San Francisco Archbishop Bars Nancy Pelosi From Communion Over Abortion Stance
This has nothing to do with the separation of church and state.

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone provoked howls of outrage Friday when he announced that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) may not present herself for Holy Communion, the central sacrament of Catholic life, because of her position on abortion rights. Democratic politicians and a chorus of cable pundits have since argued that the prelate should stick to religion and have the good sense to stay out of politics.
Religious believers have as much right to civic engagement in the United States as anyone. But Cordileone's move to bar Pelosi from the Eucharist actually had a religious motivation: his desire, as her pastor, to bring about repentance from a position that he says imperils her soul.
The idea that Cordileone is trying to punish Pelosi for her political beliefs is flawed on two levels.
First, the prohibition on receiving communion isn't a punishment at all. In church teaching, it exists to prevent the speaker from the spiritual harm of taking communion in a state of grave sin. The goal is reconciliation, not retribution.
The archbishop also argues that Pelosi—by stepping out of communion with her church on a critical moral issue, then lining up to receive a symbol of that communion on Sunday morning—acts in a way that could cause other Catholics to follow her into error. Under Catholic doctrine, Cordileone is a shepherd responsible for the souls of his flock and had an obligation to respond for their sake.
The archbishop's announcement notes that he has made frequent efforts to avoid a public confrontation over all this. He says his overtures toward a private, pastoral meeting with Pelosi have been rebuffed, his invitations ignored.
Second, when Pelosi works to uphold a right to abortion, she runs directly contrary to the Catholic Church's teaching that abortion is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life. This isn't a mere political belief. It also isn't, despite what some claim, a religious belief; it is a moral judgment, one shared by many atheists. But for a Catholic, openly persevering in such a view does have religious consequences, and a person is not immunized from those consequences just because she happens to be a member of the political class.
In fact, it is Pelosi who has made her religion a matter of politics—at least when it proves politically convenient.
Pelosi is a practicing Catholic, and we do not question the sincerity of her faith. But there is an inconsistency worth noting. She is glad to fly to Rome for pictures with the pope and to describe herself on the campaign trail as devout. She is glad to quote the Gospel of Matthew, as she did this week when advocating for a Ukrainian funding bill, or to take up the cause of an arrested 90-year-old cardinal when the Beijing authorities put him to the screws. But if that Gospel or that cardinal have anything to say about abortion, Pelosi will insist that Catholic doctrine has no place in political discourse, that religious sensibilities "shouldn't have an impact on a woman's right to choose."
Pro-choice Catholic politicians have long argued that their "personal opposition" to abortion, if indeed they have any, has no bearing on their decision about whether the practice should be legally protected. A divorce between political discourse and the sources of moral wisdom, we're told, is the meaning of the "separation of church and state."
But that's not what the First Amendment says. It stops the government from establishing a state church. The separation of church and state runs between institutions, not between people grappling with moral issues. Politics does not get to declare eminent domain over issues of public morality and evict religion from the conversation.
Politicians, especially in a democracy, do not exist as a class apart. They are representative members of the communities from which they come—communities with their own identities. Membership of a church doesn't exclude Pelosi, or anyone else, from participating in political life or from civic responsibilities. And participating in politics does not remove a person from her church or strip her of the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of membership in that community.
Cordileone can't tell Pelosi how to vote and hasn't tried to. But the archbishop is responsible for shepherding his flock in line with Catholic doctrine—even when they wander as far as Washington, D.C.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Just waiting for all the people who decry the separation of church and state to start wailing about how the church should bend to nancy's will.
Let me guess. The libertarian solution is to build your own Heaven?
Pretty sure that's the Progressive solution. At least to the extent they also want to rope in everyone else.
Why bother striving and over-achieving to become an elite progressive if you don't then get to impose your vision of utopian society?
I consider myself something of a progressive as do many of my friends and not wants to impose shit. They're just tired of being imposed upon.
I would consider an anti-abortion stance if the anti-abortion people actually wanted to do something about it. Libertarians don't like ideas that differ from their ideology but all the Church and the Law have to do is root cause abortion and push for universally available solutions, e.g. universal care for every pregnant woman etc. But the churches and the politicians are enjoying their endless "pro-life" fundraising too much to look for real answers.
See, this is what the bishops get for trying to out-progressive the progressives and promote increased social spending in the name of prolife values. It is notoriously true that the bishops have taken the extreme social-spending viewpoint. Yet the abortion-fanciers seem to be as ignorant of political realities as they are of scientific realities, and continue to peddle the idea that the bishops are basically mitred Murray Rothbards.
So you're just demanding communism but you don't want to impose shit? How are you marxists going to pay for the universally available shit? Oh, right, you're going to demand everyone else pay for it.
PELOSI is a crook, as is her husband, and thus the best thing to do is run this cunt out of office.
SF Chronicle already has an op-ed asking the pope to overrule the cardinal.
Behind a paywall, alas.
The pope said like a year or two ago the church is firmly against abortion. It is murder. That bishops should do what they feel is right w communion.
Well, who the fuck elected him pope?
And why the fuck should I care?
Actually, he told everyone NOT to withhold Communion. http://www.news.yahoo.com/san-francisco-archbishop-defies-pope-200149961.html
Looks like he made a pastoral decision.
Lots of people are fine with the state being involved in church matters, as long as it's the state giving orders to the church and not the other way around.
That SF Chron article linked above is just fine with Church doctrine being used to advocate for all sorts of government involvement. Mainly in the form of taking money from some people in order to spend it on others. They just do not want it to impose anything they consider undesirable.
Beyond the hypocrisy this is fundamentally evil - while many Christian faiths impose a moral imperative to help others the doctrine of Free Will clearly indicates that the presence of compulsion renders any such actions as lacking in moral agency or culpability. So those who 'gave' didn't do a good deed, and neither did those who imposed it upon others by force.
But, Thomas, government is the compulsion that we all do together voluntarily.
something you do NOT understand about morality. God has soverignuy declared certain things are NOT acceptable for ANYONE to do, and others are left to each individual. God can do this because He made everytning, and every person. He who creates something can have a say in how it will/will not be used or done.
One thing He makes VERY clear: no human can wilfully or knowingly end the life of another human when that other human (the one being killed) has done nothing wrong.. Murder someone. the pentalty prescribed is DEATH. That means someone has to DO it.
But a baby, within her Mothe's womb, has done NOTHING frong, and thus anyone killing her is worthy of death. Gods law, not mine. If yuo have aproblem wiht that system, take it up with Him.
Pelosi, by advcating, prpomoting, favouring facilitating, encouraging, the murder of those not yet born is promoting murder of innocents. She is every bit as guilty of this as the clown who shot up a mall last week killing several innocents. She IS clearly playing her claimed religioin as a political tool. Good job on the local head honcho for raining on her parade. About time SOMEONE stood up to that horrid person and said NO MORE YOU ARE NOT THE RULER OF THE UNIVERSE.
Ahd her antics of late HAVE gone a long ways toward stumbling others, those who for some unane reason look up to her and admire her, and her promotion of the murder of the unborn IS leading others to hold to the same evil stance. The archbishop is spot on. NO ONE is pressuring her to remain in the catholic church.
Remember that King of England, Henry the something or other number, who wanted to divorce his wofe so he could marry a different woman? The pope told him you can't do that the scripture prohibits it. He said, basically, try and stop me. He left the pope and the rest of that organistion and went and founded his own "church,/ he thus becomong King of England AND pope of the Anglican Church. That has not worked out so well Maye Pelosi could go and start her own religious association. I'm sure she can come up with some amusing name for the new outfit. T'would be great fun to watch her strut and crow and boss others about.
Maybe she should try being an Episcopalian.
If that fails maybe she can go "Anne Boleyn" on herself.
they went to shit 30 years ago
That they did; went woke before it was "popular" and currently the leadership is all in on pretty much any Democratic initiative. They are nonetheless headed for oblivion and I foresee the churches becoming whimsical art galleries.
African Anglicans may have something to say about that.
Better outcome: turn the churches into dance clubs and bars. Visit Aberdeen and see.
My city has a number of smaller old church buildings integrated into residential neighborhoods. I’ve toyed with buying one and converting it a single family residence.
The wife and I stayed at a bead and breakfast converted from an old cathedral in Santa Barbara. Overall it was creepy, including all the fucking antique dolls the crazy owner had in the rooms.
Yeah……. I would skip the dolls. I like brick construction, hardwood floors, and an open floor plan. A number of the churches around me check those boxes.
30 years? Try 488 years when a bloody multiple wife murderer started it up.
The Episcopalian bishop of California all but invited her: https://www.diocal.org/2022/05/21/bishop-marcs-statement-of-support-and-welcome-for-speaker-pelosi-after-sf-archdiocese-denies-her-communion/
(I know, I know: The Piskies insist I should call him the "Episcopal bishop", but all bishops are episcopal by definition, aren't they?)
That was quick 🙂
Catholic light.
Decry something that direct exist?
‘Doesn’t’
So she doesn't get to eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Jesus. Big deal!
This,would only be a punishment in the Twilight movies. 🙂
Isn't it past your bedtime?
Tomorrow is a school day.
Funny, somebody else keeps calling me a Boomer, especially when I stand against Putin and for Ukrainians resisting his invasion and tyranny. Gen Xers just can't win.
I only know about Twilight from the kids who lined up in my store when it first came out.
Oh, you are a Gen-Xer?
From your comment, I was guessing you were 12.
"San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone provoked howls of outrage Friday when he announced that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) may not present herself for Holy Communion, the central sacrament of Catholic life, because of her position on abortion rights. Democratic politicians and a chorus of cable pundits have since argued that the prelate should stick to religion and have the good sense to stay out of politics."
Do any of those Democrats no get the contradiction in that argument? Denying Pelosi a magic cookie during a D&D ceremony is the very definition of religion.
ps. If Nancy thinks she is going to heaven she might have a nasty surprise coming.
That and the fact that she uses her alleged Catholicism as a political tool to gain power and advance the one position that the Church is unambiguously against.
No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Our main weapon is surprise
surprise and fear
Our two main weapons are surprise, fear and and ruthless efficiency Our three main weapons are.....
I can't see discovering the Catholic heaven doesn't exist as being a very nasty surprise. Bit of a relief, I'd think.
She's going to have to practice a lot more before she gets it right.
Bump
we do not question the sincerity of her faith
I do.
Matthew 7:17-20:
17 A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit. 18 A good tree can’t produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can’t produce good fruit. 19 So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and thrown into the fire. 20 Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions.
Do you really want to advocate for burning people based on their beliefs?
Well, there was a time when they did just that.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
So is Biden. I don't question it either. I know they're not sincere.
Not sincere? They're politicians. Have you ever once seen a politician who sincerely follows their professed faith?
Thank you for this mostly unheeded reality check.
Mike Pence?
For his faults, Carter seemed to try and live his faith decently enough.
Bush, on the other hand, was a useless dick.
I'm glad the guy who has taught bible study for decades has gotten your grudging approval for his faith. I'm sure everyone who knows you understands how relevant your opinion is to someone else's faith.
I overlook Carter's anti-Semitism. But, hey, if you want to be a dick to somebody not insulting somebody you like, feel free.
Just, next time you feel this mood, swallow a bullet.
Who is we? I sure as fuck question it. They should excommunicate her evil ass.
"It's a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints" is a common refrain you will hear among Catholics.
And at a hospital, you don't let the lung cancer patients smoke in the name of "accompaniment," something the current Pope seems a bit unclear on.
If the church wants to let someone like Pelosi take communion, they need to shut up about abortion, because clearly they don't think it is important. If they want to continue to claim abortion is wrong, then they not only need to deny people like Pelosi communion, they need to excommunicate them and kick them out of the church entirely.
You clearly do not understand how the Catholic Church views it's role in Salvation.
Firstly, you should start with the meaning of the common adjective catholic.
More specifically Excommunication does not make one not Catholic. the Church is not interested in punishing, ostracizing, or abandoning anyone. It simply does not operate in that way. The goal of all such measures is to bring the person back around to what the Church promotes as the proper state of being.
the Church is not interested in punishing, ostracizing, or abandoning anyone.
I understand that fully. What I also understand that people like you don't is that it makes the church as worthless as tits on a boar as a Christian institution. If you are not going to expect your members to abide by the core beliefs of your religion, then you are not a church anymore. You are a social club.
If you are not going to expect your members to abide by the core beliefs of your religion, then you are not a church anymore.
You . . . don't seem to understand the basics of Catholicism. There is a reason that confession and absolution are central to the whole belief system.
No. You don't understand what confession and absolution mean. It is not that Pelosi did something against the church. It is that she does so continuously without apology.
God Damn you people are dense.
It is that she does so continuously without apology.
Yes. Which is why she's being denied communion.
If she confesses to her sin and does penance, she will be welcomed back.
What will not happen is that she will not be condemned and excluded from the Church forevermore with no chance of forgiveness, because that's not how Catholicism works.
It didn't even work that way back when they were still burning people.
God Damn you people are dense.
Careful about flinging the insults around so quickly, as you may find yourself not looking as smart as you think you do.
You do understand that excommunication is not necessarily permanent, right? There is literally no such thing as 'condemned and excluded from the Church forevermore with no chance of forgiveness'.
Please learn about the Church before you try to lecture others about it.
You do understand that excommunication is not necessarily permanent, right?
Why, yes, yes I do. I'm actually the one pointing out that the Catholic Church doesn't exclude people from the Church forevermore with no chance of forgiveness in response to the guy who said "they need to excommunicate them and kick them out of the church entirely."
Please learn about the Church before you try to lecture others about it.
I wager that I know more about the Church than you do.
Please actually read comments before responding to them, and make sure you're responding to the person who said the thing you're arguing against.
You know, it's just possible that David Perry meant to respond, not to you, but to the same person you were responding too.
Could be.
Yeah, excommunication has always been a tool of last resort. The whole point of denying a Catholic communion is to warn them, "Hey, get your shit together so that you can be a part of the body of Christ again," and provide them with the opportunity to correct themselves.
If Pelosi persists in calling herself Catholic while maintaining that abortion should be allowed all the way up until the kid exits the magic birth canal, and encourages other Catholics to adopt that position as well, THEN I could see grounds for excommunicating her at that point. Same applies to Biden and every other Catholic Democrat.
Honestly, I'm surprised a cardinal had the balls to actually do this to an American politician, considering they've been looking the other way for decades now.
To be clear, the church has opined on this many times in the past. Generally the guidance was, you shouldn't be going for communion if this is your belief. But often Pastors have withheld communion when these politicians visit their parish.
