According to Catholic News.com, a number of US bishops are stating that House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, misrepresented Catholic teaching on abortion. On Meet the Press, she stated that church leaders for centuries have not been able to agree when human life begins. Augustine and Aquinas can be given as easy examples to illustrate her point.Certain bishops, such as Cardinal Rigali of Philadelphia, have responded that she "misrepresented" the church's stance on abortion and that abortion has been affirmed as a moral evil since the first century.
There is a bit of a disconnect here. While Pelosi is using a well-known bit of knowledge as a justification for certain abortions, she is not stating that Augustine or Aquinas saw any justification for abortion. Rigali even admits that these distinctions of when human life began existed for determining the property penalty for the abortion.
In truth, the bishops are not disagreeing with what Pelosi has said about "official" church teaching, they are simply using this opportunity to reprimand a politician for her pro-abortion stance. It would be refreshing to have bishops, such as Rigali, state this as their intention, instead of pretending to disagree with what she said. I know that these bishops are educated, but it seems at times they are more interested in getting in a sound-bite... like a politician.
A Faithful Catholic
58 comments:
Nancy Pelosi has publicly espoused heresy. She recognizes that her public support for unrestricted abortion does not mesh with her Catholic Faith. As a result she seeks to twist that faith to support her motives. To do this she claims the Church has no position on when life begins (no thought is given to the fact that St. Augustine himself says he isn't sure), and as a result, that allows support for abortion.
She then compounds her error by arguing in a second statement that her position is correct because many Catholics support abortion. And then argues that like the Church she wants to reduce abortion through proper family planning. I don't think she is referring to NFP.
Had Nancy Pelosi not decided to twist Church Teaching, the vast majority of Bishops would have remained silent. She brought this upon herself. Hopefully the fraternal correction of Bishops will lead her out of heresy and back into communion with the Catholic Church.
St. Thomas More, she is not. She's more life the Attorney General for Wales.
I commend your candor in describing it as "her pro-abortion stance". A literally "pro-choice" stance would not have to required her to resort to this obfuscation.
If you have a moment, check my blog on this. I have great message for catholic girls!!!! Jack
Artful.
There are also degrees of murder recognized in criminal law.
But it's still murder.
Pelosi isn't smart enough to parse that well. She was simply attempting to put a high hardball past the listeners, and she failed, spectacularly.
"There are also degrees of murder recognized in criminal law.
"But it's still murder."
Laws against murder never seem to be challenged on the basis that one could find disagreement within university faculties over the existence of the human soul.
Please list states in which first trimester abortion is considered "murder." What you "dad" and terrence 'think' fortuneately isn't the law. Thank heavens.Go on living in your play world. Jack
"Please list states in which first trimester abortion is considered "murder."
You need only reread our comments to see that neither of us said it was.
You bring up "first trimester" as if that made some significant difference in the legality of an abortion. Can you list states where this is so? My understanding is that while Roe v. Wade discusses trimesters, the Doe v. Bolton case decided the same day effectively removed any practical legal effect from these distinctions.
Terrence, so you are saying first trimester abortions are legal. Do you accept this is the 'law'? Of course it is. So your point was meaningless at best. Since you used the term "murder" I gave you the credit of trying to make a point. Sorry
Jack,
I believe the debate is ultimately about morality. The law can allow anything under the law, that does not make it moral. I would point to slavery and the anti-Jew laws of Nazi Germany. Both were laws, but were they moral? Your answer appears to be yes.
Catholic soldier. Just the law. Do you believe in upholding our laws. Being in the service I sure hope you do.Or do you favor disobeying the laws you don't like? Jack
I am in favor of upholding the law. But that does not mean I don't try to change the laws that are immoral or wrong. You seem to believe the law is the law and must be worshiped.
Jack,
I don't know if you ever served, but their a distinction between a lawful order and an unlawful one. In fact, a soldier has the responsibility to disobey a unlawful order. The "I was just following orders" is not acceptable. I already know you support abortion rights, that's a moral issue. You have taken the moral stance that abortion is unacceptable and that moral judgment has led you to fully support those laws and to not try and overturn them.
"Terrence, so you are saying first trimester abortions are legal. Do you accept this is the 'law'? Of course it is."
