Nancy Pelosi is not a 'conservative Catholic'; anti-life stance creates scandal within Church

American Life League ^ | 11-18-02 | staff

[doug from upland]

AMERICAN LIFE LEAGUE NEWSROOM

Nancy Pelosi is not a 'conservative Catholic'; anti-life stance creates scandal within Church

"In recent media appearances, new House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has been described as a conservative Catholic," said American Life League president Judie Brown. "This disturbs me. I want her bishop to know that her public opposition to Catholic teachings is creating scandal among faithful members of the Church. It is my prayer that he will respond accordingly."

Mrs. Brown has written Archbishop William Levada of San Francisco that Rep. Pelosi (D-Calif.) is one of "many members of Congress who claim Catholicism as their creed while doing everything they can to undermine basic teachings of the Church and the Biblical principles upon which those teachings are based. And people listen to them."

Rep. Pelosi has voted repeatedly in favor of pro-abortion legislation, and has reportedly hosted representatives of the strident pro-abortion organization "Catholics for a Free Choice" in her congressional offices. "There is danger that this behavior will lead others to sin," said Mrs. Brown. "In Catholic Church terms, this is scandal."

According to Section 2284 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense."

"The Catholic hierarchy must be made aware that the public behavior of pro-abortion political figures such as Nancy Pelosi, who claim solidarity with the Catholic faith, creates an extremely dangerous situation for other Catholics," said Mrs. Brown. "It is our hope that Archbishop Levada -- and other shepherds of the Church -- will call these politicians to task for their belligerent and insistent promotion of abortion, an act which, according to Church teaching, is a grievous sin. Souls are at stake. We pray for Rep. Pelosi, that she may repent of her continued advocacy of child killing."

Release issued: 18 Nov 02

[berned]

See post # 90.

I am wowed by the numbers you posted.

[philosofy123]

Why do evangilists mostly look like pimps and street walkers? Is it in the water? I have one theory, let me try it on you: May be because if you have to be so obsessed with your religion, you have to be a simple minded person, and typically grow up in some hillbilly southern state? That would typically eliminates any taste or style from you? In addition, as an evangilist, you have to be a money grabing and greedy person. That is the reason for the gold chains, and exagerated dressing style. The Moslem clerics, are typically foaming at the mouth about their religion too, except they don't dress like pimps, just like ragheads!

I have to admit, that Robertson, Graham, and Falwell don't dress like pimps, however, the majority of the rest do.

[berned]

Okay. Here is your golden opportunity.

Please tell us how we can increase the pathetic 47 per cent of PRACTICISNG CATHOLICS who voted against the party of Abortion and Homosexuality -- how can we get those numbers up to 80-90 per cent?

What, realisticly and practicaly, can be done to get Roman Catholics to vote against the Democratic Party, who champions and fights for the very moral scourges that the RCC claims to be against?

I'll try to be O'Reilly-like and give you the last word.

[Republic of Texas]

'Zactly! I'm sure the Muslims would take her.

[berned]

I'm still waiting for you to reply to post # 115

[Campion]

Please tell us how we can increase the pathetic 47 per cent of PRACTICISNG CATHOLICS who voted against the party of Abortion and Homosexuality -- how can we get those numbers up to 80-90 per cent?

The particular number you're citing is from the Dole-Clinton 1996 campaign, so my responses relate to that as well:

1. Bob Dole was probably the weakest excuse for a pro-life candidate the GOP has put forward since Gerry Ford (not coincidentally, Dole was Ford's veep). It wouldn't hurt to actually have someone who cares about abortion and social conservativism, if you want to attract and energize socially conservative voters.
2. While we're on the topic of Bob Dole, let's just amend that last sentence: It wouldn't hurt to actually have someone who cares about something, if you want to attract and energize people who are alive.
3. If you want me to tell you that Catholics need radical conversion to Christ, here it is: Catholics need radical conversion to Christ. That goes for Mass-goers as well as CINO's. It goes for me. It goes for everyone else. Evangelicals need radical conversion to Christ. Mainline Protestants need radical conversion to Christ. It goes for our whole culture.
4. Really virtually synonymous with #3: Catholics need to be obedient to Catholic teaching. Voting for a pro-abort candidate when a pro-life one (or even a less objectionable pro-abort) is a grave sin. Yeah, priests need to say that from the pulpit. Some do.
5. As I've said before, baby-killing "Catholic" politicians like Pelosi, Kennedy, and Daschle need to be excommunicated, or at least bishops should loudly and publicly state that their behavior is incompatible with the Catholic faith. I hesitate to put this on the list, because I don't know if it would get anyone any Catholic votes, but it's the right thing to do just from a consideration of charity. If someone like Pelosi or Daschle is receiving Holy Communion, they are "eating and drinking condemnation upon themselves". It's just kindness to tell them to shape up, or stop piling more guilt on the guilt they've already laid upon themselves.

