San Francisco Archbishop Wants a Word with Pelosi on Church’s Abortion Teaching
Saturday, September 6, 2008 at 06:14AM Now she’s in trouble. Democrat Speaker of the House of Representatives and liberal extraordinaire Nancy Pelosi is being called to the principle’s office for error ridden statements suggesting the Catholic Church doesn’t know when human life begins and justifying her own pro-choice position on abortion.
San Francisco’s Archbishop George Niederauer intends to sit down with Pelosi and address her recent comments about the Church’s teaching. Other Catholic Archbishops have condemned Pelosi’s comments and suggested she not take in communion at her Church in San Francisco, but this is the first time the Archbishop of San Francisco has spoken publicly on the matter.
Archbishop George H. Niederauer: U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “in serious conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church. (I have invited Pelosi) into a conversation with me” about church teaching on abortion, the beginning of human life and the formation of conscience.“The widespread consternation among Catholics made it (not addressing Pelosi) unavoidable.”“Many Catholics have written me letters and sent me e-mails in which they expressed their dismay and concern about the speaker’s remarks.”
“Very often they moved on to a question that caused much discussion during the 2004 campaign: Is it necessary to deny holy Communion to some Catholics in public life because of their public support for abortion on demand?”“For 20 centuries, not for 50 years (as stated by Pelosi), the Catholic Church has taught that abortion is grievously sinful. Individual theologians may from time to time have speculated about the beginning of human life, but the church has consistently taught that abortion is wrong. The answer to the question, ‘When does life begin?’ should not have an impact, we are told, on the woman’s right to choose. Nevertheless, the woman’s right to choose certainly has an impact on nascent human life.”
PREVIOUSLY:
Pelosi: ‘Catholic Church Doesn’t Know When Life Begins’
Archbishop Advises Pelosi, Biden to Avoid Communion
Trackback URL: http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/2234386
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (76)
Frankly Amy,
I don't see Pelosi ever softening her heart toward this issue simply because it will turn her only support against her. Conservatives have already concluded she is a senile lunatic, while liberals look the other away at her utter failure as the Speaker, as long as she supports this issue.
If ever there was an individual who is completely narcissistic, it is her. She can't even pretend to be for anything other than herself.
My gut feeling is the Arch Bishop will be far to lenient and she'll get by without being held accountable for her blatant lies about the church.
She made a very public statement that requires a very public retraction… that will never happen.
.
We are again in complete agreement. Pelosi and Biden should forgo communion, permanently for many reasons, not just because of their opposition to forced birth.
It's about time bishops take a stand against pro-abortion "Catholics."
Grumpy, there's no such thing as "forced birth." Pregnancy, and therefore birth, is 100% preventable.
yes I wonder if she'll actually listen. Will it be light flogging a dead horse so to speak?
Gawfer, good analysis of the speaker. I also believe the Archbishop will be lenient. He already has. The only reason he is addressing this now is because, in his own words, “The widespread consternation among Catholics made it unavoidable.”
The Archbishop should have been at the top of the consternation list and why was he trying to avoid it to begin with? Public error demands public correction.
I'm glad the Church, meaning, rank and file Catholics, are demanding action, but it is a disgrace that the hierarchy is so willing to sell out the faithful for the faithless.
The fact that this archbishop has accomodated error this long shows that the world has effected the archbishop and not the other way around. It reminds me of the priest in DC who allowed Kerry to receive communion despite his anti-Catholic stance on abortion.
The question is this: don't these shepherds realize that they are adding to the condemnation of the soul of people not in good standing by giving them communion? They only validate their error and encourage their lost course.
At least the Archbishop is standing by the Church's teachings. But that really isn't enough.
Karen,
"There's no such thing as forced birth". Then why are Bristol and Sarah praised for their "choice" to have their babies?
And how preventable is the pregnancy of the 16 year old rape victim St. Sarah would force continue to term?
Face it, if you say no abortions under any circumstance, you are forcing women to give birth in all circumstaces. What's the problem with calling a spade a spade?
I just want to see Pelosi's eyes when she is being "lectured."
I don't think anyone is forcing the Palin girl to have the baby. Karen's point, obviously, is that the freedom of choice comes in when a woman decides to have sex. She is resposnbile for her body and her baby's, so that is her choice. Period.
Having a baby is a privileage and to use the terminology you do grumpy is quite repulsive.
"...the freedom of choice comes in when a woman decides to have sex"
Again, I ask you, what choice does a rape/incest victim have in this regard?
Whether you find clear language repulsive or not, if you require under penalty of law that all women carry every blastocyst to term, it's forcing them to give birth. No?