Wisconsin Statutes section 940.04, which makes abortion a crime, makes distinctions but not on the basis of trimesters. I pointed out in my comment above that the court cases preventing enforcement of statutes like this also do not do so based on distinctions among trimesters. You appear to be continuing to attribute some legal significance to the first trimester, so I'm asking what basis you have for that.
Catholic soldier. Yes, I served 4 years in the Korean war. Of course, you have the right to try and change a law. But I believe you need to obey the laws we have.
Terrence, why do some catholics find Roe v. Wade offensive? Jack
"Terrence, why do some catholics find Roe v. Wade offensive?"
If some self-identified Catholics say they find that particular case "offensive" without further explanation, you'll have to ask them.
I find more problematic that people still talk about abortion law in terms of trimesters of pregnancy even though that is not and never was the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions. As I understand it, long before 'Roe' abortion laws had come to be applied to the earliest stage of pregnancy at the urging of the medical profession, based on advances in the understanding of conception and fetal development. So discussion in terms of the first trimester appears to be based on antique science and a misunderstanding of the law.
Roe v Wade specifically refers to the first trimester.Science has shown even more conclusively that the decision was correct.A "person" is not just a group of cells. Jack
You're right, Jack, that a person is 'not just a collection of cells.'
And I suspect that you would strongly object to the murder of a person.
So, Jack, precisely WHEN does 'ensoulment' occur?
When you can answer that with moral certainty, Jack, you can then condone abortions as 'cell-u-cide.'
Moral certainty, Jack!
You tell me when 'ensoulment' begins? I don't believe even the Church talks much about that. Aquinas said 40 days. Can you prove otherwise. Jack
"Roe v Wade specifically refers to the first trimester."
Several comments back, I pointed out (apparently without effect) that 'while Roe v. Wade discusses trimesters, the Doe v. Bolton case decided the same day effectively removed any practical legal effect from these distinctions.' I notice the U.S. Supreme Court said, in Justice O'Connor's opinion in the 1992 case of 'Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey', "We reject the trimester framework, which we do not consider to be part of the essential holding of 'Roe'."
I believe O'Connor said this case upheld the essential ruling of Roe v. Wade.
But I will accept your argument since it shows the right to lifers running around saying we must work to overcome Roe v.Wade are the fools I thought they were.Thanks for the additional material. Jack
The "right to lifers" understood that it was that "essential holding" that was the issue, not the trimester framework. Hard to see how that makes them fools if it took you an additional thirty-five years to figure out the same thing.
Ok, I now know Bush and almost all Republicans are liars. I am just too trusting.
But I'm still lost. What did O'Connor "essential" phrase mean.
I'll agree to be a "fool" if, and you have to on your logic, agree that all right to lifers are fools also. Am I not fair? Jack
"But I'm still lost. What did O'Connor 'essential' phrase mean."
Readers might note that, in your 3:44 PM comment, you used that very term without this doubt about its meaning that you claim at 5:21 PM.
"I'll agree to be a 'fool' if, and you have to on your logic, agree that all right to lifers are fools also."
You've merely, at long last, joined them in understanding the actual status of the 'Roe' analysis. Now if only someone can rescue Speaker Pelosi from the trimester time warp, see Meet the Press August 24, 2008.
Terrence, well she did say "essential". But I will bow to your expertise. Now the Pelosi thing is a different matter which I have explained to other "Fools".Of course the Church opposes abortion as I do. Her point was the Church has never officially described it as "murder" until maybe in the last few decades. The old bishops slip from "murder" to opposing abortion. Clever, to be sure. Tomorrow, I will e-mail your analysis to my bishop saying we are both fools.
Have to leave now; getting excited in ways I thought were long past for me by Mother Palin's remarks. Jack
Terrence, a little reseach shows you are blowing hot air as usual.
The Planned parenthood case put aside the "strict" trimester test, but upheld the central findings of Roe v.Wade. Your right to life friends still scream overturn Roe v. Wade; not Roe v.
Wade as slightly modified by later cases. Jack
Jack,
Where am I advocating disobeying the law?
Oh yeah, that's right, I'm not. You are just making stuff up like you usually do.
