bishops (and even the Pope) are not exempt from that. If they are sinning or overlooking the sins of others which allows people to commit grievous acts like abortion, then yes. They need to be called out by the laity.
Like Catherine of Siena or Francis of Assisi, as Catholics, we are called to reform our Church (not break away from it).
I would say that is very reasonable, except for two things.
1) Pelosi and her ilk are VERY public and VERY influential. Thus their stances are very public and obvious. This is not a "if your brother sins against YOU, talk to him yourself" kind of thing. She has sinned against countless (now dead) children and voters whose consciences have been led astray by her.
2) It's not just one priest doing the ignoring. It's her priest. It's his supervisor. It's his supervisor. It's the deacons. It's the bishop, the archbishop, etc. Stop issuing "rebukes", start making a difference.
This is a really obvious problem, with a really obvious solution. Why doesn't someone, ANYone, in the RCC take action? There's really no escaping blame on this one.
quote: "Nancy Pelosi, Joseph Biden, John Kerry and their ilk are not even cafeteria Catholics~they are more like the dumpster diving variety."
I am glad for what appears to be your firm stand for the right of the unborn, and your sentiments towards those who advocate abortion.
But the point that Romanists make continually against sola Scriptura is that it doesn't work. Well, obviously, given the status of these members of the Roman communion and the fact that they haven't been excommunicated for their obvious denial of Rome's position on these issues, you ought to affirm, in order to be consistent, that Romanism's authority doesn't work, because it does not prevent anarchy among its own ranks.
Why is it that Romanism has one standard for those who affirm the principle of sola Scriptura, and another standard for themselves? In other words, any argument that undermines your own position is not, cannot be, a sound argument. From our perspective, it is sheer hypocrisy for Romanists to argue one way when critiquing authority from the stand point of sola Scriptura, while refusing to apply the same model and/or standard to their own communion. Why the double standard?
Please answer the question why the double standard? Please answer the question instead of simply repeating the lament about the above named members of the communion of Rome. I just want to know why the double standard?
DTK
“Do you wish that they would wield the excommunicatory power more freely?”
Are you suggesting that there is a magisterium that is capable of doing something about the situation? I think you should recall this other conversation:
Me: why is one's view on anything - God, Trinity, Jesus, Heaven, Hell, the Canon, etc, not as good as any other, since you have the benefit of not having a magisterium?”
You: Scripture is the deciding factor then, not the Magisterium.
Me: In any case, every Catholic knows that the Church is the mother and teacher (matar et magistra) and every Catholic teacher knows that he has to teach, not in his own name, but in the name of the Church. He (the Catholic) trusts because he knows who the teacher is and has confidence in the teacher. He believes in order to understand
You: But that can't be done with the Scr?
Me: When I, as an ordinary Catholic, am presented with a dogmatic teaching, my first reaction is not to load up books and start finding where the pope made a mistake. Rather my first reaction is to make sure it is an authoritative Catholic teaching and if I do not understand it or even inclined to disagree, I also have to consider who the teacher is and in whose authority she teaches.
You: As for me, my first reaction is to make sure it is an authoritative biblical teaching and if I do not understand it or even inclined to disagree, I also have to consider who the teacher is and in whose authority it teaches.
Me: The protestant is however justified in being skeptical about matters of faith because he neither trusts his teacher, if he has one, nor himself;
You: I don't trust the Scr? The Holy Spirit?
Me: hence the concept of authoritative and infallible teaching is an alien concept to him.
You: Not at all. The Scr is both authoritative and infallible. So is the Holy Spirit.
It is important to note that in your responses, not once did you appeal to a teaching office that is capable of doing anything or has the ability to say what the faith is or is not. Now, you seem to be appealing to the Magisterium and not the “Scr” to take action.
You also write: “Who are you to question what the Church that Christ founded does? (I'm serious, not being sarcastic.)
Me: Well, without being sarcastic either, I was wondering how Protestants deal with similar situation. Obama is a Protestant and an ardent abortion supporter. Who in Protestantism has the power to question him in any meaningful way? Who will put pressure on him and those like him in Protestantism? Will you give him an audio bible to listen to since in keeping with bible alone principle. How do you address Obama in an authoritive way.
In the Catholic Church, we at least know whose responsibility it is to ask the required questions or to take action and even if actions are not taken as fast as some would like, in the end, the hammer will surely fall on the dissenting Catholics.
Are you suggesting that there is a magisterium that is capable of doing something about the situation?
Well, I thought there was, on the Roman view, but apparently there is not, since nothing has been done.
He believes in order to understand
And how is that working out for you here?
Contraception is supposed to be a mortal sin, yet here you have Pelosi et al not only encouraging contraception but the murder of babies as well. Murder is a mortal sin, you know. Where is the hammer from the Roman Church?
Rather my first reaction is to make sure it is an authoritative Catholic teaching
Which is 100% fallible, private interpretation on your part, BTW.
if I do not understand it or even inclined to disagree, I also have to consider who the teacher is and in whose authority she teaches.
