Pelosi gets spanked by the Pope

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-12-2009
Pelosi gets spanked by the Pope
380
Wed, 02-18-2009 - 6:45pm

Pelosi, Pope Have No Meeting of the Minds
It would appear from the two statements issued by the Vatican and the speaker's office that Nancy Pelosi and Pope Benedict did not share the same views during her audience with the pontiff.

.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican Wednesday morning, but may not have had a meeting of the minds if the two statements from their offices are any indication.

No journalists were at the 15-minute encounter and the Vatican and the speaker's offices have not released any photos. However, according to their statements it appears the pope and the politician attended two different get-togethers.

"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 enjoins 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 Vatican wrote, having released the statement moments before the two met.

Several hours later, Pelosi's office gave her take on the tete-a-tete.

"It is with great joy that my husband, Paul, and I met with his Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI today," Pelosi said in a statement released hours after the meeting. "In our conversation, I had the opportunity to praise the Church's leadership in fighting poverty, hunger and global warming, as well as the Holy Father's dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel. I was proud to show his Holiness a photograph of my family's papal visit in the 1950s, as well as a recent picture of our children and grandchildren."

The pontiff has a long history of urging Catholic politicians to toe the line on abortion, and has said that those who don't shouldn't take communion. Pelosi supports abortion rights and says she's never been denied communion at her church in San Francisco.

In 2002, the Vatican issued a doctrinal note on "The Participation of Catholics in Political Life," which states rather succinctly that politicians who profess to be Catholic have a "grave and clear obligation" to oppose any law that attacks human life.

That note was approved by John Paul II but signed by none other than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. He's now the pope.

The speaker does not share that belief, and even got into a verbal slugfest with American bishops last August after her statements on a news program about the Church's view of when life begins.

"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 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," she said at the time on NBC's "Meet the Press."

She then added that the Church has only held the view for 50 years or so that life begins at conception. The remarks earned her widespread corrections by Catholic clerics.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/18/pelosi-pope-meeting-minds/

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-12-2009
Sat, 02-21-2009 - 4:35pm

>Who says you can't have sex? The Church advocates something akin to "the rhythm method." It just doesn't advocate killing a child should your plans be inconvenienced.<

>>> There's an old joke that I'll paraphrase here for you: What do you call a couple who uses NFP (Natural Family Planning, the only Church sanctioned method of birth control) as their sole means of birth control? Parents.

If that was God's will.

>>> So those couples who wish to keep their family size to a manageable level who want to stick with Church teachings really only have the choice of abstinence. Like I've said on another board, those women who have irregular cycles are not good candidates for effective NFP, unless by effective you mean "is frequently pregnant."

The Church doesn't bend to individual convenience. The law is the law and people are free to choose to sin or not and deal with the consequences.

>It just doesn't advocate killing a child should your plans be inconvenienced.<

>>> Actually, the Church doesn't advocate using the most effective means of preventing pregnancy, INCLUDING surgical intervention (unless said surgery is being done for other health reasons unrelated to fertility--for example having an hysterectomy due to uterine cancer) even if pregnancy would endanger the health of the mother.

That's a contradiction. If a pregnancy endangered the health of the mother then the surgery would be done for "health reasons." The Church doesn't oppose medical intervention conducted for the health of the individual.

Here, you'll see that the UMPC, a Catholic Hospital, does perform hysterectomies for a variety of reasons...

http://www.upmc.com/HealthAtoZ/Pages/HealthLibrary.aspx?chunkiid=14823

As a Catholic hospital, UPMC Mercy abides by the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, as determined by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. As such, UPMC Mercy neither endorses nor provides medical practices and/or procedures that contradict the moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

>>> Furthermore, the Church's stance on what to do about an ectopic pregnancy is almost inhumane. (Wait as long as you can, and if it doesn't resolve itself through miscarriage, butcher the woman's fallopian tubes.)