Why are you so afraid of the term that accurately describes your position?
"...Why are you so afraid of the term that accurately describes your position?"
Why are you so afraid to acknowledge 96% of all abortions (@40,000,000) since Roe v Wade were convenience based, @3% were for health reasons, and less than 1% was for the condition of rape or incest?
You are arguing on behalf of less than one percent of women yet you claim we are arguing for the minority? Are you nuts? And another nice liberal term for a child... blastocyst.
Typical.
Nice dancin' Gawfer.
How is it not forced birth for the state to require all woman to carry every pregnancy to term regardless of circumstance?
Thanks, I watch dancing with the stars-
How is it not murder under any circumstance?
It is impossible to argue life begins somewhere other than at the point of conception. Therefore, abortion is the termination of life, or intentional harm.
Forced birth. Can't bring yourself to say it? Why not?
Odd.
Murder. Can't bring yourself to say it? Why not?
Odd.
Infanticide. Can't bring yourself to say it? Why not?
Odd.
Sounds somwhat third reich...
I'll call it forced birth when you call abortion murder.
Ok, for the sake of argument, murder.
Now?
The point is, whether one considers abortion murder or not, requiring a woman to give birth is forcing her to give birth.
What gives?
And heck guys, there nothing to be ashamed of. If you think every abortion is murder, why NOT force every woman to give birth?
Do I misstate your position?
Amen, why not? OR...why not FORCE every woman to be sexually responsible? There's a novel idea. Force responsiblity before the pregnancy. True, it'll hurt the multi-million dollar abortion industry, but maybe they can find some other line of work.
Grumpy, placing the burden on the unborn innnocent child because the parent is negligent is criminal. Parents go to jail all the time for child abuse. Only 1% of abortions are a result of rape or incest. Over 96% are totally elective.
So which is greater, the burden to "force" a birth or the burden to protect the most vulnerable humans from being murdered?
Abortion is an abuse of power.
How about forced taxation? I'm against that. Or forced speed limits?
Boy, you just can't take yes for an answer! But it looks like you're inching closer.
I'm not saying it's wrong to force all pregnant women to give birth. I'm just asking that you admit that this is your position.
You are in favor of forcing all pregnant women to give birth. Yes or no?
I am in favor of forcing all pregnant women to have their children. They can give them up for adoption or give them to me, I'll take them. But it isn't my responsibility to force a woman to give birth. I'm not getting all these women pregnant. Women force this dilemna on themselves. If you don't want to be forced to have a baby, don't have sex or use birth control. Don't use killing the baby as birth control.
Who has the right to force that on an unborn American citizen?
"I am in favor of forcing all pregnant women to have their children"
Wow, talk about having to pull teeth! Thank you for your forced honesty. (I wonder why Gawfer or other pro-lifers can't be as honest?)
"But it isn't my responsibility to force a woman to give birth."
Sorry, you can't take it back. You just said it is the responsibility of government (the people/you/me) to force women to give birth. That is quite clear from your (finally) stated position.
I think you mean to say here that it is the responsibility of the individual not to create an unwanted pregnancy in the first place (except for that unfortunate 4%).
Good morning Grumpy, Amy,
I live a normal life; sleeping at night and working during the day, so I missed the last exchange. Same as Amy, only a different time zone... like half way around the world, LOL!
Grumpy,
If you choose to title personal accountability as forced birth, fine. Interestingly, the framers of our constitution used the principles set forth from the bible to establish our laws. The reason they did that was that the bible is unchanging. Murder will always be murder, and is not contingent upon popular opinion.
Amy clearly articulated many examples of accountability; if you'll acknowledge that elective abortion is murder, I'll acknowledge your idea of forced birth.
Gawfer,
Whether or not all abortions are "murder" (the unlawful taking of a human life), forcing all pregnant women to give birth is, well, forcing all pregnant women to give birth.
"Murder will always be murder, and is not contingent upon popular opinion".
Au contraire mon fraire. The very definition of murder demonstrates this fallacy.
Murder; noun: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.
What was unlawful in the past is lawful today and visa versa. Further, may be lawful one place may be unlawful in another.
Humans, as always, define what is lawful.
grumpy, are women really this stupid to you? Do you really think anyone is forcing these women to have sex? Their own behavior is what leads to pregnancy. Abortion should be outlawed. It's illegal here in South Korea and they have a wonderful culture AND the lowest birth rate in the world. The point being it is possible to have both.
Humans define what is lawful? According to our consitution it is God who gives man unalienable rights, not man.
