Pope lectures Pelosi on “natural moral law”; Update: Even MS-NBC can’t spin this

posted at 10:19 am on February 18, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The Vatican has released a statement after meeting with Nancy Pelosi, apparently mindful of the controversy created by giving an audience to a pro-choice American politician.  Before Pelosi has a chance to characterize the discussion, Benedict apparently wants everyone to know that he saw this as a teaching moment (via The Corner):

Following the General Audience the Holy Father briefly greeted Mrs Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage.

His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.

The consistent teachings, Benedict apparently emphasized, in contradiction to Pelosi’s strange insistence that Catholic opposition to abortion only goes back 50 years:

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.

Message from Benedict: Study more.  And he sent another message as well — that those with higher positions have higher responsibilities not to formally cooperate with the sin of abortion. That message undoubtedly was intended not just for Pelosi but for the entire class of Catholic politicians who support abortion rights, like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Joe Biden, among others.

As for excommunication, that question rightly belongs to Pelosi’s bishop, not the Pope.  Also, it likely would not have arisen in this setting, as the Pope does not give Communion during private audiences; that would only be an issue if Pelosi had attended a Papal Mass.  It seems clear, though, that Benedict XVI does not share Pelosi’s view of Catholic teachings on abortion — and used the visit to make that clear.

Update: Jim at Gateway Pundit wonders whether Pelosi will heed Benedict’s teaching.  I’d say: doubtful.  The teaching has always been plain; it’s the student that has the problem.

Update II: Even MS-NBC can’t spin this one:

Pope Benedict, underscoring the Vatican’s ruling on an issue that divides Americans, told U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday that Catholic politicians and legislators cannot back abortion rights.

Pelosi, a powerful U.S. politician who is Catholic and pro-choice, has been accused by U.S. bishops in the past of misrepresenting Church teachings on abortion.

The headline?  “Pope to Pelosi: Catholics cannot back abortion”.

The Anchoress has a great round-up on this story.

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 8

Are they in heaven?

dedalus on February 18, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Yes

Be_Aware on February 18, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Some non-trivial consolation then is that 40 million souls that never committed an immoral act are enjoying eternity with God.

dedalus on February 18, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Why did Pelosi go to Rome?

JiangxiDad on February 18, 2009 at 11:07 AM

We are classier than to suggest the death of a member of Congress!

carbon_footprint on February 18, 2009 at 11:05 AM

I don’t disagree, but won’t all the cosmetic surgery keep her afloat?

BuckeyeSam on February 18, 2009 at 11:08 AM

You are incorrect to extrapolate that I believe the historical viewpoints of Aquinas or Augustine have a bearing on a Catholic politician’s religious obligations in 2009.

dedalus on February 18, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Good of you to make that distinction. There is a lot of sophistry on this matter and plenty of people who find Church teaching inconvenient on this topic use Aquinas and Augustine as a way to justify their actions. Many of them are prominent politicians, of course.

Mr. D on February 18, 2009 at 11:09 AM

I don’t disagree, but won’t all the cosmetic surgery keep her afloat?

BuckeyeSam on February 18, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Interesting question. Does botox float?

carbon_footprint on February 18, 2009 at 11:09 AM

terryannonline on February 18, 2009 at 10:53 AM

I dont believe wars have moral or immoral status that we can just ascribe. War is about power, not about morals. There are wars fought on moral grounds that make no sense through a realist lens…and there are “immoral” wars of aggression that are the most prudent action with regards to american interests.

Wars simply are not moral or immoral…they are prudent or not.

ernesto on February 18, 2009 at 11:09 AM

INC on February 18, 2009 at 11:03 AM

Great post…

The beast shall change it’s spots!

RINO’s are a danger to America!

Unfortunately, it is a matter of historical fact that pro-abortion candidates, regardless of their political affiliation, are almost always liberal or “moderate” (ie, liberal-lite) on every other hot button issue. There are notable exceptions – Barry Goldwater, for instance – but these are as rare as a Michael Moore appearance at a Jenny Craig convention.

This has been my point for a long, long time here… And I get hammered for it, but I don’t care… Caving or moderating or compromising is LOSING to the left, every single time… Big tent is a loser, as are most moderates that have no core, no “line in the sand”…

Staunch real Conservatisam WINS!