Actually, the woman has three options...waiting...surgery...and chemical abortion. The first is to wait and see if the ectopic pregnancy resolves itself via miscarriage. As long as the woman's life isn't in danger, then this is the prudent course of action. The Second, would be utilized if the woman's life is in danger and then surgery is performed to save the life of the woman. Unfortunately, the baby is also lost with this procedure, but as the "intent" was not to kill the baby then it remains a "moral choice." The third choice...chemical abortion...is not a available to Catholics because the "intent" is to kill the baby, making it an immoral choice.

>Because liberals glorify single-motherhood and support abortion over personal responsibility and character.<

>>> Huh? Teaching kids that if you have sex you should use protection is teaching kids not to take personal responsibility?

Handing a kid a gun, as long as you've taught him how to put the bullets in and where the safety is, is not teaching personal responsibility? The "personal responsibility" doesn't come after parents and society have thrown up their hands and say, "well, as long as you're going to do it, let me help you mitigate the dangers with education you'll probably ignore and birth control you probably won't use." Good liberal thinking.

Hmmm...how about teaching "personal responsibility" like "this can hurt your life...don't do it." "Have some respect for yourself and exercise self-control." How about setting up a support system with parents, school and society at large so that kids are taught values and self-worth and aren't ostracized and put under enormous peer pressure because "everyone's doing it"...and because the left "glorifies" single motherhood and supports abortion as a method of birth control?

>>> Encouraging young pregnant girls to carry babies to term and then end up as single parents isn't glorifying single-motherhood? Not the way I saw it growing up in Georgia, let me tell you.

Lots of schools handing out condoms and promoting abortion when you were growing up in Georgia?

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-14-2008
Sat, 02-21-2009 - 5:57pm

Are you talking about charting, using temperature?

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-10-2006
Sat, 02-21-2009 - 9:47pm
LOL...LOL.... I can't believe you just made me blush like that!

 


 


 


iVillage Member
Registered: 11-10-2006
Sat, 02-21-2009 - 10:01pm

Are you talking about charting, using temperature?

 


 


 


iVillage Member
Registered: 11-14-2008
Sat, 02-21-2009 - 10:05pm

I'll just say that I'm glad I never had to depend on that for birth control, and now I don't need to worry about it at all, lol!

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-10-2006
Sat, 02-21-2009 - 10:37pm

:oP


Don't you just wish there was something (other than snip snip) that the guy could do... like.. um... take his temp, tie it up, and check his own damn mucus?


 


 


 


iVillage Member
Registered: 11-14-2008
Sat, 02-21-2009 - 11:13pm
ROFLMAO!
Avatar for claddagh49
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2004
Sun, 02-22-2009 - 8:43am
LMAO! You are so funny Laura! Well, I took the pill for awhile and then got an IUD. What was then called a copper-7.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-25-2008
Sun, 02-22-2009 - 9:04am

It depends upon the period of time that "no" becomes the mantra. The Church says that separation is a sin unless certain specific criteria are met, and it can be justification for annulment of the marriage as well as a legitimate cause for civil divorce. So women...have a "headache" at your own peril.


I understand that say... refusing sex long term or perhaps permanently is grounds for divorce legally, but then we should not be requiring reasons for divorce, anyway.


Human beings should have the right to not allow access to their body, period, and anything that contradicts that is not sound social policy.



Full length fiction: http://llhaesa.org/ pronounced la.hay.ess.sa


http://refractivethoughts.org/


"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson


"You think you know, sir!" ~ Cornflake Girl ~ Tori Amos.




Edited 2/22/2009 9:30 am ET by cl-llhaesa

Full length fiction: worlds undone

"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson

Avatar for claddagh49
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2004
Sun, 02-22-2009 - 9:25am
I have a friend who is Catholic and divorced twice. The first ended in divorce because her husband didn't want any children, and she did! He promised her after she put him through Chiropractic school, they would start a family, she was 31 when she married the first time. She was 35 when she divorced. She married another guy when she was 42. she had then about given up having children. This man was a weirdo. She thought he was such a Gentleman not begging for sex before then were engaged, then it was infrequent at best. They got married, on their honeymoon in the Bahammas, he called home to his Mom every day! She found out too late he wasn't into sex really, at least not with woman, so consequently, they divorced. Both times the Church granted without any problems.

Pages