Pelosi Spokeswoman About-face: Catholic Church Clear on Life Teaching, But Catholics Need Not Listen

LifeSiteNews ^ | 8/27/08 | Kathleen Gilbert

[wagglebee]

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 27, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A spokeswoman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the speaker's position as a "pro-abortion Catholic", not because the Church is unclear on when life begins, as earlier stated, but because Catholics routinely contravene "clear Catholic teaching" against abortion.

In a statement praising Pelosi's appreciation for "the sanctity of the family," Brenda Daly, speaking for Pelosi, said, "While Catholic teaching is clear that life begins at conception, many Catholics do not ascribe to that view."

In the controversial interview on NBC's Meet The Press that spawned Daly's statement, Pelosi had said,  "The Doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition [of when life begins]," and called it "an issue of controversy" throughout the history of the Church.  "St. Augustine said at three months.  We don't know," said Pelosi.

Brenda Daly's statement says that Pelosi is not justified in her pro-abortion stance due to vague Church teaching, but on the basis that many other "Catholics" also violate Church teaching.

Susan A. Fani, Director of Communications at the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, questioned the strength of Pelosi's newest argument: "So what?" she said.

"There are plenty of Catholics living a life rife with sin that seek to justify their behavior by saying they disagree with the Church on the source of their delinquency.

"Maybe that's the source of Pelosi's confusion - she really doesn't understand the difference between the teaching authority of the Catholic Church and the DNC."

Pelosi's new statement comes after a torrential response from Church officials condemning Pelosi's blatant misrepresentation of Church teaching and history, sparking coverage of the issue in several major news sources. (See LifeSiteNews.com article: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08082601.html)

Eighteen members of the House of Representatives have signed a letter to Pelosi exhorting her to back down from her misrepresentation of Catholicism and criticizing her statements that "mangle Catholic Church doctrine." (For the full letter, see: http://www.stoppingtoaskfordirections.blogspot.com/)

American Papist's Thomas Peters, the Catholic blogger who has followed closely what he calls "Pelosi-Gate", considers Pelosi's "absurd" comments a boon for Catholic bishops, who now have the ball "back in their court." 

Peters says that because Pelosi continued to defend her statements, the bishops now "have the stage, an attentive audience, and a winning position."

To view Peters' blog, visit: http://www.americanpapist.com/blog.html

Related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

"Catholic" Speaker Pelosi Denies that Catholicism Condemns Abortion
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08082502.html

Cardinals, Bishops and Congressmen Slam Pelosi on Abortion
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08082601.html

New York Cardinal - Pelosi Not Worthy of "Providing Leadership in a Civilized Democracy"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08082605.html

[muawiyah]

You are entirely too generous. She fell through a long time ago and is now beyond redemption. Nothing any of us can do about it either.

I know this is difficult for many to realize; after all, there's a strong popular belief in the utility of the "death bed conversion", but this ol'gal has been through baptism, confirmation, regular instruction at approved Christian institutions, and so forth.

Still, she searches for more and more reasons why it's OK to kill the innocent.

[muawiyah]

There's also a considerable difference between "CINOs", that is Catholics in Name Only, and Cafeteria Catholics.

It's been my observation that particularly loathesome and evil people like Pelosi have not been "selective" in their beliefs and practices ~ rather, they have beliefs an practices that are entirely consistent with an ideology that reduces humanity to pieces of meat.

Your typical cafeteria Catholic, on the other hand, doesn't exactly have a set of core beliefs much different from those set out by the Catholic church (or Christianity in general for that matter). They just don't "participate" in all of the "functions", e.g. church marriage, regular confession, communion, etc. Otherwise they don't sit around figuring out new excuses for killing the innocent.

We could go on all night about the differences, bt they are real and should always be "recognized" in any debate lest innocent parties be unnecessarily slandered or "shamed".

[Jaded]

matthew

[muawiyah]

You aren't a holy roller are you? The Washington Post still sticks to the idea that they are uneducated, easily led and blindly follow their religious leaders.

The rest of the Old Media are not different.

Catholics get a better shake out of the MSM.

BTW, it's not the fault of the religious people that the MSM treat them badly ~ it's the fault of the porcine CINOs, JINOs, BINOs, HINOs and their kind who own, operate and work for the MSM.

[metmom]

We don't know," said Pelosi.

Clear evidence that she didn't do well in high school biology.

If it's growing, it's living.

[8mmMauser]

Pinged from Terri Dailies

8mm

[Turret Gunner A20]

... Ms. Pelousy is the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and a dhimmiecrat socialist which obviously makes her SMARTER THAN THE POPE!

I thought at first glance that you said "SMARTER THAN POOP". You'd have been close -- but you would have still been insulting honest poop.

[verga]

Yeo, she may well be the single stupidest person in politics.

