« Embezzlement | Main | Blessed Charles of Mount Argus »
January 05, 2007
Interesting Choice
Take a look at the composition of this CNS shot of the new, Extremely Powerful, Speaker of the House, on their front page today:
Well played.
Accompanied, however, by this story. which mentions life issues, but with a "gosh, it's too bad" kind of attitude.
But Pelosi's voting record on abortion, stem-cell research and other life issues is less than encouraging even to some members of her party -- those who belong to Democrats for Life.
Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life, said she's disappointed that Pelosi includes reinstating federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research among her top priorities for the 110th Congress.
She said she would like to see Pelosi support with equal enthusiasm funding to preserve umbilical-cord blood for stem-cell research. The program was passed into law in 2005 but so far has not been funded, Day said.
The National Committee for a Human Life Amendment has been tracking congressional votes on a range of life issues since 1973. Of the dozens of what the group considers "key votes" since Pelosi took office, she has voted with the group's position just once. That was considered a procedural maneuver aimed at defeating a ban on partial-birth abortion.
Wesolek and Day both said they're encouraged by Pelosi's comment that she wants to "rule from the middle" in the House.
"I don't think she's a knee-jerk-reaction person," said Wesolek. "I think she's very thoughtful."
He said he gets the sense that Pelosi understands and agrees with the church's teaching on many fundamental policy issues, but that doesn't go far enough.
"I think she gets half of Catholic social teaching," Wesolek said. "The half she gets she does well."
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
I must say, after watching her bust her head through the marble ceiling on C-SPAN yesterday, she makes for painful television viewing. The contortions she makes with her face - and that phony, squinty-eyed smile - are more than I can stand to look at for too long.
Later on, while watching a story about her on CNN, they showed a still photo of her, presumably on the floor of the House, surrounded by a throng of people including two clerics dressed to their black nines. Surely someone can figure out who those two priests are.
I loved the part when she reminisced about her childhood...her "devoutly Catholic" family. Oh, and, "We're here for the children!" Whatever.
Posted by: midwestmom at Jan 5, 2007 10:45:20 AM
Just look at Pelosi's immediate agenda:
*Raising the minimum wage.
* Allowing government use monoopsony power to negotiate with drug companies.
* Cutting interest rates on student loans.
* Creating an independent ethics panel in the context of overall ethical reform to end bribery and corruption, and redcuing lobbyist influence.
* Making signficant changes in Iraq policy.
* Implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
* Protecting the current system of social secturity and refusing the accept privaet accounts.
* Reducing tax breaks for oil companies.
* Restoring PAYGO (any proposal that increases the deficit must be offset elsewhere).
This is a pretty impressive agenda. There is one item I have major problems with-- embryonic stem cell research. So, yes, Pelosi's postition on abortion is antithetical to Catholic teaching. But do you think this new Congress's words or deeds will lead to a single extra net abortion? I do not. In the meantime, let's be thankful for the good stuff, and rejoice that the last horrendously corrupt Congress is no more!
Posted by: Morning's Minion at Jan 5, 2007 11:12:27 AM
There's one word that comes to mind when I look at this picture of this woman. The word is a vulgar slang term defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as "a thoroughly contemptible, detestable person." It's often trotted out in traffic jams, and not often used to label a woman. The 7-letter word begins with "a" and ends with "e." Generally it's reserved for men. Nancy wants total equality. She's got it. What. An. A*****e.
Posted by: Puking in Peoria at Jan 5, 2007 11:17:10 AM
Maybe she'll make the trains run on time, too, Morning's Minion.
Posted by: Jay Anderson at Jan 5, 2007 11:19:42 AM
Rep. Pelosi's open participation at Mass, and her statements that she receives Holy Communion, presents the Church with a genuine scandal. Some bishop needs to remind her of the very specific words of the USCCB's most recent document "Happy are Those Who are Called to His Supper: On Preparing to Receive Christ Worthily in the Eucharist":
"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 to repudiate her definitive teaching 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."
Posted by: Ed Mechmann at Jan 5, 2007 11:21:40 AM
"In the meantime, let's be thankful for the good stuff, and rejoice that the last horrendously corrupt Congress is no more!"
Morning's Minion,
I keep hearing this terminology but other than a couple of members getting into trouble, what made it so "horrendously corrupt?"
And do you really mean "Congress", or just the Republican majority?
Posted by: midwestmom at Jan 5, 2007 11:27:04 AM
MM:
Please address the issue of John Conyers. Directly.
Posted by: Mark at Jan 5, 2007 11:32:20 AM
Midwestmom,
I'm not referring to random cases of individual corruption. These types are also present among the Democrats (William Jefferson, for example). I'm talking about the Delay-Santorum-Abramoff K-Street project, the systemtic blurring of the lines between lobbying and policymaking, whereby lobbyists (all Republicans) wrote legislation in return for contributions. Possibly the most egregious example was the Medicare Part D bill, a costly boon to drug and insurance companies. There are also many many outrages noticeable below the radar, such as the consistent defense of sweatshop oweners in Saipan who managed to secure "Made in the USA" labels without having to obey US labor and environmental laws, all the while contributing to forced prostitution and forced abortion. When I think back on all the immorality of the Delay years, this is the one that really sticks in the gut. This, after Iraq, was the main reason for the historic rout in November, in case you missed it.
