Pelosi lies about Catholicism and abortion

posted at 1:55 pm on August 24, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

I’m always astounded as to the extent of deception in which pro-choice Catholics indulge themselves, both inwardly and outwardly, to justify their positions.  Perhaps there is no balder example of this than Nancy Pelosi attempting to spin the Catholic doctrine on human life today on Meet the Press.  Pelosi argues that the Catholic position on human life only developed in the last 50 years and that it doesn’t impact abortion in any case:

REP. PELOSI:  I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time.  And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition.  And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months.  We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.  Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester.  There’s very clear distinctions.  This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god.  And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.  As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…

MR. BROKAW:  The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it…

REP. PELOSI:  I understand that.

MR. BROKAW:  …begins at the point of conception.

REP. PELOSI:  I understand.  And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that.  So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy.  But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions.  And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions.  That’s why we have this fight in Congress over contraception.  My Republican colleagues do not support contraception.  If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must–it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think.  But that is not the case.  So we have to take–you know, we have to handle this as respectfully–this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been–and I’m not saying Rick Warren did, because I don’t think he did, but others will try to.

The notion that the Catholic Church declared abortion a sin at the same time as the Pill is patently absurd, and shows that Pelosi has either lied about studying the issue in terms of Church history or lied about what she found.  Church writings specifically naming abortion as murder appear as early as 70 AD in the Didache, the first written catechism of the Christian church:

“The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

Tertullian, sometimes known as the Father of the Latin Church, wrote with equal clarity and force:

“In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed” (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).

“Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery.

“There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] “the slayer of the infant,” which of course was alive. . . .

“[The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive” (The Soul 25 [A.D. 210]).

Saint Hippolytus, who sometimes found himself in conflict with the Church hierarchy, nevertheless agreed completely on abortion.  He made the point that abortion managed to combine the sins of adultery and murder at the same time:

“Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!” (Refutation of All Heresies [A.D. 228]).

The Catholic catechism is extremely clear on the nature of its position on human life, and has been remarkably consistent on this point for almost 2,000 years, and it finds that position in the Old Testament.  Human life begins at conception, not at birth, and not at some point consistent with Roe for convenience.  In Psalm 51, David refers to his sinfulness beginning at the moment of conception, and sinfulness requires physical life and a soul to exist.

Pelosi isn’t the only Catholic with a habit of self-deception or flat-out dishonest on this topic; Joe Biden also falls into this category.  Douglas Kmiec shifted his support from Mitt Romney to Barack Obama, and as John McCormack points out at the Weekly Standard, he did so by claiming abortion to be one of many issues that Catholics must consider as part of their faith when voting.  I addressed that thinking in an earlier post, but I’ll recap it by noting that the Church urges people to address “sinful” inequalities but does not demand any particular strategy for that purpose.  It does, however, make abortion — even formal facilitation of abortion — an instantly excommunicating act.

Membership in the Catholic Church is voluntary.  If people do not want to follow its doctrines, they should find another faith community that reflects their values — and at the least, they should learn what the Church teaches on abortion and life before mischaracterizing it on national television.  Pelosi is either a fool or a liar, or perhaps both.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

The new sex-ed program is pretty shocking. They put on some Depeche Mode CDs and make the kids watch episodes of Will and Grace, then they send everyone home with a bunch of Day-Glo condoms rolled up in a Judy Garland poster.

RightOFLeft on August 24, 2008 at 6:59 PM

OK, yeah, that would make you pretty gay.

dedalus on August 24, 2008 at 7:02 PM

If that is the case, some souls were appointed to roles that never got more than a few hours beyond conception.

dedalus on August 24, 2008 at 7:00 PM

It’s like the fall of man: against God’s expressed will, but within his providence.

Death came with the fall, but sharks’ teeth were designed to tear flesh.

Akzed on August 24, 2008 at 7:03 PM

Wow, I can’t wait to hear Laura Ingraham and Hugh Hewitt tear into this one tomorrow.

What an absolute disgrace is Nancy Pelosi.

rockmom on August 24, 2008 at 7:28 PM

The new sex-ed program is pretty shocking. They put on some Depeche Mode CDs and make the kids watch episodes of Will and Grace, then they send everyone home with a bunch of Day-Glo condoms rolled up in a Judy Garland poster.

RightOFLeft on August 24, 2008 at 6:59 PM
OK, yeah, that would make you pretty gay.

dedalus on August 24, 2008 at 7:02 PM

Wait, listening to Depeche Mode and having a Judy Garland poster can make you gay? Man, my family is screwed!

Nancy’s even less of a Catholic than I am. At least I had the integrity to stop calling myself a Catholic when I stopped agreeing with the Church. Of course, it’s not like Nancy Pelosi is a woman of honesty and intregrity.

Anna on August 24, 2008 at 7:43 PM

Church writings specifically naming abortion as murder appear as early as 70 AD in the Didache, the first written catechism of the Christian church:

“The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

I see two separate statements for abortion and murder.

The Catholic catechism is extremely clear on the nature of its position on human life, and has been remarkably consistent on this point for almost 2,000 years

No it hasn’t. For many years, the Catholic church allowed abortion before “quickening”, described by various popes as being as late as 116 days after conception. This debate has been going on in the church for a long time, and it looks like it will keep going for a while longer.

Big S on August 24, 2008 at 7:47 PM

Sorry Nancy and Joe…you two DO NOT make Church doctrine. Anyway the question of abortion is framed, it’s still murdering the unborn!

byteshredder on August 24, 2008 at 8:11 PM

No it hasn’t. For many years, the Catholic church allowed abortion before “quickening”, described by various popes as being as late as 116 days after conception. This debate has been going on in the church for a long time, and it looks like it will keep going for a while longer.

