PopeWatch: The Francis Effect and Nancy Pelosi’s Bishop

Monday, October 21, AD 2013

VATICAN-POPE-AUDIENCE

Father Z has coined a phrase “the Francis Effect” that I fear we will all become quite familiar with:

Six months into this pontificate, and people are starting to go a little crazy.

For example, the Archbishop of Birmingham is talking about intercommunion with Anglicans, based on a document which dates back to 1993 and concerns the conditions necessary for intercommunion with the Eastern Orthodox.   (In other words, that document doesn’t apply.  One is an actual Church with valid sacraments and the other is neither.)

For example, in the Archdiocese of Freiburg, Germany, some minor chancery official usurped authority which was not his in order to outline a “policy” that would allow the divorced and remarried in the diocese to receive Communion.  (In other words, it remains entirely against the law and, whether he did it on his own or with the wink and nod of the diocese’s administrator, someone oughta get their backside paddled, and hard.)

Not helpful.

In some places, the Church’s teaching on doctrine and morals are out the window.

Real colors are being revealed.

We have a prime example of the Francis Effect from Nancy Pelosi’s pet Bishop:  Robert W. McElroy.  Appointed by Pope Benedict for some inexplicable reason as an auxiliary bishop of San Francisco in 2010, McElroy wrote a piece for the Jesuit rag America in 2005 in which he rode to the rescue of pro-abort Catholic politicians facing a potential risk of being denied the Eucharist for voting in favor of child murder in utero:

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

20 Responses to PopeWatch: The Francis Effect and Nancy Pelosi’s Bishop

  • Liberals — including many bishops — in the Church would like to deny Republicans communion over welfare programs, but will fight unceasingly to prevent denying pro-abort Democrats communion.

    If liberals fought poverty the way pro-lifers fight abortion, they’d line up outside grocery stores with signs that read “pray for food”.

  • Poverty is not an intrinsic evil as is murdering of the innocents. Yes, denying a decent, fair wage is a horrible sin, and one which, like sodomy and murder, cries out to God for vengeance. But, one can overcome poverty through heroic virtue and become a saint, while the dead baby is just….dead, without a chance for life. The compare poverty with abortion is a logical fallacy of false comparisons. Sad we have such a weak man as a bishop.

  • sorry meant to compare, not the compare….God bless

  • Poverty and abortion are the same issue. Abortion is the genocide of the poor.

  • Here’s the deal: I’d be willing to bet that everyone posting here is 100% committed to policies that would lead to the END of poverty (although we may disagree about what those policies may be).

    Can Pelosi say the same thing with respect to ending abortion?

  • Yeah, the pro-poverty lobby does seem pretty sparse on the ground! 🙂

    On the other hand Nancy Pelosi would sooner eat ground glass than ever see the right to life of the unborn protected by law.

  • The pro-poverty lobby is so full of love for the poor and their misguided policies have greatly increased the ranks of the poor . . .

  • Concerning Nancy Pelosi and Bishop McElroy, some people have died for lesser crimes against God:

    Acts 5:1-11

    1 But a man named Ananias with his wife Sapphira sold a piece of property, 2 and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” 5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. 6 The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him. 7 After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” 9 But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Hark, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all who heard of these things.

    1st Corinthians 5:1-5

    1* It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. 2 And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. 3* For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment 4* in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5* you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. *

    1st Timothy 1:19-20

    By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith, 20 among them Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

    Revelation 2:20-23

    20* But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. 21 I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her immorality. 22 Behold, I will throw her on a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her doings; 23* and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches shall know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.

  • Poverty and abortion are the same issue. Abortion is the genocide of the poor.

    I can’t begin to understand what that means.

    Only the poor choose abortion? Abortion is killing off the poor (Margaret Sanger would wish it so!)? If we (meaning society, which usually means “people other than or in addition to myself”) did more for the poor they wouldn’t resort to abortion?

  • “Abortion is the genocide of the poor.”

    Such is the nature of bumper-sticker politics. Sounds awesome, means nothing.