The Catholic church has tried not to take a total stand on this, because they are lefty in general, and don't want to alienate these powerful people. But I think Pelosi's "Matthew Speech" was a bit too rich for them to ignore.
This. Once upon a time, bishops would excommunicate political leaders who could retaliate in much more palpable ways than simply issuing outraged press releases. St. Ambrose (bishop of Milan) excommunicated the Emperor Theodosius the Great for the Massacre of Thessalonica. St. Stanislaus (bishop of Krakow) excommunicated King Boleslaw II of Poland for adultery, and was personally murdered by the king. Good times, good times.
"Honestly, I'm surprised a cardinal had the balls to actually do this to an American politician"
He is an Archbishop, not a Cardinal, and he is going against what the Pope has said about denying communion to pro-choice politicians (and what the US Council of Bishops said, as well).
What is the penance for an Archbishop trying to overrule the Pope? I believe pride (or hubris, depending on translation) is a mortal sin.
Someone has a bit of explaining to do the next time he chats with God.
The pope is not an oriental despot whose every whim has the force of law. While he may have expressed his preference that pols not be denied communion, the actual law (canon 915) still says that "Those . . . obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion."
Cordileone would have a lot more explaining to do if he chose to avoid trouble and comply with Francis's wishes rather than to the law. As canon lawyer Ed Peters has observed: "Canon 915 enables, indeed requires, prompt (not precipitous, but prompt) action by ministers to protect the Most August Sacrament from abuse, to alert an individual about his or her morally gravely dangerous public conduct, to protect the faith community from scandal, and to give serious witness to the world about the importance of Church teaching to Church members" (emphasis added). (https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2019/01/25/canon-915s-moment-has-arrived/)
'What is the penance for an Archbishop trying to overrule the Pope?"
That statement of the Pope was a strong suggestion, not an order.
If anything is prideful, it is you comment.
"Those . . . obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion."
And yet Pelosi herself hasn't sinned. She has merely allowed others the opportunity to sin (assuming the Catholic belief of life (bio and moral) beginning at conception. As I understand it someone else's sin (or the possibility that they might sin) is attributable to the sinner.
The Conference of Bishops also made the same determination, despite the strenuous efforts (and objections) of conservative members (https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2021/11/17/Catholic-bishops-communion-Joe-Biden-conservatives/3501637173872/?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral)
When you have the Pope and the US Bishops saying one thing and a single Archbishop saying something completely different, there is a disconnect and it's clear who isn't on the same page.
The entire exercise is hibris on the part of the Archbishop. He apparently thinks his view of the matter is better than everyone else's.
Look up "Nine Ways of Being Accessory to Another's Sin." Here's one: https://catholic-link.org/9-ways-not-to-participate-in-anothers-sin/
(The list (without the commentary) used to be in the front of most Catholic prayer books.) Here's one
Yeah, excommunication has always been a tool of last resort. The whole point of denying a Catholic communion is to warn them, "Hey, get your shit together so that you can be a part of the body of Christ again," and provide them with the opportunity to correct themselves.
^
Even in the days of the Inquisition, heretics were offered chance after chance to reject their heresies and ask for forgiveness. The only thing that was going to get you actually burned was if you continued to preach heresies after having been excommunicated and refused to confess and repent even after being tortured.
What I don't get is why you all are even talking about excommunication. That isn't what is happing here, this is simply denying sacrament.
Bishops cannot just excommunicate all willy-nilly like. There are canon laws which much be followed and he has zero cause to excommunicate here.
The bishop couldn't even excommunicate her if she GOT an abortion, as that is a of latae sententiae (happens auto-magically) violation of Canon 1398. Pretty much, unless you work for the church (e.g. priest), you have to look pretty damn hard to get a Latae sententiae (church imposed) excommunication.
This is why the trend has been for bishops and such to prevent people from communion. Nowhere near as many rules govern this and there is a lot more wiggle room in the canon law.
It is also iffy, from a church doctrine standpoint, if/when/how much simply enabling or protecting another's right and ability to choose to sin is in and of itself a sin.
Except this is what excommunication basically entails for lay Catholics, denial of the sacraments. All of the rest of the consequences only fall on clergy (unless, I guess, you count that it precludes a lay Catholic from becoming clergy).
Just to add some additional context to your last paragraph (but I am not refuting it), by canon law, accomplices who were needed to commit an action that merits the penalty of latae sententiae (automatic excommunication, which includes getting an abortion) merits the same penalty. This is where at least some Catholics get the idea of excommunicating pro-abortion Catholic politicians.
It is not me that counts the preclusion of a lay Catholic from becoming clergy, it is The Church. They are ones who have put it into ecclesiastical law. People banter about excommunication like it means something other than what it really does (side thought... it reminds me of how the Christian Science folk would (mis)use the word "theory"). For most part it is a punishment meant for the those who, lack of a better term, work for the church and not its flock. This is why you don't hear much in the way of excommunication talk from anyone of church importance; they really don't want the angry phone calls from the Holy See.
"where at least some Catholics get the idea of excommunicating pro-abortion Catholic politicians"
Right - The idea that the existence of a tangential connection between a politician supporting a law is enough to merit branding them an accomplice is not firm church doctrine. It is enough to allow Catholic bishops to make flashy political statements to rile the left.
It's being discussed because Briggs brought it up?
God certainly damns Nancy Pelosi and probably most democrats.
Seeking repentance starts with not continually doing the offensive act. As a non-Catholic (they worship the church primarily, IMO, not Jesus), you confess as part of the process of repentance.
Confession requires admittance, repenting, and trying to stop the sins you've admitted to committing. Nancy is not doing that under current doctrine.
Not just a social club, but a totalitarian government--if they get their way again.
Which core belief does she not abide by? If you mean the belief that abortion is a sin, I would not say that this is a CORE Catholic belief, even if it is a belief of the church.
There's this little thing called the ten commandments. There is one titled "thou shalt not murder".
Openly encouraging people to commit murder is s violation of the core beliefs of the church.
That's the thing. Abortion isn't a separate sin under the church. It's not some side requirement like the details of mass or an obscure law that's easy to fall afoul of. They view it as plain and simple homicide. Doing it without great need is murder.
The 10C and the Catholic church don't really have anything to do with each other and the church most certainly does not base its canon on them. Just taking the one commandment you mentioned... the church has a long and storied history of supporting wars, supporting those who support wars, and has even has times had its own military. Not killing has never truly only ever been important to the church when it has been killing the wrong folks or non-"Church Approved" reasons. Certainly has never really risen to the level of "Commandment" for them.
Looking at the other commandments makes it even worse... women as property, idolatry, the Sabbath... pretty much treat most of it as Old Testaments nonsense.
War is not murder. Soldiers killing each other on the battlefield is akin to justifiable homicide.
1st, that depends on the translation... killing or murder.
What you are arguing, and one that most religions ascribe to, is the doctrine known as "bloodguilt"; basically guilt resulting from bloodshed.
The theory goes that if you kill in a manner which does not cause guilt, such as soldering, self defense, etc. then it is not a violation of the 10 Commandments.
The issue here is twofold: 1. Who exactly gets to say what you should and should not guilty about? 2. Seems pretty subjective for it to be on the "Thou Shalt Not" top ten list.
Should a Russian solder feel guilty about killing in Ukraine?
Should a pilot who flew over Iraqi feel guilty about the children who died as collateral damage from his bombs?
Should a Nazi solder have felt guilty about the Polish who died during the invasion?
Should a women feel guilty from taking a morning after pill?
Bloodguilt a highly subjective philosophical religious question. Certainly more complicated that "war is not murder".
Sure. But it remains true that war is not, as such, murder. Unjust war certainly is, and a soldier who knowingly particulates in a just war is either committing murder or is an accessory to murder. But just being a soldier isn't murder (or else, when soldiers came to John the Baptist and asked him, "And we, what shall we do?", he would have suggested their job was inherently sinful, rather than simply advising them to "Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages").
It also remains true that Christianity, though not taking the position of pacifism, has from the earliest times taught that taking innocent human life was murder. Thus it condemned infanticide and abortion, which were widely tolerated by the culture in which the early Church found itself.
There is no such thing as a Just or Unjust war. There is just war.
Just and unjust are simply matters of historical mood and perspective.
But if we take your argument that there is, that actually helps the pro choice crowd:
The argument you seem to be making is that a soldier who kills when he knows in his heart that the cause is unjust is guilty of murder. A solder who does not have such knowledge is not guilty of murder and is just killing an enemy, free of sin from his actions.
Putting the same argument to a women getting abortion... it would seem that it would only be murder if she believes in her heart that the killing is unjust and she is acting to murder an innocent. If, on the other hand she does not harbor such beliefs, let us say that she believes that she is excising an unwanted parasite that is not yet a human life, then she should be exempt from bloodguilt or sin for her actions, much the same as the soldier in a just war.
Regardless, sound bites by John the Baptist do not set church doctrine (that one does imply that a soldier complaining about his wages is a mortal sinner if you take Mr. John at his world). There are no clear "soldier killing during war" exemptions clearly stated anywhere in either the New or Old Testaments.
That it is what most religions teach, but like a great many other things they teach *cough* virgin birth *cough* they just made that shit up.
You're actually correct, insofar as the woman undergoing an abortion is ignorant in good faith of the fact that abortion is gravely immoral (and hasn't, for instance, simply refused to consider the moral status of her actions). That's classic Baltimore Catechism: to incur the guilt of mortal sin, you need grave matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.
I wouldn't bet that Nancy Pelosi is ignorant in good faith, however. She's been aware, or should have been aware, of the Church's teaching on the matter since her youth. She may have rationalized it away, or been plugging her ears and saying "Naa, naaa, naaa, I can't hear you" whenever the Church exercised its teaching office in her hearing.
"Openly encouraging people to commit murder"
Pro-choice politicians don't do this. They usually don't believe in abortion, personally. They just acknowledge that people aren't all Catholics and should be allowed to practice their own religion.
The conceit of the anti-abortionists (or one of the many conceits) is that pro-choice means cheering/supporting/encouraging/advocating for abortion. That just isn't true.
Have you not been paying attention for the last couple of years? We have multiple people who are celebrating their abortions and encouraging people to get abortions. They even say they want to destigmatize it and make it something to be celebrated.
So random people celebrating their abortions is now the burden of pro-choice politicians to bear? If someone the politician doesn't know and doesn't give advice to chooses to have an abortion, that is now the moral responsibility of anyone who doesn't oppose free will for others? Isn't sin about the individual and what they choose to do for themselves?
I feel like anti-abortionists (and cultural conservatives in general) want to apply emanations and penumbras to the moral behavior of others, to an unreasonable and unsustainable point.
"So random people celebrating their abortions is now the burden of pro-choice politicians to bear?"
Trump was PERSONALLY
to blame for some random yahoos he OPENLY SAID WERE WRONG chanting in Virginia.
Tell me more about the unfairness of it all.
So whataboutism? And a particularly dishonest version of it, where Trump's (to be generous) mixed messages are condemned by his political opponents, but Pelosi's immortal soul is indicted because of what someone else might (or might not) do with their free will?
Whataboutism with a side of false equivelency.
You like your political bias uncut and without distracting nuance, like pure china white straight to your emotional centers with no thought or reason required.
Anyone who opposes Trump is evil. Democrats oppose Trump. Pelosi is a Democrat. Pelosi is evil.
Abortion is evil. Some people choose abortion. Pelosi wants to let people make abortion decisions for themselves. Pelosi is responsible for all abortions. Pelosi is evil.
Right?
Oh dear, nelson is triggered.
"Trump's (to be generous) mixed messages are condemned by his political opponents"
From his "very fine people" remarks. The sentence AFTER "very fine people", to show how pathetic that smear was:
"I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."
That IS pretty mixed there. Tons o' wiggle room.
"Pelosi's immortal soul is indicted because of what someone else might (or might not) do with their free will?"
Oh, you're actually whining here. Got it. Adorable.
"Whataboutism with a side of false equivelency."
"False equivalency" in that one event happened and one did not.
"You like your political bias uncut and without distracting nuance, like pure china white straight to your emotional centers with no thought or reason required."
King of impartial commentary, please enlighten us with your deep insights.
"Anyone who opposes Trump is evil. Democrats oppose Trump. Pelosi is a Democrat. Pelosi is evil."
Nah. Pelosi is evil for many reasons that have nothing at all to do with Trump. We can go over her preference for terrible policies. Her incredible "good fortune" with investing in the stock market while overseeing many of the companies she "invests" in (I mean, getting in on the Visa IPO in 2008 does not seem shady at all). Her disdain for the average person.
But, please go on.
"Pro-choice politicians don't do this. They usually don't believe in abortion, personally. They just acknowledge that people aren't all Catholics and should be allowed to practice their own religion."
Good for them. There is clearly significant disagreement on it being murder, however, and pretty much all churches fall on the "Yeah, that is murder" side of the line.
If you dislike church teachings, do not belong to that church. If you're going to claim to be a believer, as she does, there are things that go along with that.
"The conceit of the anti-abortionists (or one of the many conceits) is that pro-choice means cheering/supporting/encouraging/advocating for abortion. That just isn't true."
The last few years have definitely belied that claim.
No, pro choice politicians lie about their personal beliefs in order to try and triangulate the middle, this gets shown as the policies they support flow further and further towards full term executions and they trot out the same poll tested slogans.
"If you dislike church teachings, do not belong to that church."
By your absolutist logic, the Catholic Church would lose 56% of its members over the abortion issue alone. Even more over gay marriage. Even more over premarital sex. Even more over contraception. Etc., etc., etc.
The same thing would happen to other denominations if they required absolute adherence to church doctrine. Most people don't accept every tenet of a church's doctrine. This is why (among other reasons http://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/signs-times/4-reasons-behind-vaticans-action-communion-pro-choice-politicians?site_redirect=1) the Pope and the Conference of Bishops determined that witholding Communion from pro-choice Catholics was a bad idea.
Absolutism is a dangerous thing to advocate since, unless you are perfect and have chosen perfect groups to associate with (an impossibility) your life is littered with compromises and conflicting beliefs. So put down that rock, Glass Houses.
Seriously stop.
If you have a voluntary group/Club/church with rules and you don’t like the rules, leave. If the grouping wants to be Richard strict and then take an overbearing they will find slim pickings , if they want to be a big tent, they should be flexible.
The point is is that if your group has no purpose or convictions whatsoever, it is meaningless, of less import thanTwitter. You may want to belong to a group like that, many don’t.
You’re demand that people have to belong to meaningless organizations Is a kind of tyranny.
She's free to not be a Catholic. Nobody is stopping her from leaving.