Big S on August 24, 2008 at 7:47 PM

Your point on the Didache is interesting. Certainly, from the 12th Century until the 19th century’s Apostolicae Sedis there was church teaching, at times from the Pope, that abortion was a sin but that it couldn’t be murder until the soul entered the body. My understanding is that it wasn’t until 1869 that the Pope ruled that hominization occurred at conception.

dedalus on August 24, 2008 at 8:16 PM

Queen bee Pelosi on Meet the Depressed, Brokjaw was moderating. She fidgeted, fumed and fumbled badly, especially when Brokaw gave her poll numbers indicating Americans favor McCain over Obama for Commander in Chief 50% to 39. She tried the argument that the worst decision America made was going into Iraq and McCain supported it. Brokaw interrupted her and said but the poll is taken now and people have apparently supports McCain’s leadership as Commander in Chief over Obama. It was then she had an Obama moment when her talking points and teleprompter went to hell in a hand basket. She was totally unglued and inarticulate. Try to post that segment Ed or Allah.

wepeople on August 24, 2008 at 8:20 PM

Membership in the Catholic Church is voluntary. If people do not want to follow its doctrines, they should find another faith community that reflects their values

Yep. There are no such things as liberal Catholics and conservative Catholics – only Catholics and non-Catholics. Which are you Pelosi?

whitetop on August 24, 2008 at 8:23 PM

“We acknowledge, therefore, that life begins with conception, because we contend that the soul begins at conception. Life begins when the soul begins.”

Tertullian (C. 223 A.D.)

“You shall not destroy your conceptions before they are brought forth, nor kill them after they are born.”

Letter of Barnabus (c. 70 A.D.)

“You shall not slay the child by abortions.”

The Didache (1st Cent.)

“The woman who purposely slays her unborn child is guilty of murder. The hair-splitting difference between formed and unformed makes no difference to us.

In this case, it is not only the being about to be born who is victimized, but the woman in her attack upon herself, because the woman who makes such attempts in most cases dies. The destruction of the embryo is an additional crime, a second murder, at all events if we regard it as done with intent. The punishment, however, of these women should not be for life, but for a term of ten years.”"

Saint Basil the Great (c. 330-379)

“Regarding women who become prostitutes and kill their babies, and who make it their business to concoct abortives, the former rule barred them from life from communion, and they are left without recourse. But having found a more philanthropic alternative, we have fixed the penalty at ten years, in accordance with the fixed degrees.”

Council of Ancyra. Canon XXI ( 314 A.D.)

“Women who were reputed to be Believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to expel what was conceived, since they did not want to have a child. See then into what great impiety that lawless one(Callistus, the Emperor) has fallen, by teaching both adultery and murder at the same time.”

St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-236 A.D.)

“Those who use abortifacients commit homicide.”

St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 223 A.D.)

“Sometimes their sadistic licentiousness goes so far that they procure poison to produce infertility, and then this is of no avail, they find one means or another to destroy the unborn and flush it from the mother’s womb. For they desire to see their offspring perish before it is alive or if it has already been granted life, they seek to kill it within the mothers body before it is born.”

St. Augustine (c. 354-430 A.D.)

SaintOlaf on August 24, 2008 at 8:25 PM

Doesn’t it continue along the lines of: “and I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” Isn’t there a sense that God singled out this one individual or are we do read it universally that God has appointed everyone to a role before birth?

dedalus on August 24, 2008 at 7:00 PM

Dedalus, often it is good practice when trying to figure out what a particular verse means, to look at other scripture as well. What does the rest of the Bible say about when human life begins, and abortion, and each of us being appointed a role before birth? If you do that you’ll see that the Bible is clear that life begins at conception, and embryos are really human beings. Psalm 139:13-16 says,

“For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.” Psalm 139:13-16

The person who wrote that, David, declares he was known personally by God before he was born, he was a human being at conception with a future. If you do a search on this passage, you’ll discover it’s quite fascinating. I think God both singles us out and we are appointed a role before birth. For example, John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while he was still in the womb (Luke 1:15).

“For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.” Luke 1:15

If that is the case, some souls were appointed to roles that never got more than a few hours beyond conception.

That’s correct. Fortunately, every person who dies before the “age of accountability” enters heaven, so aborted people are in heaven right now as we speak.

apacalyps on August 24, 2008 at 8:25 PM

No it hasn’t. For many years, the Catholic church allowed abortion before “quickening”, described by various popes as being as late as 116 days after conception. This debate has been going on in the church for a long time, and it looks like it will keep going for a while longer.

Big S on August 24, 2008 at 7:47 PM

That’s a total lie Big S…..are you intentionally trying to deceive people?

“We acknowledge, therefore, that life begins with conception, because we contend that the soul begins at conception. Life begins when the soul begins.”

Tertullian (C. 223 A.D.)

SaintOlaf on August 24, 2008 at 8:29 PM

Death came with the fall, but sharks’ teeth were designed to tear flesh.

Akzed on August 24, 2008 at 7:03 PM

What do teeth have to do with anything? Is that your evidence for evolution? Get a close up view of a panda bears large teeth, a vegetarian, … lol .. everything was vegetarian before the Flood came. Genesis 1:30 says, “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air and everything that creeps on the earth,” God said, “I have given every green herb.” Everything ate plants. Now, after the Flood’s over, things have changed. Now animals and people eat plants and meat.

apacalyps on August 24, 2008 at 8:44 PM

“As for women who furnish drugs for the purpose of procuring abortions, and those who take fetus killing poisons, they are made subject to the penalty of murderers.”

Sixth Ecunemical council, Canon XCI (681 A.D.)

SaintOlaf on August 24, 2008 at 8:45 PM

Hey apacalys – I agree with you. Don’t faint!

Bambi on August 24, 2008 at 8:45 PM

It is times like this that I wish Tim Russert was still alive so as to expose this woman for the liar that she is! I doubt she would ever appear on “Meet The Press” again after he was finished ripping her to pieces.

pilamaye on August 24, 2008 at 8:51 PM

Forgive them lord, for they no not what they’re talking about.

Kini on August 24, 2008 at 8:59 PM

Forgive them lord, for they no not what they’re talking about.