In short, what will work is grace, combined with running someone with authentic socially conservative convictions, who is also obviously biologically alive (unlike Bob Dole). Here are some things that won't work:

1. Telling Catholics they aren't real Americans.
2. Telling Catholics their church is the Whore of Babylon and they are willing dupes waiting for the antiChrist to enslave them.
3. Holding campaign appearances at Bob Jones University.
4. Announcing that only people who believe every word in Left Behind are fit to have anything to do with the Republican Party.
5. Declaring that evangelical Protestantism and the Republican Party are practically synonymous.
6. Saying "America is a Christian nation" in the same breath with saying "Catholics aren't Christians"

[Carolinamom]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Pelosi also in favor of partial birth abortion? (That's what the proponents of this deliberate murdering call it. They have euphonisms for everything....Pro-Choice instead of Pro-Death, Progressive and Centralist instead of Liberal, for instance.)

[Antoninus]

But even among "active" Catholics, who attend Mass weekly, 44%, a hefty plurality, supported Clinton, while 47% voted for Dole. (These figures are taken from a Crisis magazine survey of Catholic voting patterns in November 1998 and June 1999.) "

So by your own statistics you prove that your 'overwhelming' statistic was at best an exaggeration, and at worst an outright lie.

Tell me, when factoring in voting patterns for evangelicals, do you count fallen-away types who are now satan worshipers? I know some evangelicals who fall into that category. If not, why do you insist on lumping non-practicing Catholics in with our figures?

[Antoninus]

Maybe you catholics can come up with a "dollar figure" that we can bribe your numbers with to vote Republican so we can get rid of Roe v Wade. What would that be worth to y'all?

I can't believe the personal animus and bigotry implicit in your attacks on Catholics. Though I debate with evangelicals, I truly love them and try to act with charity toward them. Can you not do the same as we Catholics on here are your ALLIES, not your enemies.

There is not a Catholic on this site who is not actively pro-life. Are there pro-abortion "catholics" out there? Yes, but we are working hard to turn that around. No matter what your denomination, there are sinners in your church too. Don't be so quick to condemn ours.

[Antoninus]

Okay! I agree to answer to God for not reading "Campion's posted link", and you can answer to God for being a loyal apologist for "The City That Sitteth on Seven Hills".

Uh, as is pretty common knowledge, the Vatican Hill is not one of the "Seven Hills of Rome." How many very basic things do you want to get wrong on this thread?

[supercat]

Please tell us how we can increase the pathetic 47 per cent of PRACTICISNG CATHOLICS who voted against the party of Abortion and Homosexuality -- how can we get those numbers up to 80-90 per cent?

By recognizing that most Americans neither want to allow abortion in all circumstances nor forbid it in all circumstances.

Republicans need to revise their platform on abortion if they don't want it to be an albatross around their necks. Having abortion in the Republican platform in its current form is useless, because almost no Republicans candidates or politicians actually subscribe fully to the position given. The whole purpose of having a party platform is to allow candidates and politicians to debate issues from a common stance. If nobody's going to actually follow the official platform on an issue, the platform stance will divide rather than unify and thus needs to be revised.

What Republicans should do is go on record with something like the following:

• Abortion is a significant evil and in an ideal world it would neither exist nor ever be necessary.
• Republicans would like to see abortion forbidden except in cases of rape or incest, or in cases where it is necessary to prevent a substantial risk of severe bodily harm--far beyond that normally associated with pregnancy--to the pregnant woman.
• [for federal office] Republicans recognize that a supermajority of Americans want states to be able to restrict abortions in [certain cases], and would seek to allow appoint judges that would let them do so.
• [for state offices] Republicans recognize that a supermajority of Americans want to severely restrict abortion in [certain cases], and would seek legislation to do so.
• Republicans recognize that there is not yet majority support--must less supermajority support--for more sweeping restrictions. While they would like to see American attitudes change so that such support would exist, they will not seek abortion restrictions for which there is not broad public support.

