Pelosi on Gosnell, late-term abortion, and faith: This is sacred ground to me

posted at 3:21 pm on June 13, 2013 by Allahpundit

An instant classic from John McCormack. John thinks her “sacred ground” comment at the end is a reference to late-term abortion; I think he’s giving her too much credit in assuming that she’s making a coherent, if reprehensible, point. This looks to me like she was caught completely off-guard by the question and was scrambling to get away from it, which is surprising given that just yesterday a House committee approved Trent Franks’s bill banning most abortions nationwide after 22 weeks. Last month Pelosi called the facts of the Gosnell case “really disgusting” while remaining vague about precisely which parts of it disgusted her and which parts were kinda sorta acceptable. Was it the filthy conditions at Gosnell’s clinic that endangered his patients’ health that appalled her, or was it Gosnell slicing the spines of live-born babies and then dumping the remains into shoeboxes and toilets? The ideal answer is “both.” Is that Pelosi’s answer?

Watch the clip. If what Gosnell did to late-term fetuses was so disgusting, why isn’t a ban on abortion after 22 weeks okay? An honest answer would be that she has no real objection to what he did to the babies, only to the unsanitary way in which he practiced. A slightly more politic answer would be that she objects to killing the babies if they somehow emerge alive after the initial abortion attempt, but that would open up a can of worms — why is death in the womb by poison okay but not death by scalpel 10 minutes and 10 inches of physical space later? If Gosnell had sliced their spines while inside the womb, would that be okay? Why does the method of death change the morality of the act? Is she making some sort of “cruel and unusual punishment” distinction for different forms of infanticide? Pelosi doesn’t want to have to deal with any of that, and she really doesn’t want to see headlines tomorrow with her name and Gosnell’s side by side, so here she is running away from the question as fast as she can. The bit about “sacred ground” at the end, I think, isn’t a specific reference to anything; it’s just her way of invoking her faith vis-a-vis life issues so that she can claim the question is offensive to her religion or something and therefore she doesn’t have to answer. She’s dodging by any means necessary because, unlike all but the most hardcore abortion warriors, she won’t defend her policy preference here honestly and without euphemisms.

Exit question for Pelosi-watchers: Is there any policy subject on which she thinks the Democratic agenda conflicts with Catholic teachings? It’d be one thing if she said yeah, there’s tension on some issues, but as a public servant she needs to do what she thinks is best for the country rather than what her faith says. But the “sacred ground” bit at the end here does, a la McCormack, carry a hint that it’s somehow offensive to her as a Catholic to ask her to back a bill that bans late-term abortion(!). Nor is that the first time that she’s invoked the Church as a defense to a policy that the Church itself opposes. When the contraception mandate from HHS came down, she emphasized that she was sticking with her fellow Catholics in supporting it, the view of the Church’s hierarchy notwithstanding, and dismissed the lawsuits by a group of U.S. Catholic bishops as being not really important because, after all, the Pope hasn’t spoken ex cathedra on the subject. If she wants to jettison her religion in crafting policy, it’s fine by this atheist, but then let’s lay off the “sacred ground” garbage, okay?

Update: People on Twitter are asking a good question: Why is there so much laughter from the press corps after Pelosi dodges McCormack by accusing him of having an agenda?

Update: Commenter “RadClown” says this is basically the “Chewbacca defense” to late-term abortion. Bingo.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

wren on June 13, 2013 at 4:34 PM

The archbishop and a number of others need to think long and hard on St. John Chrysostom’s warning, “Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”

pannw on June 13, 2013 at 4:50 PM

I’m curious. Does she actually attend worship services anywhere and receive communion? Is there any evidence?I always thought of her as a nominal Catholic only to get the vote of other nominal Catholics.

I know for sure she only worships at the altar of secular BigGov, her true religion.

hawkeye54 on June 13, 2013 at 4:01 PM

As of 2008, Nancy Pelosi is confirmed to be a “part-time member” of St. Helena Catholic Church, part of the Diocese of Santa Rosa, near one of her other homes.