Kini on August 24, 2008 at 8:59 PM

Thank God we have Mother Superior Pelosi to set us straight on theological evolution and integration of doctrine…..

sven10077 on August 24, 2008 at 9:10 PM

Words do not express the level of loathing and disgust I have for this putrid, evil woman.

fossten on August 24, 2008 at 9:39 PM

I disagree with Obama’s left-wing politics and McCain’s misguided immigration policy, too, but I don’t have to resort to mystical edicts to demonstrate how both are materially opposed to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Come to think of it, there are also secular arguments against legalized abortion. The anti-abortion movement might actually get somewhere if they used those arguments occasionally.

RightOFLeft on August 24, 2008 at 6:41 PM

I’m not a theologian or a biblical scholar, so citing every instance of mortal sin specifically would be difficult for me to do. Most Mortal sins are premeditated actions directly opposed to one of the 10 commandments. In Abortion’s case it is the commandment against murder.

Insofar as religious vs. secular systems, the only difference between their God and my God is that my God proscripts and condemns me if I harm my fellow man, while their God, The State, does not unless they say it does.

The most successful society in history, America, has at its foundations fundamentally Catholic moral principles. Call them Judeo-Christian, Deist, whatever; it’s the principles that matter, not who (if any) lays exclusive claim to them. Essentially it says we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Taking liberties that infract life are prohibited, and Pursuits that limit the liberty or life of others are also prohibited. These basic principles are codified into the Constitution. Is it any wonder why America is still so successful when our secular “bible” The Constitution has its foundations in the Divinely Inspired one?

Although RightOFLeft, I would love to debate you on exactly which precepts of Catholicism are “dangerous” to society. I’d be interested in seeing how many you pull out that you can actually reference as Catholic in origin, and not just your or some more scholarly (but still inaccurate) source’s interpretation of them. There is a truism in Catholic circles that goes something like “90% of people oppose what they think the Catholic Church teaches.”

Insofar as arguments against abortion, I generally trend towards secular arguments against it. This is mostly because people these days (I refuse to use “modern people”) only think of right and wrong in secular terms. Not that there is really any difference, you use logic and reason in any debunking. You don’t need to believe in a “soul” specifically to sense that killing another human being for an unjustifiable reason is wrong.

That’s personally why I find Marxism/Socialism so revolting. You have to destroy all your sense of responsibility to your fellow men before you can advocate taking their effort, work, and lives at the point of a gun in order to “create a utopia.” Socialism is a religion, and a death cult at that. It takes more faith to believe in Socialism than to believe in God. Socialism has insurmountable evidence of failure. God does not.

BKennedy on August 24, 2008 at 10:10 PM

Again, bless and thank you, Ed, for your consistently faithful witness to the Catholic magisterium. It’s hard to have the likes of Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, and now Biden, try to use our Church for political gain. Just attending Mass is no guarantee any of these is a faithful Roman Catholic.

marybel on August 24, 2008 at 10:15 PM

apacalyps on August 24, 2008 at 8:25 PM

Thanks. I enjoy reading any Bible verses you post and agree that context is very important–though context creates greater emphasis on the reader. Of all the books of the OT, Psalms, which you quote, seems the most metaphorical. Does God have wings and a sword or are those poetic devices by David? Is David speaking at all metaphorically, when he talks of God seeing him before birth? Also, there seems to be room in David’s description, if read literally, to have the ensoulment at some point after conception since God is looking at David’s unfinished substance.

The Luke quote is persuasive, though he is talking about a prophet, John, just as Jeremiah was a prophet. They were great men, with special missions, like David.

dedalus on August 24, 2008 at 10:19 PM

dedalus on August 24, 2008 at 10:19 PM

The Psalms are poetic because they are in fact poems.

Same with the Song of Solomon.

Proverbs are just that: Proverbs. There’s a lot more metaphors in these books than prose, which is part of their beauty.

BKennedy on August 24, 2008 at 10:26 PM

Like Mark Twain said, you can’t pray a lie.

Play it again, Sam.

maverick muse on August 24, 2008 at 10:28 PM

“We acknowledge, therefore, that life begins with conception, because we contend that the soul begins at conception. Life begins when the soul begins.”

Tertullian (C. 223 A.D.)

SaintOlaf on August 24, 2008 at 8:29 PM

Tertullian may have been right, but he ultimately splintered away from the church toward Montanism and then eventually away from Montanism.

Agustine 200 years later and Aquinas about 1,000 years later held the position that the soul fused with the body some time after conception. Their position on ensoulment was supported Decretum Gratiani and by Popes such as Pope Innocent III and Pope Gregory XIV.

Pelosi is being disingenuous, but Ed is also wrong to claim that Catholic teaching has been “remarkably consistent”. If the Church is correct today there seem to be hundreds of years where it was wrong.

dedalus on August 24, 2008 at 10:42 PM

BKennedy on August 24, 2008 at 10:26 PM

I agree.

dedalus on August 24, 2008 at 10:43 PM

My understanding is that it wasn’t until 1869 that the Pope ruled that hominization occurred at conception.

dedalus on August 24, 2008 at 8:16 PM

Would 1869 coincide with the Pope’s popular infallibility being acknowledged as fallible?

maverick muse on August 24, 2008 at 10:45 PM

maverick muse on August 24, 2008 at 10:45 PM

I believe they clarified infalibility to pertain to the Pope speaking “ex cathedra” about faith and morals.

dedalus on August 24, 2008 at 10:56 PM

In Pelosi’s world (i.e. San Francisco), abortion is somehow related to tolerance of homosexuals. Something about being free with your body and not having the government interfere with whatever you want to do. Lesbians are some of the most militant pro-abortion people around, though ostensibly they can’t get pregnant by accident. Pelosi is just representing her constituents, and I doubt there are a dozen serious Catholics in her district.

rockmom on August 24, 2008 at 11:06 PM

Check out the Catholic Encyclopedia Online as our common text.

abortion

But in the old canon law, which established the irregularity here referred to the “animation” of the embryo was supposed to occur on the fortieth day for a male child, and on the eightieth day for a female child. In such matters of canon law, just as in civil law, many technicalities and intricacies occur, which it often takes the professional student to understand fully. In regard to the decisions of the Roman tribunal quoted above it is proper to remark that while they claim the respect and loyal adhesion of Catholics, they are not irreformable, since they are not definitive judgments, nor do they proceed directly from the Supreme Pontiff, who alone has the prerogative of infallibility.