"Do you really think anyone is forcing these women to have sex?"
Of course not, and I never said that.
"Humans define what is lawful?"
Yes Amy. The Declaration of Independence (which you mistakenly refer to as the Constitution), is just that, a declaration, and is not enforceable in and of itself. Imagine if we did, indeed, have the right to enforce our right to the "pursuit of happiness" (pass the bong please)!
Humans societies decide on what laws to enact and enforce. We have laws that protect life, but we also have laws that permit the premeditated taking of life.
grumpy, it's very late here in S. Korea and I'm exhausted. I'll reiterate this briefly:
It is a biological fact that human life begins at conception. Aborting an unborn child is a deliberate act to kill the baby. "Forcing birth" is a repugnant term reserved for people who are less concerned about "forcing the death" of an unborn child.
"It is a biological fact that human life begins at conception"
Depending on the definition of "life", of course.
Even if we take your definition however, it is still up to society to decide at what point we want the state to step in and take control of the woman's body in which that potential human is growing. It's up to society to decide what it means to be fully human. At what point does the interest of the state override the mother's, as you put it, "right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Do we want to make exceptions for rape and incest?
Forced birth is the most accurate term for the laws you would like to enact, no matter how repugnant. I'm not saying it's the right or wrong position. I'm just saying let's not sugar coat it.
"...Humans, as always, define what is lawful..."
Wrong.
Allow me to expand;
A. [O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.
From:
Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 6.
B. All [laws], however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human. . . . But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. . . . Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine. James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice
From:
James Wilson, The Works of the Honorable James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, 1804), Vol. I, pp. 103-105, "Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation."
C. [T]he law . . . dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this. Alexander Hamilton, Signer of the Constitution
From:
Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Harold C. Syrett, editor (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), Vol. I, p. 87, February 23, 1775, quoting William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771), Vol. I, p. 41.
D. [T]he . . . law established by the Creator . . . extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind. . . . [This] is the law of God by which he makes his way known to man and is paramount to all human control. Rufus King, Signer of the Constitution
From:
Rufus King, The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, Charles R. King, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1900), Vol. VI, p. 276, to C. Gore on February 17, 1820.
It is painfully clear that the framers of our constitution understood that absolute law comes from God; not man. therefore, man's opinion is subordinate to God.
Murder is always murder, in spite of man's opinion.
"...The Declaration of Independence (which you mistakenly refer to as the Constitution), is just that, a declaration, and is not enforceable in and of itself..."
Did I miss something? I believe this is the only reference made to the Declaration of Independance in this thread, so it is you who are mistaken. We do not believe our laws eminate from this; rather the Constitution which is the law.
Gawfer,
Thankfully, your theocratic dreamland is not how the U.S. is currently constituted. Murder is what the statutes created by duly elected officials say it is, not what your particular flavor of religion says it is. We are a nation of man made laws, not Papal edicts.
Thank God.
By the way, and I know you don't believe this, the bible was written by humans. The stories, morals, etc. enshrined therein were created by humans. There is no evidence to the contrary.
Gawfer,
"Did I miss something?"
Yes you did. Amy said, "According to our consitution it is God who gives man unalienable rights, not man."
Clearly referring to the words of the Declaration. There is no reference to God "giving" us anything in our Constitution.
Did you not read the references I provided? At least understand that the Framers relied heavily on the bible because they believed all law is from God.
It was argued once that our framers used their British cousins to establish the constitution, and to a degree that is correct; however, my research revealed that even the British law is derived from the bible. (references available upon request).
The reason they did that grumpy, is simple. The Law is unchanging in spite of what might be the fad of the day. Murder will always be Murder. Lying will always be lying. stealing will always be stealing. Obama will always be hollow...
OK, I threw the last one in.
The point is best summed up by this quote:
"[laws], however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human. . . . But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. . . . Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine. James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice."
I respect your intelligence, and assume that you know when you've been bested. Argue another point, but don't argue that our framers didn't believe the laws ultimately came from God.
I respect your intelligence, and assume you know the difference between Divine law and Human law as it pertains to all U.S. citizens.
Only one of them is enforceable.
True; however, one cannot have human law without Divine law as recognized by our framers. It would be nothing but conjecture and opinion. Our country would have not lasted a decade on opinion.
"Our country would have not lasted a decade on opinion."
And yet, it did, and still does.
Our secular Constitution, based on the "opinion" of our founders that the only just form of government must derive from the assent of those governed, was indeed revolutionary. No "divine right of kings" for us.
The revolutionary idea was that free men could rule themselves without the necessity of resorting to the supernatural hokum European royalty used for centuries to legitimize their authority. The power to govern derived solely from us, "we the people".