Monsignor John Brenkle, pastor of St. Helena Catholic Church, part of the Diocese of Santa Rosa, is scheduled to join the winners at the Pelosi dinner.

Brenkle: “No, but you put up with the imperfections of politicians. Nobody is perfect.”

California Catholic Daily: “Have you met Nancy Pelosi?”

Brenkle: “She’s a part-time member of our parish.”

California Catholic Daily: “Have you ever discussed her positions on abortion and homosexual marriage with her?”

Brenkle: “I have not had an opportunity to do so.”

California Catholic Daily: “Do you allow her to come to Holy Communion after the Church has taught that manifest public sinners who are unrepentant are to be denied Holy Communion?”

Brenkle: “The Church has never taught that.”

California Catholic Daily: “I think the Archbishop of St. Louis would disagree — and he’s a canon lawyer.”

Brenkle: “Yeah, well I happen to be a canon lawyer too, y’know, and I think the bishops who said that are in a very minority position.”

California Catholic Daily: “Is that how we decide truth? Even our Holy Father has said that truth is not determined by majority opinion.”

Brenkle: “You sound like somebody who, at the time of Jesus, would have said, ‘Why is he sitting and eating with these public sinners?’”

California Catholic Daily: “Hopefully to convert them. Do you plan on doing anything to try to convert Nancy Pelosi?”

Brenkle: “I’m certainly not going to convert her, but I certainly will have an opportunity to talk with her as I had an opportunity to talk with our own congressman here, Mike Thompson.”

California Catholic Daily: “Do you plan on discussing any of these issues with her?”

Brenkle: “I’m going to look for that opportunity. I’ve only met her outside of Church for about two minutes. I’m not about to refuse her Communion, because if I did that, I’d have to take a litmus test on everybody. We have people there that are totally against immigrants and all this stuff…”

California Catholic Daily: “But how many of them are people that take a public stance, seen by the entire free world, supporting the infanticide of children? There have been over 40 million children killed by abortion.”

Brenkle: “I think you have my take on this and it’s been good talking to you.”

Then he hung up on me. He obviously was not used to being challenged and he didn’t like it one bit. I can’t say he was especially polite either.

http://www.catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=47518

wren on June 13, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Cleombrotus on June 13, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Yeah. And God doesn’t expect perfection and he forgives pretty readily. See the Apostles. Peter was quite a piece of work and Jesus put him in charge.

Illinidiva on June 13, 2013 at 4:55 PM

I belong to a church that belongs to Presbyterian Church in America, a decidedly conservative church which has rejected the revisionist teachings of PCUSA.

simkeith on June 13, 2013 at 4:05 PM

I was posting slightly in jest. I’m one of those evil PCUSA guys. I’m even a member of the Session at my church. I’m also one of those conservative guys who are fighting the good fight within what is an intolerablly liberal national organization. I’m the one that raises my hand and asks why we are approving the baptism of an unmarried couple (non-members/ never attended services) who want to have their child baptised before heading off to a new job in Houston. Short answer is a Catholic grandmother. The larger point is that Presbyterians don’t ascribe to the consequences of not being baptism that Catholics have. I wasn’t sure why Session was even considering the motion. Where I had the most problem is having to promise that we as a Christian community would help nurturing the faith of a child by non-members soon to be relocating.

I don’t think any church should be calling for boycotts or encouraging illegal immigration and it disgusts me. But there is nothing within the faith to not take a stand on issues- I just think the PCUSA’s liberal bias causes it to pick the wrong issues to focus on. I’d be happier if they spent time focusing on Christian persecution around the world than where Taco Bell gets its lettuce or where Israel gets its earthmoving vehicles.

That being said, and I don’t mean to be offensive, I also have a problem with the idea that only males can be ordained. So where PCUSA may be too liberal at the national level. I think conservative branches of the denomination loosely called Presbyterian also should do some self-examination.