What teaching is infallible

As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching.

The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.

The decision that abortion is wrong is a definitive judgment. Otherwise, show me my error in understanding.

That sophistry baits loop holes to evade being socially ostracized is nothing new. But the understanding that abortion is wrong, whether wronging the father, mother or yet unborn child in the womb, predates such sophistry.

maverick muse on August 24, 2008 at 11:24 PM

Agustine 200 years later and Aquinas about 1,000 years later held the position that the soul fused with the body some time after conception. Their position on ensoulment was supported Decretum Gratiani and by Popes such as Pope III and Pope Gregory XIV.

Pelosi is being disingenuous, but Ed is also wrong to claim that Catholic teaching has been “remarkably consistent”. If the Church is correct today there seem to be hundreds of years where it was wrong.

Though both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas are authoritative/influential with many issues, they also held controversial views that were debated in their times, and even to this day. That’s what the Magisterium is for, to clear up theological debates, and here’s a key document from the Holy Office, which condemned a list of errors, which included the following:

From Sources of Dogma

34. It is permitted to bring about an abortion before the animation of the foetus, lest the found pregnant be killed or defamed.

35. It seems probable that every foetus (as long as it is in the womb) lacks a rational soul and begins to have the same at the time that it is born; and consequently it will have to be said that no homicide is committed in any abortion.

mtcicero74 on August 24, 2008 at 11:26 PM

And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.

That statement is absolutely wrong. As I’ve stated many times in these forums, the answer can be found in the first paragraphs of the first chapter of practically every biology textbook written in the last century.

Louis Pasteur proved that life begets life. Putting aside the origin of life, we know that life does not spring from dead material -rotting meat does not “magically” transform into maggots.

So, let’s all walk through the scientifically accepted truth once again…

The egg is a living cell. The sperm is a living cell. When the sperm fertilizes the egg, we have a new, (genetically) unique life. If the egg and sperm are from humans, it is human life (not bovine, ursine, porcine…).

So at the moment of conception, we have a new, unique, very human life. That’s elementary school biology.

taznar on August 24, 2008 at 11:31 PM

taznar
+1

So many strain at a gnat but swallow a camel.

maverick muse on August 24, 2008 at 11:34 PM

taznar on August 24, 2008 at 11:31 PM

That’s the proper scientific approach to this question.
Just because the new human life hasn’t matured to it’s post uterine phase doesn’t mean it hasn’t any sentience. The child isn’t born walking and in control of its bowels, it matures to those benchmarks. In fact it wont mature to full function until it reaches puberty.

Beto Ochoa on August 24, 2008 at 11:59 PM

But in the old canon law, which established the irregularity here referred to the “animation” of the embryo was supposed to occur on the fortieth day for a male child, and on the eightieth day for a female child. In such matters of canon law, just as in civil law, many technicalities and intricacies occur, which it often takes the professional student to understand fully. In regard to the decisions of the Roman tribunal quoted above it is proper to remark that while they claim the respect and loyal adhesion of Catholics, they are not irreformable, since they are not definitive judgments, nor do they proceed directly from the Supreme Pontiff, who alone has the prerogative of infallibility.
maverick muse on August 24, 2008 at 11:24 PM

I’m not entirely clear what teachings are infallible and the intricacies of “Ordinary Magisterium” and “Sacred Magisterium”. Is Humanae Vitae infallible teaching? I think there is disagreement on whether it is, and if it is what the mechanism is for its infallibility. But let’s agree that the official teaching of the Church today is that abortion is a mortal sin, and that Nancy Pelosi is trying to create wiggle room that doesn’t exist.

My point is that the church–in canon law, in ecumenical councils, and in Papal letters–over the course of hundreds of years treated some abortions as something that wasn’t murder. That point is supported by your quote above that refers to the “old canon law”. Can the church, after the 19th century say, “well the Popes, councils and canon law weren’t really official”? Sure, they can but many generations of people lived under teachings from the church that were different than those today.

dedalus on August 25, 2008 at 12:00 AM

. everything was vegetarian before the Flood came. Genesis 1:30 says, “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air and everything that creeps on the earth,” God said, “I have given every green herb.” Everything ate plants. Now, after the Flood’s over, things have changed. Now animals and people eat plants and meat.

apacalyps on August 24, 2008 at 8:44 PM

Dangit! I guess tyrannosaurs and other 65-million year old carnivorous jurassicans were one of God’s little jokes? I thought the earth spontaneously formed a little over 5,000 years ago (at least that’s what one of my Christian friends told me). I don’t know WHAT to think anymore!

No, I’m NOT ragging on Christianity, but my logical brain has trouble reconciling the conflicting timelines involved here.

But back to the point – Pelosi and all her other pro-abortionist minions are human garbage, I don’t give a rip what church they go to. One thing my logical brain reconciles easily is that a new human life begins at conception, and if that is the doctrine of the Catholic Church, she and all of her ilk should be excommunicated poste haste, and let the church rebuild and never compromise its integrity again.

Fishoutofwater on August 25, 2008 at 12:05 AM

mtcicero74 on August 24, 2008 at 11:26 PM

If I’m correctly reading the webpage you linked it appears that these errors in dogma were corrected hundreds of years after they happened. If that is true, it is consistent with my point that the Church’s teaching on the issue has not been “remarkably consistent” over the past two millenia.

dedalus on August 25, 2008 at 12:08 AM

If I’m correctly reading the webpage you linked it appears that these errors in dogma were corrected hundreds of years after they happened. If that is true, it is consistent with my point that the Church’s teaching on the issue has not been “remarkably consistent” over the past two millenia.