Posted by: Morning's Minion at Jan 5, 2007 11:41:17 AM
Morning's Minion supports people who want to expand abortion worldwide. Don't allow him to sidetrack the argument with lists of b.s.
Posted by: ken at Jan 5, 2007 11:53:04 AM
MM,
You sound a lot like one of those so called “Pro-Life Democrats” we hear so much about. If you really think that the Democrats being in power will not ‘lead to a single extra net abortion,’ I have to disagree with you. Abortion is their Sacrament even if they pose with priests and hug the kiddies they deemed worthy of life on inauguration day. They are the party of death. Pelosi’s position is more than ‘antithetical to Catholic teaching.’ Her position is a national scandal and her Bishop has a duty to tell her so. Leaders like Pelosi are necessary for abortion to continue unabated in this country. Catholic turncoats have been part of the problem since 1973. I will say that without them we would not have unfettered access to abortion at every stage in America. She may be the first woman Speaker of the House, but she is not the first Catholic to abandon her moral duty to gain power. Wait and see, MM.
Posted by: S at Jan 5, 2007 12:11:01 PM
MM,
Who cares about the items on her agenda? Catholic social teaching requires us to oppose the state-sanctioned murder of little children. It tells us nothing about social security, minimum wage or vague platitudes about "significant changes" in Iraq. The ethics committee is a waste of time--we already know who the corrupt Democrats are, just fire them.
Posted by: reluctant penitent at Jan 5, 2007 12:14:17 PM
I see that Partial-Birth Abortion Drinan was at the celebratory mass too, and that Cardinal McCarrick is calling Pelosi "a very thoughtful and committed defender of human rights." Is it any wonder the faithful are . . . uh . . . confused?
Posted by: ron chandonia at Jan 5, 2007 12:16:52 PM
George McKenna's magisterial article in the recent Human Life Review is a must-read for anyone interested in this chronic problem of avowedly Catholic politicians who work relentlessly against the social teachings of the Church.
http://www.humanlifereview.com/2006_summerfall/mckenna1.pdf
As McKenna points out, 30 or 40 years ago one would have expected the Democrats to become the pro-life party. Certainly most of the "Camelot" generation of Catholic leaders who worked side-by-side with secular progressives for civil rights and sometimes also against the Vietnam War hoped for that outcome.
By the time the Democrats were taken over by the secular Left in the 1970s, many of the bishops and other Catholic leaders simply didn't know what to do about it. For them, it was axiomatic that Democrats and progressives were good guys, while Republicans and conservatives were bad guys. Hence the Bernardin-Pilarcyk-Mahoney approach of affirming the Church's teaching against abortion while studiously avoiding any confrontation with Democratic politicians which might give aid and comfort to the enemy (Republicans).
A new generation of bishops now takes a more forthright stand against those who wear the Catholic label but think justice requires permitting children to be killed in their mother's wombs. But there's still a enormous cultural problem among laity and clergy who put their old allegiance to the Democratic Party above both their Catholic Faith and the requirements of human justice.
Simply put: You can implement all the "social justice" positions possible in the progressive world, but a society that looks the other way while innocent children are being slaughtered in the very wombs of their mothers will never know elementary justice and will never find peace.
Posted by: Simon at Jan 5, 2007 12:27:00 PM
Rep. Pelosi's open participation at Mass, and her statements that she receives Holy Communion, presents the Church with a genuine scandal.
Right up there with serving communion to those who back the war and back capital punishment. How scandalous that Santorum receives the Holy Communion given his anti-Catholic political positions.
We need to quit politicizing the Eucharist, unless we are prepared to require everyone submit to a pre-Communion backgroun screening that tests whether they are using contraception, are possibly married yet infertile.
Posted by: Daniel at Jan 5, 2007 12:27:29 PM
"Right up there with serving communion to those who back the war and back capital punishment. How scandalous that Santorum receives the Holy Communion given his anti-Catholic political positions."
Somebody needs to read his Catechism.
And Santorum? Still beating that dead horse? Please. Come up with some new material. He's history.
Posted by: Jay Anderson at Jan 5, 2007 12:34:37 PM
Daniel, Santorum's support for the war in Iraq and capital punishment (neither of which I share) may be misguided and contrary to the prudential judgment of most Catholic bishops and thinkers. But it is certainly NOT "anti-Catholic" in even the loosest sense of the term.
A Catholic is perfectly free to take those political positions, along with nearly all other political positions, in accordance with his own conscience and intellectual judgment. What no one -- Catholic or otherwise -- is morally permitted to do is advocate laws that permit the direct murder of innocent human beings in their mother's womb.
This really isn't as complicated as some of the apologists for the pro-abortion Democrats (and Republicans, such as Giuliani and Schwarzenegger) try to make it:
The ancient Christian teaching against abortion is for any Catholic a non-negotiable, bedrock principle of human justice. If you're wrong on that one, you're advocating an egregiously unjust society -- no matter what your policies are on foreign policy, immigration or the minimum wage.
Posted by: Simon at Jan 5, 2007 12:36:43 PM
"I'm talking about the Delay-Santorum-Abramoff K-Street project"
I must admit to following politics loosely but, even so, I had honestly never even heard the phrase "K-Street project" before last night. I'm on the 'Net everyday, listen to talk radio, follow the MSM on television, etc. How is it that I completely missed that horrendously corrupt story?