Mark Garnett on February 18, 2009 at 11:11 AM

Thank you, Your Holiness. It’s about time.

coldwarrior on February 18, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Why did Pelosi go to Rome?

JiangxiDad on February 18, 2009 at 11:07 AM

She was looking for a continent where she could hide as Obama signed the stimulus. Hillary had already called Asia, South America is a little too dangerous, Africa is a little too dirty, and the others are a little too cold. Europe was just right, and she thought she could get some Catholic cred.

BuckeyeSam on February 18, 2009 at 11:13 AM

However, to say that the church has been consistent for two thousand years on the nature what occurs in early-term abortions is a misreading of history.
dedalus on February 18, 2009 at 10:58 AM

The Church has always, taught that the procurement of an abortion is sin. With the knowledge we have in this age, there is no question that upon the moment of conception, a new unique and living human has been created. That from the moment of conception this life begins a process that will continue until death.

The question of one’s soul has been settled for the Church as well. Pelosi ignores that at her own peril. And you try to confuse people or mislead them here. Why? What difference does it make to you what a bunch of superstitious fools believe? The people here are mostly venting, using this a way to connect to others who believe and who are frustrated and angry over what has happened to our country and culture.

Make no mistake, there is a side. The side of life or the side of death. The Lord says choose one. He recommends life.

Jvette on February 18, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Mr. D on February 18, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Both smart guys and vitally important thinkers from about a millennium or more ago, but neither understood embryology the way scientists and the Church began to in the 19th century.

dedalus on February 18, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Why did Pelosi go to Rome?

JiangxiDad on February 18, 2009 at 11:07 AM

San Fran Nan wanted to present a “stimulus” to the Roman Catholic Church?

coldwarrior on February 18, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Interesting question. Does botox float?

carbon_footprint on February 18, 2009 at 11:09 AM

I’m guessing that she’s had a LOT more work done than that.

BuckeyeSam on February 18, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Seriously, I think poor Pelosi has Organic Brain Syndrome. Listen to her speech patterns and tell me she does not have a serious mental impairment. Scary.

RandyChandler on February 18, 2009 at 11:16 AM

jeff_from_mpls on February 18, 2009 at 10:53 AM

thanks for finishing my thought +5

Jvette on February 18, 2009 at 11:16 AM

The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.

Unbelievable, yet expected. Determining when life begins will always be trumped by abortions at will.

One of us is wrong. Are these peoples’ conscience prepared if it is they who are wrong?

anuts on February 18, 2009 at 11:16 AM

To the screamers the job of the Pope is to lead the flock even the wayward, not whip out Biblical smakdowns…

Great now I have an image of the Pope slapping WWE’s John Cena all around the ring.

LincolntheHun on February 18, 2009 at 11:17 AM

coldwarrior on February 18, 2009 at 11:14 AM

I’ve just never heard the reason. Was she summoned? Why go to Rome if you’re not summoned, when you know the Pope is pissed at you? It doesn’t add up. (I really don’t think she had anything to do with the G-7 meeting–that was a cover.)

JiangxiDad on February 18, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Pelosi is the Democrat poster girl – morally and intellectually bankrupt, hideously corrupt and absurdly, dangerously incompetent.

Worst Congress ever headed by the worst Speaker ever, alongside the worst Senate every, headed by the worst Senate Majority Leader ever, alongside an Executive Branch headed by the least qualified, least accomplished president ever.

Another new high in low for the absolutely and completely worthless Democrat Party.

NoDonkey on February 18, 2009 at 11:19 AM

I dont believe wars have moral or immoral status that we can just ascribe.

Uh, ok. So you don’t believe there were moral and immoral characters on the world during WWII?

terryannonline on February 18, 2009 at 11:19 AM

If God had thought abortion was murder, then why didn’t He say so more clearly in the Bible? He apparently thought it was significant enough in the Old Testament to tell people what types of clothes they could wear and what types of food they could eat, yet no explicit mention of abortion?

As to you Orthodox Catholics, if you don’t like what’s going on in the US, why don’t you move to Vatican City?

jim m on February 18, 2009 at 11:19 AM

And you try to confuse people or mislead them here. Why? What difference does it make to you what a bunch of superstitious fools believe? The people here are mostly venting, using this a way to connect to others who believe and who are frustrated and angry over what has happened to our country and culture.