Probably the sanctity of life, which they believe starts at conception. (I mean, scientifically they're right, but science can't confer personhood and their beliefs do.)
scientifically they're right
Is it the egg or the sperm that isn't alive prior to conception?
Neither the egg nor the sperm is a developing, individual human life.
After conception, the embryo is a developing human life.
Neither of us were ever a sperm or egg; both of us were once embryos.
I mean, I guess technically every one of your individual cells is alive as long as you're alive, but my sperm isn't a separate unique human with it's own dna.
When a sperm fertilizes an egg and mitosis begins, that is unequivocally a separate unique human with its own dna, and thus the very beginning stage of a new life. Sorry, I didn't think that would be a controversial statement, especially with the qualifier about personhood.
I say to both of you:
This is a very controversial issue, so it behooves us to be precise.
After the moment of conception, there is not now life where there was before none. Already-living things have transformed.
Arguably, a new, uniquely-coded being is now in existence that was not here before.
If I take this as a de facto argument that abortion is inherently murder, then does that mean if I have twins and abort only one of them, that it isn't murder?
My point: "when an individual life begins" is not a matter of science. It is a matter of faith.
Square=Circle "Arguably, a new, uniquely-coded being is now in existence that was not here before."
It isn't arguable at all. It is just a fact.
Square=Circle "If I take this as a de facto argument that abortion is inherently murder, then does that mean if I have twins and abort only one of them, that it isn't murder?"
No. Killing a twin is murder. The fact that there might be another developing human with the same DNA is irrelevant.
Square=Circle "My point: "when an individual life begins" is not a matter of science. It is a matter of faith."
No, not at all. Not at all. Science is clear about what life is. Life is that which ingests nutrition, grows, and excretes waste. (In some form.) It is also clear that a developing embryo is an individual life while a skin cell or a sperm cell is not.
I've no idea why you seem to think this complex. It is just elementary biology.
"Is it the egg or the sperm that isn't alive prior to conception?"
I believe, scientifically, neither is alive. But, in basic biological terms, a fertilized egg is.
No, sperm and eggs are alive in the same sense that most of the cells in your body are alive.
But your skin cells are not individuals. They are parts of an individual.
A fertilized egg is an individual, not a part of another individual.
It's not a fertilized eggs in placental mammals, it's a zygote. Different term, and this isn't parsing phrases it's a scientific fact.
Thanks for the bio-terminology tip.
And what is the significance of this fact?
The correct usage of scientific terminology is prima importance when discussing scientific matters. You can't abort a fertilized egg as a placental mammal. It's scientifically impossible.
Every sperm is sacred/Monty Python
That is a departure from common law, which used quickening.
You would be incorrect.
Abortion has been considered very serious sin since the first century. It was condemned in the earliest Christian writing, the Didache.
There is currently a market for "Christians" who claim that abortion is compatible with Christianity. They are either grossly ignorant or dishonest or both.
It was condemned in the earliest Christian writing, the Didache.
Yes, but prior to the 20th century, abortion as a concept only applied post-"Quickening" - i.e. once the baby can be felt to be moving around in the womb. The author of the Didache almost certainly wouldn't have applied the concept to the first trimester.
That is simply untrue. Completely untrue.
Pro-abortion forces seek to elide the truth by dragging in irrelevant questions like speculation on ensoulment. It is true that some theologians thought that ensoulment occurred at quickening, but this was unrelated to the idea that abortion was wrong.
Prior to the past century or so, the only way to tell with reasonable certainty that a woman was pregnant was quickening. But this was just a practical issue.
Abortion was considered wrong by Christian thinkers from the beginning of the Christian religion and not just after quickening. That is a pure myth.
Yes, Christendom inherited its ethos about abortion from Judaism- you know, the faith that Christ practiced.
Umm... youre not supposed to take the eucharist in sin. It requires confession and repenting.
The church should send a team of slayers to find her resting place so they can destroy her while she slumbers during the day. Like in ‘John Carpenter’s Vampires’. In fact, just go ahead and send James Woods.
Why do you think she needs that gigantic Sub-Zero?
Don't forget, "they" slumber in a coffin filled with the dirt from their ancestral home.
You gotta dump that out as well.
No one is questioning whether or not excommunicated Catholics are Catholic. Excommunication exists, and she meets the criteria for one. Make it so.
"If the church wants to let someone like Pelosi take communion, they need to shut up about abortion, because clearly they don't think it is important."
This makes zero sense.
"If they want to continue to claim abortion is wrong, then they not only need to deny people like Pelosi communion, they need to excommunicate them and kick them out of the church entirely."
The Archbishop did this for Pelosi's sake, believing it would be dangerous for her soul if she continued:
"27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.
31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world." - 1 Corinthians 11:27-32
This isn't the Archbishop being mean, he's worried she's bringing destruction upon herself, and it's safer for her to abstain.
Just because you don't believe, doesn't mean religious rites and rituals aren't serious business to those that do.
"he's worried she's bringing destruction upon herself"
That, and he is also worried about Scandal, and has specifically states such.
Scandal, in this sense, specifically means any sort of public behavior that might lead others to sin or some other grave misunderstanding of what the Church promotes. Pelosi has not only made statements in support of abortion she has also states that she does not think her stance at odds with the teachings of the Church. On both counts she is well outside what the Catechism says.
It's a fight about doctrinal purity - who is the ultimate authority in such matters.
It's a fight about doctrinal purity - who is the ultimate authority in such matters.
That is not a fight at all. The answer is the church is the ultimate authority. Yes, lots of people think the individual is. Those people are called Protestants. Either the church believes and lives by what it says or it doesn't.
The answer is the church is the ultimate authority. Yes, lots of people think the individual is. Those people are called Protestants.
LOL, what? Maybe in post-Transcendentalist churches, where the sanctity of the individual was insinuated and eventually led to the New England Anglican churches, for example, morphing in to the "spiritual but not religious" variety, or the fully compromised Protestant churches of today like the Episcopalians, Lutherans, or Methodist branches, which pervert scriptural interpretation to justify the latest leftist shibboleth.
In Protestantism, and in Catholicism for that matter, neither the church nor the individual are the ultimate authority. God is, through the sacrifice of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
That's a cop-out. Some actual person here on Earth has to give the orders. That makes the Pope the ultimate authority.
That makes the Pope the ultimate authority.
In practice, yes, but in principle, no.
The doctrine of Papal Infallibility in rooted in the fact that the Pope is God's direct representative on earth. When the Pope is wrong, it's not the Pope who's wrong, it's the fallible human who is failing to be Pope at the moment (argument summarized from Cardinal Newman).
Where's the laughing face emoji?
It's even more complicated and convoluted than that. Papal infallibility only applies when he is speaking ex cathedra, ie. formally and specifically. Not when he's casually conversing, or even giving an interview or most public addresses.
Bishops have much more power and authority than many people might imagine.
The doctrine of Papal Infallibility has only been used 3 times in history. The first time was to declare the doctrine itself.
The second and third times related to Mary's conception and assumption, IIRC.
I thought you were Muslim?
You really sure you want to re-engage with me?
I’m not gonna talk shit.
I assumed you were joking about being Muslim.
Why! Are you looking for someone to share your hatred of Jews and Catholics?
Did you straighten him out?
The answer is the church is the ultimate authority. Yes, lots of people think the individual is. Those people are called Protestants.
That's right. Protestants believe that every person should be free to worship God in their own way, while Catholics believe they should be free to worship him in his own way.
Not so much that. Protestants believe that man does not need somebody to speak on their behalf to God...Jesus does that. Catholics seem to believe you need a church leader to speak to God on your behalf, thus confession et al.
Wow, you got that wrong.
First not all Lutherans, second even in the ELCA (which is the most progressive, check out the LCMS and LCWS, their pretty damn conservative) the actual church teaching is that abortion is a sin, but it should be legal in the first trimester and never in the third trimester and should be heavily regulated at all time (it is a sin, but no sin is unforgivable of one is truly repentant). The church believes it should be legal, but that it isn't moral and that it is a sin. It is ending a life. But we are taught to treat all people, regardless of their sins, with compassion. Jesus treated sinners with compassion, and we are taught to emulate him. Bishop Eaton actually completely disregarded the Church official teaching on this and she has pissed off many of us Lutherans as a result. What the Lutheran church actually teaches, is that we all are sinners, undeserving of God's forgiveness, but He forgives us all the same. That we cannot judge others actions, since we are not free of sin, that it is between each individual and God. That it is through Faith, Grace and the Word, and that each individual has to make their own decisions.
Additionally, each congregation is its own governing body, we choose which minister we call. Bishop Eaton has far less power than is commonly thought. Even the gay clergy thing is widely misunderstood. The church can't force a gay minister on a congregation. They also can't force a congregation to perform a gay marriage. Those decisions are left to the individual church councils. We do stress your individual relationship with God over your relationship with the Church, but that was kind of the point of Martin Luther's protests against the Catholic Church at the time.
We don't believe in requiring church intercession, we instead believe we can form our own relationship with God. We are heavily influenced by the writings of Paul, and his letters. Sins are sins, but we see anything that you place between you and God are sins, so if you are so fixated on following the Laws, without fear and love of God, that in and of itself is a sin. Paul says if you live by the Law, continue to follow the Law, because you can't be saved by the Law, but only by the grace of God can you be saved. Only by accepting that you are a sinner, and fall short of the grace of God, repentance and giving yourself to Jesus and the Holy Spirit can you be saved. We don't believe that sins are defined by the individual. We don't believe you can sin without repercussion. We do believe the wages of sin are death. The church can't grant absolution, only God can. We all enter into church as sinners, we renounce our sins with confession, we acknowledge our sin, we take Communion, and don't deny communion because we all are sinners and no one can be in a complete state of grace. Since we all are sinners, than even a minister is by definition a sinner. But when they perform the Eucharist they are doing the will of God, and by his grace it is holy, not by the grace of the minister. Their grace or purity is irrelevant. Because it is God who is pure. It is His grace. We are commanded to try and follow the Law, we are not automatically forgiven. You cannot be forgiven for a sin you do not renounce. The role of the Church and the ministers, is to be guides, to be counselors, to be teachers. We are encouraged to read the Bible, to pray and seek guidance. But we are also taught that we often harden our hearts to God, and close our ears to Him and His message. The church doesn't teach that you have permission to commit sins, but we also teach not to judge others for their sin.
I know we frequently disagree (strenuously) about things, so I want to preface this by saying this is not sarcasm or snark. I mean this sincerely:
That was one of the most succinct, detailed, and nuanced explanation of someone's faith I have ever read. It also was one of the most heartfelt and passionate (in the "expressing love" meaning of the word). I swear I could physically feel your faith through your words.
I am, at best, an agnostic. But your words moved me. I wish you brought the acceptance of imperfection and the value of not judging others to more of your other posts here, but that is neither here nor there.
I have never felt a person's faith so strongly as I did reading your post. From now on, every time I reply to one of your posts I will always have this in the back of my mind, reminding me "This is who this man is. This is his heart.". Hopefully it will allow me to dial it back a little when I'm replying to you.
I don't judge people when I post, I judge their actions. And generally I don't attack first. I do defend faith and science when I see them misrepresented, vigorously. I do attack ChemJeff and Joe, but that's entirely due to their actions, Jeff has accused me multiple times of lying, while Joe has questioned my intelligence and honesty, I tried to interact with both in good faith. Yes, my actions are not tolerant of them and some others, and I do get carried away, which I am aware. I did say we are all sinners. I have nothing against people who disagree with me, but have no patience for people who are intellectually dishonest, who resort to ad hominems, who resort to hypocrisy, who are bigotted. I also have little tolerance for atheists who have to tell everyone they are atheists, besmirch anyone who believes, and often don't even have their facts about religion correct. It is not my place to make them believe, but rarely do these people respond to attacks but are way to happy to launch pre-emptive attacks of their own.
I didn't mean for you to infer a criticism from my post. I just wanted to let you know that I was moved by what you said and it will make me take a deep breath from now on when I reply to you.
I have searched for the kind of belief you have in a religion ever since I left the Catholic Church at 12. That was even before I found out that my father had been molested by a Jesuit when he was a child, which took me from doubting their doctrine to doubting their basic morality.
I haven't found a faith that speaks to me yet, although I continue to be open and actively search. Quakerism is the one that resonates most with me so far and, living in northern Delaware, there are a number of meeting houses near me.
Please believe that I was just trying to let you know that your frank expression of faith moved me and I wanted to let you know it.
Most Protestants do not think that at all.
This makes zero sense.
Only if you are fucking moron. What is not to make sense about it? If the church wants to claim that abortion is the greatest evil in the modern world, and it does just that on a daily basis, then how can it then let a politician who has dedicated her entire life to preserving abortion take communion and be a part of the church? Are you so thick, you can't see the problem with that? Do they let unrepentant murderers and rapists' in the church? Sure, if they want to ask forgiveness. But not if they wear their murder and rape as a badge of honor and tell everyone else to do the same.
"Do they let unrepentant murderers and rapists' in the church?"
You still don't get it.
If the Church doors are not open to everyone then how can those murderers and rapists ever repent? Pelosi has not been kicked out and never will be.
You are certainly free to have you own ideas about how to run a religion, I'm just trying to make you recognize that what you espouse is never going to be the position of the Catholic Church.
If the Church doors are not open to everyone then how can those murderers and rapists ever repent? Pelosi has not been kicked out and never will be.
It may let them in but they don't get to have communion and claim to be members of the church. They are always free to repent and get back into the good graces. Until that happens, you don't or you shouldn't get to be a member.
You don't get it. You think the church is there to make people feel good and be a social club. Go be a Unitarian if you want that.
You don't get it. You think the church is there to make people feel good and be a social club. Go be a Unitarian if you want that.
Oh, fuck off with this purity spiraling. I've harped before on how the SJW movement is based entirely on a philosophy of retribution for sin, with no hope of forgiveness for those accused. You're adopting the same fucking stance.
This only seems outrageous to you because the church leaders have long looked the other way while Catholic Democrats ran roughshod over the principle that abortion ends a life. There's nothing the cardinal did that isn't in keeping with normal church doctrine and practices, and it only seems like a half-measure because NO measures were taken for decades.
I don't doubt at all that Pelosi will continue marinating in her opposition to Catholic doctrine on abortion. If she does, then I won't be surprised if she gets excommunicated down the line. But for now, she's being warned that she's actually putting her soul and those of others in greater peril by being allowed communion, and the cardinal is watching out for the spiritual well-being of his other congregants as much as he is hers by denying it to her.
Where exactly do you get this notion that excommunicated Catholics cannot claim to be members of the church? The church still considers them members. The only way I know of for a baptized Catholic to no longer be considered part of the Catholic church is to commit apostasy.