And was Delay actually ever convicted of anything? As for Abramoff, reps on both sides of the aisle succumbed to his bribes, right?
I'm sorry to hear you have no problem with the gratuitous raising of the minimum wage. I do. My husband will now be forced to pay lazy high schoolers seven-something an hour, just because. Not every person working a minimum wage job is a married father of four living in his car. Individuals can raise their own 'minimum wage' with hard work, productivity, education, or getting a better job.
It's mighty big of Nancy Pelosi and her pals to force my husband to pay people more. Will there be a federal tax to support this program? No, not this time.
Posted by: midwestmom at Jan 5, 2007 12:36:47 PM
"My husband will now be forced to pay lazy high schoolers seven-something an hour, just because."
Or maybe he can hire better workers because he pays more. If the workers are lazy, maybe more money will be an incentive. Or maybe the problem isn't with the workers.
Posted by: Daniel at Jan 5, 2007 12:39:52 PM
Somebody needs to read his Catechism.
I have, thanks. I keep waiting for Communion to be denied to infertile married people or folks who use birth control. Why doesn't that ever happen? Why is it just politicians who are personally opposed to abortion but support the legal right of women to be free from government coercion that are targetted?
Posted by: Daniel at Jan 5, 2007 12:42:06 PM
"But do you think this new Congress's words or deeds will lead to a single extra net abortion?"
First Woman Speaker of the House thinks abortion on demand is OK, and says so. That kind of lip service does affect people. Words are often more powerful--and more detrimental--than economic programs.
Posted by: Kevin Jones at Jan 5, 2007 12:43:39 PM
"'I don't think she's a knee-jerk-reaction person,' said Wesolek. 'I think she's very thoughtful.'"
I'm sure Nancy Pelosi is very "thoughtful." I have no doubt that she thinks every day about how fast the Planned Parenthood and Hollywood money would dry up if she did anything to protect the unborn.
Posted by: Dan at Jan 5, 2007 12:43:43 PM
Daniel,
How many times does it have to be said? Which wars are appropriate and necessary and which are not, and when capital punishment is appropriate are issues on which Catholics can legitimately make different judgements. Likewise, although you don't mention it, all the economic issues. Abortion on the other hand, is an absolute evil, which every faithful Catholic must oppose. I believe that in general a Catholic must believe that a just state would rightly and justly prohibit abortion. I think it is possible for a Catholic politician to agree to that and then say, but in the present political climate, I think we can't achieve that, and our efforts would best be directed limitations to abortion that we can achieve. He cannot say that as a matter of principle, the state should not be involved in this issue.
People who use contraceptives shouldn't take communion either. But they aren't public figures. If a public figure stated "Yes,I use artificial contraception and don't see anything wrong with it." that might well call for a prudential decision to deny them communion.
Where does this "possibly married yet infertile" come from? Being infertile is a sad burden, not a sin. The church does not forbid the infertile to marry.
Sigh. I am not sure that post was really worthy of a reply, but now I have replied to it.
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at Jan 5, 2007 12:45:01 PM
Daniel,
Infertile married couples are living in mortal sin? What gov't coercion are you talking about?
Posted by: ken at Jan 5, 2007 12:45:58 PM
"... politicians who are personally opposed to abortion but support the legal right of women to be free from government coercion that are targetted? (emphasis added)
Just so we're all clear on where you're coming from.
Posted by: Jay Anderson at Jan 5, 2007 12:46:58 PM
Just to add to the head scratching....
Daniel, surely there must be a typo in your comment: "I keep waiting for Communion to be denied to infertile married people..."
From the Catehchism:
2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord's Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.
From the Compendium of the Catechism:
500. How should children be considered?
(CCC 2378)
A child is a gift of God, the supreme gift of marriage. There is no such thing as a right to have children (e.g. “a child at any cost”). But a child does have the right to be the fruit of the conjugal act of its parents as well as the right to be respected as a person from the moment of conception.
501. What can spouses do when they do not have children?
(CCC 2379)
Should the gift of a child not be given to them, after exhausting all legitimate medical options, spouses can show their generosity by way of foster care or adoption or by performing meaningful services for others. In this way they realize a precious spiritual fruitfulness.
Posted by: Old Zhou at Jan 5, 2007 12:53:41 PM
What concerns me is the politicization of the Eucharist. I agree with this blogger that attempts to deny Communion are too often political, and not religious, acts.
http://religiousleftonline.typepad.com/religious_left_online/2007/01/that_didnt_take.html
Posted by: Daniel at Jan 5, 2007 12:58:20 PM
"Or maybe he can hire better workers because he pays more."
Daniel - since it's his business, he should be the one to make that decision, not politicians.
If the bleeding hearts get their way, the lazy high schoolers who have to be told what to do every five minutes will be earning nearly as much as their older, more productive co-workers. Does that really make sense to you?
You're operating under the assumption that every employer in the country is a greedy jerk or that every adult who starts at minimum wage is stuck there forever and has no way out. Do you own a business? Can we just assume that you, too, would deny your employees a just wage?
Posted by: midwestmom at Jan 5, 2007 12:59:50 PM
As for Abramoff, reps on both sides of the aisle succumbed to his bribes, right?