Make no mistake, there is a side. The side of life or the side of death. The Lord says choose one. He recommends life.

Jvette on February 18, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Actually, I’m not trying to fool anyone and explicitly stated in my previous post that historical viewpoints from scholars don’t create nuances in the moral teaching of the church today.

Further, I’m less interested in changing anyone’s mind than hearing ideas that might change mine.

Pelosi is wrong on the moral issue. Many who criticize her comments about the church doctors are wrong about the history.

dedalus on February 18, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Some non-trivial consolation then is that 40 million souls that never committed an immoral act are enjoying eternity with God.

dedalus on February 18, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Not the point. Life and death are God’s realm. If this negated the abomination of abortion, why would anyone have children? Or why would what Andrea Yates did be a crime? Her intention was for her children to go to heaven.

Jvette on February 18, 2009 at 11:21 AM

Yea, why did she go to Rome? She just loaded up billions of dollars for all her special interest groups in a 1000+ page bill and then skipped town. Maybe she’s seeking redemption. Probably the same reason Obama went to Denver to sign the bill. They’re experts in grandiocity.

scalleywag on February 18, 2009 at 11:23 AM

If God had thought abortion was murder, then why didn’t He say so more clearly in the Bible?

Thou shalt not kill probably covers it.

JiangxiDad on February 18, 2009 at 11:25 AM

As to you Orthodox Catholics, if you don’t like what’s going on in the US, why don’t you move to Vatican City?

jim m on February 18, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Shut up, jim m explained.

Mr. D on February 18, 2009 at 11:25 AM

http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=333726

ND House Passes Abortion Ban

OmahaConservative on February 18, 2009 at 11:26 AM

As to you Orthodox Catholics, if you don’t like what’s going on in the US, why don’t you move to Vatican City?

jim m on February 18, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Because we have freedom of religion here. Why would anyone have to leave the US for religious reasons?

JiangxiDad on February 18, 2009 at 11:27 AM

Not the point. Life and death are God’s realm. If this negated the abomination of abortion, why would anyone have children? Or why would what Andrea Yates did be a crime? Her intention was for her children to go to heaven.

Jvette on February 18, 2009 at 11:21 AM

It is a consequence though it wouldn’t excuse the immorality of the killer. Obviously, Andrea Yates is disgusting. I’d wager that her eternal judgment will go poorly. Her children, though, should be with God for eternity.

dedalus on February 18, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Just plain ridiculous. I am Eastern Orthodox so that means until 1054 The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church were one. There are countless quotes from the early Church Fathers I can use here to show that Pelosi is off her rocker, the most prominent of which is perhaps a quote from the Didache which was actually considered by the Church to be included in the Bible. The Didache is essentially the teaching of the 12 apostles. Here is the quote. Ready? “do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant” Can this be anymore clear? Further even if a Father of the Church has a theological opinion it is not accepted as doctrine of the Church (at least by the Orthodox Church ) unless there is consenus patrum, or in other words there are multiple Holy Fathers that say the same thing on a subject. Of course I’d like to see the quote from blessed Augustine ( he is not accepted as a saint of the Orthodox Church thus BLESSED Augustine )

Borislav on February 18, 2009 at 11:30 AM

terryannonline on February 18, 2009 at 11:19 AM

The moral character of the major players is irrelevant. Entering the war on the side of the allies was the only course of action that maximized benefits while minimizing risk. Looking for “moral” or “immoral” characteristics in war clouds proper judgement. As the case with Iraq. Morally, freeing people is a just cause. Realistically, freeing anyone at any cost becomes detrimental to US interests…and thus becomes inadvisable.

ernesto on February 18, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Maybe the pro-abortion folks will offer a compromise, and say that babies in the womb get partial credit – we could say they are 3/5 of a human being, perhaps. We haven’t tried that one before, have we?

Vashta.Nerada on February 18, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Thou shalt not kill probably covers it.

JiangxiDad on February 18, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Touche!

publiuspen on February 18, 2009 at 11:32 AM

dedalus on February 18, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Then I apologize for assuming to know your motives. Your present and past posts on this subject have seemed to come from support and defense of abortion.