  • “Abortion is the genocide of the poor”

    While I agree that this phrase might remind someone of a bumper sticker quip, in fact it actually reveals a depth of meaning that could escape us. Is there any person more poor, more impoverished than an innocent whose life is terminated because they are seen as a problem for others? What I have just described is a general statement covering all innocents whose lives are taken from them. So let me even be more specific. Is there any person more poor than the human being being formed in their mother’s womb who is suddenly described as a burden to others and whose life is snuffed out?

    When Jesus went into the synagogue in Nazareth and taking the sacred scroll of the Prophet Isaiah read “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, therefore He has anointed me to proclaim Evangelion (good news; the gospel) to the poor” (Isaiah 61; Luke 4), what was he really saying?

    I can tell you that He was not calling for a Marxist/socialist revolution or reconstruction of the world’s society. However He was not calling for lasses-faire capitalist throwing an occasional bone to the hungry poor at the gate. It seems that Christians in general and Catholics in particular feel these two are the only options. This is borne out by them taking an either/or position on issues such as abortion and the poor. Those favoring the so called progressive position push all sorts of programs for the poor(usually by making more infrastructure and throwing more money at ‘the poor’), failing frequently in recognizing the mos impoverished are those unjustly deprived of life. Conservatives, thankfully, seek an end to abortion but have fits if this real social justice issue is expanded to care for the rest of the poor.

    What happens when we begin to allow the Gospel of Christ, the Gospel of Life, the Gospel to the Poor is really allowed to enter our hearts and minds when our eyes blinded by ideology can once again see His Face in the poor in the womb, at our gates, and in the disabled, sick and elderly?

  • “Conservatives, thankfully, seek an end to abortion but have fits if this real social justice issue is expanded to care for the rest of the poor.”

    It already is expanded. That expansion is called Charity. As you state, He never calls for a Marxist/socialist revolution or reconstruction of the world’s society. In fact, He never calls for anything resembling a Statist solution, and even states elsewhere that there never will be a solution to poverty: “You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”

    There is no such thing as “Social Justice.” All Justice is individual, just as all Virtue is individual, and all Salvation is individual. There is no Charity by Proxy, and there certainly is no Charity by Extortion. Charitable actions are not collective in nature, just as you do not receive absolution because 80% of the people in your Knights of Columbus chapter went to confession.

    In his country, the two issues of poverty and abortion “flow” in different directions. Abortion is the deprivation of life of the most innocent and unable. Period. It’s a wholesale slaughter on Satan’s altar, and the blood of the martyred unborn cries out for justice.

    Poverty is only a deprivation if you take the most Keynesian, zero-sum economic models and impose them onto such individual aspects as character. Anybody who wishes can take advantage of the educational and vocational avenues that proliferate American society, and pull themselves up starting right now. All they need is diligence and drive. Charitable organizations that can assist those who embark on such a path are falling out of the trees.

    Babies in utero do not have the legal protection that they suddenly (usually) obtain upon seeing the sun. This should be changed – from the moment of conception, a human is a human and unnatural deprivation of life is murder. A small change in the law is all that is needed.

    “Poverty,” such as it exists in this country, exists because the government has chosen to buy off the drive and character of a victim class. That deprivation is both voluntary and commercially viable, it seems, and those who buy it are content in their purchases. This condition would be ameliorated by a decrease in government action.

    The sick would be much better off without government – only the most obtuse troll in the bunch here would try to refute that, and the elderly used to be cherished for their wisdom and experience. Without government “help,” families and communities could more than amply care for their own grandparents and great-grandparents.

    So, if the question is, “What happens when we begin to allow the Gospel of Christ, the Gospel of Life, the Gospel to the Poor is really allowed to enter our hearts and minds when our eyes blinded by ideology can once again see His Face in the poor in the womb, at our gates, and in the disabled, sick and elderly?” [sic] then the answer is not “Vote for the politicians with the biggest entitlement schemes.”

    The answer begins, as all do, with each of us individually, as He sees us. None of us may be able to save the world, but each can improve his or her own little corner of it; most importantly, each can rededicate his or her heart to following Christ. Each of us can become His feet, His hands and His eyes here on earth. The aggregate effect of countless virtuous individual actions always has a greater, and more mutually beneficial, outcome than the gross imposition of Statist, ideological top-down coercion.