No, just Republicans: http://mediamatters.org/items/200512190014
Posted by: Michael at Jan 5, 2007 1:06:09 PM
Catholic politicians received permission to be Catholics and support abortion at the same time from a gaggle of Catholic priests, including the odious Robert Drinan, SJ, at a meeting with John Kennedy in Hyannis many years ago. Sad to say, the current (and correct) instruction hasn't gotten through to them yet
I can't understand why Pelosi is being raked over the coals for receiving Holy Communion. She's a politician first and everything else lines up behind that. That should cover it.
People screeching at her should be talking to the bishops they say should be talking to her. Write them a letter. Write her a letter.
Santorum Defenders: How about his support for Specter against a pro-life Democrat?
The K-Street project was alive and well through much of the last Congress, whether you heard about it or not. And, no, Democrats did not take bribes from Abramoff. Some of them took political contributions from him, but there was no quid pro quo.
Posted by: Ferde Rombola at Jan 5, 2007 1:06:17 PM
Well, here we go again with the "my anti-execution plus anti-war views trump your anti-abortion concerns." Each side then attempts to diminish the moral significance of the other's position, here by invoking the angel of "prudential judgment" against the demon of "government coercion."
Is it not possible to admit that both sides have valid points--that few (if any) of our Catholic politicians espouse positions consistent with Catholic teachings on the life issues?
John Allen has an excellent column today called "Church opposition to execution 'practically' absolute". He cites the effect of Ad Tuendam Fidem on Catholic opinion about a couple of controversial issues and offers this suggestion:
In analogous fashion, one could argue that the reaction from the Vatican and from senior Catholic officials around the world to the Dec. 30 execution of Saddam Hussein, and its broader opposition to the war in Iraq in the first place, collectively mark a milestone in the evolution of yet another category in Catholic teaching: Positions which are not absolute in principle, but which are increasingly absolute in practice. Opposition to war, unless undertaken in clear self-defense or with the warrant of the international community, and the use of capital punishment are the leading cases in point.
The fact that Allen's column appears in NCR makes it suspect to many, but I think he makes a very good case.
Posted by: ron chandonia at Jan 5, 2007 1:12:03 PM
Ferde,
You write, ‘She is a politician first.’ I’d like to see how that plays out on Judgment Day.
Posted by: S at Jan 5, 2007 1:15:57 PM
"Santorum Defenders: How about his support for Specter against a pro-life Democrat?"
First of all, Santorum supported Specter against a pro-life Republican in the Republican primary, not against a "pro-life" Democrat.
Second, who's defending Santorum? And besides, who cares? The guy lost - you won't have him to kick around anymore.
Again, you guys need to move on to the next Republican boogeyman and stop beating that dead horse.
(Psssst. In case you haven't received your talking points yet, the "new" Catholic Republican to attack is Sam Brownback.)
Posted by: Jay Anderson at Jan 5, 2007 1:17:11 PM
"And, no, Democrats did not take bribes from Abramoff. Some of them took political contributions from him, but there was no quid pro quo." -Ferde
I guess it depends on what you're reading...
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/11/abramoff_report_1.html
Posted by: midwestmom at Jan 5, 2007 1:31:22 PM
Michael,
You may want to note that the anti-Republican article you cited is two years old. The story I linked to from ABC is six weeks old, conveniently posted AFTER the election.
So, as far as I can tell, we have a bunch of accused politicians from both sides of the aisle with no convictions yet. How does this make the Republicans any more "horrendously corrupt" than the Dems?
Posted by: midwestmom at Jan 5, 2007 1:37:48 PM
Watch both teams with a jaundiced eye. Be especially careful of those who use fear to establish greater security measures.
Posted by: johnxteresa at Jan 5, 2007 1:38:24 PM
Wait, I'm infertile ... and married ... oh for Christ's sake Daniel, thanks for giving me ANOTHER scruple to worry about!
(Kidding. But I agree that this either must be a typo or Daniel must have a unique edition of the catechism).
Posted by: Sonetka at Jan 5, 2007 2:07:23 PM
Daniel is right.
What I fail to understand is why so many people are so eager to defend those who give the finger to the Vatican on war, the death penalty etc. just because they say the right things about abortion. I agree with you that aadopting these conditions is not heresy! But so what? That's not exactly a high standard, is it? It's almost like saying that we should deliberately sacrifice all policies that blend nicely with Catholic social teaching if these policies are proposed by pro-abortion Democrats. Especially since talk is cheap, and Republicans have not managed to reduce abortion rates (the steepest decline came under Bill Clinton). Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Posted by: Morning's Minion at Jan 5, 2007 2:10:58 PM
Pelosi should be excommunicated.
Posted by: mark j at Jan 5, 2007 2:11:03 PM
" In the meantime, let's be thankful for the good stuff, and rejoice that the last horrendously corrupt Congress is no more!"
Someone needs a serious prescription check on his rose-colored glasses.
Posted by: Chris at Jan 5, 2007 2:25:20 PM
Where, in Amy's original post, or in any of the comments critical of Pelosi, did anyone endorse the Republican party? The truth is that no one expressed any support for the GOP. However, the Pelosi-apologists know that she is indefensible, so their tactic is to start mawmawing about Rick Santorum and Jack Abramoff. It's a classic "change the subject" routine. Hello, where did anyone say that Santorum and Abrmaoff were good guys?