History helps with perspective and many would try to use a distorted view of it to justify present actions, but the Church has not changed its stance on abortion, it has merely come to understand the science better and clarified it.

Jvette on February 18, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Were it not for Pelosi’s disdain for the U.S. military, I wouldn’t have been surprised if Nancy’s response to this morning’s lecture was, “How many divisions does the Pope have?” to quote a notable man of the left from the middle part of the last century…

jon1979 on February 18, 2009 at 11:34 AM

12,000 gallons of raw sewage is flowing into San Fran Gran Nan’s bay right now. Divine intervention?

OmahaConservative on February 18, 2009 at 11:35 AM

OmahaConservative on February 18, 2009 at 11:35 AM

12,000 gallons an hour…

OmahaConservative on February 18, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Thou shalt not kill probably covers it.

–Actually, it doesn’t. That would also cover animals, plants and other living things, as well as wars and capital punishment, right?

jim m on February 18, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Thou shalt not kill probably covers it.

Actually for the liberals, it does not. If you do not believe that abortion is murder, than thou shalt not kill is irrelevant, is it not?

As Michael Savage says; “Liberalism is a mental disorder.”

Borislav on February 18, 2009 at 11:36 AM

12,000 gallons of raw sewage is flowing into San Fran Gran Nan’s bay right now. Divine intervention?

Maybe, but it would seem to need more gallons.

100,000 gallons of raw sewage wouldn’t stink nearly as bad as Pelosi’s corrupt and incompetent “leadership” in the House.

NoDonkey on February 18, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Benedict is just the Pope. He is not Our Savior who art in D.C., or Denver, or Miami, or Phoneix, or wherever there are TV cameras.

Star20 on February 18, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Thou shalt not kill probably covers it.

JiangxiDad on February 18, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Don’t meant to be picky, but it is “Thou shall not murder”…a subtle but large difference.

right2bright on February 18, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Looks like one of the leaders of the Baby Killer Party got the word from the Head Dude of the Church. It will be interesting to see how she spins this….

DL13 on February 18, 2009 at 11:40 AM

jim m on February 18, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Actually the quote is “Thou shall not Murder” which only covers people unless your point is willful ignorance

LincolntheHun on February 18, 2009 at 11:41 AM

I hope Pelosi has better sense than to listen to that homophobic creep.

thuja on February 18, 2009 at 11:41 AM

–Actually, it doesn’t. That would also cover animals, plants and other living things, as well as wars and capital punishment, right?

jim m on February 18, 2009 at 11:36 AM

no.

I know God was very very busy when he set up this system, but I do wish he had taken a bit more time with the knotty problem of the lawyers. They do seem to have a much more difficult time than the average person in interpreting language. But for people who don’t know what “is” is, I will just give-in now and proclaim you correct.

JiangxiDad on February 18, 2009 at 11:42 AM

As to you Orthodox Catholics, if you don’t like what’s going on in the US, why don’t you move to Vatican City?

jim m on February 18, 2009 at 11:19 AM

why didn’t you move to Venezula during the Bush administration?

katiejane on February 18, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Nancy needs to remember: Benedict won that election for Pope.

flyoverland on February 18, 2009 at 10:48 AM

LOL

Elisa on February 18, 2009 at 11:42 AM

So, like who does the Pope think he is? Nancy Pelosi is a life-long Catholic and she dispenses theology from the United States Congress here in America! How dare this infidel speak of doctrine to our chosen one like this! Snark now off…

sabbott on February 18, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Realistically, freeing anyone at any cost becomes detrimental to US interests…and thus becomes inadvisable.

ernesto on February 18, 2009 at 11:31 AM

I finally got it out of you! (It took long enough.) First, you are making a moral judgment here when you say, “Realistically, freeing anyone at any cost becomes detrimental to US interests…” so it can’t be that you don’t believe wars are immoral or moral. Definition of moral from Webster:

1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior c: conforming to a standard of right behavior

You just made a moral and ethical judgment from your own statement.

Second, this thus makes your initial analogy between Iraq and abortion inconsistent. You basically argued conservatives are for freedom for Iraqis but not for freedom for women to choose. But you just argued freedom is not more important than life. Thus, you are contradicting yourself.

terryannonline on February 18, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Jim at Gateway Pundit wonders whether Pelosi will heed Benedict’s teaching. I’d say: doubtful. The teaching has always been plain; it’s the student that has the problem.