You continue to refuse to answer the real question, not do I have the right, but do I have the responsibility? Law and Morality are linked. You support abortion. You therefore believe it to be a moral good.
Jack,
Have you ever read the Didache? I would imagine not. You will find that it equates abortion with the murder of babies. So guess what, the Church does link the two. I know you are really sad and heart-broken to find out how far outside of the Church you are.
Catholic soldier, write a little more precisely and I'll try to answer. Thanks. Jack
LOL, Jack, always with the insult, I notice that is your way. I will pray for you that you come to the light and truth of the Catholic faith.
catholic soldier, The church has not always linked abortion with murder. Aquinas, for example. Jack
Mr. Haynes:
"Her [Pelosi's] point was the Church has never officially described it as "murder" until maybe in the last few decades."
The transcript (to which I provided a link) does not use that word.
'MR. BROKAW: ...begins at the point of conception.
'REP. PELOSI: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. ...'
"Tomorrow, I will e-mail your analysis to my bishop saying we are both fools."
I look forward to your "cc:" to me.
"The Planned parenthood case put aside the 'strict' trimester test, but upheld the central findings of Roe v.Wade."
One need only review my September 3, 2008 1:32 PM comment to see that I brought that to your attention.
"Your right to life friends still scream overturn Roe v. Wade; not Roe v. Wade as slightly modified by later cases."
Since the later cases say they rely on the essential holding of Roe v. Wade, advocacting overruling that holding makes perfect sense. This is in contrast to you talking trimesters up until yesterday, and Speaker Pelosi who apparently still is.
terrence, so now you agree with me, if I can understand what you TRY to say. Very garbled. I gave you credit because I thought you knew what you were talking about. You don't. Jack
Wrong, Jack.
Arguing about "ensoulment" is NOT the same as re-defining abortion.
TA never argued about whether abortion was a grave sin. He merely speculated on the time of 'ensoulment.'
It's like debating whether a piano is tuned to A=440 or A=450, as opposed to whether or not someone is PLAYING the piano.
Very different discussions.
"terrence, so now you agree with me"
Depends on who you are, Jack September 3, 2008 12:14 PM who said "Roe v Wade specifically refers to the first trimester" or Jack September 3, 2008 7:59 PM who said "The Planned parenthood case put aside the 'strict' trimester test".
terrence, I think you are one person, but don't know. See comments from "terrence on:
Sept.2 1:28
Sept.2 5:28
Sept.3 7:58
Sept.3 10:52
Sept.3 1:32
Sept.3 4:08
Sept.3 5:49
Sept.4 8:27
Hopelessly garbled. What in the hell are you trying to say?
Ensoulment. Dad, as far as I can prove NEVER. What's your answer. Jack
"I think you are one person, but don't know."
Your memory fails you, since you appear to have forgetten commenting on earlier posts here about checking my published online profile.
"What in the hell are you trying to say?"
You respond to comments, then later claim you couldn't understand them? That's really forgetful.
You didn't also forget copy me in on that email to your bishop, did you?
Terrence, I notice you fail to respond to my last post. You are so garbled in your thinking apparently there is nothing I can do to help you. I think you make sense then you go off on something about "university faculties." Get your 'story' right. Jack
Jack,
Yet the Church has always declared abortion wrong. Which makes you wrong. I recommend reading the Didache if you have doubts.
Faithful Catholic,
Congrats, impressive thread has developed here in terms of posts.
catholic soldier, if you will look at my comments you will see I agree the church has always opposed abortion. But my point was, as I said, only recently have they started calling it "murder", as I have explained many times on my blog. Many of the church penalties were very mild.
Yes I am quite familiar with the Didache. Jack
"I think you make sense then you go off on something about 'university faculties.'"
On the contrary, this is another example of what I just pointed out. You seem to be getting increasingly forgetful. In this case, three days after you respond to a comment of mine, you now say there was something else about it that kept you from understanding it at all.
For another example, one of my comments, which you now claim you can't understand, you responded to September 3, 2008 7:11 PM saying "Tomorrow, I will e-mail your analysis to my bishop...". I'm still waiting for my copy of that email.
terrence, I did not respond to your "faculties " comment because I had no idea what you were trying to say. You've said so many kind of crazy things.