By the by: it is generally more difficult that just committing apostasy if you really want to get removed from the Catholic church's rolls.
In an effort to figure out how to go about getting my original sin back, tarn from me as a child without my consent, I decided I did not wanted to be counted among the Catholic census (what can I say... bored while working graveyards with this newfangled, at the time, thing called the Internet at my disposal).
While I never did manage to get my original sin back, I did secure an excommunication. It basically required sending a notarized letter to the place of my baptism declaring that I am an apostate of the faith and have turned my back on the church.
Not really sure that I could ever really verify or audit that however.
Oh man, you still probably ended up on a special prayer list. Probably some cloistered nun somewhere with your name on her wall.
The doors are open to Pelosi and any number of other unrepentent public sinners. In fact, they continue to be required to attend Mass on all Sundays and holy days of obligation, even if they are unable to receive communion.
In the church's defense, the murderers/rapists are unlikely to publicly discuss their murders and rapes or support for such actions for years upon years WHILE partaking in the Eucharist.
The Church is not going to do an inquisition to check out your sins. Catholics believe you will confess. Protestants believe that is an issue between God and yourself.
"This makes zero sense.
Only if you are fucking moron."
Yeah, I actually misread what you were saying. Mea Culpa.
Democrats have no souls.
But they have EMPATHY!
As much as any sociopath does. Or t least they tempt to feign it. Tony is a good example of that. He is most certainly a narcissistic sociopath, albeit not a very bright one. Yet he always cries about the plight of whichever group the democrats are exploiting to get more traction with their agenda.
I have no doubt that Tony would go back to spewing venom about trannys in a nanosecond if The Party turned on them.
Tell me you don't understand Catholicism without telling me you don't understand Catholicism.
I understand it perfectly well. You don't understand shit. You think forgiveness and absolution comes without asking for it.
You think forgiveness and absolution comes without asking for it.
Which is why she's being denied communion?
That's the third comment of yours with foul language and personal insults. Everyone else is answering your criticisms, directly addressing your stated concerns.
I don't know enough about religion, period, let alone Catholicism, to know who is right. But your comments stand out so well that it is a good bet that you are wrong and they are right.
Manners go a long way towards distinguishing honest and disingenuous.
Ok Miss Manners.
I am not a Catholic, I am an atheist, but I do know Catholicism. And I agree forgiveness and absolution in the Catholic church requires repentance (which necessitates asking for it). This is not the problem I have with what you said.
First, you talk about the church allowing her communion, and yet, here is a bishop not allowing her to take communion. While they aren't fully excommunicating her, this is actually pretty close to what would happen to a layperson who was excommunicated (and only if confirmed through a canonical process, so either a sententiae ferendae or a confirmed latae sententiae), as most, if not all, of the rest of the consequences affect clergy only.
Next, you say it is inconsistent for the Catholic church to not kick Pelosi out of the church, yet, this would go against the teachings of the faith. Pelosi was baptized into the faith, so as far as the church is concerned she is Catholic and always will be, even if they did excommunicate her, unless she committed apostasy. She would still be required to attend Mass, for example, but would not be able to receive the sacraments until she repented. Moreover, the church would encourage retaining a relationship with the Church, as the goal is to encourage them to repent and return to active participation in its life. This is supported by the idea that excommunication is not supposed to be a "vindictive penalty" (even if that has happened in the past), but a "medicinal" one.
Oh, and plenty of Catholics agree with the first part of your prescription, excommunicating (or at least withholding communion from) all politicians that support abortion. Still does not entail kicking them out of the church.
All people are sinners. Jesus preached to the sinners, broke bread with them, forgave them. He instructed us not to judge others but to focus on our own sin. You don't excommunicate people for being sinners, you love them and try and help them resolve their sins. Love the sinner, hate the sin. You obviously don't understand Christianity at all.
Waiting to hear how Pelosi is handling this. Although barred from Communion she still has the obligation to keep holy the Sabbath - so is supposed to still be attending Mass on Sundays.
She can always take a Sunday drive to Newark. The bishop there would allow Communion to Judas Iscariot.
I read some tweet that some other church agreed to give her communion.
This is going to be a serious issue in the Church. The Commie in the Funny Hat is going to have to rule on this soon, and he has been doing his best to avoid the issue for years. (This is not the first time a pastor has refused communion to these lefty politicians. But it is the first time to my knowledge that a Bishop has officially decreed.)
This is going to be a serious issue in the Church. The Commie in the Funny Hat is going to have to rule on this soon, and he has been doing his best to avoid the issue for years.
No doubt. Stare decisis ain't got nothing on formal dogma.
"How do we back off on this without admitting we were ever wrong about it?"
Also how do they back off without a massive schism in Catholicism? There will be more than a few Catholics who will rebel if the Pope decides that abortion is not really that bad of a sin.
Since Pelosi hasn't had an abortion, the existential crisis yiu predict won't happen.
The problem is that Pelosi is being held responsible for someone else's sin (assuming you accept that abortion is a sin). It's sin by association. If she is talking to God about her sins, abortion isn't one of them.
No, Pelosi is being held responsible for her own conduct, encouraging abortion, failing to protect the innocent from violence.
One doesn't have to abort the baby oneself to be responsible for the sin.
If somebody is actively and openly harboring a murderer, the priest is not going to allow them to partake in communion, either.
"The Commie in the Funny Hat is going to have to rule on this soon..."
Soon in terms of the Roman Catholic Church, or in terms of common English usage?
Because they are not remotely the same.
If anything they will take their time to indicate just how small she is in the grand scheme of things.
They're probably glad they have something to "urgently" address so they can push off the whole "stop being an international pedophile ring" to a later date.
Their claim of moral authority tends to be a little weak given their continued willingness to let survivors get screwed by the Church.
Hopefully the Southern Baptists will address their history of enabling child rape in a way that provides a principled, moral, accountable, and repentant example for the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts to follow. But probably not.
Ironically, public schools, for decades, have had a far more urgent issue when it comes to kiddie rape.
And we have to financially support them.
1. Great, Bishop. Now tell the Pope about this.
Why is any (supposedly) Catholic politician allowed communion if they support killing babies?
2. The "separation of church and state is not a US Constitutional concept. It was in a private letter from that fully discredited old male white slave owner, Thomas Jefferson.
separation of church and state is not a US Constitutional concept
Regardless, a church interpreting its own dogmas regardless of politics or how it might affect the career of a powerful politician is "separation of church and state."
Demanding that the church alter its dogmas to suit politics is . . . not.
^100%^
One might be tempted to think that libertarians would find a politician who has made it a common practice to wear her religion on her sleeve have that religion come back and bite her something at least somewhat humorous.
Indeed.
I'm ROTFLOL, personally. The ffing whore of Babylon getting denied communion in her own backyard of SF. Like James Brown, I feel good!
People don't really think she will actually be denied Communion, do they?
The US Conference of Bishops rejected denying communion to pro-choice politicians just 6 months ago. The Pope isn't willing to do it, either.
Archbishop Dark Ages just set himself up to be ignored and the Pope won't take his side because he specifically said not to do it. If I'm a priest, I'm listening to the Pope over Archbishop Sour Grapes.
He is only responsible for his diocese. No other priest needs to follow his decree.
I'm saying that a priest in his diocese will give her Communion. He'll probably be stunned (and furious) when his priests do to him what he did to the Pope and the Conference of Bkshops. Turnabout is fair play.
Exactly, the whole point of separation is so protect the church and limit government power. Not the other way around.
She could probably get away with just being legally pro-choice, as nearly all RC Democratic politicians do. It's likely the fact that she's an abortion enthusiast and uses her office openly to denounce pro-lifers, including faithful Catholics, as morally regressive and misogynistic.
Or just plain evil. Which she is.
There are many Catholics who are pro-Choice - before viability, even if that isn’t doctrine.
There aren’t many at all who would go to the mat to force religious hospitals and Drs to perform abortions at taxpayer expense in the 8th month.
There are many pro life democrats, too, and they all tend to be devout Catholics.
Given the heavy prevalence of CINOs, Catholic and Christian alike, I’m not surprised by pro choice existing in any. I would be surprised in a devout pro choice Catholic, though.
56% of self-identified Catholics think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. It is the majority position of American Catholics. There are a crapload of devout pro-choice Catholics, so you shouldn't be surprised. More than those who believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.
Hard to find any 'good guy' in this dust-up.
The archbishop seems to be pretty solidly the good guy in this.
If a senior official in a global organization dedicated to socialist theocracy can be "good", then sure.
A senior official with a funny hat!
Participation in which is totally voluntary. The socialist regime being established by the democrats is not.
So it is the duty of all practicing Catholics to impose their obscurantist views on the rest of society? It's not like Pelosi is getting an abortion; she is respecting her constitutional duty not to impose her religion on others. Why isn't his holiness wound up over legal divorce? Unlike abortion, at least it's something that Jesus actually denounced (Mark 10:9).
When practicing Catholics impose their "obscurantist views" on Catholics, that's not the same thing as imposing them on "the rest of society."
Laws on abortion don't impose religion on anyone any more than laws against robbing liquor stories impose religion.
You don't have to follow anyone's religion.
But we all get a vote in the laws that govern the country.
There are plenty of non-Christians, non-religious people who oppose abortion.
The number of non-religious people who are anti-abortionist is vanishingly small. If you removed religious funds and personnel from the anti-abortion movement, it would collapse. Pro-life organizations would continue, but anti-abortionist organizations would disappear.
Legal divorce doesn’t involve murdering babies. Do you not understand the proportional difference of the sin in question?
Are not all sins equal as far as God is concerned?
Divorce wasn't a sin per se. The Laws of Moses allowed for divorce under certain circumstances. The reason behind the divorce is where sin may lay. If it's for selfish reasons, then it's a sin.
Nope. As Jesus said to Pilate, "He that hath delivered me to thee, hath the greater sin" (John 19:11). St. T. cites this line as part of his refutation of the proposition that all sins are equal: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2073.htm#article2
There is no proportionality to sin. There are mortal and venal sins, but none of the mortal sins are "worse" than any others, nor are any of the venal worse than other venal sins. Adultery is as bad as murder, sin-wise.
St. T. would differ: "Thus it is clear that external things are directed to man as their end, while man is further directed to God as his end. Wherefore a sin which is about the very substance of man, e.g. murder, is graver than a sin which is about external things, e.g. theft; and graver still is a sin committed directly against God, e.g. unbelief, blasphemy, and the like: and in each of these grades of sin, one sin will be graver than another according as it is about a higher or lower principle."
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2073.htm#article3
Not getting it, I see. Catholics aren't imposing anything, just not providing you with the body of Christ if you advocate embryo-killing. No one is forcing anyone to enter the church building. Also, go back to content of commandments; command not to murder much more direct than dissolution of marriage.
Pro-choice politicians aren't advocating abortion. That is yet another dishonest narrative that anti-abortionists love to use.
"The archbishop seems to be pretty solidly the good guy in this."
If by "good guy" you mean substituting his own interpretation for that of the Pope and the Conference of Bishops in a vain attempt to make Church policy conform to his preferences, then he is the good guy.
But most people would think the guy who won't accept that others don't agree with him, publicly opposes his boss and peers, ignores the stated policy of his organization, and places his opinion above that of everyone else is a self-impressed douche who clearly needs to find a new company to work for. The Pope should probably just kick him to the curb.
I've hired and fired a lot of people in my life. If one of my employees had acted this way they would be looking for a new job. Someone like this is a cancer to an organization.
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with the Eucharist is a good guy with the Eucharist.
Yep, she can build her own Church.
(And people make fun of Mel Gibson.)
Gibson is likely more pleasant when he’s drunk than Pelosi.
In any contest between a government authority (much less a politician who publicly wields her religion as a matter of political convenience) vs. the authorities of that religion attempting to non-violently practice, and promote the tenets of their sect I'm always going to go with the non-governmental authority.
Choosing sides here would seem like a no brainer if you actually believe in freedom of religion.
The problem is that we now find ourselves back in 1960, where the question of whether a politician can be a faithful Catholic and a faithful public official at the same time. JFK answered that question in the affirmative -- but the archbishop now insists that the answer is no, and that to be a faithful Catholic a politician must impose Catholic dogma upon his/her non-Catholic fellow citizens or face ecclesiastical discipline.
If a person wants to be a faithful Catholic then they should avoid misrepresenting the Faith. Especially when speaking publicly from a position of government authority.
The Bishop has clearly stated this is about what she has said.
The US Church has a long history of being very tolerant of politicians who play the "won't impose my religious beliefs" game.
The difference here is that Pelosi is trying to tell people that he positions are consistent with Church doctrine.
They are clearly not.
Pelosi will misquote scripture on everything from immigration to minimum wage to health insurance to inheritance tax. She sets herself and the Democrat Party up as the arbiters of what is good and right in every situation.
JFK answered that question in the affirmative
LOLWUT? I might see some breathing room in 'faithful Catholic' rather than 'devoted' or 'model Catholic'. Still the one man, more than any other, who pushed the world as close to Judgement Day as it's ever been (so far) was a Catholic faithful to Jesus' teachings? LOL.
The bitch herself brings up her Catholicism every ffing minute. About time ACTUAL CATHOLICS call her on it.
Kennedy didn't try and justify his positions on his Catholic faith. Pelosi is always trying to justify her positions based on her Catholic faith, often incorrectly stating Catholic Dogma. In the case of abortion her interpretation is directly opposite of long established Catholic Dogma. She just last week misquoted scripture and misrepresented what the scripture means.
She's lucky we aren't in the 16th century when the Pope could have sent her to hell. Unless she would like to make a donation to ...
You mean sending her back to where she came from?
She's lucky we aren't in the 16th century when the Pope could have sent her to hell
Or invited her to a wild sex party, depending on his mood.
Related reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
Ah, lavishly indulgent and nepotistic Renaissance popery. Good times.
Those guys really knew how to party.
The doctrine of clerical celibacy was not a foundational principle of the church and even after it became the rule, it was largely ignored for centuries. It really only became a thing once they tried passing the papacy through inheritance. Then the Cardinals started cracking down on it.
The doctrine of clerical celibacy was not a foundational principle of the church and even after it became the rule, it was largely ignored for centuries.
True that. A lot of the late-medieval monastic reforms were centered around making real the distinction between monasteries and brothels.
Which Martin Luther pointed out when he attacked the idea of clerical celibacy.
Very different outside the Roman church. Almost every Orthodox priest outside a monastery is married.