Nope. The filthy liar won and he even wants to kill off those lives that manage to get out of the womb despite the best efforts of Democrats. That means Benedict needs to STFU in the name of bipartisanship as practiced by the Demcorat party and the most corrupt end evil POTUS ever.

highhopes on February 18, 2009 at 11:43 AM

I hope Pelosi has better sense than to listen to that homophobic creep.

thuja on February 18, 2009 at 11:41 AM

How do you know he fears them/it? Maybe he just doesn’t think it’s so cool.

JiangxiDad on February 18, 2009 at 11:43 AM

I don’t disagree, but won’t all the cosmetic surgery keep her afloat?

BuckeyeSam on February 18, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Interesting question. Does botox float?

carbon_footprint on February 18, 2009 at 11:09 AM

I know her hair won’t move or get wet for that matter.

Fuquay Steve on February 18, 2009 at 11:44 AM

It is a consequence though it wouldn’t excuse the immorality of the killer. Obviously, Andrea Yates is disgusting. I’d wager that her eternal judgment will go poorly. Her children, though, should be with God for eternity.

dedalus on February 18, 2009 at 11:29 AM

She was a sick woman who feared for the souls of her children. I do not claim to know her judgment.

The Church has also struggled with the question of death of the unborn because of the wages of original sin. Though the teaching once was that these babies do not enter heaven, it is not now.

Jvette on February 18, 2009 at 11:44 AM

“those with higher positions have higher responsibilities not to formally cooperate with the sin of abortion.”

So true, Ed. “to whom much is given, much is expected,” and a person in a public position cannot scandalize the faithful.

In my opinion (and it is up to her Bishop), she should be excommunicated for the scandal and for the benefit of her own soul. An excommunication doesn’t say someone is going to Hell. It is a way to shepherd a wayward sheep back into the fold. So they are not permanently lost.

“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.” (I Corinthians 11:27-29) (NAB)

The KJV translates it “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” and “eateth and drinketh damnation to himself.”

An excommunication does not damn her to Hell, it prevents actions on her part that MAY damn her, along with an obstinate hardness of heart.

God bless our Pope. We all need to pray for him. He needs the prayers of all Christians of good will.

Elisa on February 18, 2009 at 11:45 AM

all this bank nationalization talk is scary, wish pope would lecture on the evils of that

jp on February 18, 2009 at 10:27 AM

But JP the Catholic Church’s natural moral law of “social justice” probably encourages bank nationalization.

I’m actually curious about this question: is there any way to use “social justice” and it not mean socialism?

thuja on February 18, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Thou shalt not kill probably covers it.

–Actually, it doesn’t. That would also cover animals, plants and other living things, as well as wars and capital punishment, right?

jim m on February 18, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Ratsach. Ratsach does not cover animals, plants, wars, and capital punishment. Thou shall not murder (ratsach).

anuts on February 18, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Hey, JiangxiDad gave the quote, I just responded to it. But if it’s “do not murder”, then where in the Bible does it say that abortion is murder. The one provision in the Old Testament seems to say that an intentional miscarriage should be treated like the killing of a cow.

The “move to Vatican City” wasn’t meant to shut off discussion. It was meant to be a fact: If you don’t like the US laws because they don’t conform to Catholic laws, then move to the Vatican City where you won’t have that problem.

jim m on February 18, 2009 at 11:47 AM

I’m actually curious about this question: is there any way to use “social justice” and it not mean socialism?

thuja on February 18, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Justice and ‘fairness’ are two very different things. Justice sounds good to liberals until they taste it.

Vashta.Nerada on February 18, 2009 at 11:48 AM

Just for contrasting reference: Abortion in Jewish law.

Thou shalt not kill probably covers it.

JiangxiDad on February 18, 2009 at 11:25 AM

The word in the Ten Commandments is “murder”, not “kill”.

Shy Guy on February 18, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Good for the Pope. I really enjoy a well played hand and he seemed to play this very well.

No matter what your personal beliefs on abortion the Catholic Church teaches that it is murder, immoral and a sin. For Pelosi to pretend otherwise and especially for her to claim to be an “ardent Catholic” while materially supporting abortion on demand is incongruous.