Happy Nomad on June 13, 2013 at 5:02 PM

thujackass approves

davidk on June 13, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Why she hasn’t been excommunicated is beyond me…

CapnObvious on June 13, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Yeah. And God doesn’t expect perfection and he forgives pretty readily. See the Apostles. Peter was quite a piece of work and Jesus put him in charge.

Illinidiva on June 13, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Thank God for that, huh?

Cleombrotus on June 13, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Ed, why does excommunication exist if not for people like Pelosi?

29Victor on June 13, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Then the body who elected Pope Francis would not have been convened. Surely Cardinal Mahony and other pedo-protectors deserve excommunication.

That bit of hypocrisy won’t resonate with the most devout hypocritical.

Capitalist Hog on June 13, 2013 at 5:19 PM

wren on June 13, 2013 at 4:50 PM

It’s chuckleheads like that priest that make me glad I left the Church. I can live a good life following Christ’s teachings. I don’t need hypocrites like him to lecture me.

Biden, Pelosi, Sebelius. They should be ashamed of themselves for referring to themselves as Catholics. I despised people like that when I did attend Church.

NavyMustang on June 13, 2013 at 5:23 PM

I despised people…

NavyMustang on June 13, 2013 at 5:23 PM

How Christian.

Capitalist Hog on June 13, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Sacred ground to some is a mud pit to others. She has lost a good degree of perspective.

jake49 on June 13, 2013 at 5:31 PM

How Christian.

Capitalist Hog on June 13, 2013 at 5:24 PM

But Jehu the son of Hana’ni the seer went out to meet him, and said to King Jehosh’aphat, “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD? Because of this, wrath has gone out against you from the LORD.

2 Chron. 19:2

Do I not hate them that hate thee, O LORD?
And do I not loathe them that rise up against thee?
I hate them with perfect hatred;
I count them my enemies.

Psalms 139: 21-22

Quiet, goofball.

Cleombrotus on June 13, 2013 at 5:40 PM

That bit of hypocrisy won’t resonate with the most devout hypocritical.

Capitalist Hog on June 13, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Weak argument .

You’re lame as usual.

CW on June 13, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Capitalist Hog seriously, you are one just nasty lowlife. You provide so little in a positive way and your debate tactics are simply dishonest. You’re just another sad little twit that comes here to be nasty because your life is so lacking in meaning.

CW on June 13, 2013 at 5:50 PM

The only thing that b…. is ‘disgusted’ about is the fact Gosnell got caught.

GarandFan on June 13, 2013 at 5:55 PM

I think that one has to do quite a bit more than what Pelosi does to end up in Hell.

Illinidiva on June 13, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Hardly.

Facilitating, condoning and even encouraging the murder of unborn (and evidently, born) infants.
Sounds pretty damnation-worthy to me.
(But then, perhaps God is a nicer, more forgiving guy than I am)

Solaratov on June 13, 2013 at 6:00 PM

The only thing that Pelosi and Catholicism have in common is that they both start with the letter “C”.

*slow clap*

Exceedingly well played.

mrsknightley on June 13, 2013 at 6:02 PM

It’s chuckleheads like that priest that make me glad I left the Church. I can live a good life following Christ’s teachings. I don’t need hypocrites like him to lecture me.

NavyMustang on June 13, 2013 at 5:23 PM

But are you following His teachings if you reject His Church, which He founded upon the rock of Peter, or if you do not do the things He specifically said to do?

And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. (The Eucharist) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

And He meant it, literally, which is why many of his disciples said, “this is a hard saying, who can hear it?” and walked with him no more… And He let them go with out elaborating if He meant it was metaphorical or something. He meant what He said, which is why St. Paul said, “Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.” And, “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.”

And to the authority of the Church, He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.

When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. (confession) (And the apostles taught that we must confess.)