Yeah, and in some African countries priest are allowed to marry, so the prohibition isn't even universal in the Catholic and Orthodox religions. It's one of the big things Luther had a problem with, since it's not scripturally based.
It's based upon a loose interpretation of Paul's letters, particularly the discussion of the holiness of celibacy. He was saying abstinence may be the most holy position, but not the most realistic, and therefore to avoid sin, sex should be conducted in the sanctity of marriage. It was more a warning against fornication and hedonism than advocating celibacy. But sex within marriage is not a sin, so it really undercuts the sex for procreation only stances of some denominations (although even those denominations do allow that sex is not only for procreation, but also for intimacy, so it's primary purpose is for procreation and they generally forbid sexual acts that are less likely to possibly result in pregnancy (oral sex, anal sex, withdrawing etc)). Again this isn't what Paul actually said. It's generally based upon taking a single verse out of context. Which is something Luther and other early protestant leaders generally frowned upon and protested.
It's also the difference between newer protestant clergy, who often have a maximum of two years of Bible College, vs Lutheran, Catholic and Episcopal clergy who undergo 6 years of seminary, with deep dives into each book of the Bible, classes in the original languages so that they understand the difference in translations, and deep dives into the historical aspects of the Bible, to place it in it's historical and sociological context. Almost all Lutheran ministers will include the historical context, or societal/cultural context or linguistic context of the Bible passages (the Lutheran Church doesn't read single verses but entire passages).
You also get this in confirmation, a two year process, in the Lutheran Church. We are encouraged to read the Bible in whole passages, not number of verses, to grasp the context. I have a Lutheran Study Bible and it has plenty of notes regarding these contexts in the margins and footnotes, to allow you to have a deeper understanding of the passage year.
You mean like a company donating to blm to say they aren't racist?
Being a Christian somehow still allows you to have and exercise free speech. Good for the ArchBishop.
I think you need to review 2000 years of church history and doctrine.
Wrong. The Catholic church, and protestants, were not autocratic. You really need to study the history, the actual history. Not the slanted, pushing a narrative history.
Nancy will be substituting Necco wafers for communion.
I think she'll also forgo transubstantiation and just drink the bottle of red wine as is.
Shouldn't be a problem for someone with their own winery.
You misspelled ‘vodka’.
MD 20/20
I am happy to supply the 2 L of cola [it would be fun to see the froth bubbling, yay, exploding forth from her maw].
Absolutely ridiculous. The most devout Catholics (Pelosi, Biden, Kerry) support legal access to abortion care right up until birth.
#JustAClumpOfCells
The most
devoutscandalous Catholics (Pelosi, Biden, Kerry) support legal access to abortioncaredecapitation right up until birth...and after delivery too! Virginia Ex-Governor Democrat Ralph “Black face for me, not for thee” Northam said as such.Pro-tip: you continue to be “just a clump of cells” post-delivery. The adult human body is as much a clump of cells very much alive just as cells post-fertilization: 46 homologous chromosomes, cell division, biochemical metabolic processes, all one and the same. Follow the science!
OBL is a parody account.
Pro-Tip: OBL is a sarcastic parody account.
This is how you can tell he has mastered the craft.
This one was very nice. Thanks, OBL.
One's stance on the legality of abortion (or any issue for that matter) can be different than on morality. Now, I won't try to argue that Pelosi is a person that can recognize that distinction, as I'm sure she would be more than happy to legislate her own moral code.
Christian law says that you can't lie, commit adultery, create graven images, or worship other gods. But certainly we would all agree that those things shouldn't be illegal under US law. Would we expect a politician that holds these things as immoral but thinks they shouldn't be illegal to the same standard here even if that position goes against the church? Should we deny them communion?
" Would we expect a politician that holds these things as immoral but thinks they shouldn't be illegal to the same standard here even if that position goes against the church? Should we deny them communion?"
Who is this 'we' you are referring to?
Are you trying to say there is some limit on the freedom of a religion to practice their religion?
Ultimately, and from a libertarian perspective, Communion is nothing more than a form of club membership. If freedom of association means anything it means being able to decide who is considered in the club.
No. Any church should be able to deny anyone communion for any reason. I agree that they should have the ability to choose whom they associate with and give communion to.
Now that being said, we can certainly question the motives of this archbishop. It seems to me to be purely scoring some political points in this case (which is fine, but let's call it what it is then). Her position on abortion has been known for a really long time. Why now? I'm sure that she unrepentently supports other public policy that is antithetical to Christian law, for instance her support for gay marriage.
"we can certainly question the motives of this archbishop"
What part of the Bishop's statement do you think dishonest?
https://sfarchdiocese.org/letter-to-the-faithful-on-the-notification-sent-to-speaker-nancy-pelosi/
Do try to be specific.
Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi’s position on abortion has become only more extreme over the years, especially in the last few months. Just earlier this month she once again, as she has many times before, explicitly cited her Catholic faith while justifying abortion as a “choice,”
That one, primarily. Again... why now if not entirely a political thing? Everyone has known Pelosi's position on abortion forever now and it's hardly changed in any meaningful ways. I'm not religious, but as someone said below it seems denying communion for political positions is a slippery slope.
Please know that I find no pleasure whatsoever in fulfilling my pastoral duty here.
LOL. Hard to prove that one wrong, but... LOL
You really think he's lying about his own perception of her recent statements? What incentive does he have to do so?
And i he is lying about that then do you think he is also lying about his concern for her soul and for the sanctity of Church teachings?
Because that's not an either or set of circumstances, now is it?
" it seems denying communion for political positions is a slippery slope."
Slippery slope to where exactly?
If a private group wants to exclude people of certain political stripes why is this only a problem now???
"f a private group wants to exclude people of certain political stripes why is this only a problem now???"
Not to say or imply that is even what the Bishop is doing. He's not seeking to exclude her, but he is seeking to change her religious rhetoric.
Slippery slope to where exactly?
Well, I'm not religious, but I can imagine an overzealous church official denying someone communion for any pet issue that they don't agree with the person's stance. And I guess that's within their rights, but it doesn't say much for the religious institution in that case.
More of the politicization of every aspects of our lives I guess is the end of the slope. You can't be a practicing Catholic unless you believe in every public policy that the church supports might be the end of the slope.
If a private group wants to exclude people of certain political stripes why is this only a problem now?
It's not a legal problem as far as I'm concerned. But it doesn't seem wise to potentially alienate half of your congregation because you decide to make a hard stance on a politically polarizing issue.
You can't be a practicing Catholic unless you believe in every public policy that the church supports might be the end of the slope.
Not true. I am a prime example of being a practicing Catholic, in good standing with the Holy See, yet can not reconcile myself with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. I am a civilly married gay male. My marriage is not a Sacramental marriage. I would be fine with a civil union, but we got married for medical legal reasons, so that my spouse and I can make medical decisions when those opportunities presented. They did 8 months after we were married. Our Catholic Pastor, a Monsignor and my Confessor, took my husband Communion while he was in the ICU, knowing full well our unique situation.
The difference between Pelosi’s “practicing Catholicism” and mine is that I do not broadcast my opinion re: homosexuality. I am not a public scandal like her. That is the entire point of the SF Archbishop’s decision. I just wish the same pronouncement were made about Biden because he too is a public scandal, a stumbling block for the Catholic faithful. In fact, I have been barred from some local Catholic parishes to serve as an active lay minister, while others have not. None have barred me from Communion because each priest has spoken to me privately, and they understand why I got “married”. Therein lies the rub: communication with your pastors. None have told or ordered me to get a divorce. If I did that they know my sick husband would have no one to care for him since his Evangelical Baptist family have had nothing to do with him for decades.
The SF Archbishop is right, Pelosi is wrong. Hubris never wins in God’s eyes. Alas, most Americans gloat about their hubris.
Just to be clear that was a hypothetical comment on where the church could be heading if you play out the "slippery slope" scenario. I'm not saying you can't be a Catholic if you disagree with the church today.
" but I can imagine an overzealous church official denying someone communion for any pet issue that they don't agree with the person's stance. "
What you can imagine might matter if it ever comes to pass. All churches being made of humans, and humans being fallible it certainly is in the realm of possible. If not the probable - especially considering how far Pelosi had to go to get even this treatment.
Beyond that it is just fever dreams - about as real as your "concern" for a Church might "alienate" some of it's congregation.
"What incentive does he have to do so?"
He's part of the deeply conservative part of the Catholic faith (let that sink in for a moment) and over the last year he has seen the Pope and the US Conference of Bishops specifically and intentionally refuse to support the idea of denying Communion to pro-choice politicians (and, logically, the 56% of Catholics who believe the same thing).
He has nothing but incentive to bring this issue to a head. Every time it has been handled within the Church his position has failed to carry the issue. He had to bring it outside the Church.
"do you think he is also lying about his concern for her soul"
Absolutely.
why now if not entirely a political thing?
Just to play Devil's Advocate, because I'm not about to stake anything on assuming the honesty of an Archbishop, and I don't pay close attention to Nancy Pelosi, but due to the Roe v. Wade situation I find it easy to believe that she has dialed her rhetoric up to 11 in recent months in a way that he feels he can no longer ignore.
Please know that I find no pleasure whatsoever in fulfilling my pastoral duty here.
LOL. Hard to prove that one wrong, but... LOL
Yeah - since our local public schools are so shitty and we're not rich, I have my daughter in a Catholic school, and their VP of discipline keeps saying things like this, but I don't really believe him, either.
Not too get too deep into discussion about religion here, but that's my largest beef with religion and the God concept in general. Both things are highly authoritarian and I for one can't bring myself to believe that a God that designed a complex world and afforded man free will can be so authoritarian as to say you'll suffer forever in a lake of fire if you don't worship me. Talk about an inconsistency of logic!
God cares not for your logic.
If God is cruel and incomprehensible, then that's even more reason you'd better do what he says.
This is not what I actually believe. But if you do believe in a fire and brimstone kind of god, then you probably had better obey, even if it doesn't make sense to you.
God cares not for your logic.
If God is cruel and incomprehensible, then that's even more reason you'd better do what he says.
^
That's always been my reading of the Old Testament - "God is scary, and makes no sense, so you'd damned well better do what he says."
God in the Old Testament is just as loving as he is in the New Testament. The OT is revealing who God is and part of that revelation is that God’s holy nature is dangerous to unholy humans. God provides imperfect and incomplete ways for his people to approach him without being destroyed in the process and they frequently ignored them. His ways were perfected in Jesus Christ, allowing any who are covered by Jesus to approach him without fear of destruction.
TLDR (and gross simplification); God is a burning hot stove. Do not touch the red spot. It will burn you. Jesus is an oven mitt. Put it on.
"And he has come up with a list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of those things he will send you to a place of burning and flames and suffering and screaming and crying forever.
But he loves you....and he needs MONEY!" George Carlin.
Unfortunately you have to have chosen the "right" religion out of the 67,348 out there. Your odds are better than the lottery, but still not good.
I find it unconvincing that if you live your life in an honest and moral manner, trying your best to be a good person, that the fact that you don't talk to a priest about it (or that you didn't get dipped in water or that you didn't adhere to every detail of faith or any other minutia of a specific religion) will leave you damned.
The one thing that I am certain of in regards to God is that if he knows you completely, you will never have to fear him as long as you are always trying to become a better moral person. If you believe in the omniscience of God, the details of any religion are irrelevant, since he knows your heart and soul.
This is probably why I am so irritated by people who want to use their faith as a shield against moral accusations and a scourge with which to flay others.
You are not more moral if you are religious. It says nothing about you except that you have chosen a faith. And trying to claim moral superiority based on your membership in a church seems like the most rank version of hubris possible.
Don't pretend that those of us who are working through how to be a good person the hard way are morally inferior to those who adopted a pre-fabbed belief system. It is dishonest, arrogant, and self-righteous.
I for one can't bring myself to believe that a God that designed a complex world and afforded man free will can be so authoritarian as to say you'll suffer forever in a lake of fire if you don't worship me
Nor I.
One of my favorite lines from Alan Watts was to the effect that believing in the literal truth of scriptural tales is like looking at a road sign with an arrow pointing upwards indicating to continue straight, but instead of continuing straight climbing up the sign pole.
But also worth pointing out (again as Devil's Advocate, because I am resoundingly not a Catholic), my daughter's scripture teacher starts her class introduction with "as Catholics we do not take the Bible literally."
We nevertheless have long conversations nearly daily about what we both don't like about the Catholic stuff at school, mostly about the authoritarianism.
tl;dr I understand why, within his idiom, the Archbishop is doing this, and I can even entertain the notion that he's not doing it for cynical reasons. That said, I think abortion should be legal and don't agree with the Archbishop from the standpoint of my idiom. If he wants to tell Catholics what to do, fine, but he needs to stay out of my life.
Religion is not authoritarian, especially a number of protestant faiths. Some of the people use religion to impose authoritarianism or push for it but that is different.
I would argue that religion is inherently authoritarian. God is the boss and you must do as he says.
That said, I agree that it is people who want to impose their religious values on society at large who are authoritarian. Unfortunately that is a path that many faithful are willing to take.
God is the boss and you should do what he says, but it’s fully voluntary to be his people. Unlike being born into a nation or a dependent on a family, you can choose not to follow God and the only thing he does is let you live your life and not let you into heaven when you die. And since you think he’s a hateful authoritarian, why would you want to spend eternity in his domain, anyway?
Not that authoritarian. Your choice. Just if you choose to follow God, there are things that go with it.
"and not let you into heaven when you die."
That's the part I don't buy. If you live a moral life, being denied Heaven because you belonged to the wrong social club is a ridiculous idea.
If God is the Christian God of the Bible, do you see him denying Heaven to Ghandi because he was Hindu but letting in Jerry Falwell because he repented of his (repeated) sins in the Christian way?
If an omniscient God knows you completely, it's crazy to think he wouldn't judge you based on that, but would instead have baptism as a prerequisite. If two virtuous people led identical virtuous lives, logic says they would end up in Heaven even if only one was baptized (or confirmed, or had confessed before death). An omniscient God knows if you repented in your heart. The rest is just window dressing.
Tell that to members of the Mormon Church or Scientology.
Jim Jones certainly had enough power over people to get them to all commit suicide by kool-aid
The bishop agrees that Roe v. Wade is not sound constitutionally, but recent events now make it's repeal likely. Hence, her active opposition to that appeal requires new action on the part of the bishop.
repeal, not appeal.
The part where he puts his view on the issue over the Pope's.
http://www.news.yahoo.com/san-francisco-archbishop-defies-pope-200149961.html
"Are you trying to say there is some limit on the freedom of a religion to practice their religion?"
Involuntary human sacrifice?