Pelosi: I am more Catholic than the Pope.

Pope: No you aren’t.

darcee on February 18, 2009 at 11:49 AM

The “move to Vatican City” wasn’t meant to shut off discussion. It was meant to be a fact: If you don’t like the US laws because they don’t conform to Catholic laws, then move to the Vatican City where you won’t have that problem.

jim m on February 18, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Well, it is not the Christians of this country who have hijacked the law. We will not give in to the evil brought on by the secular humanists. We fight it and pray to one day overturn it. It’s the American way:)

Jvette on February 18, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Okay, I’m not Catholic, but I find myself liking this Pope more and more. Sure, he’s not as “glamorous” and rock-starish as John Paul II, but it’s great to see that he has the chutzpah to directly confront & challenge America’s wayward liberal “leaders” (quotes intended).

bluelightbrigade on February 18, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Jim at Gateway Pundit wonders whether Pelosi will heed Benedict’s teaching. I’d say: doubtful. The teaching has always been plain; it’s the student that has the problem.

In one ear – out the other. A big whoooooosh of wind that blows through there.

tru2tx on February 18, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Actually the quote is “Thou shall not Murder” which only covers people unless your point is willful ignorance

LincolntheHun on February 18, 2009 at 11:41 AM

Or unless you’re a member of PETA or a tree rights organization. :)

Shy Guy on February 18, 2009 at 11:52 AM

How do you know he fears them/it? Maybe he just doesn’t think it’s so cool.

JiangxiDad on February 18, 2009 at 11:43 AM

You make an excellent point. The etymology of homophobia is just another tragic PC mistake. It’s not fear. It’s hatred, like anti-Semitism. However, we are now stuck with this word until it is no longer an issue. And relative to the Pope himself, I do think he is a petty vicious man and hatred is the right term. There are other Catholics who are better able to “hate the sin and love the sinner.”

thuja on February 18, 2009 at 11:52 AM

For all you getting on Jiangxidad about “thou shall not “kill” and saying it is “murder”. Look up the Catholic ten commandments and see what it says….”Kill”

Be_Aware on February 18, 2009 at 11:56 AM

Jvette—-
……..the Church has not changed its stance on abortion, it has merely come to understand the science better and clarified it.

——————————
So, in other words, it did change its stance from the middle ages?

jim m on February 18, 2009 at 11:56 AM

is there any way to use “social justice” and it not mean socialism?

thuja on February 18, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Actually yes. The Church teaches that it is just for those who contract workers to pay a fair wage, that those workers give
an honest day’s work. The Church teaches that when one sees others suffering or going without, one should offer help. The Church teaches the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

What the Church does not teach is that the government should forcefully take the property and wealth gained by one’s hard work and enterprise and give to others.

Jvette on February 18, 2009 at 11:56 AM

And relative to the Pope himself, I do think he is a petty vicious man and hatred is the right term. There are other Catholics who are better able to “hate the sin and love the sinner.”

thuja on February 18, 2009 at 11:52 AM

I’ve read some of what he’s written, but never heard him speak, and are unfamiliar with what type of man he is personally, so I really can’t comment. I truly hope he has no hatred.

JiangxiDad on February 18, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Shy Guy on February 18, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Great examples of the willfully ignorant

LincolntheHun on February 18, 2009 at 11:58 AM

This Morning Imus in the Morning,

Laura Ingraham was great this morning, I love her Nancy Pelosi imitation.

http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2009/02/laura-ingraham-brings-pain.html

Dr Evil on February 18, 2009 at 11:58 AM

We paid for her to go to the Vatican on an ego-stroke mission for her and her husband???? She went to talk to the Pope – GLOBAL WARMING? We paid for her to have an audience with the Pope to talk about GLOBAL WARMING? I’m going to vomit.

marklmail on February 18, 2009 at 11:58 AM

The “move to Vatican City” wasn’t meant to shut off discussion. It was meant to be a fact: If you don’t like the US laws because they don’t conform to Catholic laws, then move to the Vatican City where you won’t have that problem.

jim m on February 18, 2009 at 11:47 AM

I guess then the same could be said for gays/lesbians who think the laws regarding same-sex marriage are wrong? Ditto regarding people who objected to abortion being illegal. If you didn’t like the existing laws that you thought were too conservative – why did’t you move to a more liberal/socialistic country?

katiejane on February 18, 2009 at 12:00 PM

thuja on February 18, 2009 at 11:52 AM
JiangxiDad on February 18, 2009 at 11:57 AM

I have actually heard the Pope speak at the Vatican, and there was no hatred, just peace and love, but there are some that will not follow the beacon of light and wail and gnash their teeth at those who do.