    By itself, “Abortion is the genocide of the poor.” is not innaccurate. However, when trying to equate poverty and abortion in such a way as to justify legislative action in the elimination of poverty on moral grounds, it simply doesn’t hold water.

  • Wk Aikens

    You have proven my point in my post concerning them blindness of ideology. We both agree that the progressive response to ‘the poor’ is not Gospel and frankly outlived its usefulness (if it ever had any). However the Gospel response to the poor can not be identified with the typical conservative response either.

    You state categorically that there is no such thing as ‘social justice’ yet the papal magisterium since Pope Leo XIII has stated that there is. An important caveat however is that the social justice of which the Church speaks is not at all the same as what liberal Protestantism and progressives claim it is, even if they overlap occasionally. “Charity” is indeed the response of the Church to the needs of all (Pope Benedict in Deus Caritas Est) but the response of every government must be one of justice (again Pope Benedict in Deus Caritas Est)

    Take some time, Immerse yourself in the ‘social encyclicals’ among which Pope Benedict counted Humanae Vitae, a very important point indeed.

    In the Sixties two famous Catholics made statements concerning their relationship to Church teaching, the Gospel. One we are more familiar with. The then candidate for President John F Kennedy broke the relationship not between Church and State or the Presidency and the Vatican, but the relationship of the individual Catholic, with the teaching of the Gospel. Most on this list are aware of this and deeply grieve this event and comment. It has led to countless Catholic politicians claiming they are personally against (for example) abortion but publicly for it. What Kennedy’s statement was was a real declaration of independence of an individual conscience from any objective moral law to define what indeed is the good that needds to be sought..

    However, in a less well-known figure of William Buckley, the great conservative commentator we find another sad statement, just as problematic as President Kennedy’s for American Catholics. After reading the social justice encyclical of Blessed John XXIII, Mater et Magister, Buckley quipped (as only he could with the use of English language) “Mater (mother) si (yes), Magister (teacher) non (no)!”

    We desperately need to move beyond both responses

  • “Mater (mother) si (yes), Magister (teacher) non (no)!”

    Actually that was Gary Wills’ quip. Wills has gone from right to left but his attitude towards the Church has been consistent.

    http://proecclesia.blogspot.com/2008/02/william-f-buckley-jr-and-mater-si.html

    http://weblog.theviewfromthecore.com/2002_10/ind_000866.html

  • The phrase “Social Justice” is easy to take out of context and I am probably guilty of interpreting it politically, as that is the mein of the phrase where it’s found. As far as the Magisterium and the Encyclicals, I never stop enjoying swinging Rerum Novarum as a hammer on liberal Catholics who (still . . .?) push Liberation Theology-like ideas. As well, since the liberal view rests in the collective, anything that denies the primacy of the individual stinks. “Social Justice,” therefore, except in the Papal uses mentioned, usually does invoke the sour waft of classism and collectivism; perhaps unfairly, but the modern vernacular has done what it has done.

    So, those things said, perhaps a more consistent semantic would assist in developing an apolitical view, vis-a-vis “social justice.” Anecdotally, I know many political conservatives who, quietly and with no communication between left hands and right, do amazing amounts of work for “the poor.” They do not regard their actions as “social justice” but simply charity. My parish friends who pray at death clinics every weekend do not believe they are enacting “social justice.” they see the faces of the women who come to the door of the clinics where they are standing. These are individulas, as are the children they carry.

    Those who I refer to also have first-hand knowledge of what politics and bureaucracy, with their dehumanizing rules, regulations and demands, can do to God’s constructs of family and marriage. They see it every day, which is the fuel that drives the engines of their political bent. I imagine Mr. Buckley (or Mr. Wills) would perhaps throw a look askance at them, but that would be his folly, not theirs; as conservatism is based on the belief that government is a necessary evil that should be applied only where no other balm is effective, I hold their actions more indicative of the stripe than I do his (or his) invective.