What do you say was the 'principal' finding of Roe.vWade? Are you arguing that it had no signifigance, if so why to the right to life crowd keep refering to it?
Please try to give a 'straight' answer; but that may be difficult for you. Jack
The e-mail will be sent after one of the bishop's reprsentatives speaks on the election on Oct.15. As a friend of mine I will wait for the priest. I found this out yesterday. BTW are you ever going to respond to my comment about your confused comments? My grandkids go to catholic schools, so I have to be careful. There are a lot of nuts out there. Like down in Tenn. I assume you approved of the shootings since those shot were liberals. Hey on my blog I show some family pictures. Love your cat. What about the rest of your family,eh. Jack
Ensoulment. Dad, as far as I can prove NEVER. What's your answer. Jack
No ensoulment means that people ARE, then, just a "group of cells."
By your logic, that allows a lot of killing--pre- as well as post-birth.
dad, you didn't answer my question. Jack
"I did not respond to your 'faculties' comment"
Actually you did September 2, 2008 2:25 PM.
"What do you say was the 'principal' finding of Roe.vWade?..."
That would be what I spoke of in my comment of September 3, 2008 1:32 PM and what you also spoke of in your response of September 3, 2008 3:44 PM. You can hardly seriously say now that you don't understand the reference when you yourself used it just two days ago.
"BTW are you ever going to respond to my comment about your confused comments?"
My September 4, 2008 12:24 PM comment quoted your contradictory statments. Your September 4, 2008 12:48 PM comment merely lists dates and times of some of my comments but makes no reference to their content. As I've noted, you had responded to those comments of mine without then indicating the misunderstanding you now attempt to claim.
terrence, you're beginning to lose it.My Sept 2 response had nothing to do with your rather confused statements about "faculties." Heck, man you were quoting 'dad'. You still refused to answer my questions. I think you are afraid to give a straight answer. Jack
"My Sept 2 response had nothing to do with your rather confused statements about 'faculties.'"
You responded, as you concede, and said nothing about being confused by my intended meaning. Your response included your first reference to the trimester framework which you (like Speaker Pelosi) then thought was an essential part of abortion law. It took a lot of comments to dispel your confusion on that point, so it's not realistic to go back now when you claim to have been even more confused.
Ah, now you're changing your story. You said I responded, but now you say I didn't. Of course, you're getting mixed up. Which one, my friend, is it? As you now are forced to admit I DID not respon to the "Faculties" comment? Too unclear. You were responding apparently to "dad." Jack
"You said I responded, but now you say I didn't."
I just said "You responded".
"As you now are forced to admit I DID not respon to the "Faculties" comment?"
No, I said you responded to the comment that contained it. If you didn't understand that part of my comment, you presumably would have said so at the time. Instead, your response concluded "Go on living in your play world. Jack". That doesn't sound like a request for clarification.
terrence, now that you have been caught you can't get youur story straight. Jack
"you can't get youur story straight."
You'll notice that this software allows posting what is called a comment, and even keeps a count of them. You responded to such a comment of mine with such a comment of your own. Specifically, you responded to my comment that included my reference to university faculties without your comment then making any specific reference to that. As I've said, "If you didn't understand that part of my comment, you presumably would have said so at the time."
terrence, you're still squirming, but you can't get out of it. Jack
Readers need only refer to our original respective comments to see how you are persisting in your error.
Ensoulment. Dad, as far as I can prove NEVER. What's your answer
My reponse:
No ensoulment means that people ARE, then, just a "group of cells."
Your utterly confused and disconnected NEXT entry?
dad, you didn't answer my question.
That's either an evasion of the response, or it may be a legitimate riposte.
After all, you didn't really ASK a QUESTION. You merely made an assertion of what you consider to be fact.
That assertion denies ensoulment altogether.
My response to your denial: Speak For Yourself, Jack.
dad, wake up. I said what's your answer. Are you complaining I should have had a question mark? Pretty pitiful. That Milwaukee beer ir getting to you. Sober up. Jack
Right-o, Jack.
I understand that there are meds for your condition.
See your GP.
dad, there are no meds for your condition, and shock therapy has gone out. Jack
Post a Comment