LincolntheHun on February 18, 2009 at 12:01 PM

So, in other words, it did change its stance from the middle ages?

jim m on February 18, 2009 at 11:56 AM

For the slow and mentally impaired…..the question was never whether abortion, the killing of life within the womb, is sin. The question was at what time did the soul enter the body, giving it life? That allowed some to suggest that it was not until movement was felt that life actually existed. Yet, we know now from the science that life begins at conception. Until modern history, no one knew what went on inside the womb. It used to be that women didn’t even know for a certainty they were pregnant until movement. Geesh, pay attention.

Jvette on February 18, 2009 at 12:03 PM

katiejane, I’m happy here. I’m not the one complaining about the existing laws or legal system. I also wasn’t all that unhappy about the laws during Bush 1 or 2.

jim m on February 18, 2009 at 12:03 PM

I’m actually curious about this question: is there any way to use “social justice” and it not mean socialism?

thuja on February 18, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Yeah, of course. Christians are called to follow Jesus. Jesus was out in the world, curing the sick, feeding the poor and helping those in need. Never once did He subcontract that work to Herod, or Pilate any other governmental agency.

Mr. D on February 18, 2009 at 12:04 PM

katiejane, I’m happy here. I’m not the one complaining about the existing laws or legal system. I also wasn’t all that unhappy about the laws during Bush 1 or 2.

jim m on February 18, 2009 at 12:03 PM

I thought you had once said that you moved to a red state purposely. Maybe I am confusing you with another commenter.

JiangxiDad on February 18, 2009 at 12:05 PM

So, in other words, the Church used to think that ensoulment, which happened upon quickening, was the point at which abortion became murder. Now it believes that point is upon conception. And that’s not a change in position?

Good attempt to argue no change, but undone by the facts IMHO.

jim m on February 18, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Some insight on another biblical passage, Exodus 21:22–25:

Let’s take a closer look at the passage by translating it literally:

If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that her children come out yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Gary DeMar goes on to explain the passage:

The verb yatza (“come or go out”) refers to a live birth, not a miscarriage (Gen. 25:25, 26; 38:28–30; Jer. 1:5; 20:18). “Harm” has reference to both the mother and the child since the Hebrew word yeled is used for children already born. The mother and the baby are given equal status before the law. The text does not say, “yet there is no further injury to the mother” (Ex. 21:22). “Further injury” refers to the mother and child. If it is first established that yeled means “child,” which it does, then the case laws referring to persons, whether children or adults, must be applied. If the harm does not lead to the death of either the mother or the child, then a fine is paid to compensate the injured, either mother or the children who “come out” prematurely (21:18–19). If either the mother or the child is harmed in any way, the lex talionis applies. Meredith G. Kline offers a helpful summary of the passage:

Meredith Kline was an eminent Reformed Old Testament scholar. This is the quote from Dr. Kline:

This law found in Exodus 21:22–25 turns out to be perhaps the most decisive positive evidence in scripture that the fetus is to be regarded as a living person…. No matter whether one interprets the first or second penalty to have reference to a miscarriage, there is no difference in the treatments according to the fetus and the woman. Either way the fetus is regarded as a living person, so that to be criminally responsible for the destruction of the fetus is to forfeit one’s life…. The fetus, at any stage of development, is, in the eyes of this law, a living being, for life (nephesh) is attributed to it…. Consistently in the relevant data of Scripture a continuum of identity is evident between the fetus and the person subsequently born and Exodus 21:22–25 makes it clear that this prenatal human being is to be regarded as a separate and distinct human life.

DeMar’s conclusion has already been mentioned above by others:

In biblical terms, abortion is not a debate “in shades of gray” since a preborn child is regarded as a human being that deserves the full protection of the law as summarized in the sixth commandment, “You shall not murder.”