    Kennedy . . . well, there he is. We studied that speech at the Jesuit prep school I attended during the Nixon-Ford years, and there was much contention then, as there is now, as to whether he was beholden to his Catholic ethic as an executive in a respresentational democracy. This of course led to the arguments regarding whether a religious ethic would be more suited to the executive of a Constitutional Republic instead, like the one the Founders had built (and their descendants almost immediately deconstructed.) And so on . . . besides, relying on a politician for any kind of clear indication of anything is like trying to sculpt with water.

    I don’t think it is possible in the current political crucible to talk about “social justice” anymore without being taken wrongly or simply being taken advantage of. The quasi-fascist tide in the west has eaten up what a doctrine of social justice would look like in a more libertarian, Republican political framework.

    This lone voice longs to simply move past the over-done left-right, Lib-Con, Rep-Dem duel and instead look at simple liberty vs. statism and responsibility vs. entitlement. At least for me, then, the Magisterium’s version of “social justice” would have a backgound more conducive to its true intent.

  • First, thank you Donald, for setting me straight on the true author of the statement, “Mater si…”. Much obliged

    Now WK Aiken, I believe we are much closer in agreement than perhaps either of initially supposed. Keep on using Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum against Liberation Theology devotee. I would invite you to further read Pius XI’s Quadragessimo Anno (on the fortieth anniversary of Rerum Novarum). There you will discover the principle of subsidiarity being enunciated, the principle that radically challenges larger social bodies from taking over what smaller social bodies can deal with. Read within the whole “social teaching” of the Church it blows apart all those who believe the State (read big government) should take over everything or that The State by means of public schools actually should take over the rights of parents to educate their children-just a few examples.

    We, as Catholics need to go beyond parties, ideologies etc and be rooted in the teaching of the Church, the Gospel message

  • Meanwhile, here’s one bishop who’s probably not going to be ANY politician’s pet:

    http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=19448

    “A plan to recite the Rosary for the cause of same-sex marriage is “blasphemous,” Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois has said.

    “Catholics lobbying for legal recognition of same-sex marriage in Illinois (during a massive pro-gay marriage rally held today) have announced plans to gather at the city’s cathedral of the Immaculate Conception. The bishop announced that anyone wearing the rainbow sash favored by the gay-rights movement will be denied entrance to the cathedral, and anyone who begins vocal prayers for same-sex marriage will be asked to leave.

    “It is blasphemy to show disrespect or irreverence to God or to something holy,” the bishops said. “Since Jesus clearly taught that marriage as created by God is a sacred institution between a man and a woman (see Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9), praying for same-sex marriage should be seen as blasphemous and as such will not be permitted in the cathedral.”

    However, the Francis Effect was not entirely absent:

    http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x529842861/Bishop-bans-from-Cathedral-show-of-gay-marriage-support

    “Rick Garcia, a longtime gay activist and political director for Civil Rights Agenda, entered the church before the scheduled 5:15 p.m. Mass without incident — but was not wearing a rainbow-colored sash, he said.

    “He called Paprocki’s statement blasphemous, and a stark contrast to Pope Francis’ recent comments calling for the need to make the Catholic Church a more merciful, welcoming place.

    “We’re not committing blasphemy. The bishop’s committing blasphemy,” Garcia said.

  • Pingback: Pope Francis Effect™ | Big Pulpit
  • I’m a life-long Catholic from the UK. I navigated to this site following “the Pope Francis effect”, perhaps because he seems to be having an effect on me. I have found that all the popes of my life-time, starting with Paul VI have had effects both of great encouragement and at times deep exasperation. Indeed the same encyclical, Humanae Vitae, exasperated me as a teenager but in maturity has given me great encouragement.

    When I started reading this article I began to think “these folks are political idealogues first and followers of Christ second, so much vitriol and so little charity”. But I’m not a native speaker of American english so maybe I’m losing something in the non-translation. The American way of discussion always seems brash and aggressive when you are not used to it.

    What this brings to my mind is one of the things Benedict XVI sought to remind us of at the start of his reign: “Do not be afraid”. Fear takes many forms, often related to an unknown future. Maybe state provided welfare will diminish people’s self reliance and also their individual generosity, either of which move us away from personal holiness. The UK experience is that in some cases it does happen. But we still have our free will so what should we fear. Conversely lack of economic power in an environment where there is only self reliance or the mercy of individuals and no “entitlement” to rescue the weak certainly creates fear for the weak but it also puts the strong in the way of Darwinian temptation. Why should the fittest not survive and the feeble die out? A profoundly sub-human instinct. Something to fear? But we still have our free will.