Sola Ecclesia. I prefer God-breathed stuff, myself.
Now, you seem to be appealing to the Magisterium
To police its own flock, yes. You seem to be having trouble following the argument here. Where is the Magisterial clarity?
Obama is a Protestant
No, he's a member of the United Church of Christ. The UCC is a denomination of the liberal religion, and that's not at all the same thing as Protestantism.
Who will put pressure on him and those like him in Protestantism?
Even if the answer has to be "no" to all these questions, apparently the answers are also "no" on Romanism. How can you not see the parity, absent any Magisterial action?
How do you address Obama in an authoritive way.
Murder breaks the 6th commandment. The 6th commandment is found in Scr. I'd encourage you to do some reading in the Bible. Start with Matthew, move forward.
we at least know whose responsibility it is to ask the required questions or to take action and even if actions are not taken as fast as some would like, in the end, the hammer will surely fall on the dissenting Catholics.
You are full of obfuscatory tripe. When will it fall? When has it fallen on Ted Kennedy? John Kerry? How many decades will we have to wait?
Rho, I have to agree with you on this one.
It is time a Bishop stood up and made an example of one of this "practicing Catholics"
I would love to see the Archbishop not only correct her, but then tell her she must sign a document affirming her loyalty to all the churches teachings on abortion.
She would of course, refuse. At that point, under Canon Law, the Bishop would have the right to formally excommunicate her.
Here's praying it happens!
Let's take it to the next step, kmerian.
What does it say about the CHURCH that no action has yet been taken on a topic of such import?
“Sola Ecclesia. I prefer God-breathed stuff, myself.”
Sola stuff?
”You seem to be having trouble following the argument here. Where is the Magisterial clarity?”
Magisterial clarity is available to those who understand the Magisterium. Those who refuse to learn will dismiss it as they dismiss God’s other institutions and commands.
“No, he's a member of the United Church of Christ. The UCC is a denomination of the liberal religion, and that's not at all the same thing as Protestantism.”
Is your “magisterial” statement also found in your bible? If not, whose idea of Protestantism is primary here?
“Even if the answer has to be "no" to all these questions, apparently the answers are also "no" on Romanism. How can you not see the parity, absent any Magisterial action?”
Thank you, the answer is “no one”. Nice dodge.
“Murder breaks the 6th commandment. The 6th commandment is found in Scr. I'd encourage you to do some reading in the Bible. Start with Matthew, move forward.”
Seemingly, Obama knows nothing about your “sixth commandment”.
Perhaps you are referring to the fifth Commandment as identified by the Catholic Magisterium. In any case, you assume Obama does not have a bible, or that if he does, has not read the section you have in mind.
“You are full of obfuscatory tripe. When will it fall? When has it fallen on Ted Kennedy? John Kerry? How many decades will we have to wait?”
This is an old question: “Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation”.
By the way, I thought you stopped waiting – you are Protestant. Why are you still waiting? You are waiting for the Catholic Magisterium to take action. Are you entitled to this waiting? Is there something at the back of your head that tells you Protestantism is a half-way home?
"What does it say about the CHURCH that no action has yet been taken on a topic of such import?"
I hope the author of the above has taken time to reflect on the question he asks. If you draw out the question, one could ask the same question about the God who allows good and evil to co-exist. The Catholic Church is home for "saints and sinners".
Magisterial clarity is available to those who understand the Magisterium
Riiiiiiiiight.
1) All of a sudden, private fallible interpretation doesn't matter anymore. As long as it's in the service of Mother Church.
2) Scriptural clarity is available to those who understand the Scripture. You apparently don't. Too bad for you.
Is your “magisterial” statement also found in your bible?
Didn't make one. Thanks for playing.
whose idea of Protestantism is primary here?
To be a Protestant Christian, one has to be Christian first. Obama is not a Christian. Next?
you assume Obama does not have a bible, or that if he does, has not read the section you have in mind.
???
How did I do that?
I'm sure the man owns a Bible.
I bet he's even read it. He just doesn't care. B/c, as 1 Cor 2:14 tells us, the natural man does not understand spiritual things. Rip a baby apart in the womb, he doesn't care.
Now for the equivalent - you assume Pelosi doesn't have a priest, or if she does, never heard the priest talk about the evil of abortion.
You know, maybe, just maybe, Pelosi knows the priest (and the Roman Church) teaches that abortion is evil and just doesn't care. WHY DOESN'T ROME DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!?!?!?
This is an old question: “Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation”.
1) The Church is not Jesus.
2) We are called to exercise church discipline in the here and now, not wait until the eschaton.
3) Or maybe you're just running cover for the Church. Looks like the answer is "the Church will never take action."
What good is the Church then?
You are waiting for the Catholic Magisterium to take action.
So that it can at least be consistent.
Are you entitled to this waiting?
Sighhhhhhhhhh...
Is there something at the back of your head that tells you Protestantism is a half-way home?