INC on February 18, 2009 at 12:07 PM

I’m in Texas; that’s almost as red as it gets. But I moved there for the climate, economy and activities, not for any political reasons.

jim m on February 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Unfortunately, there are other translations of that passage:

The New American Standard Bible Says:

“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” Ex. 21:22-25,

The Revised Standard Bible Says:
“When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

jim m on February 18, 2009 at 12:11 PM

jim m on February 18, 2009 at 12:11 PM

The translation I gave was a literal translation.

INC on February 18, 2009 at 12:12 PM

Jim at Gateway Pundit wonders whether Pelosi will heed Benedict’s teaching. I’d say: doubtful. The teaching has always been plain; it’s the student that has the problem.

There’s a vast gulf between the two intellects.

baldilocks on February 18, 2009 at 12:14 PM

For all you getting on Jiangxidad about “thou shall not “kill” and saying it is “murder”. Look up the Catholic ten commandments and see what it says….”Kill”

Be_Aware on February 18, 2009 at 11:56 AM

Of course it does. It was however, translated. I assume you would agree that Moses predates Catholicism. In Hebrew, the word was/is ratsach.

anuts on February 18, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Okay, I’m not Catholic, but I find myself liking this Pope more and more. Sure, he’s not as “glamorous” and rock-starish as John Paul II, but it’s great to see that he has the chutzpah to directly confront & challenge America’s wayward liberal “leaders” (quotes intended).

bluelightbrigade on February 18, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Did you like him when he said all non-catholic churches are false?

TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 12:16 PM

The translation I gave was a literal translation.

INC

–How do you know? And how do you know that Meredith Kline didn’t translate the provision according to his own prejudices. He was a member and senior pastor of an Orthodox church, correct? Wouldn’t he have gotten fired/lose his pension if he didn’t translate the provision as his church wanted it translated?

jim m on February 18, 2009 at 12:19 PM

She was a sick woman who feared for the souls of her children. I do not claim to know her judgment.

Jvette on February 18, 2009 at 11:44 AM

You are right. I don’t know either and can only speculate. Her sin was the gravest I can imagine, though perhaps she can save her eternal soul through contrition and penance. God’s call not ours.

dedalus on February 18, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Thank you, Your Holiness. It’s about time.

coldwarrior on February 18, 2009 at 11:12 AM

How is he more holy than anyone else?

TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Some non-trivial consolation then is that 40 million souls that never committed an immoral act are enjoying eternity with God.

dedalus on February 18, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Maybe we can start killing atheists then and get some non-trivial consolation that God knows how many souls won’t sink even deeper into hell./sarc

Please think before you post. I realize thinking is a monstrously difficult task for pro-choicers but it’s no excuse for not putting in the effort.

Darth Executor on February 18, 2009 at 12:21 PM

jim m on February 18, 2009 at 12:19 PM

I met Dr. Kline and was able to interact with him in a small group teaching situation. In Protestant theological circles, he was a famous scholar. You are smearing both his scholarship and his integrity.

INC on February 18, 2009 at 12:22 PM

The loony leftist real estate Agent, Nancy, seems to know more about life than Christ and the leader of her church. The student, in this case, has serious problems, credibility being one of them.

sinsing on February 18, 2009 at 12:23 PM

So, in other words, the Church used to think that ensoulment, which happened upon quickening, was the point at which abortion became murder. Now it believes that point is upon conception. And that’s not a change in position?

Good attempt to argue no change, but undone by the facts IMHO.

jim m on February 18, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Not at all. No change in stance, just in understanding. Good attempt to confuse the facts.

Jvette on February 18, 2009 at 12:23 PM

“…I do think he is a petty vicious man and hatred is the right term. There are other Catholics who are better able to “hate the sin and love the sinner.”

thuja on February 18, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Based on what? A petty vicious man?

Ever talk to the guy? Ever spend time in his parish? Diocese?

I’ve had the pleasure of having a beer and wurst with Bishop Joseph Ratzinger…and vicious? Never. Ever.

Caring? Concerned? Willing to go the extra mile? Always.

But don’t try to engage in sophomoric argumentation with him…most of his critics are way out of his league when it comes to Canon Law and Doctrinal matters.

coldwarrior on February 18, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 8