If Republicans could adopt a platform like that, they could portray Democrats as extremists on the abortion issue. Candidates and politicians could take a unified stand on the issue, and probably win a few percentage points. That would be a huge improvement over the status quo, where wishy-washy Republicans lose some votes every time they open their mouths and yet--because they are so wishy-washy--pick up few pro-life voters for the effort.

[constable tom]

I've been following this thread with rapt attention. I cannot believe the vitriole. I commend you for your integrity and passionate conviction as well as for your sense of dignity.

I'm not Catholic, nor am I anti-Catholic. Actually, I don't know what I am (raised by Christian Science parents but rejected that strongly by age 13; believe in God and Christ but have never found a religion I could feel comfortable with). I do know that rabid, antisocial attacks by bombastic evangelicals against good conservatives who oppose abortion on moral grounds, such as yourself and others on here, makes my skin crawl. In any event, I think this post makes a ton of sense and I just wanted you to know there is at least one FReeper out here reading this thread who appreciates your position and the restraint you've shown after being bated so frothingly.

[conservonator]

I'm still waiting for you to reply to post # 115

Why do I need to find more black conservative evangelicals? Simply identifying one is sufficient for my purposes, which was to point out the blatant racism of your previous comment. And I'm still waiting for you to explain why you made the racist comment regarding black "christians", as you put it. Nothing like painting an entire group of people with a grossly inaccurate broad brush, but I guess it’s SOP for someone like you.

Your fruits are rotten berned, repent.

[berned]

WHAT RACISM???????????????????????????????

I said that black CHURCHES were "an entirely diffent animal" than white Evangelical churches.

The CHURCHES not the PEOPLE YOU MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If I had said they were a "horse of a different color" would you have screamed racism THEN too?????????????????????????

Because YOU are ignorant of English figures of speech you throw around incindiary claims of RACISM?????????????????????

APOLOGIZE TO ME RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[berned]

ADMIN MODERATOR.

Please review my original post # 85, then review "Conservonator"'s incindiary and unjust remarks in his posts #85, 100, 113, & 133.

I demand an apolgy from him for his slandering me in a public forum for an innocent figure of speech "different aninal" which I meant in terms of the black CHURCHES -- not people.

I ask you to ban conservonator for his willful misrepresentation of what I said as "racism".

[conservonator]

WHAT RACISM???????????????????????????????

The racism inherent in your post #85.

I said that black CHURCHES were "an entirely diffent animal" than white Evangelical churches.

No, you said “Black "christian" churches are a completely different animal, unique to themselves.”. By failing to capitalize the C in Christian and setting the entire word with in the “” as you did, you implied that they weren’t Christian. If this was not your intent than maybe you should work harder at learning how to communicate effecitvly.

The CHURCHES not the PEOPLE YOU MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So you were referring to the buildings? Or do you mean to tell me that the term church as you used it, does not refer to a congregation of believers?

If I had said they were a "horse of a different color" would you have screamed racism THEN too?????????????????????????

The animal reference has nothing to do with it and you know it.

Because YOU are ignorant of English figures of speech you throw around incindiary claims of RACISM?????????????????????

No, I throw around the incendiary claim of racism because it appears to fit your comments.

APOLOGIZE TO ME RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Repent

[berned]

See this note and the formal complaint I have filed with Freerepublic.

[Campion]

LOL. I'm sure that the moderator will see your post #85, with the classic quote, "Blacks are by no stretch of the imagination Evangelicals," and conclude that there isn't a racist bone in your body.

You hijacked this thread into an attack on Catholics (as per your usual MO) and you want conservonator banned?

[berned]

You're welcome for me giving you the last word last night.

[berned]

I said that most Evangelicals vote Republican, which is true.

"conservonator" then said (paraphrasing) "what about blacks they vote Democrat".

Then I said that black churches were by no means Evangelicals, and gave my reasons why not.

In replying quickly (and responding to the usual gang-swarm of catholics I deal with on every thread,) I used an innocent term that Black CHURCHES were (paraphrasing) "an entirely different animal than white Evangelical churches" (THAT IS TRUE) now "conservonator" pounces on the figure of speech to unjustly accuse me of racism.

I ask Jesus Christ to judge MY heart, and yours and conservonator hearts as to what I meant by my word usage, and I ask Jesus Christ to intervene on behalf of JUSTICE, whatever He deems that to be.

I ask Jesus to intervent in ALL OF OUR earthly lives right now to mediate this matter in whatever way HE sees fit.

My concience in this matter is clear.