The fact is, this thread was about Pelosi, abortion, and the clear duties of Catholic politicians. However, the Pelosi-apologists, as usual, have resorted to politicizing the discussion, in order to misdirect the conversation and protect the remaining shreds of her reputation.
She should be under canonical penalty.
Posted by: mark j at Jan 5, 2007 2:29:35 PM
Hi midwestmom,
Sorry you haevn't heard much about the K Street project until now. It's a myth that Abramoff corrupted both sidesw. He bought and owned people like Bob Ney and Conrad Burns. There have been a few crazy attempts to link Harry Reid to him, but there isn't much there. Reid was lobbied by Abramoff's people to oppose a minimum wage hike on the Northern Marianas (Tom Delay's favorite haven of sweatshops and forced abortions).
More generally, Abramoff made contributions only to Republicans, not Democrats. That is a matter of public record. It is true that Reid received money from some of Abramoff's Indian tribe clients, but that is simply because they always dnoted to Democrats. In fact, after Abramoff took them on as clients (and proceeded to rip them off and laugh about it using racial slurs) the funds began to shift from Dems to Reps. In other words, Reid recieved less fro these Indian tribes post-Abramoff. Reid is actually one of the cleaner members of Congress: when he was chair of the Nevada Gaming Commission, he worked closely with the FBI to catch mobsters who were trying to bribe officials.
Posted by: Morning's Minion at Jan 5, 2007 2:30:45 PM
One more time, Morning's Minion is a liar and deceiver.
Posted by: ken at Jan 5, 2007 2:37:18 PM
"There have been a few crazy attempts to link Harry Reid to him, but there isn't much there."
Well, okay then. Just forget that link to the ABC website.
Posted by: midwestmom at Jan 5, 2007 2:37:47 PM
The fact is, this thread was about Pelosi, abortion, and the clear duties of Catholic politicians. However, the Pelosi-apologists, as usual, have resorted to politicizing the discussion, in order to misdirect the conversation and protect the remaining shreds of her reputation.
Suggesting that the Eucharist be denied is politicizing the discussion. Have those conservative Bishops who think only about abortion EVERY threatened to deny Communion to a Republican???
I didn't think so.
Posted by: Daniel at Jan 5, 2007 2:57:19 PM
More dirt on Harry and Nancy:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/11/D8KMJ8I
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050705/news_1n5pelosi.html00.html
Posted by: midwestmom at Jan 5, 2007 3:07:02 PM
I assume when you say Daniel is right, you are referring to his point that both GOP and Dems should have difficulty presenting for communion, and not that being an infertile married couple is immoral (assuming the infertility is not deliberately induced through contraception or sterilization).
Posted by: c matt at Jan 5, 2007 3:09:03 PM
I refer to his comment that the eucharist should not be politicized.
Posted by: Morning's Minion at Jan 5, 2007 3:12:17 PM
By the way, Cardinal Egan had some sounds words in an interview (Rocco Palmo has the details). The reporter tried to bait him with the fact that 2 pro-abortions New Yorkers (Clinton and Giuliani) were running for president, asking for his opinion.
Over to Rocco:
"Seemingly without a flinch, Egan replied, "They're all friends of mine."To reiterate the point, the cardinal himself mentioned former New York Gov. George Pataki, a Republican who's also a pro-choice Catholic, as a "friend." "Mayor Giuliani's a friend of mine, Senator Clinton is a friend of mine and whomever else you want to name," Egan said. "And I've been very, very careful, I hope you notice. Never have I got into partisan politics of any kind at all."
Good for you, Cardinal Egan!
Posted by: Morning's Minion at Jan 5, 2007 3:16:25 PM
I don't know what you mean by politicized. It seems certain politicians go out of their way to make sure they are seen or known to be receiving the Eucharist when it is blazingly obvious they are not in a proper state in order to win over or ease the voting consciences of their potential supporters who may have concerns with some of their political positions. That seems like politicizing to me.
Posted by: c matt at Jan 5, 2007 3:17:43 PM
I agree with you, C Matt. Why exactly did Pelosi have priests present today? Regarding Cardinal Egan, let's not even open THAT can of worms. Again, being an FOB and FOH is seemingly not something one would want to claim on Judgment Day. I’d rather have the voices of the helpless innocents claiming they were friends of mine.
Posted by: S at Jan 5, 2007 3:41:36 PM
"Second, who's defending Santorum? And besides, who cares? The guy lost - you won't have him to kick around anymore.
Again, you guys need to move on to the next Republican boogeyman and stop beating that dead horse."
I'm afraid that considering how long after Bill Clinton left the White House any idiot or evil thing done by Bush or anyone in his administration was excused by their blogosphere apologists with the equivalent of, "Oh yeah? Well at least he didn't have oral sex in the Oval Office!," poor Rick Santorum has a loooooooooong road ahead of him.
I don't monitor others' reception of the Eucharist ever since I blurted out, "YOU'RE going to communion??!?#?$??" to my living-in-sin, non-practicing sister at a wedding when I was a kid, so I don't know which supposededly "Catholic" politicians who are abortion supporters receive the Eucharist
But when Pelosi, Schwarzenegger, Giuliani, Kennedy, Kerry, et al. receive equal criticism and treatment for their public sins I'll assume that either political partisanship has been outlawed or that the end times have arrived.
Posted by: Gonzo at Jan 5, 2007 3:44:36 PM
"Again, you guys need to move on to the next Republican boogeyman and stop beating that dead horse."