If there were that little sthg, what can you tell someone who might be considering Rome but is disturbed that Rome never backs up her teaching on the evil of abortion?
saints and sinners
1) Where is the salvation not by faith alone stuff that I keep hearing about? Does Pelosi not have to do anything to be saved?
2) How about saints and willing accomplices to the murder of babies? Are they all welcome?
3) How do you fulfill the commands of Jesus and Paul to carry out church discipline?
"Obama is not a Christian."
It is clear you don't understand the weight of the judgments you make. It is really sad you are left on your own. If it were not the case, you would have sensed that this kind of judgment is not yours to make.
It's a pity you don't apparently know how to answer questions.
Here are some more, though.
1) Are we to assume, then, that someone is a Christian just b/c they say they are?
2) Are there not many false professors in the world?
3) How can we know?
4) How do you know Obama IS a Christian?
5) It is really sad you are left on your own.
Please, then, explain how the Roman Church would clarify this question if I would but listen. Please cite the document. Also, so I can be sure that it's not a person speaking as a private theologian (much like I'm speaking now, and which you decry), please explain how you know that statement is an infallible declaration of the Church.
Thanks!
Really a bunch of ill-informed questions; we will try answering them anyway.
“1) Are we to assume, then, that someone is a Christian just b/c they say they are?”
This is of course one of the problems created by Martin Luther. Ordinarily and in the Catholic Church, a Christian is one who has been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, period. It is not complicated. Now with Luther, you seem to be waiting for signs and wonders to confirm that a person is a Christian.
“2) Are there not many false professors in the world?”
Yes, they are those who “went away from us”; they are called Protestants.
“3) How can we know [they are false professors]?
See above. We know because they have not believed with nor remained within the bosom of the Church. The Church however keeps the door open for even false professors to return home.
“4) How do you know Obama IS a Christian?
The man says he is (see Rick Warren’s conference with Obama and McCain) and I have to play God to categorically claim otherwise for him. However since he is not Catholic, I can unquestionably say he is outside of the Church founded by Christ.
“5) Please, then, explain how the Roman Church would clarify this question if I would but listen.
The Catholic Church accepts, as a pastoral provision, the baptism of even heretics, given they have been properly baptized.
“Please cite the document.”
You should have a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church; get to know it.
“Also, so I can be sure that it's not a person speaking as a private theologian (much like I'm speaking now, and which you decry),…”
In another post you correctly identified me as a lay person. I am not a theologian of any type; thank you.
“… please explain how you know that statement is an infallible declaration of the Church.”
Ok, here’s the answer you are looking for: I know because the Church tells me so, period.
I noticed that a lot of people seem to be laboring under the misconception that Dozie expresses here:
"This is of course one of the problems created by Martin Luther. Ordinarily and in the Catholic Church, a Christian is one who has been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, period. It is not complicated. Now with Luther, you seem to be waiting for signs and wonders to confirm that a person is a Christian. "
That's one reason I asked the question I did as my first question to Mr. Bellisario in the Sola Scriptura debate (link to question). (Please note that comments there are closed until the debate is concluded.) Besides all that, the Great Schism of the 11th century is an historical reality, and before that the divisions that separated the Copts, Ethiopics, and Nestorians from those of Rome: is Dozie not counting those folks as Christians?
But let's leave aside the historical considerations I mentioned in my question to Mr. Bellisario, and the historical questions raised by Dozie's finger-pointing at Luther, and consider what Scripture says.
A Christian is a disciple of Christ (Acts 11:26).
A disciple of Christ is one who persistently follows Christ above all and love the brethren(Matthew 16:24; Luke 14:27, 33; John 8:31, and 13:35).
In short, disciples are true believers - those who love God because He first loved them (see I John).
-TurretinFan
Now with Luther, you seem to be waiting for signs and wonders to confirm that a person is a Christian.
Dozie leaves off Christ's warnings about false professors.
And the frequent NT admonitions to test people's confessions and teachings.
Yes, they are those who “went away from us”; they are called Protestants.
Dozie, you seem to be waiting for signs and wonders to confirm that a person is a Christian.
We know because they have not believed with nor remained within the bosom of the Church.
Like Obama. Thank you.
The man says he is
Oh, all of a sudden he IS a Christian, so that you can score a point in an argument!
Dozie, pick a side and stay on it, if you don't mind. All this John Kerry-like waffling is making me dizzy.
I have to play God to categorically claim otherwise for him
You didn't have a problem doing that in the comments just before this one.
The Catholic Church accepts, as a pastoral provision, the baptism of even heretics, given they have been properly baptized.
1) Has he been properly baptised?
2) Is the United Church of Christ where he was baptised a true Christian church?
The Roman church issued a general policy, sure, but how does that help us here? You're offering me nothing except opportunities to engage in private interpretation.
You should have a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church; get to know it.
The CCC is not an infallible declaration. Epic fail on your part.
: I know because the Church tells me so, period.
What with all your complaints about individual, private, fallible interpretation, you do an awful lot of it.
How do you know the CCC is an infallible declaration of the Church? And do you know that infallibly?
Post a Comment