    So I was greatly encouraged by the contributors calling for a move beyond the idealogical divides.

    Thankyou
    John

  • Can you imagine if N. Pelosi, J. Biden, J. Kerry, A. Cuomo, K. Sebelius (to name just a few) supported legislation that permitted people to slaughter the poor? I can only suppose they don’t realize that this is what they are actually doing. If they saw the unborn as humans – and the poorest and most defenseless humans at that – they would not support legalized abortion.

4 Responses to Explaining the Democrat Positions on Iraq and Syria

Lying Worthless Political Hack = Gosnell

Friday, June 14, AD 2013

The Lying Worthless Political Hack, a/k/a Nancy minority leader of the House, has never been noted for either intellectual or verbal coherence but she outdid herself in her response to a question by John McCormack of The Weekly Standard:

At a Thursday press conference, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi condemned a bill that would prohibit abortions during the final four months of pregnancy with an exception for when the life and physical health of the mother is at risk.

Asked what the moral difference is between what Dr. Kermit Gosnell did to babies born alive and aborting those same infants moments before birth, Pelosi refused to answer.

 

 

THE WEEKLY STANDARD: Madam Leader, you mentioned the bill that passed out of the House Judiciary committee. Members who have proposed that bill have done that in the wake of this murder trial in Philadelphia.  They argue that there really isn’t much of a moral difference between what someone like Dr. Gosnell did to infants born at 23, 24, 25 weeks into pregnancy, and what can happen [legally] at a clinic down the road in Maryland where a doctor says he’ll perform an elective abortions 28 weeks into pregnancy. So the question I have for you is what is the moral difference between what Dr. Gosnell did to a baby born alive at 23 weeks and aborting her moments before birth?

PELOSI: You’re probably enjoying that question a lot, I can see you savoring it. [Laughter in press corps] Let me just tell you this.

TWS: Could you answer the question?

PELOSI: Let me just tell you this. What was done in Philadelphia was reprehensible and everybody condemned it. For them to decide to disrespect a judgment a woman makes about her reproductive health is reprehensible. Next question.

TWS: So what’s the moral difference? I just asked a simple question. … What’s the moral difference then between 26 weeks elective abortion and the killing of that same infant born alive. This is the issue that they’re trying to–

PELOSI: This is not the issue. They are saying that there’s no abortion. It would make it a federal law that there would be no abortion in our country. You’re taking the extreme case. You’re taking the extreme case. And what I’m saying to you what happened in Philadelphia was reprehensible. And I do not think you.

TWS: [Inaudible]

PELOSI: I’m not going to have this conversation with you because you obviously have an agenda. You’re not interested in having an answer.

TWS: [Inaudible]

PELOSI: I’ve responded to you to the extent that I’m going to respond to you. Because I want to tell you something. As the mother of five children, my oldest child was 6 years old the day I brought my 5th child home from the hospital, as a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this. I don’t think it should have anything to do with politics. And that’s where you’re taking it and I’m not going there.

TWS [after tape ends]: It was a simple question. You didn’t answer.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

35 Responses to Lying Worthless Political Hack = Gosnell

  • If only Dante could have witnessed this and incorporated American left-wing politicians into the Inferno.

  • She knew she was caught and brought out her pat answer. “I’m more qualified to speak on this because I have children. This issue is not political.” I thought TWS made it clear they wanted to know the moral difference, not the political difference.

  • Pingback: The Importance of Fatherhood - BigPulpit.com
  • Alphatron,

    I apologize that I disagree. Dante would not have wasted ink or rhyme on such a nitwit, be she ere so vile.

    .

  • The failure of the bishops to take action against politicians like Pelosi and friends is absolutely reprehensible. What are the bishops afraid of? What do they think will happen if they excommunicate people like Pelosi, Biden and Sebelius? I know there are certain procedures that have to be followed under canon law, but enough is enough. Time to start dropping the hammer on these clowns.