The title of the document is “Various Errors on Moral Subjects,” not dogmas.

mtcicero74 on August 25, 2008 at 12:15 AM

What was the question about the gavel? Queen Nancy has a fetish about her gavel. I can quite quickly obtain my own gavel and precisely use it to knock some sense into that empty cranium of dead gray matter she calls a brain.

Calling her a ditz is disrespectful to real ditzes out there.

MsUnderestimated on August 25, 2008 at 12:19 AM

The title of the document is “Various Errors on Moral Subjects,” not dogmas.

mtcicero74 on August 25, 2008 at 12:15 AM

Thanks for the correction. That would make more sense.

dedalus on August 25, 2008 at 12:24 AM

Pelosi is either a fool or a liar, or perhaps both.

Both.
What really surprises me this year is how blatantly obvious and in your face the lies are coming from the Dems.
I’ve been around a few years and I can not remember such utter falsities being spewed out loud or on live TV by Dems, Dem Pols, surrogates, the entirety of the dem machine. Even Kirsten Powers got into this lie-fest the last few months…I thought she was above that, guess I was wrong. ( you expect it from Colmes)
Her comments on abortion are despicable and she will get called on that.
What I think is, they just don’t care. They keep getting away with it.
.
They ( the pelosi’s of the world) hope to sway a few voters with each lie spewed on ntnl TV and hope those folks don’t see the follow up, or the truth. And with many young voters and liberal college voters, she’s probably right.
This is also the destruction of journalism ( if they don’t call ‘em on it).
Sad sad day(s).

shooter on August 25, 2008 at 12:30 AM

Did anybody see Nina Easton on FOX tonight with Brit Hume? Man she was showin’ us some serious booby tonight. Her hair was such a mess too, she looked liked she’d been partyin’ with Loretta Sanchez and the girls. ha ha ha They’re a bunch of whores….ha ha ha

DfDeportation on August 25, 2008 at 12:41 AM

If that is true, it is consistent with my point that the Church’s teaching on the issue has not been “remarkably consistent” over the past two millenia.

dedalus on August 25, 2008 at 12:08 AM

Until the Church and the parishioners (Illegal Aliens) remove Roger Mahony, they are gonna be a prime target of ridicule and shame….I promise! From Scranton or not…

DfDeportation on August 25, 2008 at 12:44 AM

Did anybody see Nancy’s daughter on Hannity and Colmes tonight? Man….a chip off the old block….too funny!

DfDeportation on August 25, 2008 at 12:46 AM

Words do not express the level of loathing and disgust I have for this putrid, evil woman.

fossten on August 24, 2008 at 9:39 PM

9% approval rating…

DfDeportation on August 25, 2008 at 12:50 AM

Late to this discussion but Pelosi calls herself an ardent practicing Catholic but, in reality, one can’t possibly be a devout Catholic and an American Democrat with her positions. She couldn’t possibly be a practicing Catholic and stil defend the pro-murder agenda of the Democrat party. IMO, she and all of her ilk should be excommunicated from the church.

highhopes on August 25, 2008 at 12:58 AM

When a public figure claims to be a loyal Catholic, and then uses that claim to mislead people about grave issues, they must be excommunicated. Otherwise the confusion and scandal causes tremendous harm.

Bishops? Hello?

Gaunilon on August 25, 2008 at 1:12 AM

Queen bee Pelosi on Meet the Depressed, Brokjaw was moderating. She fidgeted, fumed and fumbled badly, especially when Brokaw gave her poll numbers indicating Americans favor McCain over Obama for Commander in Chief 50% to 39. She tried the argument that the worst decision America made was going into Iraq and McCain supported it. Brokaw interrupted her and said but the poll is taken now and people have apparently supports McCain’s leadership as Commander in Chief over Obama. It was then she had an Obama moment when her talking points and teleprompter went to hell in a hand basket. She was totally unglued and inarticulate. Try to post that segment Ed or Allah.

wepeople on August 24, 2008 at 8:20 PM

yes, please, I’d like to see that

funky chicken on August 25, 2008 at 1:16 AM

Pelosi is either a fool or a liar, or perhaps both.

Fixed that for you.

least1 on August 25, 2008 at 1:20 AM

Gaunilon on August 25, 2008 at 1:12 AM

Exactly. If you claim you are part of A particular faith you really need to live up to what that faith says.

highhopes on August 25, 2008 at 1:21 AM

Both. Definitely both.

Griz on August 25, 2008 at 2:14 AM

Hey apacalys – I agree with you. Don’t faint!

Bambi on August 24, 2008 at 8:45 PM

You dropped something, “My jaw”. Just kidding (smiles). Well done, Bambi. There will be no gloating from me either. None. Truth is, we’re hoping you’ll get converted one of these days and join forces with us, so the more you agree with us the better. Carry on.

apacalyps on August 25, 2008 at 2:58 AM

Pelosi is either a fool or a liar, or perhaps both.

How very typical of those that support abortion, Catholic or not. The biggest lie they proclaim is that the fetus in not human. Even the Supreme court is not immune to that lie which was the supporting basis in Roe vs Wade because if the court had determined that the fetus was human it would have fallen under the rights of all humans to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

docdave on August 25, 2008 at 3:28 AM

Thanks. I enjoy reading any Bible verses you post and agree that context is very important…

dedalus on August 24, 2008 at 10:19 PM

Yes, extremely important. Context is crucial when trying to understand various passages.

There seems to be room in David’s description, if read literally, to have the ensoulment at some point after conception since God is looking at David’s unfinished substance.

I don’t agree. The two verses I listed for you are not the only ones indicating life begins at conception, and embryos are really human beings — moreover, that we are known personally by God before we are born. First off, Genesis 2:7 says,

“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

Here we have a description of God creating a living, human soul. Souls are what we are, not what we have.