And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: …Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you

And they did…

On the Lord’s Day of the Lord come together, break bread and hold Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions that your offering may be pure; But let none who has a quarrel with his fellow join in your meeting until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not defiled. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord, “In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great king,” saith the Lord, “and my name is wonderful among the heathen.” ~The Didache, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, c. 60 A.D.

Jesus built His Church deliberately, with a hierarchy, Peter at the top charged to, “Feed my sheep,” and giving to Simon Peter alone the keys to the kingdom, the power and authority: 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 upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” He instituted the sacraments that we require for our salvation. He did everything for a reason. “I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail.”

As to the hypocrites…Jesus Himself chose Judas. Is that a reason to reject His authority? I don’t think so, nor will I reject the authority He gave to His Church because some of them are hypocrites and heretics. I pray you will reconsider your position.

Peace.

pannw on June 13, 2013 at 6:24 PM

This just gets more absurd the longer it goes on.

The article speaks well of the issue but only serves to reiterate all the reasons these arguments are nonsensical on their face. “Viable” is highly subjective to say the least, and “born alive” is a technicality of location. Neither of them have anything to do with the true humanity of the baby.

Because they know the instant we’re talking about a baby, they lose the argument.

The Schaef on June 13, 2013 at 6:43 PM

I was posting slightly in jest. I’m one of those evil PCUSA guys. I’m even a member of the Session at my church. I’m also one of those conservative guys who are fighting the good fight within what is an intolerablly liberal national organization. I’m the one that raises my hand and asks why we are approving the baptism of an unmarried couple (non-members/ never attended services) who want to have their child baptised before heading off to a new job in Houston. Short answer is a Catholic grandmother. The larger point is that Presbyterians don’t ascribe to the consequences of not being baptism that Catholics have. I wasn’t sure why Session was even considering the motion. Where I had the most problem is having to promise that we as a Christian community would help nurturing the faith of a child by non-members soon to be relocating.

I don’t think any church should be calling for boycotts or encouraging illegal immigration and it disgusts me. But there is nothing within the faith to not take a stand on issues- I just think the PCUSA’s liberal bias causes it to pick the wrong issues to focus on. I’d be happier if they spent time focusing on Christian persecution around the world than where Taco Bell gets its lettuce or where Israel gets its earthmoving vehicles.

That being said, and I don’t mean to be offensive, I also have a problem with the idea that only males can be ordained. So where PCUSA may be too liberal at the national level. I think conservative branches of the denomination loosely called Presbyterian also should do some self-examination.

Happy Nomad on June 13, 2013 at 5:02 PM

PCUSA elder here, too, and right in there with you. Keep it up, Nomad!

dave80 on June 13, 2013 at 6:50 PM

According to Wikipedia, Pelosi is “the youngest of six children of Annunciata M. “Nancy” (née Lombardi)”. So she gets her name from her mother, and it is a derivative of the name “Annunciata”. I had never heard of this name, so I looked it up.

“Annunciata \a-nnuncia-ta, ann(un)-ciata\ as a girl’s name is of Italian origin, and the meaning of Annunciata is “announcement, notice”. Allusion to the Annunciation, when the Virgin Mary learned she would be Jesus’ mother. ” This is referenced in Luke 1:26-38. Thus begins our Scripture reading for today.

“And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”

“Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.”

So one of the nation’s most psychotically aggressive abortion supporters is named after the announcement of the conception of the Savior of the World. The irony would make Alanis Morissette smile.

Nancy Pelosi proves that it is possible for one person’s “sacred ground” to be God’s cesspool.

jmad on June 13, 2013 at 6:56 PM

The only question I have is how long will the chastisement take to build up to full force, because I have no doubt that it has begun, clearly from one look at the Drudge Report. Open your eyes atheists and secularists. It’s coming whether you would believe or not.

Please hear my prayer, God, and have mercy, especially on my children.

pannw on June 13, 2013 at 4:34 PM

I agree. And good prayer.