I'm gonna bet that courts would be okay with prohibitions even on voluntary human sacrifice, which is kind of an interesting question, really. . . .
If you phrase it secularly as a species of active, voluntary euthanasia, Dems should be on board with it.
Clumps of cells?
One can think that an organization should do certain things without imposing it on them.
You misunderstand the church's reason for denying a person communion. If you're publicly advocating for sin and aren't repenting, it's spiritually dangerous for them to continue to participate in the ritual according to the bible (1 Corinthians 11).
Once she repents to God, even quietly and privately, it's safe for her resume the rite again.
"Once she repents to God, even quietly and privately, it's safe for her resume the rite again."
No, it would appear that ship sailed with the Bishop issuing his letter to the congregation.
So, it would appear that there will need to be at least some form of public recognition of her repentance. Which is entirely due to the very public nature of her own pronouncements.
Had Pelosi not made it a point of wearing her Catholicism on her sleeve I doubt this would have happened. There are plenty of nobodies in the Church who hold views against the Catechism, and none of them ever get this sort of treatment.
You really have to work hard to earn this, and she did.
The Bishop of Springfield barred Dick Durbin, Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton from communion several years back, didn't seem to generate much press.
"Speaker Michael Madigan"
Why am I getting a mental picture of Al Pacino as Michael Corleone at his son's baptism...
About right.
Michael Corleone was a better person than Mike Madigan. He's basically a Democratic, state-level version of Mitch McConnell.
Or he was. Soon he will be referred to as "Prisoner".
What is Madigan gonna do with all the prison time?
Probably start a new gang. He has the experience.
and I, for one, cannot wait to watch that public repentance. Not holding my breath, though.
Pelosi is for taxpayer funded graven images and forcing medical professionals to worship other Gods, and for committing adultery right up until the trip down the aisle
The first two are just stupid, but adultery before marriage is literally not possible.
Great, now do murder.
Dear God I hate sticking up for Pelosi, but last I checked she is not getting or performing any abortions. She's not even promoting them as far as I can see. She's just advocating that the remain legal.
So this church is indeed judging people and denying them sacraments based on their politics. Which is a line one needs to think long and hard before crossing. Is the purpose of the Christian Church to be salvation for sinners, or punishment for sinners? Kulturwar says eternal punishment must start now, but I don't see where Jesus Christ says that.
I agree. I want some free Saltines and wine without having to publicly declare Yeshua of Nazareth as the Messiah.
It’s none of your business what transpires between her and the church.
"She's not even promoting them as far as I can see. She's just advocating that the remain legal."
You can disagree with the Bishop's specific and stated interpretation of Pelosi's behavior, but you really should not attempt to ignore it completely. Because, insofar as this is a matter for the judgement of the Bishop what "you see" is of no bearing.
"Because, insofar as this is a matter for the judgement of the Bishop what "you see" is of no bearing."
And insofar as this is a matter for the judgement of the Pope, what "the Archbishop sees" is of no bearing. And since the Pope doesn't think Communion should be withheld from those who are pro-choice, this guy is definitely out of line.
So this church is indeed judging people and denying them sacraments based on their politics.
What do you do when your political positions are in direct contradistinction to church doctrine?
Buy Twitter?
Oh, wait, you meant the Catholic Church.
Sorry, my bad.
So far they are not. But then I am not a member of any church with doctrines that contradict free markets and free people. That I think something should be legal does not mean I think it should be celebrated. For example, I think drugs are bad m'kay but politically I think drugs should be legalized. I also think abortion is wrong, but don't see it as a political issue, except to the extent that the state funds and encourages it.
So far this does not contradict any mainstream church I am aware of, even if a few bishops and pastors here and there try to say otherwise.
Pelosi's views on abortion directly contradict almost 2000 years of Christian teaching on the topic.
Her limiting her political statements to “abortion should be legal” has been allowed by the church for a while. From my understanding, she started expounding on Catholic doctrine allowing for abortions or mixed her religion and her position on abortion too much, which (her being a public figure and leader) leads others in the church astray.
It is the church’s right to protect and defend their doctrine. This is one of the tools available.
She has no right to be included in the church on her terms.
The Pope is OK with her receiving Communion, as is tbe US Conference of Bishops. So she's actually wants to be included in the church on their terms.
Which is a line one needs to think long and hard before crossing.
Why?
Because politics is not faith and faith is not politics, and when you confuse the two you get an abomination.
Disagree.
If you have a faith, your faith informs your politics.
The point of 1A is that politics doesn't impose on your faith. This means that faith doesn't get imposed with politics, not that your faith can't influence your politics.
The classic trouble, of course, is when your faith involves making other people adhere to your faith, which is the specific problem that 1A was designed to address, but it seems odd to me to push that to the point of "your faith should inform your views of public issues in no way."
Faith attempts to answer questions of morality. Legality and morality are not and should not be the same thing. At least that's the premise behind much of libertarian thought.
Faith attempts to answer questions of morality.
Faith papers over the limitations of the human mind. It has no necessary relationship with morality.
Everyone's understanding of the world relies on faith in some areas. That faith at least partly informs how you vote, and there's nothing wrong with that.
"Faith papers over the limitations of the human mind. It has no necessary relationship with morality."
Very well put. I would suggest that the vast majority of people on this planet really only have faith that the sun will rise in the East and set in the West. Either never bothering to actually learn and understand Solar astrophysics, much less test it with some observation; or never having had the opportunity to do so. Oh, to be sure, they may have heard simple assertions about planetary motion, science and such, but if that is only as far as they got it still simply represents another form of faith.
It wasn't very long ago when the Church nearly sent a scientist to the stake for arguing against certain Church doctrine that the earth was the center of the universe.
But from where, then, does virtue originate, if not morality? I bring up virtue because it was important to the founders.
But it’s incorrect. Legality is built on morality. It is a political morality that all that are (in some way) forced to live under.
It reflects the values of the polity it serves. If the polity is highly religious, the law will reflect those values IN A DEMOCRACY (or democratic republic) because the people get to choose the laws they live under more or less.
If the populace is amoral, the law reflects it. Our moral values are reflected in our laws regardless how you spin it. The constitution protects certain rights from being infringed by our changing morals, but does not free us from some of the culture’s morals.
"The point of 1A is that politics doesn't impose on your faith. This means that faith doesn't get imposed with politics, not that your faith can't influence your politics."
^+10
But it also means your politics can't impose faith on others. The First Amendment is a shield, not a cudgel.
"She's not even promoting them as far as I can see. She's just advocating that the remain legal."
Sophistry. And I'm pretty sure that the Roman Catholic Church views "advocating that they remain legal" no differently than "promoting" them.
She appropriates half a billion to pp. She absolutely advocates abortion and further supports third term and post birth abortions like the ny and Virginia bills.
Yep. She’s pure evil. And not just because of infanticide.
From the Bishop's letter
Her quotes being taken from a published news article.
https://thehill.com/news/house/3477577-pelosi-says-roe-opinion-would-threaten-marriage-equality-other-rights.
Many libertarians advocate for the legality of prostitution, drug use, and gay marriage (among other things that are viewed as sins within the Christian churches). Should those libertarians be given communion?
"Should those libertarians be given communion?"
That's up to those churches.
Does the Catholic Church likewise describe any of those things as "grave evils?"
And do not forget this is not simply a matter of Pelosi not opposing abortion, this is about Pelosi claiming it is perfectly acceptable for a Catholic to support abortion.
The Church is always going to assert doctrinal supremacy. She picked the one fight they cannot walk away from.
Are those sins or not?
He doesn't understand (or, more likely, doesn't want to accept) that sin is sin. The only distinction is venal and mortal. Within each category, all sins are equal.
Let me ask you the opposite question: Is there any conceivable evil policy that the Church should stand up against?
Jim Crow? Slavery? Apartheid? Genocidal wars?
75 years ago, several bishops were excommunicating or threatening to excommunicate parishioners who opposed the integration of Catholic schools in various places.
Was that also some unconscionable interference in politics?
"And I'm pretty sure that the Roman Catholic Church views "advocating that they remain legal" no differently than "promoting" them."
Not according to the Pope. Who, as I understand it, is some kind of important official in the Catholic Church.
If you hate sticking up for team d so much why do you consistently do it?
Is she also advocating that Federal dollars be used to provide abortion services and support?
She wants PP funded to eternity and claims the Hyde amendment is racist and classist, so yes.
"So this church is indeed judging people and denying them sacraments based on their politics."
Her politics are her beliefs. That's what he's judging. And it's his right.
"So this church is indeed judging people and denying them sacraments based on their politics."
Do you understand what a church is?
I'm not sure looking for logic and morality in the Catholic Church (or many religions) is that warranted.
I mean, this is the same org who has for decades hidden abuse by their priests and just shuffled them off to a few towns over so they can prey upon kids in another locale.
this is the same org who has for decades hidden abuse by their priests and just shuffled them off to a few towns over so they can prey upon kids in another locale.
Universities do this, too. Does that mean we can find neither logic nor morality in Universities?
Whataboutism in its purist form.
Impressive lack of awareness, since Universities hold themselves forth as institutions of learning and knowledge. Religions hold themselves out as arbiters of morality.
There is certainly no logic or morality in the democrat party.
In what big organizations do you look for logic and morality?
I can't wait to hear about them.
Certainly not organized religions like the Catholics or the Southern Baptists. Or the Boy Scouts.
I'd vote for college-level philosophy departments, moral philosophers, and, possibly, thise who study comparative religion.
I certainly wouldn't look to major religious organizations. Especially when it concerns sex. They pretty much screw the pooch every time when they try to talk about sex (no pun intended).
Well, the question wasn't addressed to you, but I will respond to your answer anyway.
Philosophy departments might have 3 to 30 members, which hardly qualifies as a "large organization" in the sense of the Catholic Church, while has hundreds of millions of adherents.
Still, not hard to find questionable morality among philosophy professors. Peter Singer, eminent philosopher at Princeton, advocates infanticide, for example. (You can google him. If I leave a URL, the post will be flagged.)
Given your views on abortion, Nelson, I am not surprised that you would hold up an advocate of infanticide as a moral exemplar.
>>Politicians, especially in a democracy, do not exist as a class apart.
excited to see the final bill for all the monitors you ruined with this line.
This has nothing to do with the separation of church and state.
It has everything to do with the separation of Church and State. Pelosi's position in the state is unchanged. Her position in the church, however...
Precisely.
According to the Pope and the US Bishops, she's perfectly fine.
It's almost like a fringe Archbishop went out on his own and did something radical because he didn't like what his boss and his peers did (both have specifically and intentionally avoided banning pro-choice Catholics from Communion).
The problem, of course, is that the archbishop is declaring that one cannot be a faithful Catholic and a public official who is faithful to the Constitution of the United States -- and that it is an obligation for Catholic politicians to try to impose Catholic dogma upon non-Catholics. So while the act of denying communion to Pelosi does not, in and of itself, implicate church-state separation, it raises a larger question that Americans of all faiths thought was settled by JFK in 1960.
" I do not speak for my church on public matters--and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President--on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject--I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise."
A well regulated Bordello, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Coat Hangers, shall not be infringed.
"...a public official who is faithful to the Constitution of the United States"
Shouldn't be a problem much longer.
Overturning Roe won't stop the Constitution from saying: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”. Not the states, the people.
If you want bodily autonomy, privacy, and/or the right to make personal medical decisions to be taken away from American citizens, you'll have to start by getting the Ninth Amendment repealed.
Abortion will always be a right. The fact that ... (tries to remember the words cultural conservatives used to whine for the last 50 years) ... "five unelected judges want to take away your rights" ... is a win-the-battle-lose-the-war moment for cultural conservatives.
About half (give or take) of the states will become totalitarian regarding abortion and that should last for another decade or two until another case gets to SCOTUS after Clarence Thomas dies or retires, at which point the right to abortion will get grounded in a stronger legal basis (there are, as I understand it, many to choose from).
The problem anti-abortionists have is that most Americans don't share their beliefs. But they are about to go medieval (literally) on Americans in safe red states with bans on travel for abortion, contraception, legal penalties on anyone helping a state citizen get an abortion (like, say, Delta Airlines employees), extradition requests to pro-choice states for doctors prescribing abortion meds through telemedicine, bans on abortificants, bans on Plan B, bans, bans, bans, penalties, penalties, penalties ...
Anti-abortionists will soon have what they have claimed they wanted. I have no doubt their overreach and authoritarianism is about to be legendary. And not in a good way.
You are delusional.
Stop binge watching "The Handmaid's Tale" and get outside into the fresh air.
Learn about life in the US prior to Roe. It wasn't a police state.
No, but it did deny the Constitutional right to medical decision-making, bodily autonomy, and privacy. The real challenge for anti-abortionists is that you can't prove that life (meaning a person with rights) begins at conception, despite 50 years of effort, so you have to start infringing on rights to get the result you want.
And look how far it's gone already. The opinion hasn't even been released yet and cultrual conservatives are indulging in an orgy of liberty-restricting legislation, invasions of personal medical decisions and barriers to the doctor-patient relationship.
No, it wasn´t.
The state of technology didn´t allow for such strict policing of people´s privacy (that was and is true even for totalitarian states).
The public opinion also didn´t allow for that. That changed as well, people these days want to be policed at every corner, even inside their homes.
Times have changed. Modern solutions to combatting illegal abortions will be very intrusive.
Retire to your fainting couch, Ayuleen.
Abortion will be completely unrestricted in many states and only lightly restricted -- e.g., partial-birth abortions will be restricted -- in most other states. There will only be a few (5 or 10) states with strong anti-abortion laws and those laws will be enforced in the same way that most state laws were enforced pre-Roe.
That is, the only "solutions" to combatting illegal abortions will be to jail abortionists and revoke their medical licenses.
The rest is just hysterical hand waving by ideologues.
"The problem, of course, is that the archbishop is declaring that one cannot be a faithful Catholic and a public official who is faithful to the Constitution of the United States "
No, he is not. But that you truly think JFK to be an authority on either Catholicism or good governance belies belief.
Actually, that is exactly what the archbishop is saying. When there is a contradiction between the teachings of the Church and the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, a Catholic politician must seek to impose the former at the expense of the latter or face ecclesiastical discipline.
Except that there are a lot of Catholic (D)s who support abortion rights.
It seems like from the letter the more specific complaint is her public assertions that she believes in abortion rights as a Catholic, that the Church and the Pope are wrong, and that she knows better than them.
But she is the only one within reach of this particular rouge archbishop, who has gone directly against Pope Francis on the issue of denying communion to politicians over the abortion issue. Rest assured that he would target others if they were within his archdiocese.