“And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” 1 Corinthians 15:45

The Luke quote is persuasive, though he is talking about a prophet, John, just as Jeremiah was a prophet. They were great men, with special missions, like David.

Yes, the Luke quote is persuasive. I agree. Then there’s Isaiah. Isaiah 49:1-5 speaks of God’s calling Isaiah to his ministry as a prophet while he was still in his mother’s womb.

“Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.” Isaiah 49:1

“And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.” Isaiah 49:5

Still, there are other passages, but it’s late. No. I don’t agree that these are metaphoric and not literal illustrations. All of this points to the Bible’s stand on life beginning at conception, irregardless of whether or not men are prophets. Not only that, science proves that at the moment of conception, there is a fully functioning, unique genetic code. The embryo is 100% human, with all 46 human chromosomes.

“The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

Newsflash: Size and location do not determine humanity.

apacalyps on August 25, 2008 at 4:09 AM

The egg is a living cell. The sperm is a living cell. When the sperm fertilizes the egg, we have a new, (genetically) unique life. If the egg and sperm are from humans, it is human life (not bovine, ursine, porcine…). So at the moment of conception, we have a new, unique, very human life. That’s elementary school biology.

taznar on August 24, 2008 at 11:31 PM

Well, done.

apacalyps on August 25, 2008 at 4:16 AM

Ed, thank you so much for this post; very informative.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on August 25, 2008 at 4:25 AM

Speaking as a soft atheist (one who believes God doesn’t exist, but knows he can’t prove it), I’m a little confused as to why life is the relevant factor for determining the morality of abortion. The zygote is indubitably alive, that’s beyond debate. To me, the question would be when an independent consciousness develops; before that, it seems, there’s just a bundle of cells growing and dividing within the mother, and the mother can do what she pleases with the bundle. This would place the cutoff line between acceptable and unacceptable action somewhere in the middle of development, probably a little before the start of the third trimester.

Math_Mage on August 25, 2008 at 4:26 AM

The egg is a living cell. The sperm is a living cell. When the sperm fertilizes the egg, we have a new, (genetically) unique life. If the egg and sperm are from humans, it is human life (not bovine, ursine, porcine…). So at the moment of conception, we have a new, unique, very human life. That’s elementary school biology.

taznar on August 24, 2008 at 11:31 PM

Frankly, I find this argument fairly weak. Cancer is a genetically unique batch of replicating human cells, but nobody balks at removing a tumor.

Math_Mage on August 25, 2008 at 4:29 AM

Frankly, I find this argument fairly weak. Cancer is a genetically unique batch of replicating human cells, but nobody balks at removing a tumor.

Math_Mage on August 25, 2008 at 4:29 AM

my tumor left unattended kills me, my child left unaborted succors me in my aged decrepitude….

sven10077 on August 25, 2008 at 4:33 AM

Dangit! I guess tyrannosaurs and other 65-million year old carnivorous jurassicans were one of God’s little jokes?

Fishoutofwater on August 25, 2008 at 12:05 AM

Dinosaur are not 65 miiiiiiiilion years old. Where did you learn such a silly thing? You have probably been taught that life began in the “soup” of early oceans. Is that true?

I thought the earth spontaneously formed a little over 5,000 years ago (at least that’s what one of my Christian friends told me).

Ahem, that’s 6 thousand years ago. Your friend is wrong. 6000 years ago God created everything. 4400 years ago there was a flood. 2000 years ago Jesus died on the cross for our sins. And here we are today waiting for Him to come back, in oh, about 10 minutes.

I don’t know WHAT to think anymore!

Well, you came to the right place. We’ll get you fixed up. Here’s a good place to start:

Evolution is a fairy tale for adults. – Dr. Duane Gish

apacalyps on August 25, 2008 at 4:36 AM

Speaking as a soft atheist (one who believes God doesn’t exist, but knows he can’t prove it), I’m a little confused as to why life is the relevant factor for determining the morality of abortion. The zygote is indubitably alive, that’s beyond debate. To me, the question would be when an independent consciousness develops; before that, it seems, there’s just a bundle of cells growing and dividing within the mother, and the mother can do what she pleases with the bundle. This would place the cutoff line between acceptable and unacceptable action somewhere in the middle of development, probably a little before the start of the third trimester.

Math_Mage on August 25, 2008 at 4:26 AM

What makes independent consciousness any more redeeming than life itself? Aside from being difficult to define and incredibly arbitrary (and perhaps even variable, depending on your definition).

Let me put it to you this way:

With what medical or scientific device would we be able to discern when independent consciousness has been reached? Babies aren’t even self-aware for several months after birth (self-awareness itself is actually a huge evolutionary achievement period). How one expects to prove a conditional for worth without being able to physically test it is beyond me.

From conception, we know two things are true: One: The zygote is alive. Two: The zygote is human. This can be proven in any genetic laboratory on earth.

Even if we were to use your benchmark for assigning value to life, by the time we were able to test it the child would be born and the point moot. Only Barack Obama supports infanticide. The rest of us are all assured that if the child is born, it should not be killed.

Finally, a line delineating where human life is or is not valuable is a very dangerous thing to establish. It is the start of a slippery slide down into euthanasia, eugenics, and possibly even genocide.

Think of all the children who have been aborted because doctors thought they had Down’s Syndrome. Under your value system, that is fine, because their life does not have value until the arbitrary point you have chosen. If they want to abort for gender selection next? Fine. You are morally neutral. Sexuality? Again, your stance has no moral weight to it.

When human life can be devalued because it does not possess a certain desired trait, liberty soon follows life into irrelevance. After all, non-valuable humans are waste to be discarded at a whim. Why should you grant liberty to something whose life you don’t value?

BKennedy on August 25, 2008 at 4:50 AM

It’s like the fall of man: against God’s expressed will, but within his providence. Death came with the fall, but sharks’ teeth were designed to tear flesh.

