Yeah right, and I'm The Pope.
Posted on 11/15/2002 4:25:22 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Matt Lauer just completed an interview with Nancy Pelosi. After some standard stuff about her "historic" role as the first woman to lead a congressional party, Lauer asked a a pretty probing question:
"When Republicans chose Newt as their leader, Democrats were quick to say they had gone too far right. Why shouldn't the Republicans now say that in choosing you, the Democrats have gone too far left?"
Pelosi answered by stating that while she represented her district in SF (implying that she was being very liberal in representing a very liberal district), she will lead "right down the center" of the Dem caucus.
She then added the following statement: "When people call me a liberal, I call myself a conservative Catholic."
I had heard Pelosi make the same statement in an interview yesterday, so this clearly seems to be a standard part of her defense to the charge that she's too liberal to lead successfully.
I'm not Catholic, but I have to assume that many true "conservative Catholics" will be upset by hearing Pelosi claim that label. It is hard to imagine an authentic conservative Catholic supporting unrestricted abortion, including partial birth abortion, as does Pelosi.
Pelosi failed to vote to ban PBA even when an exception was included for the life of the mother. I think it is thus fair to categorize her as a pro-abortion extremist. Given that record, to go on national TV and call herself a conservative Catholic seems the height of gall and duplicity.
As a sidenote, Pelosi also trotted out what the Dems have apparently decided to make their new theme: "Safety and Soundness," apparently some combination of national security and economic progress. Instant nominee for the "Lamest Political Slogan of the Decade."
There might be a better chance of success to go there first instead of straight to the Archbishop. Organizations do not tend to smile on attempts to go "straight to the top".
Yeah right, and I'm The Pope.
All her beliefs and causes are aimed at destroying that very document, its intent and its purpose.
I'm sure she also supports destroying the military so that the US cannot protect itself from foreign enemies.
And I know that she favors removing the teeth of the Constitution (2nd amendment) that would protect it against "domestic" enemies, like her.
Sorry, not all Catholics believe the same way. That's abundantly clear from over a year of conversation with Catholics here on top of my years of studying the religion - no matter what is in writing. And I'd be more worried about a pawn voting the way the pope tells her to vs. someone who actually represents their constituency. Or perhaps it would be ok with you to have a Catholic on the hill voting to burn heretics cause that's what the Pope says should be done.. Not a cheap shot, just a sobering notion for you to consider - for all of us to consider.
She should neither be a pawn of the wacko liberal extremists nor of the Church of Rome. What she should be is a representative of the people (all the people) that sent her there. And foisting minority extremist views on the majority is not representation. Our Constitution and form of government provide for rule by the majority with protection for the minority view. Liberals have tried for 50 years to reverse or even destroy that by pushing the minority view and quashing majority dissent by every means possible. And it's time for Conservatives to set things aright. Bella may be a leader of something; but that something happens to be the minority. And the only reason there is light on her is to give the appearance that the Dims have something to talk about which presumabely is important.
This is all a sideshow. The Dims don't have a message and still need to look as though they matter to anything. For now, they have made themselves an irrelevant freak show. We should put our minds now to making sure that our message continues to get out. When people hear our message and see the Dems for what they are, Republicans get elected. Never give up, never surrender, never stop putting your best foot forward. Let's keep freepin!
I've also never known a committed, faithful practising Southern Baptist who was a promiscuous serial adulterer and rapist (ala Bill "Bible Carrying" Clinton")
The early Christians are the first on record as having pronounced abortion to be the murder of human beings, for their public apologists, Athenagoras, Tertullian, and Minutius Felix (Eschbach, "Disp. Phys.", Disp. iii), to refute the slander that a child was slain, and its flesh eaten, by the guests at the Agapae, appealed to their laws as forbidding all manner of murder, even that of children in the womb. The Fathers of the Church unanimously maintained the same doctrine. In the fourth century the Council of Eliberis decreed that Holy Communion should be refused all the rest of her life, even on her deathbed, to an adulteress who had procured the abortion of her child. The Sixth Ecumenical Council determined for the whole Church that anyone who procured abortion should bear all the punishments inflicted on murderers. In all these teachings and enactments no distinction is made between the earlier and the later stages of gestation. For, though the opinion of Aristotle, or similar speculations, regarding the time when the rational soul is infused into the embryo, were practically accepted for many centuries still it was always held by the Church that he who destroyed what was to be a man was guilty of destroying a human life. The great prevalence of criminal abortion ceased wherever Christianity became established. It was a crime of comparatively rare occurrence in the Middle Ages. Like its companion crime, divorce, it did not again become a danger to society till of late years. Except at times and in places influenced by Catholic principles, what medical writers call "obstetric" abortion, as distinct from "criminal" (though both are indefensible on moral grounds), has always been a common practice. It was usually performed by means of craniotomy, or the crushing of the child's head to save the mother's life. Hippocrates, Celsus, Avicenna, and the Arabian school generally invented a number of vulnerating instruments to enter and crush the child's cranium. In more recent times, with the advance of the obsteric science, more conservative measures have gradually prevailed. By use of the forceps, by skill acquired in version, by procuring premature labour, and especially by asepticism in the Caesarean section and other equivalent operations, medical science has found much improved means of saving both the child and its mother. Of late years such progress has been made in this matter, that craniotomy on the living child has passed out of reputable practice. But abortion proper, before the fetus is viable, is still often employed, especially in ectopic gestation; and there are many men and women who may be called professional abortionists.In former times civil laws against all kinds of abortion were very severe among Christian nations. Among the Visigoths, the penalty was death, or privation of sight, for the mother who allowed it and for the father who consented to it, and death for the abortionist. In Spain, the woman guilty of it was buried alive. An edict of the French King Henry II in 1555, renewed by Louis XIV in 1708, inflicted capital punishment for adultery and abortion combined. Later French law (i.e., early twentieth century) punished the abortionist with imprisonment, and physicians, surgeons, and pharmacists, who prescribe or furnish the means, with the penalty of forced labour. For England, Blackstone stated the law as follows:
Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins, in contemplation of law, as soon as an infant is able to stir in its mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb, or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But the modern law does not look upon this offence in so atrocious a light, but merely as a heinous misdemeanour.
Of course you are. Nativists are often frigthened by things they do not understand. If you think a religious principle of respect for life in all stages is a threat to our republic, there is little chance of persuading you otherwise.
Perhaps you can resurrect the Know Nothing party and campaign hard to preserve the Blaine amendments.
She should neither be a pawn of the wacko liberal extremists nor of the Church of Rome. What she should be is a representative of the people (all the people) that sent her there. And foisting minority extremist views on the majority is not representation.
Hello? She's from San Franciso. She is representing the views of the people who sent her there. Except for the small conservative minority, of course. But how does one reflect the views of "all the people" when the people conflict?
SD
Then you do have a problem with the Catholic Encyclopedia, since it directly contradicts your position.
Let's be honest.
SD
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.