Rest assured that he would target others if they were within his archdiocese.
Gavin Newsom?
"...who has gone directly against Pope Francis on the issue of denying communion... "
ORLY?
LOL
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/15/world/europe/pope-francis-biden-abortion.html
Can you actually provide the text of the article, since it's behind a paywall?
Because even CNN's hyper-partisan take quoted Francis as saying that the decision should be made from a pastoral, not a political, standpoint. He didn't actually say that they shouldn't deny communion to Catholic politicians over their views on abortion.
He actually said that a pastor can't give the Eucharist to someone who's not in communion with the church. Nancy Pelosi is not in communion with the church.
http://www.news.yahoo.com/san-francisco-archbishop-defies-pope-200149961.html
http://www.news.yahoo.com/san-francisco-archbishop-defies-pope-200149961.html
Plus, of course, the US Conference of Bishops declined to forbid Communion to pro-choice Catholics just 6 months ago.
"...this particular rouge archbishop"
I think you meant to say rogue; unless of course the bishop is into makeup.
It is San Francisco.
Damn autocorrect.
He gave an interview. His words aren't binding. They weren't even advisory.
Yes, the Pope often says things he doesn't mean when speaking publicly. He has no interest in maintaining the integrity of his position by saying things that he means, right?
Your response had nothing to do with Cronut's comment.
Popes talk all the time. Almost nothing they say has any official import.
Don't confuse him with the facts.
Where does the constitution declare the right to kill a baby?
A bizarre claim.
Why can't a faithful Catholic be faithful to the Constitution as well?
Because the Constitution requires us to promote abortion? LOL.
First prove it is a person. Then talk about murder. You can't use your conclusion as proof of your premise.
Well, you can. But then you seem delusional and illogical and it makes your argument unconvincing to listeners.
So basically what's happened with the anti-abortion position for the last 50 years.
It’s in the same place that declares a black a person.
The overwhelming majority of Americans support the idea that blacks are people.
The overwhelming majority of Americans reject the idea that fertilized eggs are people.
So the two are in exactly opposite places.
The overwhelming majority of Americans reject the idea that it is ok to stick a pair of scissors in the back of a baby's head and crush its head as it comes down the birth canal.
But you seem to be ok with the concept.
To which freedom are you referring?
Pelosi and "faithful to the Constitution" in the same sentence is the lol of the week
Pelosi predates the Constitution, and was grandfathered in.
She claims to be 82. But the date she uses is when the archeology team accidentally unearthed her tomb, releasing her into the land of the living again. To spread evil, misery and blight upon the living.
Plus, she’s a really bitchy cunt.
That's fine. And the church can deal with him on a personal basis according to its rules.
A bizarre claim.
Why can't a faithful Catholic be faithful to the Constitution as well?
Because the Constitution requires us to promote abortion? LOL.
No, but it requires the government to butt out of personal medical decisions, privacy, and bodily autonomy. Because the state should be constrained from forcing moral beliefs on its citizen.
You aren't describing the US Constitution. The US Constitution permits all sorts of govt interference with people's decisions.
You are describing an idealized libertarian Constitution.
But even libertarians hold to the non-aggression principle. The govt can keep me from killing my neighbor. It can keep me from killing my children, either before or after birth.
The state imposes moral beliefs on people all the time. It tells me I can't steal your money or rape your wife or beat you on the head. All of those laws are based on moral beliefs.
You will strain to conjecture some reason why these practices are different from abortion, but that will be a rationalization.
There are so many logical errors in yiur post, I'll just focus on one.
The non-aggression principle requires two people. A fetus isn't a person. It isn't relevant to the NAP.
The worst laws are those based on morality because morality is largely subjective. Laws against things like murder don't require morality for justification.
You make a circular argument.
You assume that an unborn baby isn't a person, then say that it is ok to kill it.
But an unborn baby is a person so the libertarian non-aggression principle applies.
If you wish to argue that an unborn baby only magically becomes a person after leaving the womb, feel free to make that argument. But that is the argument you must make.
"...and if the church denies me communion, that's my problem." He whispered that part.
Just a little reminder to all of the non catholics.
Catholics get booze and crackers at church
Not enough to warrant going to church in the first place. TANSTAAFL for sure.
That's why you keep getting back in line
The Orthodox Church has better wine and leavened bread instead of unsalted Saltines/matza or styrofoam wafers. Go East, young man.
The local sports bar has even better options *AND* football on the tube.
If you're down at the sports bar first thing on a Sunday morning, then you're probably ripe for an intervention.
Why would watching football at a sports bar warrant an intervention? For the western part of the country College football starts at 9 or 10 am. NFL 10 or 11 am.
I figured you would be out burning down a synagogue about now.
Well, maybe the Church should begin installing big screen tvs tuned into ESPN during service.
And bingo games.
"know your da"
Indeed. Seattle's DA was so bad, so toxic, so uniquely awful that somehow, Seattle voters put in a... I almost hesitate to say this without doubling over in laughter... a Republican in the office. Seeing a Republican in ANY city, let alone county office is damn near like seeing a Sumatran Tiger. And this was despite the local media's protestations.
Her principal opponent literally cheered on a group of arsonists who set the fucking children's jail on fire and said the following:
This was the mainstream candidate for the DA.
Wait, I first read that as "know your father" and began to riff on how that smacks of white privilege.
LOL! I read it that way, too, and was putting together a "bastards of the world, unite" joke.
I'm going to try to care. Here goes....
No, feels like taking a shit. I'll try again....
Dammit, I just pooped my pants.
Don't worry. Happens to Biden all the time.
I doubt Skeletor consumes more than a thousand calories a day. Probably craps twice a week.
Shits and Giggles.
I'm curious -- when we begin to see such excommunications take place against Catholic governors who sign death warrants for murderers in contradiction of Catholic dogma, will we see the same support for the Church's action? What about politicians who who refuse to go along with bans on birth control? Or when a prelate decides that an armed conflict does not meet with the Church's teachings on what constitutes a just war and denies the sacraments to any member of the armed forces who does not violate lawful orders to fight in that war?
" who sign death warrants for murderers in contradiction of Catholic dogma"
Can you tell me where in the Catechism the Church forbids the death penalty?
(How can you ever be right when what you think you know is so wrong?)
It was revised a few years ago to prohibit the death penalty.
But RwR is still an idiot, because Pelosi is not excommunicated and never will be. She's denied a sacrament according to the doctrine of the church. I would support denying communion to governors who sign death warrants, if they are Catholic, because it's in contradiction with the catechism of the church.
Interesting. Was not aware of that. Wonder how that squares with or affects Just War doctrine.
Denying someone communion is literally excommunication.
Not it's not.
"The Code of Canon Law (1983) specifies that an excommunicated person is forbidden to participate in a ministerial capacity (celebrant, lector, etc.) in the Sacrifice of the Mass or in any other form of public worship; to celebrate or to receive the sacraments; to celebrate the sacramentals; to exercise any ecclesiastical office or ministry; and to issue any act of governance (#1331.1). An excommunicated person also cannot be received into a public association of the Christian faithful (#316.1)."
Not exactly.
The DP is a matter of "prudential judgment." In other words, there are legitimate arguments for and against its use in any given situation. Reasonable people can disagree without going against Church doctrine.
The arguments against the DP are not Church doctrine, no matter how invested some priest or bishop or pope is in them.
So they are saying that HaShem was wrong.
Paragraph 2267 of the Catechism says:
"Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
"Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
"Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that 'the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person', [Francis, Address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, 11 October 2017] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide."
That is personal opinion masquerading as a Church teaching.
I’m curious how that squares with specific death penalties in OT laws to protect the citizens and common good.
Who cares? If you're so worried about it just don't vote for Catholics.
Well, they’re starting with infanticide.
He's just looking out for her safety. The Host would probably burst into flames in her mouth.
I would travel to Frisco just to watch [and film] that.
She's older than Methuselah and has been a practicing Catholic her whole life. I'm guessing if it hasn't happened yet, God doesn't think it's necessary.
But even so, you should go to San Francisco. It's a gorgeous city with amazing food, fantastic cultural institutions, and awesome people. Definitely worth a couple weeks of vacation.
well, then, for as long as she has been "practicing" to be one, she certainl has not done a very good job of BEING one. Seems she's either forgotten, or ignoring, or thumbing her long schnozz at those who are running the show. Now she is trying to make THEM jig to HER fiddle. Not gonna happen. You watch. Those teachings are universal and bedrock. She does not own or control enough money or schmooze to make them bow down to her. This will be fun to watch.
IF the leadership cave to her demands, the outfit will lose what little credibility they have remaining. IF they stand their ground and SHE folds, oh what a wonderful day that will be, SOMEONE putting that spoilt brat in her proper place. Queen of Sheba she ain't. Not even close.
The Pope doesn't support denying Communion to pro-choice Catholics. Nor does the Conference of Bishops. This particular Archbishop is ignoring his hoss and his peers to do what he wants regardless of the institutional decisions that oppose him.
He isn't reflecting the Catholic Church's position. He's defying it.
The personal opinion of the pope or even of the Conference of Catholic Bishops is not "the Catholic Church's position." That position can be found, among other things, in the Code of Canon Law, which Abp. Cordileone is following.
The beliefs of a single Archbishop is even less "the Catholic Church's position" than the Pope's or the. Onference.of Bishops. There is (and has been) a lot of debate within the Church over this issue and official policy has never reflected the Archbishop's position.
Individual prelates aren't the ones who make Church policy. It is literally a massive bureaucracy that does that. And they haven't made the policy that this Archbishop wants.
Those who are anti-abortionists seem to want to have this Archbishop as the default, with no one else in the Church having the right or authority to gainsay him. But the Catholic Chirch is very bureaucratic, very hierarchical, and very doctrinal. One thing it isn't is an organization that thinks that a single Archbiship should shape Church policy.
And your car windows will be broken, everything inside will be stolen.
Then there's all the dirty needles and human feces littering the sidewalks next to lines of tents of homeless bums, drug addicts and mentally disturbed(crazy) people most of whom are using illicit drugs.
Of course the local D.A. Chesa Boudin, a student of Saul Alinsky and karl Marx will let the little vandals who broke into your car and stole everything from it, back onto the streets.
I"m going to assume that you don't live there, haven't been there, or both. Because what you just said is the narrative of people who don't live in or visit cities. San Francisco is an awesome city. Chicago is an awesome city. So are Philly, New York, Austin, Seattle, Atlanta, Minneapolis, and dozens of other cities.
None of them are the crime-ridden hellscapes conservatives claim. The dystopian narrative is a way to pretend that the concentrations of economy, innovation, culture and knowledge that are American cities are somehow bad. They aren't.
It's their right to not serve her. You'd have to wonder why people like her would want to belong to an organization that has those kind of beliefs anyhow then.
It's their right to not serve her.
Raspberry is in favor of free association rights today!
Broken clock theory.
I wonder why your kind would belong to an organization that has any kind of morality whatsoever. Being a ‘progressive’ is essentially steeped in the sacrament of situational ethics.
It is not their "right" to refuse to serve her, it is their obligation. SHE is way outside the boundaries long established for that organisation. Just like the Elks Club. If you don't want to uphold their rules, you don't need to pretend to BE one of them. She can go find a group that will welcome herwith open arms, place HER up on a high pedestal, and genuflect before her and her whims. The catholics can continue upholding their long established rules and principles. She's just trynna boss around the boss. Elevating her own sorry self above everyone else. SEE?? I Yam SO speshul they will let ME do and think what I want to, never mind the established standards. "There are no rules and I make them".
"SHE is way outside the boundaries long established for that organisation."
You are claiming a policy of the Catholic Church that doesn't exist. The policy of the Catholic Church, right now, is to not forbid Communion to pro-choice Catholics.
Now it's Joe "I was for the Hyde amendment before I was against it" Biden's turn.
WOW! Well written and correct.
Kudos to Reason for publishing it!
Guest-authored.
ED CONDON is co-founder and editor of The Pillar.
J.D. FLYNN is co-founder and editor in chief of The Pillar.
I saw that ... still unusual for modern Reason to guest post such an article.
Aye. Second.
It seems like they agree with the Bishop but, even if they don't. They far surpassed the Reason standard by presenting his arguments in good faith and without equivocation.
If Reason editors had written this article, it would have contained:
1. Examples of Republicans that do something against Catholic doctrine and haven't received the same treatment.
2. An explanation of why the Republican's sin is FAR worse than any Democrat's sin.
3. Summarizing how this is really just an example of Republicans "pouncing" on poor, old Nancy Pelosi. Because "pouncing" is the unforgivable sin!
Pretty much. They have to virtue signaling to the left because…..
1. Reason writers don’t want to be frozen out of future writing gigs elsewhere
2. Those beltway cocktail party invites don’t send themselves
3. They want to keep receiving those Kochbucks
As Lincoln said, calling it a leg doesn't make it a leg. Similarly, calling yourself Catholic doesn't make you Catholic.
Being a member of a faith is about striving to live the teachings of that faith. She openly espouses a belief that is opposite to a basic teaching of the Catholic faith.
She has a right to her views, but she doesn't have a right to participate the sacraments.
Geez, then why bother gaining wealth and power?
According to the Pope, she does. And the only guy he answers to hasn't overruled him (or called him home).
No, she is a Catholic. She's just a bad one.
Well, even members of the Mob went to mass on a regular basis.
Fuck you and fuck the dragon the archbishop rode in on.
There, that's my religious belief which I am as entitled to as this dipshit from the Middle Ages and the creeps who wrote this column. Maybe Catholics GAFF about this, but why do "libertarians"?
I understand, you have an aversion to anything remotely spiritual of involving morality. And your kind becomes enraged if anyone challenges your hunger to murder babies.
Take your meds, Joe. You will feel better.
"dipshit from the Middle Ages"
Joe is so hip and modern when it comes to his religious rites and symbols; pro-choice, pink anti-bullying t-shirt, LGBTQ2SWTFBBQ sticker on his Prius, Gaia worship, wearing a BLM mask grocery shopping, little Ukrainian flag by his Twitter handle, pussy hat, "Believe Science", Darwinfish tattoo, etc.
Joe, perhaps you can show the extent of your faith, and reverence for the trannys by becoming a choirboy castratum.
Will that be before or after the lads are molested by one of the priests?
I feel your pain, loser.
Why's the bishop fucking around here? She obviously is unrepentant, and should be excommunicated.
-jcr
Burned at the stake too.
The Pope disagrees. Guess who has to obey who?
Baby steps.
The article does an excellent job of explaining the bishop’s pastoral responsibility.
But it errs here:
“the Catholic Church's teaching that abortion is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life. This isn't a mere political belief. It also isn't, despite what some claim, a religious belief.”