  • “If one wants to know what is wrong with the Church in America, one has to only ask why this ‘Catholic’ abortion uber alles disgrace wasn’t excommunicated decades ago.”

    Jesus said to the Church at Thyatira:

    But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her immorality. Behold, I will throw her on a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her doings; and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches shall know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve. [Revelation 2:20-23]

    And the prophet Ezekiel writes concerning shepherds who don’t protect the flock:

    The word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord GOD: Ho, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fatlings; but you do not feed the sheep. The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the crippled you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd; and they became food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered, they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill; my sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them. “Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: As I live, says the Lord GOD, because my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild beasts, since there was no shepherd; and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep; therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my sheep at their hand, and put a stop to their feeding the sheep; no longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them. [Ezekiel 34:1-10]

    The whirlwind is coming.

  • “The failure of the bishops to take action against politicians like Pelosi and friends is absolutely reprehensible. What are the bishops afraid of?”

    I think a certain number are not afraid. Some are so blinded by a false sense of social justice that they tolerate Pelosi in the hopes of moving forward what ultimately is a false agenda.

    Unfortunately, I also think there are some who believe as Pelosi does.

  • T Shaw, unfortunately only the nitwits are in power- the cream of that crop. The lowest of the low.

    We have them here on Australia, except our Prime Minister, a woman (if you call her that) is using the abortion card as a desperate last minute attempt to gain popularity before the september election. What a vile breed of ruling class we have today. As a woman, I fume when I her her talk of representing the “woman” view.

    Politician or not, I can’t think if anything but what low life’s these people are. And ridiculously illogical, manipulative and completely untrustworthy. But,

    God is Just and He sees all….

  • Come on, T Shaw. Surely you must be curious as to what punishment might be dreamed up for these hacks? Okay, maybe Dante wouldn’t touch it, but perhaps the made-for-TV version can incorporate them. The trouble is, where do you stick them? They could end up anywhere from fourth to the ninth circle.

  • I’d put her (Wilson, FDR and thousands) and all progressives down (lowest level) with Brutus, Cassius, and Judas. They’re ruining the Constitution/Republic, which is (as Dante saw the Roman Empire; Ciardi notes/Paradiso: The Eagle – divinely ordained worldly arm to advance Christendom) fundamental to God’s plan for human happiness.

    Satan will require a fourth, massive maw.

    Still, Pelosi may get a “pass” from St. Peter for “diminished capacity.”

  • “Satan will require a fourth, massive maw.”

    I think that will be enough speculation along those lines.

  • Nancy mis-spoke. She was trying to say (…this is satanic ground to me.)
    She had a Freudian slip….deep in her heart she wants to worship and serve the Sacred.
    Her confusion is the norm. Just ask uncle Joe.
    By the way where’s the other catholic J.Biden?

  • There isn’t much there there, and perhaps there never was.

  • Well in that case I would like a pass for stupidity every now and then. Except my stupidity doesn’t affect laws that kill innocents in their hundreds and thousands…

    I honestly think that Biden is secretly a robot programmed by the CIA. The man never sounded nor resembled a human to me.

    The mind boggles how someone so idiotic and stale could be the Vice President of The United States of America. I’m still waiting for the memo from DC to come out that says it was all a prank! And that Nancy Poop-head Pelosi had a face transplant.

    Oops better be careful cause your government is secretly downloading these blog comment for their surveillance. Then again, maybe thats a good thing- those nitwits will get the note about how useless they are. One comment at a time…

  • Sarcasm aside; the hypocrisy that Nancy, Joe and pro-abort catholics have embraced is frightening. May I find the humility to pray for them, and stop looking for ways to jab them.

  • The mind boggles how someone so idiotic and stale could be the Vice President of The United States of America.

