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
>If that was God's will.<
>>> Yeah, but until God starts paying my mortgage, I think I'll use a far more reliable method.
How do you know that God didn't facilitate the paying of your mortgage?
>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.<
>>> The Church cannot afford to house and feed all its followers, so see above as to why so many Catholics ignore the prohibition against birth control methods.
It's not the Church's responsibility to feed all it's followers, so see above as to the reality of being a member of the Church.
>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.<
>>> I think you misunderstand here. Let's assume I was a practicing Catholic. Let us also assume that having a baby would endanger my life (there are such conditions, let's not get bogged in researching which). The only Church approved method of preventing pregnancy would be to not have sex.
Not true. If any occurrence of pregnancy represented a perpetual threat to your health, the Church would support a medical procedure that would eliminate that danger, rather than subject your health to a literal "Sword of Damocles."
>>> If I were to get pregnant using NFP, the Church would not approve of an abortion but would allow treatment to be performed that might result in the death or severe injury of the fetus. Of course, few doctors are willing to take such risks because they know that parents of newborns LOVE to sue them for malpractice when their babies are born malformed or severely ill due to treatment.
The last time I checked, Church doctrine wasn't established for the a doctor's legal peace of mind. Still, the decision wouldn't be the doctor's, it would be the woman's, and so the fear of litigation for choosing that course of action would be relatively insignificant.
>Actually, the woman has three options...waiting...surgery...and chemical abortion. <
>>> I'm aware of that. I was discussing the Church's stance.
So was I.
>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."<
>>> Actually, only a certain sort of surgical intervention is permitted--that which removes the portion of the fallopian tube in which the obstruction occured. One cannot remove the z/e/f and repair the obstruction. They are VERY specific there, which is why I called it "butchering".
I didn't note the technical term used by the Church ws "butchering." In fact, if this eventuality were to occur, it's likely because the tube would have ruptured...i.e. "butchering" itself...requiring it's removal. As I mentioned, the Church's position is one of "intent." The Church would not object to any procedure or repair of the tube as long as the "intent" was not to abort the child.
>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.<
>>> I'm assuming you're for gun control?
It depends on what you mean by "gun control." Yes, I believe that every adult has the right to bear arms...reasonable arms...but that there should be a waiting period during which the individual is investigated.
>>> Because I recall that Conservative DO believe in teaching kids gun safety.
Sure...teach them gun safety...but do you think it's responsible to teach them gun safety and then let them run around with the gun?...especially when it's already been proven that "teaching gun safety" is incredibly unreliable and that there's a 5-15% chance that the safety would fail? I don't know about you, but I'm not very comfortable with that reasoning.
>>> But that isn't the debate here. You teach kids about birth control, etc., and do emphasize that abstinence is the most effective method of birth control. Telling them abstinence is the only way, and not telling them about the effective use of other methods of birth control, usually results in higher teen pregnancy rates (again, check out the teen pregnancy rates in the states that have adopted AOE.)
Again, and perhaps the most salient point, is that abstinence can't be taught in a vacuum. I agree that it's a philosophy destined to fail when liberals are actually promoting sexuality among teens, premarital sex and glorifying single-motherhood. It's tough to teach values and personal responsibility under that barrage of indoctrination and peer pressure.
>Lots of schools handing out condoms and promoting abortion when you were growing up in Georgia?<
>>> Nope. And 5 teens in my dinkly little 150 person graduating class had babies. Go figure.
Indicating what?
Well, 95-97% effectiveness
What's wrong with the horny? You do realize that many women can not have sex within a two week window without risking pregnancy?
NPF is a not birth control, it's Vatican roulette and it does strain just about all healthy sexual relationships.
>>> Thanks for chastising me on this, but as a disaffected Catholic (we do make the worst atheists don't ya know), I have read the entire New Testament.
Sorry, but you seemed to have a rather simplistic view of Jesus...similar to that most liberals seem to possess. The "Jesus" I was suggesting you look for won't necessarily be found in the Bible, but in other sources of "historical" investigation.
>>> I'm debating reading some of the Apocrypha as well, but worry that they might be even less reliable than the passed down writings of individuals who may or may not have known the man. (Keep in mind too that Paul NEVER met Christ, so his letters are not "original source material.")