Determining at what point a foetus becomes a human being is (and can only be) a matter of religion.
Uh, no. It isn’t only a matter of religion. It’s definitely a person when it achieves sentience.
If your definition of sentience is emotional and subjective, you can get down to the end of the first trimester, but using an objective standard you're talking about 24-26 weeks. I can get behind that.
No, I leave the emotion to progs. Sentience occurs much earlier. You simply lack any real knowledge or understanding of gestation.
Tell me about sentience before brain activity? Because it seems like you need a brain to form emotional and cognitive responses.
But you probably also think there's a heartbeat before a fetus has a heart, so your beliefs about gestation are definitely emotional and not rational, scientific, or logical.
Brain and heart are well developed before the body is. The lungs are the last to develop sufficiently for viability.
The brain is developed well enough early on to hear and remember voices and feel pain. Of course, how sentient is a mystery since they can’t adequately communicate their sentience until they are several months post birth.
Should be plenty sentient t that point.
Don't tell the anti-abortionists about this view of sentience. According to them, a zygote has sentience.
But they also think that a heartbeat is possible at 6 weeks when the heart isn't formed until 10-12 weeks.
Anti-abortionists often mistake potential for reality, so it isn't surprising.
CLM beat me to it. Like I said, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re not capable of having this discussion.
I'm clearly more capable than you of having this discussion. You belive a lot of things that aren't true. You claim things that are nuanced are not. You claim those who don't accept your worldview are evil and murderers. You wrap yourself in intolerance, self-righteousness, and arrogance and call it virtue.
Yet most Americans reject your beliefs. So are the 85% of Americans that reject life beginning at conveption evil? Or is it just the 2/3 that believe in abortion through the first trimester? Or the almost 60% who believe in abortion through the second trimester? Is America just full of evil people?
I understand a great deal about the abortion debate. I understand the issues and positions. I know where the uncertainties are and where the fringes are.
And I don't assume that I have the beliefs that everyone else must be forced to follow. So I'm a lot less authoritarian than you and your fellow travelers.
No. Absolutely not.
There is no question that a new, individual human life (or lives) start at conception. Every one of us was once an embryo/fetus/etc.
This isn't religious faith. It is simple science.
There are a lot of questions about when life begins. If you think there is only one answer, you are either being dishonest, self-righteous, self-impressed, and dismissive of the beliefs of the majority of Americans or you are dumb as a box of rocks.
Or both.
Nelson, the question of when life begins is not complex. It is simple biology.
Each of us can trace our own lives back in a continuum to our own conception.
Biology is quite clear about what is alive -- nutrition, activity/growth, waste-- and what is and is not an individual life.
The beliefs of Americans have nothing to do with a scientific fact. If Americans believed that the moon were made of green cheese, that would not make it so.
There is really no need to call me names.
I know that you want to defend abortion so I will clue you in on the favored response. The favored response to the fact that life begins at conception is to assert that the life is not a "person." It only magically becomes a person at some undefined point in the future, after mom decides to keep the baby for sure.
This is a BS argument, of course, but it doesn't argue against a scientific fact.
"Nelson, the question of when life begins is not complex. It is simple biology."
Because anti-abortionists don't distinguish between biological life and personhood, I use their definition. I have been clear about that throughout my posts about abortion. Biologically, life begins at conception and has less than a 50% chance of becoming a ljving human being. Legally and morally, life begins at a much later date.
I am a libertarian and prefer to have decisions like this, where there is no clear answer as to what is correct, made at an individual level. That is what Roe provided.
Soon we will have the state imposing moral beliefs on everyone. That is authoritarianism and the worst version of it, where a small, unproven, minority belief is forced upon the general public.
The anti-abortion position requires so many compromises on rights and individual decision-making that it is incompatible with a free society. Plus it is rank moral self-righteousness and a master class in failed logic.
No, you’re an infanticide zealot. It really isn’t complicated.
I believe in the right of people to choose for themselves. I would never choose it if I got someone pregnant. I am not, jn any reasonable person's mind, an "infanticide zealot". I don't support killing any infant (which is a child after live birth).
I don't agree with your mystical beliefs about when a fetus becomes a person. Your belief is illogical and superstitious. It conflates the potential for life with actual life. The potential for birth with actually birth. The potential for every element of life with the reality.
I am not saying you have to believe as I do. But stop pretending there is only one "honest" or "true" belief and everyone who disagrees (that would be 85% of the country) should be forced to adopt your beliefs as theirs with the power of the givernment
Nelson: "But stop pretending there is only one "honest" or "true" belief and everyone who disagrees (that would be 85% of the country) should be forced to adopt your beliefs as theirs with the power of the givernment."
The question of life is a simple biological question. It has nothing at all to do with belief. Zygotes/embryos/fetuses are very clearly alive. They ingest nutrition, they grow and develop. Any biologist will tell you that they are alive.
There is also no question that Zygotes/embryos/fetuses are very clearly human. Their body structure and DNA are human. Again, no biologist would judge a human fetus to be a canine or a can of tomatoes.
So, the only thing you can argue is that they are some special class of human that we may kill with impunity. That is, you must argue that they are subhuman.
Go ahead and make that argument. But don't waste our time by arguing that zygotes/embryos/fetuses are not alive or not human persons.
^+10 for Sarcasmic’s Welfare Caseworker.
"Determining at what point a foetus becomes a human being is (and can only be) a matter of religion."
So the only people who are allowed to have an opinion on this have to be religious? Everyone else doesn't get a say? Sounds pretty totalitarian to me.
But even if just the religious got to decide, Abortion would still be legal. With the exception of white evangelical protestants, every other sub-category of religion supports legal abortion. (www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/08/29/u-s-public-continues-to-favor-legal-abortion-oppose-overturning-roe-v-wade/)
So what you're really saying is that everyone has to do what white evangelical protestants believe, even though most Americans aren't white evangelical protestants.
Tell me, who gets to make the rest of the decisions about how life should be lived by all Americans? Still just the WEPs? Because that seems pretty hostile to American values.
With the exception of white evangelical protestants, every other sub-category of religion supports legal abortion.
And the vast majority of the population supports at least some restrictions on the practice.
Follow the link. The categories are "illegal in all/most cases" amd "legal in all or most cases". The only group that has a higher percentage in the former category is white evangelical protestants. Everyone else is in the latter category.
I am one of those who believe that there should be some restrictions on abortion. Only 9% of Americans disagree with that position.
But saying "the vast majority of the population supports at least some restrictions on the practice" and pretending that means most people are pro-life is untrue. Most Americans are pro-choice. The vast majority of them don't believe that life (meaning biological and legal life) begins at conception.
Anti-abortionists are a fringe as extreme and unconvincing as those who believe in abortion through live birth. 75% of Americans are in between and most lean towards choice.
Nelson: "With the exception of white evangelical protestants, every other sub-category of religion supports legal abortion."
I don't know what you mean by it, but if you mean that every non-WEP religion is ok with abortion, you are simply incorrect.
Catholics, Mormons, the Orthodox Churches, Orthodox Jewry and others all condemn abortion.
Follow the link and educate yourself. There is a huge difference between what a church hierarchy says and what people believe. That's how a country like America, where 70% of the population is Christian, can be constantly and unchangingly pro-choice.
It's how the number of people who believe life begins at conception can be miniscule while religious faith can be massive.
When it comes to religion, almost everybody is a version of what was called a "cafeteria Catholic" when I was young, where people pick and choose which elements they accept and which they don't. Virtually no one accepts every single element of their religion.
Yeah, you’re obsessed with legalized infanticide.
And you're a totalitarian zealot who hates freedom and individual rights. Like all of your fellow anti-abortionists, you think that your moral beliefs are superior to everyone else's.
You're wrong. Very, very, very wrong.
Doesn't everyone think that their moral beliefs are superior to everyone else's?
Isn't that the definition of moral beliefs?
If I thought your beliefs were superior, wouldn't I adopt them?
The only way out of this conundrum is if one doesn't actually think that there is morality. Then, no one's beliefs are superior.
Nelson, the religions condemn abortion and people who actually follow those religions condemn abortion.
I've no doubt that there are a lot of people, like Pelosi, who love abortion but still want to call themselves Catholics or Mormons or Orthodox Jews or whatever.
But this doesn't affect the teachings of the religion at all. There is no popularity poll to ratify religious teachings.
For example, the 10 Commandments are still Jewish teachings whether or not many Jewish people follow them or agree with them.
BTW, I've noticed that you seem to constantly claim that Americans overwhelmingly love abortion but that somehow abortion will be outlawed and a draconian police state will spring up to enforce these laws. Of course, these ideas are mutually contradictory. At least one must be false. In fact, both are false.
You mean that there's some point before which it's a canine, equine, or some other kind of non-human being? Or maybe you're asserting that there's a point before which it's a human non-being?
Which is it? Inquiring minds want to know.
Legally a human being requires live birth. 1 USC 8, if you want to look for yourself.
But morally and logically, a zygote isn't a human being. It is a potential human being.
So Abe Lincoln was wrong: if Congress passes a law defining a tail to be a leg, then a dog *will* have five legs.
Actually, 1 U.S.C. § 8 doesn't say that zygotes, embryos, fetuses, etc. *aren't* human beings. It just says that the term "human being" *includes* every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. You know, like the way the term "Americans" includes New Yorkers.
I must have clicked on alternative-universe Reason by mistake, I got an article by two Catholic journalists upholding the Catholic faith.
What would ENB say?
Maybe this is the alternative universe where ENB joined a traditionalist order of contemplative nuns.
I had much the same thought.
Where is the usual Reason apologia for the currently fashionable leftist thing?
ENB would say:
Something, something... Republicans pounce... something. Ewww, icky conservatives...something something.
Seems to me that the First Amendment restricts what the government can do, not what the church can do. The church is free to do as it will. The degree to which Pelosi--and her minions--want to try to bully the church is the degree to which they all should be theoretically excommunicated.
Pelosi's plainly no theologian. What would be a First amendment violation would be if she was actually able to change church doctrine. That's what ~is~ enjoined by 1A. It would be exactly the same thing as the government establishing a religion.
1) Unless they deny communion for support for the death penalty (which is ALSO against the Church's teachings) they really are just trying to make a political point, rather than trying to be holy.
2) Religiosity has been dropping like a rock in the US, especially amongst Democrats. Churches taking political stances is part of this - especially immoral and hypocritical ones. This has been one of the major factors in driving people away from the churches. The more they try to control people, the more folks will decide they don't need the church.
3) Getting in a religious conflict with the government or politicians is always a bad idea from a religious POV, because not only are the politicians often more popular than you are (they are elected officials, after all) but they have a lot of power over you. There's a lot of favorable treatment that churches and other religious institutions receive in the US that is not legally necessary. Playing games like this is a really good way to have the government decide it doesn't want to play nice.
4) There's little agreement amongst Catholics on abortion. The plurality of Catholics in the US are pro-abortion. Of course, the non-religious are overwhelmingly pro-abortion; 97% of atheists think that abortion should be legal, and most believe it should be legal in all circumstances.
Nice try, but the Church hasn't pronounced the immorality of the death penalty with nearly the clarity and decisiveness that it's proclaimed the immorality of abortion. Sure, Francis and at least the last two of his predecessors have expressed their opposition, and the Catechism was recently amended to quote Francis to the effect that nowadays the death penalty is "inadmissible", but that's quite different from calling it an "unspeakable crime" (as Vatican II did in Gaudium et Spes). Moreover, it is arguable that the Church can't take the position that the death penalty is intrinsically immoral without contradicting what it has (perhaps infallibly) taught previously (see https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2018/08/17/the-death-penalty-debate-and-the-churchs-magisterium/). Which would explain the use of pussyfooting language such as "inadmissible': the Supreme Court may be able to overturn its previous doctrines, but if the Catholic Church does so, then it's sawed off the very branch it's sitting on.
HaShem supports the death penalty.
For the Church to say HaShem is wrong is sacrilege.
That would make Francis a Protestant! *shock face*
Note, not actually banned from communion by an archbishop over an ongoing afghan pederast heroin cartel coverup warcrime......
Sez something thar.
This may indeed be a mere moral judgment.
But it is also a legally-prohibited attempt to influence legislation, committed by a tax-exempt institution.
The archbishop has raised an excellent opportunity for challenging the archdiocese's ability to benefit from tax-exempt status within its own borders.
So, a group that has any tax-exempt status due to its constitutional standing has no right to determine who is and who is not worthy of their ceremonies? Technically, you're arguing that no small cup of wine and piece of bread is, in fact, a bribe when its cash equivalence would not qualify under any possible understanding of bribery statutes.
Interesting take.
I think it's a policy of "all politicians go to heaven" because a church cannot legally excommunicate them.
Note the complete lack of credit for my resolutely solid point. Neither the leftist junky fits nor the catholic catamities ever thought for two connected seconds there was nothing wrong with running a pederast heroin cartel. Neither did either have objections to butt pirate daddy himself running for a third term to return us to a foreign policy like that.
The problem is that there are just too many junky fgts that never gave the first fuck where their dope came from to make for a successful assassination war. We need full on nuclear warhead rain at this point.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
JFK
I wish I wasn't an atheist so I could take solace in the fact that that evil cunt will burn in Hell forever regardless of her stance on abortion.
Cheer up. Atheism could be wrong.
The snake-handlers could be exactly correct.
We don't know.
No one keeps Pelosi from the bar.In fact she has her own bar, in her office and at the Speaker's Stand.
As for being barred from communion....I could care less. But if it causes Pillousy more grief, the better.
Maybe she can get McConnell to vouch for her, I'm sure he would.
If I'm not mistaken, the Pope said not to do that, for a number of good reasons (www .ncronline. org/news/opinion/signs-times/4-reasons-behind-vaticans-action-communion-pro-choice-politicians?site_redirect=1).
But apparently these days, an Archbishop is no longer subject to the Pope because ... reasons. (news.yahoo. com/san-francisco-archbishop-defies-pope-200149961.html)
Never mind that six months ago the US bishops voted overwhelmingly as to what communion meant and specifically did not ban pro-choice Catholics from receiving Communion (www .upi. com/ Top_News/US/2021/11/17/Catholic-bishops-communion-Joe-Biden-conservatives/3501637173872/?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral)
But I guess it's OK to be political rather than pastoral if you are a politician and not a priest ... oh, wait. He is a priest? An Archbishop, you say? I wonder if that should make a difference, especially in a country where a majority of Catholics are pro-choice (www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/08/29/u-s-public-continues-to-favor-legal-abortion-oppose-overturning-roe-v-wade/)?