    It is essentially an appointive position. If you run down the list of Barack Obama’s cabinet secretaries, the quasi cabinet positions in the executive chamber, and the ten most consequential free-standing agencies, you find his corps of senior appointments amounts to about 45 individuals. About five came out of the business world (one of whom was held over from the previous administration). You have four soldiers, around three from the science and engineering trade, a couple of economists (one held over from the previous administration), a non-practicing architect, a foundation executive, and a career spook (held over from the previous administration). The majority are politicians, congressional staff, or (politically-connected) lawyers. He prefers the company of people who are as vapid as he is.

  • Ah, so morality has no place in politics? From the same congresswoman who begs upon our conscience to “serve” the poor through corrupt bureaucracies that engage in the targeting of political opponents and privileging political friends and that rarely ever actually help the poor.

  • I am beginning to believe that this woman has never had a rational thought. Twisted, twisted, twisted!

  • I hope everyone who made a comment on this thread has their tax records in order. The IRS is coming to audit you.

  • Fear the consequences of remaining silent when the stench of rotting injustices fills your nostrils. Otherwise the walk to the gulag will be shameful for you.

  • Politics are essentially coercion and deceit.

  • “I hope everyone who made a comment on this thread has their tax records in order. The IRS is coming to audit you.”

    A few months ago that would have been paranoid. Not so much now.

  • “I hope everyone who made a comment on this thread has their tax records in order. The IRS is coming to audit you.”

    Right now, I feel like a brawl. I’d even look forward to it.

  • Donald, you respect and revere the Law. These people have no respect, no reverence for the Law. They play beneath the Law, holding it in disdain, contempt and disgust. So personally, I hope you never get in any such brawl, legal or physical.

  • Since the death of my son Paul, I am ready for a fight, and I have been involved in a few during the course of my career.

  • Then I will put you on my Rosary.

  • “Asked what the moral difference is between what Dr. Kermit Gosnell did to babies born alive and aborting those same infants moments before birth, Pelosi refused to answer. ”

    “I’ve responded to you to the extent that I’m going to respond to you. Because I want to tell you something. As the mother of five children, my oldest child was 6 years old the day I brought my 5th child home from the hospital, as a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this. I don’t think it should have anything to do with politics. And that’s where you’re taking it and I’m not going there.”

    Working the press room for points in truth-twisting and unkindness.

  • I remember that Mr. McClarey posted an excerpt from a book about Pelosi that described her family’s political history in Baltimore. He was a Democrat crook – in Baltimore, a common occurrence then and now.

    Pelosi says stupid things every time she opens her mouth because she gets away with it.

  • AMEN to your comments about this devil!! Why has she NOT been excommunicated??

  • Hasn’t she been told not to present herself for the Eucharist?

  • Barbara

    Excommunication is a penal sanction imposed by a judge (or declared to have been incurred, in the case of automatic excommunication [latae sententiae])

    As then Cardinal Ratzinger’s 2004 Memorandum made clear, refusal of the Eucharist under Canon 915 “is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.”

    The two should be carefully distinguished. This is clear from Canon 915 itself: “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

  • I would not hold Thomas d’Alessandro, Jr. responsible for his daughter’s offenses. Maryland had a (comparatively) lousy political culture prior to about 1975, but I think it was generally abuses of the take – bribes – shakedown – city – contractors – stick- your – cousins – and – your – clubhouse – clients – in – no – show – city jobs sort. It is difficult to believe that papa d’Alessandro would have dirtied himself with dealings with Planned Parenthood. Pelosi’s career as an elected official post-dates her father’s death.

  • St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle!

    Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him we humbly pray, and do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the Divine Power of God, cast into hell Satan and all the evil spiritis that roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.

    PS – that includes the ones whose claws are firmly sunk into the souls of those who promote ideas contrary to the Will of God in our government.

    Amen.

  • (Matthew 4:8-11; Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13): The Devil took Jesus atop a high mountain and showed Him all the World’s kingdoms in their splendor. “All of this I will give you,” said Satan, “if you kneel down and worship me.”

    “Nuff said.

Lying Worthless Political Hack Sees Pro-Life Dead People

Friday, August 10, AD 2012

 

 

 

“Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them.”

Susan B. Anthony

 

Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a\k\a the Lying Worthless Political Hack has been in the habit of making bizarre statements on a regular basis throughout her political career.  However, she recently topped herself:

 

My chair was getting crowded in,” said Pelosi. “I swear this happened, never happened before, it never happened since.”

