Posted on 02/16/2009 4:13:02 AM PST by veritas2002
This week, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) will meet with Pope Benedict XVI in the Vatican. With the debilitating illness of Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Pelosi has become the de facto leader of dissident Catholic members of Congress.
It's only appropriate that Pelosi should take Kennedy's place. When she became Speaker in January 2006, she chose Rev. Robert Drinan, S.J., as the celebrant of the Mass held in her honor. The late Father Drinan, a longtime professor of law at Georgetown University, had been the architect of the arguments now used as cover by Catholic politicians who wish to dodge the abortion issue. This effort began in 1964, when Father Drinan was among a small group of theologians who visited Hyannis Port, Massachusetts, to school the Kennedy clan on how to finesse the abortion issue in politics.
Pelosi's 100 percent voting record on abortion, according to NARAL, is commonplace among Catholic Democrats in the House, but Pelosi is, perhaps, the most vocal among them. For example, millions of dollars for contraceptives were cut from the first version of the stimulus package; 0nly Pelosi, rather incoherently, defended the funding.
In August, she made such outrageous comments about the Church on Meet the Press that she single-handedly endangered President Barack Obama's outreach to Catholic voters. When, to support her pro-abortion stance on when life begins, she asserted, "Over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition," Pelosi elicited a rebuke not only from her ordinary, Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco, but also from dozens of other bishops.
Thus, the news that Pelosi will meet with Benedict spread like wildfire through the Catholic blogs last Thursday. Many Catholics, disgusted with her rabid pro-abortion politics, were outraged that the pope would agree to meet with her at all. They forget that the Holy Father is a head of state and regularly meets with political leaders from every nation, regardless of their positions on issues important to the Church.
It's a good idea for Benedict to meet with Pelosi, because one can never underestimate the impact of being in his presence. It's also worth remembering that, if the protocol of past meetings remains the same, the Holy Father will make formal remarks in front of the media before any private meeting. Benedict will very likely make comments criticizing the Obama administration for ending the Mexico City Policy and warning the new Congress against passing the Freedom of Choice Act.
When Pope John Paul II, meeting President George W. Bush for the first time in July 2001, made mild remarks critical of his position on embryonic stem cell research, the media talked about nothing else. It will be interesting to compare the media reaction to anything Benedict may say about Pelosi and Obama.
Just as important as Pelosi's meeting with the Holy Father is all that will surround her visit to the Vatican. Will she attend Mass? Will she receive communion? How many from the media will be present? How widely will the photos and videos of her reception be spread around the world? How many of her fellow pro-abortion Catholics will be at her side?
You can be sure that Pelosi will choreograph her visit to get maximum exposure of her Catholic identity -- down to a photograph of her entering St. Peter's Basilica in a veil, no doubt.
Pelosi, of course, should be denied communion, but it is unlikely to happen. Any priest who celebrates Mass with Pelosi present will be carefully chosen beforehand in order to avoid embarrassment to the Speaker and her entourage. But I wouldn't rule out some sort of protest from orthodox Catholic students and seminarians studying in Rome.
Given the publicity Pelosi will receive during this trip, Archbishop Niederauer should issue another public statement reiterating his criticism of her position on abortion -- and that, furthermore, if she presents herself for communion,he will deny it to her. If he were to remain silent, he would experience the embarrassment of having other U.S. bishops responding to Pelosi, in his place, on behalf of the Church.
Rev. Tom Euteneuer has already taken a bold stand, expressing his belief that Pelosi should be publicly and formally excommunicated. Unfortunately, his public statement makes it less likely to happen: Bishops don't want to appear to do what they are told by the head of Human Life International, or any other Catholic apostolate for that matter. But our good friend at HLI is right on the mark.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Deal W. Hudson is the director of InsideCatholic.com and the author of Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States (Simon and Schuster).
In my estimation one of the evils of our day and age is that people seem largely incapable of experiencing a sense of shame. Now according to psychological definition, shame is differentiated from 'guilt.' Guilt is that sense of wrongdoing for something wrong we have done; shame, on the other hand, is the experience that one is defective in some sense as a result of some wrongdoing. Shame also involves an act against societal norms and constitutes an alienation from the community to which one naturally belongs. Our inclination to cover our faces when we are confronted with someone who knows of our wrongdoing is a behavioral artifact of shame. We know we have cut ourselves off from the community and hesitate to have someone look upon our faces. Why do we have screens when making confession before a priest? We are ashamed of what we have done. "I am protecting you, the onlooker, from looking at my face."