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Truly a revolutionary and enlightened wonder.
Failing to quit while I'm ahead as is prudent, I'll posit you a question regarding a point on which you seem most confident.
According to you, Divine law "is unchanging in spite of what might be the fad of the day. Murder will always be Murder"
What is Murder?
Grumpy said:
"Murder; noun: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought."
But wait; that's not all! As a bonus I'll give you a reasonably obscure bible verse:
Exodus 20:13
13 "You shall not murder."
And how about a little Hebrew to accent because we know the Old Testament was written in Hebrew:
Murder:
to murder, slay, kill
(Qal) to murder, slay
premeditated
accidental
as avenger
slayer (intentional) (participle)
(Niphal) to be slain
(Piel)
to murder, assassinate
murderer, assassin (participle)(subst)
(Pual) to be killed
Please note: the bible clearly outlines the punishment for such a crime in Genesis 9:6
"Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.
OK, I know, I'm being redundent since you already defined what Murder is. But it's fun none the less explaining why our laws ultimately came from this ancient text we know as the bible.
But I suppose you'll turn your back on the facts I presented to support your illusion that man is ultimately good.
So the punishment for shedding the blood of man is death?
Good morning Grumpy. I hope you rested well, the weather in So Cal has been a bit warm, and makes it difficult to rest.
That would be identified as Capital Punishment, and is a currently accepted form of punishment in the United States for certain cases of Murder [not all]. Shall you to jump to conclusions and insinuate that I am advocating Capital Punishment for those who abort their children? Let me put your mind at ease. I do not; I do however, believe there should be accountability for the lost 40 million children who never had a chance to breathe. Will you accept that responsibility?
Sorry Gawfer, but you anticipate wrongly. (Although your willingness to go against Divine Law vis a vis abortion is fascinating).
Now what of the soldier who will kill some bad guy today? Murderer?
The drunk driver who veers into the other lane; Murder?
The homeowner who shoots an intruder; Murder?
The hunter who misses his mark and kills his buddy; Murder?
Murder will always be murder?
Your comments are very offensive, grumpy.
A soldier defending himself and defending civilians, murder?
A victim of a drunk driver?
A victim defending himself a murderer?
An accident, murder?
Your argument, desperate?
So is the unborn child like the drunk driver? The intruder? The soldier?
Please don't tell me you don't know the difference between victimization and victimizing. Your moral equivilence is very disturbing.
Dude, you're the one who said the immutable Divine Law holds that "Murder will always be murder". You even cited your sacred text to define murder as shedding the blood of another man.
You mean to say there is some gray in this never changing, black and white, Divine Law?
Holy Moses! Murder might not always be murder?
"Please don't tell me you don't know the difference between victimization and victimizing"
Of course I do. So do you. We're human. We can rationally arrive at our "opinion" was to what should be considered murder, and what the appropriate punishment should be. It's what humans have always done. In the distant past, some even wrote it down, and it became "Divine Law". Fallible, changing, adaptable, human.
Murder is not always murder.
I'm sorry, I just now noticed that Amy was attempting to reply to my prior comment, not Gawfer.
It should have been obvious to me.
Indeed Grumpy. And you have most eloquently articulated the difference between Murder and killing as defined twice previously. All death is not Murder. Neither Amy nor I or even the bible makes that claim. Genesis 9:6 is an obvious point.
Amy's comment: "...Please don't tell me you don't know the difference between victimization and victimizing..." nailed it.
There are 40 million victims of "...Murder; noun: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought..."
full circle.
"All death is not Murder"
Of course not. You clearly stated however that to simply kill another is murder;
Murder:
to murder, slay, kill
(Qal) to murder, slay
premeditated
accidental
as avenger
Murder under your "Divine Law" definition all killing of another. Are you changing your definition?
If murder is shedding the blood of another man, then all killing of another is murder. No?
Care to take another stab at "murder is murder"?
Oh, and is the "obvious point" you're trying to make with Genisis 9:6?
HA!
I see your confusion. As you are aware, the english language is inferior (for lack of a better term) to most other languages. The definition I stated is for the HEBREW word Qal, and has a couple of applications. the bible does not state all death is Murder, as the reference to Genesis 9:6 indicates; specifically punishment for murder, Capital punishment is not considered murder.
So, by definition, would abortion more closely resemble capital punishment (Obama said he wouldn't want his daughters punished for a mistake) or Murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought..."?
As I said previously, "Murder is always Murder in spite of popular opinion." Killing someone is not always considered Murder.