Akzed on August 24, 2008 at 7:03 PM

I must apologize Akzed. I re-read your post and think I could have responded a little differently than I did. I mistook you for someone else. It’s late (yawning). Later.

apacalyps on August 25, 2008 at 4:53 AM

Frankly, I find this argument fairly weak. Cancer is a genetically unique batch of replicating human cells, but nobody balks at removing a tumor.

Math_Mage on August 25, 2008 at 4:29 AM

One thing I have never been able to fathom among pro-choicers or fence-sitters is why they would ever run with this impossibly feeble line of reasoning. I especially like that they always use cancer cells rather than say, skin tissue or nerve cells.

Cancer is a genetic aberration that self-replicates in massive numbers due to a cellular malfunction.

A zygote is a genetic normality that self-replicates and forms all the tissues necessary to create a distinct human being.

The two things are completely different, and even a layman’s initial analysis can confirm this. Why does anyone use the cancer = zygote line of reasoning when even they know it is inherently faulty and, additionally, sounds impossibly stupid?

BKennedy on August 25, 2008 at 5:02 AM

Interesting that the chatechism linked above states “You shall not MURDER”- which is a BIG difference from what the Church teaches today- “You shall not KILL”. Murder applies only to innocents, which of course, the unborn are.

Based on this, the Catholic Church is wrong on the second half of it’s Pro-Life platform when it opposes the death penalty. Killing is OK, MURDER isn’t.

rotorhead on August 25, 2008 at 5:18 AM

Ms. Pelosi,

I was interested in knowing which of your REPUBLICAN colleagues do not support CONTRACEPTION as you stated this morning on Meet the Press. It is my understanding that many Republicans don’t support ABORTION ON DEMAND. Shouldn’t the Speaker of the House be a little more accurate on national television?

Names please.

I don’t know what new-age “Catholic” church you attend but my catholic church is strongly against any type of killing, particularly abortion.

ctmom on August 25, 2008 at 5:27 AM

http://speaker.house.gov/contact/

ctmom on August 25, 2008 at 5:31 AM

I’m a 58 year-old Catholic and she (Senator Pelosi) is SO WRONG! Abortion has been recognized as Murder (different from righteous killing) as described in the additional evidence. I wonder if she would be surprised with the homilies and discussions in Catholic Churches across the country on the topic … do we differ from her home church that much?

SheetofPaper on August 25, 2008 at 7:58 AM

Pelosi lies

about Catholicism and abortion

Fixed. And even if I didn’t fix it, why is this a surprise to anyone?

NoFanofLibs on August 25, 2008 at 8:06 AM

Why is it that only the ignorant, liberal Catholics are given voices on a national stage. She could stand right next to Pfleger and feel right at home.

ZagChuck on August 25, 2008 at 8:13 AM

The Church should excommunicate all these pretender Catholic types in a very open and unequivocal fashion,

paulsmos on August 25, 2008 at 8:19 AM

I am confused. Why in reality does it say that any body can say what they want with out any kind of reason or proof.

She is wrong. Any church will say that abortion on demand is wrong. The “church” has said that killing unborn childern is wrong. For than more than 2000 years.

Why is that progressives say that life begins when we will teach the children to agree with us.

tom

TomLawler on August 25, 2008 at 8:20 AM

this women is clearly on drugs, and i think the people have the right to know what kind.

as for the above comment on the age of the earth, i heard that in genesis when it says day1 day2 etc. it really translates into “a time” and that could mean a thousand years or a million.

anyone know if thats true or was i lied to lol

onoyoudidnt on August 25, 2008 at 8:25 AM

this women is clearly on drugs, and i think the people have the right to know what kind.

as for the above comment on the age of the earth, i heard that in genesis when it says day1 day2 etc. it really translates into “a time” and that could mean a thousand years or a million.

anyone know if thats true or was i lied to lol

onoyoudidnt on August 25, 2008 at 8:25 AM

It doesn’t translate into it. It’s just some people’s opinion.

fossten on August 25, 2008 at 8:32 AM

Ed, I think you should have said “bolder example” with respect to Pelosi’s prevarications. “Balder example” would apply to Mr. Biden.

lionheart on August 25, 2008 at 8:49 AM

One cannot be both Catholic and supportive of Roe v. Wade. To attempt to straddle that divide is impossible within the boundaries of intellectual honesty.

As a Catholic, I wonder why public statements such as those Ed quotes aren’t used as excommunication fodder. It would seem to me that this drums her out of the club.

Hand in your secret decoder ring, Madame Speaker. There is a whack-job church on every street corner in your district that will take you in with open arms.

Kevin from Ohio in V on August 25, 2008 at 8:50 AM

Pelosi, One spineless despicable, worthless, liberal
democrats.

a fool, a liar, a total bitch?

sorry, new member here, been waiting months for this!

try again later on August 25, 2008 at 8:53 AM

And yes, Pelosi is both (fool and liar), but not only that… she is plain d-u-m. It amazes and frightens me that she is 2nd in line to be president.

lionheart on August 25, 2008 at 8:54 AM

Know Your Failure, Stretchface. Fool, liar, incompetent and inept added to the mix.

K1P1 on August 25, 2008 at 9:00 AM

Pelosi had a real bad day. My God, she’s impossible.

ndulik on August 25, 2008 at 9:01 AM

It is a shock to me that these pro-abortion candidates garner any of the Catholic vote. Most church-going Catholics, however, know better.

