Day 4 of Pelosi-Gate: Reactions

American Papist ^ | August 27, 2008 | Thomas Peters

[NYer]

Here is the short n' sweet of what people are saying today about Pelosi-Gate...

Obama's camp is more than annoyed with Pelosi, as The American Spectator has found out:

"It's like 'Thanks, madam speaker, you've done quite enough. Please move along,'" says one Obama adviser. "She got us stuck on three different issues that we wanted no part of. She's no master strategist, no matter what she may believe. You may see more of her, but if her mouth is open, what comes out won't be anything that our campaign wants anything to do with."

Kathleen Parker, writing an editorial for the Chicago Tribune, re-notes the obvious:

In other words, human life begins at conception.That is not a religious posture, but a scientific fact that the lowest paid laborer on the planet can assert without qualm. What we do with that understanding is another matter, but no one should pretend not to know when human life begins. On this matter at least, the church and science are in agreement.

In local DC reporting, surprise that the Church heirarchy has been so vocal:

... the bishops' emphatic response to Pelosi's statements this week shows that they are willing to speak out when the church's teachings are challenged publicly by high-profile Catholics, according to the very Rev. David M. O'Connell, president of Catholic University of America.

For conservative Catholic groups, the fact that Wuerl weighed in on the controversy was welcome news. (WaPo)

Over at American Thinker, C. Edmund Wright applauds Cardinal Egan for changing the abortion debate:

... not a single word of scripture in the statement. No threats about God's retribution. No mention of anything religious really. It was simply a man of God using reason wisely. Much like the Apostle Paul, who used logic and reason to debate the Athenians (Acts 17) about Biblical truth, Cardinal Egan was aware of his audience and his stage and he was indeed "all things to all people, so that by all means (he) might win some" (1 Corinthians 9).

If much of the evangelical pro-life movement would take His Emminence's lead, some real traction can be made on this issue.

Wright raises an interesting point that deserves comment: Cardinal Egan was not necessarily teaching Church Doctrine, rather, he was witnessing to common sense. Pelosi's comments in fact violated both.

Of course, over at the Los Angeles Times, Tim Rutten brings out the old claim that the reaction of the bishops is simply politics. In his words: "All this conservative crosier waving is about a simple set of numbers." He means registered Catholic voter statistics.

But even Rutten has to admit that Pelosi was out to lunch:

"Pelosi, who described herself as an "ardent practicing Catholic," gave a response that was not only incoherent but managed to get wrong virtually every fact that might have buttressed her pro-choice position."

On other points, Rutten clearly hasn't gotten the memo:

If Pelosi had half a wit about her, she might have done what most U.S. Catholics instinctively do, which is to rely on a tradition of moral reasoning that stands athwart Chaput's novel reductionism.

Remember when I predicted that some would try to marginalize Chaput's statement as his personal opinion, and that was why it was so welcome to see so many American bishops issue statements of their own?

Here's why exactly: Rutten now has to claim that "Chaput's novel reductionism" is a fault shared by the majority of the prominent American bishops, not just one lone prelate with a political program to push.

Plus Tim Rutten is just plain wrong: all traditions of moral reasoning are not equal, and certainly the 20th century Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray (whom Rutten cites) is not a magisterium unto himself.

Geez Tim ... way to "pull a Pelosi."

[NYer]

Day 4 ping!

[Mrs. Don-o]

BUMPBUMPBUMPBUMPBUMPbump

[WOBBLY BOB]

not sure why if we can determine when life ceases (by brain wave activity) and use that to declare someone medically dead, the same standard can’t be used to say when life begins.

sounds like Egan is a common sense guy.

[NTHockey]

>>way to “pull a Pelosi.”<<

Do we have another term to rival “Borked” or Nifonged”?

May I be the first to offer a definition: “pull a Pelosi” - to do or say something that offends everybody. Likely followed by “(the person) has become nuclear”.

[maryz]

Chaput's novel reductionism

Huh? Either Rutten or I don't know what "reductionism" means, and my money's on Rutten! ;-)

[Bloodclot]

". . . but if her mouth is open, what comes out won't be anything that our campaign wants anything to do with."

Can't that be said of BO as well?

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Cover up for holding up oil exploration while
investing money in the fraud of wind mills.

[GloriaJane]

"pull a Pelosi."

I love it! New term for doing anything stupid. "Pulled a pelosi" LOL!

[Jaded]

If much of the evangelical pro-life movement would take His Emminence's lead, some real traction can be made on this issue.

Unfortunately, like some here, they won't bother getting involved because it involves Catholics. Aside from that, the Evangelical ministers are afraid that if they make a statement people will quit tithing. That's what has happened with support for the Life Chain in our community.

[bestintxas]

I woke up in bed sweating in a dream I had that this women could be our president if food for Barrack passes thru Hillary’s hands and Biden has another aneurysm.....

Scary thoughtr......

[rbmillerjr]

I have a feeling that a lot of Catholic politicians are not happy with Pelosit right now, because this is going to backfire on all of them.

The Kennedy’s, Dodd, Pelosi, and many more, to include Giuliani and other Republicans. The Protestants should be leaping on this too...and calling out their brothers and sisters who are of all Christian denominations and violating Life and the Truth.

[maryz]

a lot of Catholic politicians are not happy with Pelosit right now, because this is going to backfire on all of them.

Oh, we can only hope! :)

One would think Kennedy would be especially ripe for "conversion" -- impending death is said to concentrate the mind . . .

[big'ol_freeper]

New York Archbishop Edward Cardinal Egan said he was “shocked” by her comments.

Egan said, “What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age. ... Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being ‘chooses’ to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.”

[kosta50]

For conservative Catholic groups, the fact that Wuerl weighed in on the controversy was welcome news

Archbishop Wuerl? When did he have an epiphany?

Archbisop Wuerl handing Communion host to John Kerry

Let's face it: talk is cheap. The apostates will continue in their apostasy as long as there are no penalties, and as long as they receive the "Jesus pill" no matter what they believe and profess in public, they will consider their soul saved. How Protestant have the Catholics become!

When excommunications begin, that's when they will begin to take a hard long look at their conscience. Then they will know this is serious. But, not to worry, guys, by all accounts this won't happen; the bishops will contue their "dialogue" with the lost sheep. That way the bishops can say "we did our part," and the apostates will happily create their own personal Catholic faith. Why not just join the Anglican Club?

[Claud]

Kosta, a lot of us are wondering the same thing. I hear some Catholics say “she excommunicated herself.”

Not good enough. She is causing terrible terrible scandal, and the Church is implicated in her scandal if it does nothing. She needs to be sat in front of her bishop, she needs to repent in sackcloth and ashes, and if she still spits in the face of Mother Church, then it’s time for:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y75OwTuQpqI

[kosta50]

Thanks for the visual...very telling. Of course she excommunicated herself, but providing her with the Host is saying her beliefs don't matter. The devil is the devil and no one expects anything else from the devil. The problem is squarely with the Catholic clergy—hierarchy to be more exact—who insist on continuing the "dialogue" with the devil.