The Apocrypha are interesting reading, but they are, according to the Church, unreliable...hence the name. Paul, however, is an "original source" just not one of the Jesus Apostles, and was perhaps the greatest influence on Christianity after Jesus. It's also somewhat untrue to say that Paul "NEVER met Christ," because Paul claims to have done just that in a revelation on the the road to Damascus.
>>> The works of the New Testament post Christ (Acts, the Letters) describes an apocalyptic church. They truly believed the world would end soon, and so many like Paul encouraged celibacy. Seriously, why encourage celibacy when effective practice would eliminate the potential for newborn church members? (And this isn't just my opinion--many religious scholars view the works of Paul in this way.)
The mission of the early Church was to "spread the word" not necessarily spawn believers, and while Paul seems to indicate that celibacy was a "spiritually higher" state, he also supported marriage and all that it entailed, only really encouraging celibacy for those outside the bonds of marriage.
>>> We shan't even get into the dichotomy between the present-day Church's treatment of women (based upon a few short writings of Paul) and the early Church and even the Gospels' addressing of Christ's involving women in his ministry.
The teachings of the Church regarding the role of women has been fairly consistent.
>>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. Cooperation about parts of a story with enough different to make it appear truely indepenedent.
And out come the tin-foil hats! LOL! Considering the reality of the early Church, what would have been the point?
>>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.<<
>>> And anyone whose shared memories of something which took place 20 to 40 years ago with someone else knows how easy it is to get things wrong -- or not.....but at that point no one really does know what is real and what is not.
But we're not talking about reminiscing at the Christmas party...we're talking about the continuous teaching of the word of God from Jesus, himself, during his lifetime and through the apostles thereafter. Evidence of a contiguous line of intact oral "teaching" can be found in many bardic traditions and in the Jewish inviolablity of the Tora.
>>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.<<
>>> I is rather rock and hard place. But the reasoning that as they felt he was messiah they'd keep careful and accurate records is simply justification.
Or the very reason that they kept careful and accurate records. It's the same reason that we have many of the words of histories great leaders and very few of histories farmers and street sweepers.
>>> As they believed him messiah they needed him to BE the Messiah -- which means his life had to fit prophecy.....whether it actually did or only did in their memory.
That's a circular game that pseudo-intellectuals play, but one that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. If you can prove your part of it then, by all means, do so. Folks have been trying for centuries.
>>> The most accurate scientific record keeping isn't done by scientists who are already sure what their conclusions will be. Its done by scientists who aren't.
Are we discussing global warming? LOL! The Apostles weren't "taking notes" in hopes of recreating an experiment to discover where they went wrong. They were hearing and preserving the word of God with the intention of spreading that word intact.
>>> There have been any number of books and television programs about Jesus's life. But as, thus far, they've been speculative, or based on the gospels....they suffer from the same problems already mentioned.
No, not really. Of course, the Gospels are one source of information, but archaeology and many other historical sources are also used to explain and expound upon what we find in the Gospels.
>>> I think the closest we'll come to the unvarnished Jesus lies in the world Preistly did, and Jefferson follow up upon -- remove the supernatural from the gospels, look for where the gospels tell similar stories -- you've probably found a kernal of what Jesus's actual life and works were like.
You can't remove the supernatural from God.
>>> Those of my faith tend to be quite interested in and moved by the teachings of Jesus, but as we don't consider Jesus divine, or belief in him a necessary part of our faith, his actual existance is rather irrelevant.
Well, I hate to break it to you, but while many millions agree with your perception of the divinity of Jesus, his actual existence irrevocably altered the world forever, which makes it kind of relevant.
>>> Having no predisposition to believe or disbelieve in his actual existance our bar for evidence is higher than it might be for those who have a vested interest in proving he lived (and more importantly I suppose, that he died)
You're in the minority. Most people in the world, including scholars and historians, accept the existence of Jesus as a historical fact.
How great that it works for you.
I think that most people who really want to practice this kind of BC and be successful would be able to control themselves.... "I'm just too horny" isn't a good excuse if you really can't have or don't want to have another baby yet want to use NFP for their preferred BC method.
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(
Pages