What we have been treated to in the past 40 years are people who say and do the most morally outrageous things and experience no fracturing of the inner self in doing so, and certainly are not alienated from the community. In fact they are often heralded as the latest "American Idol." The Prodigal Son was guilty for his maltreatment of his father and his profligate life. But he also experienced the shame of it all in that he had cut himself off from his household community. ("I am not worthy to be called your son")
Now back to the Pelosi thing. The woman is incapable of feeling any shame for being complicit in the death of innocent children. Worse than this, she has an 'in your face' attitude. She turns the tables and then says. "Shame on you others for not caring about the poor unmarried girl who has been made pregnant and abandoned by her boyfriedn with nowhere to turn." This is a perversion of shame.
What's the value of shame and what has our society lost as a result of its no longer being experienced? No one, I repeat, no one need ever has to feel ashamed for anything they do that in any way violates the standards of our society. As a result, our society continually lowers the standards of acceptable conduct. Some one recently told me of the menace caused by Hell's Angels descending on Myrtle Beach SC over the Labor Day holiday and how they must keep their children at home or else leave town because of their behavior. Innocently, never having epxerienced this, I asked what kind of behavior? I was told by a Catholic woman (she herself experiencing shame in the very telling) that they would be openly fornicating on the streets of that town. I also feel a kind of vicarious shame when a woman approaches the altar for communion and is barely dressed with a plunging neckline and short skirt. No sense that this would violate the very meaning of her body and the community standards that accompany it.
No, it is bad judgment on the part of the Pope to meet with Ms Pelosi. Why? Because to do so is to contribute to the further eradication from our culture and the rightful place of shame. For Ms Pelosi to be in the presence of the HOLY Father and to at the same time be extolling the 'virtues' of abortion is for her to be shameless. The Holy Father's allowing this to happen only encourages more shameless behavior and lowers the threshold for what used to be commonly agreed upon standards of moral behavior and character. I cannot attest to Ms Pelosi's guilt; that is a matter for her Church-informed conscience. I will, however, tell you that her behavior is shameless and ought to be treated as such.
All the Pope needs to know is that Pelosi can unhinge her jaw and swallow live prey nearly twice her size.
How can the church sanction Catholic politicians for supporting abortion when the Pope is meeting with their queen?
Expecting Nancy Pelosi to be awe struck with the Pope and somehow come out of the meeting with a new outlook on faith and abortion is a dream.
The Pope is in the presence of an evil that is so strong as to be dangerous even to him, much like the temptations that Christ met in the desert.
I don’t look forward to Pelosi’s conversion to faith, I fear for the Pope.I would like to see a miracle such as Pelosi turning to a block of salt , but those died out in the new testament. Sure would change the direction of faith in the world thought wouldn’t it?
From this statement I now can assume there are at least two Roman Catholic Churches. The orthodox and liberal churches and there are now two sets of rules.
Once you've reached this state of affairs you are only a few relativistic steps away from where the mainstream Protestant churches find themselves.
Come on make a stand.
I am hoping this is not going to be a meet and greet photo-op. I can’t believe that the Pope doesn’t know about Pelosi’s positions and her outright, vocal defiance of the Church.
What you say about Nancy being a “queen” is to some extent true; we don’t have kings and queens, but she would be the female member of the governing class in this country who would be closest to a queen, in terms of authority, at least.
Do you remember that Pelosi and her bishop, Neiderauer (a wuss if there ever was one) were supposed to “talk” after one of her more flamboyant statements justifying abortion? To my knowledge, they never did. But perhaps that’s because disciplining a high-ranking government personage - a queen, if you would - in a controversy that has political overtones has generally been the responsibility of the Pope. Perhaps I’m exhibiting major wishful thinking, but it seems to me that this could be such a disciplinary meeting.
While I agree with you that you rarely hear the word ‘shame’ used to condemn someones immoral act, the emotion of shame has not been squelched one iota. One problem with our society is moral relativity - and no better example can be made than that of Mrs. Pelosi trying to balance her particular flavor of Catholicism with her unbridled support of abortion. Listening to her on Meet the Press last year left my jaw on the floor. I am not Catholic, but even I know that the church is quite clear on their condemnation of abortion as a mortal sin. The fact that the Catholic Church does not act upon such public displays of contempt for their teachings by Mrs. Pelosi only undermines the respect due them by their flock.
One can only hope and pray for a strong public rebuke by the Holy Father when Nancy shows up for her photo op.