Paul K. on August 25, 2008 at 9:14 AM

Biblical scripture plainly shows that God recognized babies in the womb. Was it only certain babies? Or should that go on to mean that babies in general are recognized as humans? I think the latter. What rankles me (I’m not a Catholic and disagree totally with Catholic doctrine) is that if a person is going to claim to be Catholic how can they simply deny Catholic doctrine? In Pelosi’s case she simply needs to hold onto the claim of religiosity without having to bend to the beliefs (very common in most religions). How else could she represent San Francisco and get elected? These people don’t care about their religion. It is simply a convenience. When it does not fit their worldly needs it is discarded. Surprise! Meet mortal man/woman! Face it…..liberalism is liberal’s religion. They will rewrite anything to conform to their REAL religion. Liberal politicians are the worst. What is sad is that many ordinary people will use her words to justify what they do. But remember, God is just. And Pelosi knows what she does? There will be an accounting.

artman1746 on August 25, 2008 at 9:15 AM

She is such a tool. I don’t thing Russert would have let her off so easlily.

dman232 on August 25, 2008 at 9:26 AM

Anyone as shocked as I am that Pelosi defines the “choice” as being between a women, her doctor, and her god — with no mention whatsoever of the father?

thebaldchick on August 25, 2008 at 9:26 AM

maverick muse on August 24, 2008 at 11:24 PM

Well said.

I am not Catholic, but to me abortion is a sin, pure and simple. Sin is defined as substituting man’s judgment for God’s, or for choosing man’s way instead of God’s. When we kill any human life, we substitute our own determination of the value of that life for God’s. (This is why I always thought Catholics oppose the death penalty.) We do not have the right to do so. Because we cannot speak directly with God and ask Him how much he values the life of even a day-old embryo, we must act on the assumption that He values its life as much as he values ours, so we cannot substitute our judgment for His and take that life away.

People like Nancy Pelosi do great harm to the Catholic Church. If I were a Catholic, I would be loudly denouncing her for what amounts to slander of the Church and its teachings.

rockmom on August 25, 2008 at 9:30 AM

To me, the question would be when an independent consciousness develops; before that, it seems, there’s just a bundle of cells…

Math_Mage on August 25, 2008 at 4:26 AM

.
So, a person on life support, or undergoing open heart surgery, to name just two examples, is not a person? The rules have to account for both ends of the spectrum of life. I could see abortion proponents arguing that life exists based on measurable brain waves, which start at about 12 weeks, and end at brain death, but they don’t – they want the convenience to kill at their leisure.

Think_b4_speaking on August 25, 2008 at 9:32 AM

I guess that San-Fran-Nan needs to get back to her roots, and re-examine her Baltimore Catechism. I’m shocked, Shocked!, that the Dems would be trying to weasel word their way through this issue……

Or should I say:
Bamboozled,
Hoodwinked,
Hokey-Doked
??

RocketmanBob on August 25, 2008 at 9:36 AM

Nancy Pelosi is flat out stupid on so many levels that it is mind boggling she is speaker.
As to her pro-abortion stance and her professed Catholicism, she can’t have it both ways. Politicians like her, Biden, Kennedy, Guiliani, the list goes on. .do NOT garner the Catholic vote. True Catholics don’t vote for false Catholic politicians.

Willie on August 25, 2008 at 9:40 AM

Laura Ingraham has skewered Bela Pelosi on knowing absolutely nothing about Catholic doctrine. Other than extreme cosmetic surgery, is there any evidence she knows anything about any subject?

Captain Hate on August 25, 2008 at 9:43 AM

“Thou shalt not kill.”
“Thou shalt not lie.”

Mr._Chumpo on August 25, 2008 at 9:49 AM

It does, however, make abortion — even formal facilitation of abortion — an instantly excommunicating act.

.
When will the Church actualy excommunicate any politician? What does the church expect if it does not enforce it’s rules?

AnotherOpinion on August 25, 2008 at 9:52 AM

I’m no theologian and I don’t really want to get into a debate on this, mainly because I’m not as well versed as I should be, and as a cradle Catholic, I wasn’t raised to be good at quoting Scripture and all that, but Jesus specifically gives the ability and responsibility in Matthew 16:18-19 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

pannw on August 24, 2008 at 5:56 PM

Many Catholics point to these verses, but you need to be a little careful with them. These verses are in the context of Jesus asking them who they (others) think he is. Peter replies that he is the Christ.

In verse 18, Jesus says “thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church”. Jesus isn’t talking about building his church on Peter, and individual fallible man, but upon the realization that Jesus is the Messiah, the Savior… that he is the fulfillment of prophesy. The church is not built upon Peter, but upon the foundation of Jesus Christ and the acknowledgment that he is the Savior.

dominigan on August 25, 2008 at 9:52 AM

I am gratified to have learned that the church’s arguments against abortion are, within 40 years, as old as Christianity itself. If any Rabbi or other Jewish scholar could weigh in with writings that pre-date Christ, that would be valuable, too, as that could take care of those last 40 years.

This fact needs to get much more air time in the abortion debate in churches and also in the general public. The San-Fran nanny-stater has really shown her duplicity and ignorance here. She serves political ambition alongside God, and I think just about all churches teach that God doesn’t like sharing the title of master.

flutejpl on August 25, 2008 at 9:55 AM

The Pope MUST comment on this outrageous liar’s comments. I encourage you to email your comments to
benedictxvi-at-vatican.va

I just can’t believe the depths that Pelosi will sink to.

marklmail on August 25, 2008 at 9:57 AM

I VERY much so dislike that woman!!!!

JihadKiller1s1k on August 25, 2008 at 10:01 AM

“Catholics” like Nancy Pelosi, Kennedy, and Kerry are just so full of it.

They are desparate for the Catholic vote – many are Hilliary supporters – thats one reason why they tapped Biden – because he is “Catholic”. He used to be pro-life – before he had plans to stay in politics.

The DNC is literally flying in “pro-choice” Catholics into Denver from all over America to give this impression that its perfectly ok for Catholics to vote Obama. But so far they have not invited the Archbishop of Denver! Archbishop Chaput is a stawart of the Catholic faith and is very outspoken on Catholics voting Catholic pro-life. (He just published a book on it called “Render onto Ceasar”.)

So Dems have to lie to Americans again – so much is fakery with them – they cannot tell people who they really are.

winged on August 25, 2008 at 10:04 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5