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."
You're confusing foreign policy with Sovereign law of the land in part of what you say. Foreign policy is a combination of the application of our laws and the answer to it by our friends and foes around the world - it is thus relationship based and fluid. Catholics here Vote. And that is fine - they should. What would be wrong is having the Pope tell catholics how they must vote. Which is no different than Democrats parading about trying to tell the public how they must vote. Just because the pope has the image of being "good" makes not a lick of difference. The fact that ya'll don't seem to grasp this basic notion doesn't bode well. I suppose forced conversion would still be ok by your thinking - it's no different - telling someone how they have to thing, act or behave with regard to who they elect. We elect people in this country to serve us - Not the Pope, Not Beijing, Not Moscow, Not Islam, etc. They serve us. It's no more the Pope's right to tell us who to vote for than it might be Beijing's right. The only one who might disagree with you would seem to be the Clintons.
I asked because you were making some kind of statement about Catholics, so I was wondering how you define what makes a person a Catholic.
In other words, if we're going to debate about what "Catholics" believe, then we have to agree on who is and isn't a Catholic before our debate can proceed.
This link on heresy might help you with understanding who the Church considers to be a Catholic. Here's a sample:
St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas". "The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are,therefore,two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval."
Having said all that, what does the GAY PEDOPHILIA problem have to do with Nancy Pelosi publicly supporting partial birth abortion and at the same time claiming to be "conservative Catholic" on national TV? Hmmmmm? Oh that's right, you just wanted to get in a Catholic-bashing jab, didn't you?
Kiss off, Havoc.
Robby, I haven't made that claim. If you look back, this person's Catholicity was being questioned because they might vote this way or that. Ya'll are the ones insinuating she has to vote a certain way to be Catholic.
You made the statement that one who tows the line is a practicing Catholic while one who doesn't is not a practicing catholic. I gave you an example of how that would apply in the real world with your own priests and you somehow can't see the relevance - it must be an attack. But following the same line of thinking, it tells us what you are saying re practicing vs. non-practicing Catholics is no more than spin as when the same notion is applied to priests, it is not viewed in the same way. The church still considers them priests historically whether you do or not. Thus Bella would still be a Catholic whether you say so or not. Not an attack, just an application of common sense that seems beyond your ability to admit as I don't think you're so unintelligent as not to understand the simplicity of the point.
I see. But, these same people say we have to be afraid of John Ashcroft's religious beliefs.
I'm so confused...
-PJ
Thus, to this day, You cannot say that burning heretics is against the will of the Holy Spirit as a Catholic without being labeled a heretic officially.
Sure, I can give you Both: Papal Bull Exsurge Domine issued by Leo X on June 15, 1520. Note point number 33. This is binding on you right now. It has never been recanted (as if the Roman church would recant on this matter and admit to a further error on a matter of faith and morals without handwringing and doubletalk).
Thus, to this day, You cannot say that burning heretics is against the will of the Holy Spirit as a Catholic without being labeled a heretic officially.
That's pretty much the way that I would interpret it.
In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:
...33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
What the Pope was saying was that temporal rulers have the authority in principle to execute heretics. Do you disagree with that?
While the Church has always recognized the right of the state to impose capital punishment for crimes including heresy (the spreading of which was and is considered worse than murder because it can jeopardize a person's salvation), the decision to carry out the death sentence in any particular case is a prudential one to be made by the king, emperor or other leader of the State.
From the Catechism:
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent." 68
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.