I would hope that the Pope would immitate Mother Teresa when she spoke the truth on abortion to both of the Clintons.I will never forget Mother Teresa’s display of honesty and courage.
Chosen by whom? Some other phony Catholic that the Pope appoints to assure she receives it? How does that square the Pope?
How does meeting with Pelosi alter our Pontiff's views on abortion?
If she should be denied the Sacraments then why should she be honored with an audience with His Holiness, the Pope?
You see, Miz Pelosi is, in her own mind, a legend, a V.I.P. and VERY edumacated. The humanist socialist Democrats are very good at defining deviancy down. They ought to be ashamed, but, they aren’t. More importantly, some very important people are enablers for them, facilitating their deviancies through fear of “important”, rich and influential people. So, they continue to give these pretenders an air of respectability.
OPEN LETTER TO NANCY PELOSI
Nancy, you are fooling yourself and I fear fooling many good Catholics You are simply not in sync with the Catholic Church and until you change your non-Catholic positions should stop calling yourself Catholic. Your record shows that you support embryonic stem cell research, planned parenthood, contraception, family planning funding, allowing minors to have an abortion without parental consent, and are against making it a crime to harm a fetus, etc. etc.
The fact that you favor married priests and women priests certainly would not classify you as conservative, but here is your answer to the question: “Are you a conservative Catholic?”
“I think so. I was raised, in a very strict upbringing in a Catholic home where we respected people, were observant, were practicing Catholics and that the fundamental belief was that God gave us all a free will and we were accountable for that, each of us. Each person had that accountability, so it wasn’t for us to make judgments about how people saw their responsibility and that it wasn’t for politicians to make decisions about how people led their personal lives; certainly, to high moral standards, but when it got into decisions about privacy and all the rest, than that was something that individuals had to answer to God for, and not to politicians.” (National Catholic Reporter, 1-22-03) That sounds fair and tolerant, but your record belies high moral standards.
The NARAL rates you 100% pro-abortion. Your statement in Newsweek Magazine (10-23-06): “To me it isn’t even a question. God has given us a free will. We’re all responsible for our actions. If you don’t want an abortion, you don’t believe in it, [then] don’t have one. But don’t tell somebody else what they can do in terms of honoring their responsibilities. My family is very pro-life. They’re not fanatics and they’re not activists. I think they’d like it if I were not so vocally pro-choice.”
We elect politicians to make laws that help people honor their responsibilities, such as protecting life itself. Can politicians tell someone else not to kill? I fail to understand why you can favor partial birth abortion. How can you explain that it is proper to bring a baby part way out of the birth canal and then stick a scissors in its head to suck out the brains? Is it possible that votes mean more to you than life itself?
Yes, Nancy, we would all like it if you were not so vocally pro-choice , i.e. pro-death. Until your choice is in line with Catholic doctrine, please, Nancy, do not receive the Eucharist when you attend Mass.
–Rev. John Malloy, SDB
Perhaps to be rebuked, given a healthy dose of humility and receive an eye opening preview of her particular judgment.
A few weeks ago I called the SF archdiocese. The meeting between Pelosi and the Archbishop to discuss what the Church teaches about baby butchery had not taken place yet at that time. No doubt to the relief of both parties involved.
I could care less if the pro-baby butchery Catholic pols feel shame. I don’t even think about that, it’s like expecting a snake to feel bad about eating baby birds. What I think is shameful is the hierarchy of the Church failing to use discipline to teach the clear position of the Church on baby butchery. If this meeting is all accolades for her Speakerness, showing badly edjumcated Catholics that radical pro-baby butchery Catholics can hob-nob with the leaders of the Church as long as “peace and justice” gets mentioned a lot, well that will go a long way to show baby butchery isn’t that big of a deal.
Freegards
I could not care less if the pro-baby butchery Catholic pols feel shame.
Why wouldn't she, or anyone else who espoused her views? He is after all, the Pope, and at the expense of being trite, practices what he preaches.
The Vatican is apolitical, though pro-God.
Yeah, I always say that there wrongly.
Freegards
Politicians in positions of great power seldom have much respect for popes, whatever they say in public. The Emperor Franz Josef, a putative Catholics, was aangered when his son appealed to the pope about a personal family matter, and dismissed the pope as hardly more than the emperor’s personal chaplain. Pelosi is giddy with power, her head fill with all kinds of false ideas, about both religion and society. Meanwhile her bishop cowers in his palace afraid to say anything to offend her.
She crazy. That’s what he needs to know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.