Pelosi gets spanked by the Pope
Find a Conversation
| 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
Why not? It's a legal contract. Should we be able to dissolve legal contracts on a whim?
Divorce, yes. No two people should be intimately bound to one another outside of business doings without their initial and continuing consent.
They don't have to...but in refusing to participate in the contractual obligation, the contract should be broken, which is the Church's position and, I believe society's as a whole.
Interesting that you support this but not the one above. I have no issue with the latter, but it would be rendered moot if a reason for divorce was unnecessary.
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
"You think you know, sir!" ~ Cornflake Girl ~ Tori Amos.
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
Okay, I was getting confused, thinking that if using NFP had a failure rate of 25% and a person's chance of getting pregnant when not on birth control is about 25%, then NFP would be the same as not using birth control, so why even bother.
>>It would probably help if you did some actual research into who Jesus was and what he said instead of depending on some liberal comic book stereotype<<
>>> There are 4 non-independent sources of information about who Jesus was and what he said.
It's precisely this "non-independence" that adds to the veracity of the content because it points to even earlier sources, perhaps including writings collected during Jesus' lifetime.
>>> All were written after his death, some quite a while after his death.
The dates are debatable, but generally speaking, within living memory, probably within 20-40 years after Jesus' death. But this dating only relates to the actual Gospels, not to the sources from which they were derived, which were much earlier...which, again, adds to their veracity.
>>> All were written by people who revered Jesus as a God, and therefore can't be considered unbiased sources of information. Other than that we have accounts based on those accounts.
Kind of a rock and a hard place with that one. After all, who, other than a follower of Jesus who considered him to be a messiah, would have been bothered to keep track of what Jesus said and did? But it's precisely that perception of Jesus as the messiah that would compel his apostles to keep and accurate record.
>>> Where would you suggest one look for unbiased accounts of who Jesus was and what he said?
There are many sources...I've already provided a few, but seeking out some of the many who are less concerned with Jesus' "message" and more with his "life and times" would be a good place to start and provide some interesting reading. There have also been several television programs to deal with Jesus in this "light."
>>It's precisely this "non-independence" that adds to the veracity of the content because it points to even earlier sources, perhaps including writings collected during Jesus' lifetime.<<
Or...it points to collusion.
ITA! This is the crux of it to me. We have separation and state in this country for a reason. To keep religious leaders such as the Pope or any other major religious leader from taking over our country through blackmailing our gov't reps to force them to work toward a religious takeover of our gov't. Ultimatums to do what the Pope tells you as a gov't representative and using excommunication as a threat to me equates to an attempt to take over our gov't. Our country is not an arm of ANY religion, and should never be. That would shatter the foundations of freedom of our country. No religion has a right to take over our gov't and its laws and enslave every citizen to live according to it's beliefs and doctrine. To me that is the crux of this whole debate so far. Taking over our gov't through our gov't representatives. It is a dangerous concept to all the people of this country that twisting around the backside of religious freedom is even remotely acceptable or even in the same ballpark as exercising personal religious freedom. The exercise of one person's religious freedom CANNOT negate another's. And taking over the gov't and our laws would do just that. Take a look at the ugliness and corruption when gov't & religion are in bed together: the Inquisition and modern day Taliban. Do we want such a thing to happen in our country?! :O I don't think so!
Blessings,
Gypsy
"What is life? It is the flash of a firefly in the night.
It is the breath of a buffalo in the wintertime.
It is the little shadow which runs across the grass
and loses itself in the sunset.
- Crowfoot, Blackfoot warrior and orator
Dog fighting is cruelty, which is a human activity and a human illness.
It's not the dog's fault.
All dogs need to be evaluated as individuals."
--Tim Racer, one of BAD RAP's founders
http://www.badrap.org/rescue/
Mika Dog
"All things share the same breath;
the beast, the tree, the man.
The Air shares its spirit with
all the life it supports."
--Chief Seattle
"If there are no dogs in Heaven,
then when I die I want to go where they went."
~Will Rogers
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress
can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
~~Mahatma Gandhi
Blessings,
Gypsy
)O(
Blessings,
Gypsy
"What is life? It is the flash of a firefly in the night.
It is the breath of a buffalo in the wintertime.
It is the little shadow which runs across the grass
and loses itself in the sunset.
- Crowfoot, Blackfoot warrior and orator
Dog fighting is cruelty, which is a human activity and a human illness.
It's not the dog's fault.
All dogs need to be evaluated as individuals."
--Tim Racer, one of BAD RAP's founders
http://www.badrap.org/rescue/
Mika Dog
"All things share the same breath;
the beast, the tree, the man.
The Air shares its spirit with
all the life it supports."
--Chief Seattle
"If there are no dogs in Heaven,
then when I die I want to go where they went."
~Will Rogers
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress
can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
~~Mahatma Gandhi
Blessings,
Gypsy
)O(
<< Why not? It's a legal contract. Should we be able to dissolve legal contracts on a whim?
>>> Divorce, yes. No two people should be intimately bound to one another outside of business doings without their initial and continuing consent.
Why is "outside of business dealings" your criteria? In marriage, like business, promises were made...expectations and obligations were established. The conduct of a marriage can easily be described as "business-like" in many aspects...as is the dispersal of accumulated wealth during the period of the contract.
<< They don't have to...but in refusing to participate in the contractual obligation, the contract should be broken, which is the Church's position and, I believe society's as a whole.
>>> Interesting that you support this but not the one above. I have no issue with the latter, but it would be rendered moot if a reason for divorce was unnecessary.
Actually, I'm just arguing a point...I support almost instantaneous divorce for any reason at all.
Whew!
Pages