LOL! Sure, as soon as the repubs can leave Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy (Chappaquiddick! 1969 is still relevant!!) alone. Oh, yeah. That's *never* gonna happen.
This post has, like so many others, merely turned into a "our party is more moral than yours" argument. Ho hum...
Posted by: Laura Gonzalez at Jan 5, 2007 3:48:03 PM
S -- You misunderstand. I make no defense of Nancy Pelosi. Her support for abortion is reprehensible. I merely stated a fact, the point being politicians, male and female, are whores.
midwestmom -- yes, it depends on what you read. Your link to an ABC story says exactly nothing. Undocumented allegations to investigators by a disgraced Republican lobbiest from unnamed sources hardly constitutes evidence against anyone.
Had your Rush today?
Jay Anderson -- You're right, it was a Republican Sanrorum was ordered to support, which makes it worse. I used to sort of like the guy, but I lost all respect for him after that.
Posted by: Ferde Rombola at Jan 5, 2007 3:52:15 PM
"I think she gets half of Catholic social teaching," Wesolek said. "The half she gets she does well."
Well, no. This is not the sort of thing that is nicely divisible, 50-50. By supporting abortion (and embryonic stem cell research, and same-sex marriage, etc.), Pelosi shows that she does not understand or accept the principles of Catholic moral teaching at all. Thus the "half" she gets right--assuming she really does get it right--she gets right by accident.
Rather reminds me of a story I once heard about an aeronautical engineering student who was flunked on an exam because he didn't get the one question on the exam correct. "But," he protested to the professor, "look! It's 90 percent right!" To which the teacher replied, "Perhaps. But an airplane 90 percent right will still crash."
To those who would assert a moral equivalence between the death penalty and abortion, the comparison fails on several levels. First, no pope was emphatically anti-death penalty until Pope John Paul II. The tradition up until his papacy took for granted the right of the state to put serious criminals to death. No individual has the right to deal death, but officers of the state, exercising their office, are no mere individual persons. The state, in the traditional wisdom of the moral and political teaching of the Church back to apostolic times, is understood to act in loco Dei--have we forgotten that? There's no question here of one man simply murdering his personal enemies.
There can, of course, be shifts in emphases in the Church's moral teaching, of course, but never a reversal. This has made accommodating PP. John Paul II's teaching on this matter a rather challenging business, which some of his greatest admirers and faithful theologians have puzzled over quite a while. Not only that, even PP. John Paul II never calls the death penalty per se unjust, whereas every attack on innocent human life (abortion, euthanasia) are monstrously unjust.
If the Eucharist is being politicized, it's being politicized by Catholics in public life who contumaciously claim the right to do whatever wicked things they like and still be able to receive the body of the Lord. The Church's shepherds have the right, and the duty, to excommunicate members of the Church for crimes like this, and bishops in years past have done so for much less than what Pelosi, Kennedy & Co. are getting away with.
There is absolutely no justification for drawing any sort of comparison between Catholics who support support abortion and those who support the war in Iraq--even if the latter were wrongheaded (and for the record I don't think it is).
Posted by: ContraMundum at Jan 5, 2007 3:52:46 PM
"If the bleeding hearts get their way, the lazy high schoolers who have to be told what to do every five minutes will be earning nearly as much as their older, more productive co-workers. Does that really make sense to you?"
Again, you can't find anyone better? If you fire them, you can can get better workers, right? Why pay any money at all to "lazy high schoolers who have to be told what to do every five minutes?" That doesn't make any sense at all. In fact, THAT sounds like a bleeding heart liberal tactic to me.
Posted by: Laura Gonzalez at Jan 5, 2007 3:55:35 PM
Why pay any money at all to "lazy high schoolers who have to be told what to do every five minutes?" That doesn't make any sense at all.
Yes, I suppose one could just go out of business. That would be nice.
Posted by: J. Christian at Jan 5, 2007 4:02:21 PM
ContraMundum,
Nicely said! Thank you for raising the level of discussion once again.
Posted by: S at Jan 5, 2007 4:04:55 PM
Laura,
We live in a very small town. There aren't many adults who want or need to work part-time for a caterer on nights and weekends, so you're usually left with kids who want a job that works around their school schedule.
I should add that my husband co-owns the business with his brother, also a married father of four. They work hard and we live modestly. They treat their employees well and certainly do not cheat them out of what they deserve.
Posted by: midwestmom at Jan 5, 2007 4:05:18 PM
Who said anything about Bill Clinton? Who's defending what Santorum did? Who claimed to be a Republican?
Again, you're just trying to distract attention from the point of this post, which is that Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic, is about as pro-abortion and pro-ESCR as any politician out there.
Pelosi's positions on those issues are antithetical to Church teaching, regardless of what Rick Santorum or any other hypocritical Republican might do. And, what's worse, as Speaker of the House, she's in a position to do real damage with respect to those issues.
Posted by: Jay Anderson at Jan 5, 2007 4:13:11 PM
From George Will's column (1/4/07):
"Most of the working poor earn more than the minimum wage, and most of the 0.6 percent (479,000 in 2005) of America's wage workers earning the minimum wage are not poor. Only one in five workers earning the federal minimum lives in families with earnings below the poverty line. Sixty percent work part time, and their average household income is well over $40,000. (The average and median household incomes are $63,344 and $46,326, respectively.)