I just read through the book of Jeremiah.

davidk on June 13, 2013 at 7:10 PM

I’ve been praying that prophetic voices would begin to speak. I am seeing it.

davidk on June 13, 2013 at 7:12 PM

Yes, the reporter does have an agenda, forcing a politician to explain her positions and the morality behind them. Does not she appeal to morality often? She did it with the stimulus, the extension of unemployment benefits, Obamacare, etc. Now the reporter is just asking for her to use the same morality to justify her positions on abortion. The fact she refuses says a lot about it.

ojfltx on June 13, 2013 at 8:48 PM

she’s evil ..pure evil….so what does that say about the people that elected her.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on June 13, 2013 at 8:53 PM

What a vile, depraved human being Nancy Pelosi is..it’s heard even to call her human

sadsushi on June 13, 2013 at 8:58 PM

I pray that someday, somehow, the tide will turn and the scientific evidence that shows that a fetus is a child is a human being, will convince all thinking members of our society that the practice of late term abortion is murder regardless of who engages in it. Then, maybe, just maybe, the unyielding modern day proponents of this horrific procedure, such as Ms. Pelosi, will be tried, convicted and justly punished for their crimes against humanity.

In the meantime, those of use on the right side of this issue must continue the fight for change knowing that, in all likelihood, the slaughter will not end in our lifetime.

lonestarleeroy on June 14, 2013 at 12:10 AM

But are you following His teachings if you reject His Church, which He founded upon the rock of Peter, or if you do not do the things He specifically said to do?

The church is built on the foundation of Jesus Christ, as Peter himself says in scripture, in 1 Peter 2:4-8. And as Paul affirms in Eph 2:20, “[ye] .. are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” Peter, as an apostle, was in the foundation of the church, but he himself says that the church is built on Jesus Christ.

Besides that, there is no place in Scripture where one church has any hierarchy over another church, or where one bishop has hierarchy over another. The closest you get to that is when Paul tells the Ephesians that they became followers of the churches in Judea, which were of course the first churches, and therefore quite naturally the ones that the later churches would follow.

Not that it matters, because there is no record of Peter ever going to Rome, much less becoming the bishop of Rome, much less of other churches submitting to the bishop of Rome. So the whole foundation of the claim for the Bishop of Rome being the Pope is spurious.

And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. (The Eucharist) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

And He meant it, literally, which is why many of his disciples said, “this is a hard saying, who can hear it?” and walked with him no more… And He let them go with out elaborating if He meant it was metaphorical or something. He meant what He said, which is why St. Paul said, “Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.” And, “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.”

It’s a hard saying, all right, because certain people insisted on taking it literally. Was it meant literally when Jesus said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up?” Of course not, for two verse later it says, “But he spake of the temple of his body.”

And what did the verse between those two say? It reports that some of the Jews who heard Jesus make the remark about building the temple in three days took it literally rather than metaphorically.

All this is in John 2:19-21. Jesus often spoke metaphorically. At various times in the Gospel of John alone, Jesus says “I am the Light of the World,” “… the “Bread of Life,”, ” … the Good Shepherd,”, and “… the True Vine.” In fact, on the same night that He died, the disciples said to him, “Now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.” The clear implication is that he often spoke allegorically or metaphorically, as we have seen.

There is no reason then to believe that Jesus was speaking anything but metaphorically when He said that people would eat His flesh and drink His blood.

Catholic doctrine is often radically different from Bible doctrine because it is not based on the Bible alone, but also on their “tradition,” the teachings of some early Church fathers, and various statements by church councils and ex cathedra pronouncements from various Popes.

There’s a reason the Protestant Reformation often used the slogan Sola Scriptura, or “Scripture Alone.”

So no, following the teachings of Christ does not require being a member of the Catholic Church.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 14, 2013 at 1:41 AM

Way to get up on the big board, RadClown.

John the Libertarian on June 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM

I just noticed that, and am truly honored.

RadClown on June 14, 2013 at 8:57 AM

Comment pages: 1 2