Pssst, you forgot her mental twin Maxine Waters

[Turret Gunner A20]

Do you have evidence? Something later than the 16th century

What about the 16th Century?

[Turret Gunner A20]

When one says they are a Christian, they are saying they believe EVERYTHING in the Bible. One can NOT pick and choose what they want to believe - it's an all or nothing choice.

Holy Bible, Giant Print Presentation Edition
The Bible: A Biography (Books That Changed the World)
Holy Bible: New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Holy Bible, New International Version, NIV
The Catholic Youth Bible Revised: New American Bible
The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha,
Augmented Third Edition, New Revised Standard Version, Indexed
The Jesus Storybook Bible: Every Story Whispers His Name
Beginner's Bible The Story of Creation
The Catholic Study Bible
The New American Bible for Catholics: With Revised New Testament and Revised Book of Psalms

[Turret Gunner A20]

ninergold3

Which Bible?

[hunter112]

That may be true, but I can tell you this: Back in April, 2007, I moved from the relatively secular Pacific NW to the Catholic-this and Catholic-that traditions of NY, and I can tell you, it doesn't make people one bit better. In fact, I'm reminded of Don Corleone, go to church to be the godfather of some baby in your family, while five of your enemies are being simultaneously killed by your mob.

Give me a polite agnostic Northwesterner over some guy with a cross on the back of his car, flipping me off on the New York Thruway any day.

[Turret Gunner A20]

...the winery that she and her husband own uses only: NON-UNION LABOR!!!!!

Well!!! Will wonders never cease? I never thought I'd see the day? There seems to be at least one good thing that can be said in her favor.

[trisham]

This is simply unbelievable. How did this woman become House Speaker?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Tetzel. (Sigh.)

[Turret Gunner A20]

Tetzel. (Sigh.)

Are you saying that this gentleman, all by his lonesome, cleaned up forever the sewer the RCC had become?

If I may be permitted to disgree, one single example will show that he didn't even scratch the surface == history clearly shows that the Inquisition -- one of the most Un-Christian abominations ever conceived in the mind of evil men -- was still alive and kicking.

[kabar]

...many Catholics do not ascribe to that view."

Then how can they call themselves Catholics and why do they remain in the church? If you belong to a religion, especially one 2,000 years old, you can't pick and choose what you believe and not believe and still call yourself a member of the flock.

[MortMan]

So, if ordinary democrats see an clear (anti-american) message from the dem leadership, then they are free to disregard Pelosi and Reid? ;-P

[Mrs. Don-o]

"In the RCC, everything's for sale, annulments, indulgences, and the pretense that you're a good Catholic."
"Do you have evidence?"
"John Kerry's and Ted Kennedy's annulments..."

Please excuse me for conflating several people's arguments in one post, but it seems best in terms of putting the whole discussion into a larger context.

First, to deal with the simplest point: in order to claim the impropriety of ANY annulment, you'd have to first list the grounds for the canonical finding of nullity cited by the Marriage Tribunal, and then show that those grounds were specious --- which you have not done.

In order to advance your thesis that canonical jurists produced false judgments in exchange for money, you'd have to name names, dates, and amounts, or at least offer one scintilla of evidence --- which you have not done.

"...and subsequent non-excommunications [of Kerry and Kennedy] for being front and center in the fight for free and easy abortion ..."

This is in fact scandalous, but it does not substantiate your actual charge, which was corruption in the matter of selling ecclesiastical favors for money.

Now, here's the larger context: the genuine corruption involved doesn't involve money: it involves something even broader and more dangerous: a craven reluctance on the part of MANY American bishops to impose any kind of discipline on anyone due to false-compassion and personal cowardice (see "The Battle for the American Church (Revisited)" by Msgr. George Kelly).

"The circumstantial evidence dating from 1995 to 2008 is overwhelming. Only the blind can not see it."

You're convicting the Catholic Church (in general? All of us? The Roman Curia? Bishops? Diocesan Marriage Tribunals in general?> One or two of them in particular? Catholic FReepers? Nancy Pelosi? WHO?) without distinction, of a kickback-related crime or series of crimes, based on admittedly "circumstantial" evidence which you will neither cite nor link?

There would be better ways to present your case, if you would get off your simplistic "selling out for money" theme and address the deeper problem of the cultural captivity of the churches: a critique in which you would find many, many faithful Catholic FReepers in agreement.

I am sure it is inadvertent, but presenting your argument in the way you do makes you look, surely quite contrary to your own intentions, like a person who doesn't know jack chick about Catholicism.

[Emmett McCarthy]

You’re correct in that assessment, of course. Something about this that makes it a “different kind of stupid” is the way she is foolishly, and probably ignorantly, provoking the leaders of the Church. Her party has been losing the Catholic vote incrementally for years, but this is so self-destructive and needless as far as her party trying to take on the Church like this. “Bishop Pelosi” of San Francisco can’t woin here and it only harms her party.