Forty percent of American workers are salaried. Of the 75.6 million paid by the hour, 1.9 million earn the federal minimum or less, and of these, more than half are under 25 and more than a quarter are between ages 16 and 19. Many are students or other part-time workers. Sixty percent of those earning the federal minimum or less work in restaurants and bars and earn tips -- often untaxed, perhaps -- in addition to wages. Two-thirds of those earning the federal minimum today will, a year from now, have been promoted and be earning 10 percent more. Raising the minimum wage predictably makes work more attractive relative to school for some teenagers and raises the dropout rate. Two scholars report that in states that allow people to leave school before 18, a 10 percent increase in the state minimum wage caused teenage school enrollment to drop 2 percent."
Posted by: midwestmom at Jan 5, 2007 4:19:28 PM
Nancy Pelosi voted No on:
-barring transporting minors to get an abortion
-banning partial birth abortions
-federal crime to harm a fetus while committing another crime
-banning family planning funding on US aid overseas
-funding for health providers who don't include abortion info
-forbidding human cloning for reproduction and medical research
She has received 100% approval rating from NARAL. She has rec'd funds from many pro-abort groups. This is the woman whom Daniel, Morning's Minion et al are defending. No wonder they want to change the subject.
Posted by: ken at Jan 5, 2007 4:30:31 PM
It is difficult to believe that we are still having a discussion in which people assert or imply that the defense of human life is anything other than the paramount concern for social justice and the common good.
Look at the Catechism:
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation.
Yes, the war, capital punishment, the minimum wage, etc., are all legitimate concerns for Catholic social teaching. But when a self-described Catholic public official actively and willingly supports the destruction of the unborn, then she is a false witness to the truths of the Gospel, is affirmatively misleading the faithful about the legitimate role of Catholics in public life, and should be publicly called to account by the Church -- for the good of her soul and the souls of all the faithful.
It doesn't matter what political party a person belongs to. The real question, as St. Ignatius Loyola put it in his Spiritual Exercises, is which standard are you following: the standard of Christ or the standard of the Devil?
Posted by: Ed Mechmann at Jan 5, 2007 4:32:29 PM
Ken, who dubs me a liar and a deceiver, also accuses me of trying to change the subject. I'm confortable addressing this issue head-on. Yes, Pelosi was wrong to have voted the way she did on each on those issues (especially partial birth abortion, which I find quite abominable). But did her vote affact in any way, for good or for ill, the abortion rate in this country? I seriously doubt it. On the other hand, those who voted for the Iraq war do indeed share some reponsibility of the carnage in Iraq, including over 600,000 dead. Those deaths would not have taken place absent the chosen policy. You can talk prudential judgment all you like, but that is nonetheless the issue.
Posted by: Morning's Minion at Jan 5, 2007 5:11:29 PM
The position of Mrs. Onions (or whatever name Tony A. now goes by) would seem to be that politics -- the right kind of course -- are welcome when the subject is a prudential or "coin toss" issue but unwelcome when it is, in the words of the Holy Father, a "not negotiable" -- a perspective that inverts almost perfectly the obligations of Catholics in the public square.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jan 5, 2007 5:15:02 PM
Pelosi supports the expansion of abortion worldwide. She is funded by abortion groups. Morning's Minion supports her.
Posted by: ken at Jan 5, 2007 5:20:26 PM
So MM, if Speaker Pelosi's vote has had no effect on the abortion rate, why did she vote the way she did?
IOW, why vote against
-barring transporting minors to get an abortion
-banning partial birth abortions
-federal crime to harm a fetus while committing another crime
-banning family planning funding on US aid overseas
-funding for health providers who don't include abortion info
-forbidding human cloning for reproduction and medical research
if those things will happen/not happen regardless of her vote. That's an especially good argument for her vote aginst making it a federal crime to harm a fetus while committing another crime. No fewer children are likely to be harmed if this becomes illegal, because those who could be charged are already demonstarting a willingness to break the law. Yet she still refuses to vote for it. If it won't make any difference in the abortion rate, why do her supporters at NARAL, et al, insist that she oppose it?
Posted by: Michael in ArchDen at Jan 5, 2007 5:23:53 PM
"But did her vote affact in any way, for good or for ill, the abortion rate in this country? I seriously doubt it. On the other hand, those who voted for the Iraq war do indeed share some reponsibility of the carnage in Iraq, including over 600,000 dead."
Translation: If you voted for the war, you are a murderer. If you vote for abortion of any kind, you're excused.
Posted by: midwestmom at Jan 5, 2007 5:31:37 PM
Dear "S" (scasey15@cox.net): It's fine to point out the failings of Madame Speaker Pelosi, but don't take gratuitous swipes at Democrats for Life. Dem. pro-lifers don't take swipes at heartfelt, consistent pro-life Republicans. Democrats for Life had nothing to do with Pelosi's election, so leave them out of it. - PH
Posted by: Philip Howard at Jan 5, 2007 5:41:47 PM
PH: Spot-on.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jan 5, 2007 5:47:32 PM
those who voted for the Iraq war do indeed share some reponsibility of the carnage in Iraq, including over 600,000 dead.
If you're uncomfortable with people calling you a liar, you might want to reconsider citing a statistic that is of dubious origins and veracity. Also, you seem to do a good job of tap-dancing around any criticism of a Democratic pol. I'd wager to say that almost all of the conservatives on this blog and within the Catholic blogosphere are far, far, far more critical of George Bush and other Republicans than you have shown yourself to be for other Democrats. Whenever a Democrat is challenged, you seem intent to change the subject. "Look over there, that person's worse." Well whoopdy-damn do.
It's technically true that abortions probably will not rise as a result of her Speakership, but this a cute dodge of the greater issue. Because of people like her abortion will continue to be the law of the land. She and her Democratic colleagues will fight tooth and nail to make sure that potentially pro-life judges are kept away from the Courts, especially SCOTUS. And even if they fail there, they will work in the states to ensure that it remains legal.
The point isn't that Pelosi's current position will lead to more abortions in the next two years. What matters is that, as one of the most visible political leaders in the country, her pro-choice position becomes even more ingrained in the culture. And yet she wears the badge of Catholocism even as she agitates for the right to murder unborn children.
Posted by: paul zummo at Jan 5, 2007 5:50:46 PM
On the other hand, those who voted for the Iraq war do indeed share some reponsibility of the carnage in Iraq, including over 600,000 dead.
It's like a liberal greatest-hits parade.
A laughable, debunked, not to mention false, figure.
Posted by: Christopher Fotos at Jan 5, 2007 5:59:40 PM
Paul,
Yes, I take that point: my defense of Democrats is indeed exagerrated, to the extent that in a forum like this, I'm in a distinct minority. In other forums, I'm often seen as a reactionary (and you know what I'm talking about!!).
Posted by: Morning's Minion at Jan 5, 2007 6:30:43 PM
I know we've had this argument a zillion times (with the same people, to boot), but let's do this again!
Abortion is non-negotiable. It cannnot be defended, supported, justified. It is never a right, and always evil in its object. But, supporting a public figure who supports abortion need not be the same thing as supporting abortion. By the principal of double effect, if you do not intend the action as a means or an end, then it boils down to the proportionality consideration. All kinds of factors come into play. Will voting for a candidate have any impact on the abortion rate? What if this particular elected office holds little power to influence abortion legislation? Would this person actually be in a position to affect the abortion rate? In the United States, the "right" to abortion derives from the Supreme Court. Plus, the pro-abortion candidate may well support a bevy of economic and healthcare policies that actually reduce the rate of abortion.
So it is possible to conclude that abortion may not be any worse, but that other good policies may emerge, upon the election of a pro-abortion person or group. Take torture for one, which is also instrinsically evil and NOT subject to prudential judgment. Even those matters were dissent is permitted can lead to outcomes closer to gospel values (it boggles the mind that people feel free to ignore the Church on all put a tiny handful of "non-negotiable" issues). Choosing the pro-abortion candidate (let's call ber Nancy) may then he remote material cooperation in evil, that can be justified for proportionate reasons. The Holy Father, when was was just plain old Cardinal Ratzinger, said as much.
Note what I am not saying. I'm not saying that you guys are wrong to come to a different prudential judgment. For example, Paul's argument about Supreme Court composition is a valid one. But it's certainly a position aligned with Catholic teaching, and that cannot be denied.
Posted by: Morning's Minion at Jan 5, 2007 6:50:11 PM
The question raised here is not the morality of voting for a pro-abortion candidate. The issue is what action the Church should take regarding the most prominent Catholic public official in the United States, and her open rejection of fundamental Catholic beliefs about the sanctity of human life.
Here's the key quote from the letter from then-Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick and the American bishops in 2004 (the full text can be found at http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?RecNum=6041):
"Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist."
Note that the letter also says this regarding war and capital punishment:
"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
Posted by: Ed Mechmann at Jan 5, 2007 6:58:29 PM
The culture of abortion will not change until we stop electing individuals like Pelosi. This is not a prudential judgement, rather it is common sense.
MM, what happened to your argument that having Democrats (or was that only Bill Clinton?) in power actually reduced abortion rates? Don't believe your own lies anymore?
Posted by: ken at Jan 5, 2007 7:14:57 PM
Her remarks reminded me of Plankton.
Posted by: Ed the Roman at Jan 5, 2007 7:32:07 PM
In other forums, I'm often seen as a reactionary (and you know what I'm talking about!!).
I can testify to the truth of that statement.
Speaking of which, see you soon.
Posted by: paul zummo at Jan 5, 2007 8:17:13 PM
On the other hand, those who voted for the Iraq war do indeed share some reponsibility of the carnage in Iraq, including over 600,000 dead.
And even if that were true, how many times would that number have to be multiplied before it equaled the number of abortions due to... oh, wait, that's right -- Pelosi isn't responsible for any of those. Sweet.
Honestly, if you were some paid agent provocateur working on behalf of all the Abrahamoffs and Delays of the world, you would not be damaging Pelosi more than with arguments like the ones you're making. If I were cannier, I'd probably be thanking you.
By the way, is Daniel the same Susan/Barry/Daniel person Amy busted back in this thread? If so, is there any connection to the Susan whose lefty ideology used to litter Rod Dreher's blog back in the days when I bothered to read it?
Perhaps not -- in which case, Daniel, you have a doppelganger out there somewhere. Maybe the two (or four) of you should hang out.
Posted by: HA at Jan 5, 2007 9:36:01 PM