“My chair was getting crowded in and I couldn’t figure out what it was, it was like this,” she said.

“And then I realized Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Alice Paul, Sojourner Truth, you name it, they were all in that chair, they were,” said Pelosi. “More than I named and I could hear them say: ‘At last we have a seat at the table.’ And then they were gone.”

Well, okay.  Assuming that the Lying Worthless Political Hack wasn’t simply hitting the sauce early in the day, I wonder what these ghosts would say to Pelosi.  Considering that Pelosi is a total pro-abort, perhaps they would have said something like this:

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

8 Responses to Lying Worthless Political Hack Sees Pro-Life Dead People

  • Power to the people!

    Repeal the Nineteenth Amendment . . . No, wait!

    They figured out how not to count soldiers’ votes, maybe they can discount women’s votes, too.

  • “Assuming that the Lying Worthless Political Hack wasn’t simply hitting the sauce…”

    Perhaps Botox got to her brain.

  • May almighty God descend upon you and remain with you forever, Donald McClarey. Next to Holy Scripture, our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution this post stands forever.

  • Phillip: It is not Nancy Pelosi’s brain, it is her heart that has ceased.

  • As far as the 2012 election, the pro-choice issue is the one issue that I disagree with in
    the presidential election. I am whole heartedly supporting Obama in the medical and social issues, but I, as many Catholics, cannot support anyone who says it is okay to destroy a human life in its mother’s womb.

  • Women had by that time held 11 of the 15 cabinet offices. Rice and Spellings were cabinet secretaries at the time. But the spirits rushed right past them and sat down with Nancy Pelosi, because that was the first time that women had a seat at the table.

    If the most important thing was having a woman at the table, if she had had a cold that day, would she have sent Bachmann in her place? Because after all, the ghosts of women had been waiting for this day, it wouldn’t have been right to send Hoyer.

  • The part about the seat at the table, more than her getting crowded by whom the vision entailed, reminds me of some words of Jesus from the Gospels on seats at tables and vision sources.

    Matthew 23: 1 – 36
    Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying,

    “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
    Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

    They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people’s shoulders,
    but they will not lift a finger to move them.

    All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels.
    [ Before some comment, here is the history footnote for non-historians:
    …Phylacteries: the Mosaic law required that during prayer small boxes containing parchments on which verses of Scripture were written be worn on the left forearm and the forehead.
    …Tassels: The widening of phylacteries and lengthening of tassels were for the purpose of making these evidences of piety more noticeable.]

    They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation “Rabbi”. As for you, do not be called “Rabbi”.

    You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers. Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven. Do not be called “Master”; you have but one master, the Messiah.

    The greatest among you must be your servant.

    Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

    Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter.

    Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You traverse land and sea to make one convert, and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna twice as much as yourselves.

    [read vv 16 -22 because it’s so thoughtworthy ]

    Woe to you , scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes of mint, and dill, and cummin and have neglected the weightier things of the law;
    judgment and mercy and fidelity. These things you should have done, without neglecting the others. Blind guides, who strain out the gnats and swallow the camel!

    Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but inside they are full of plunder and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may be clean.

    Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and every kind of filth. Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing.

    [ read 29 – 33 soberly ]

    Therefore, behold, I send you prophets and wise men and scribes;
    some of them you will kill and crucify,
    some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, so that there may come upon you all the righteous blood shed upon earth, from the righteous blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, whom you murdered between the santuary and the altar. Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.”

    … all the righteous blood shed these days has to include that of the most innocent babes and Christians in the way of those at the table these days.

  • All,
    This politician is getting what she wants, to make all of us talk about a subject she wants to promote. Remember she sold her soul more than once for earthly gains. She has problems she does not want to admit here.She needs prayer and nothing else. i chose to ignore her.

Lying Worthless Political Hack and Ex Cathedra

Saturday, June 9, AD 2012

 

 

When the Lying Worthless Political Hack, aka Nancy Pelosi ex Speaker of the House, opens her mouth in regard to her purported faith, The Catholic Church, you know the results are going to be unintentionally hilarious:

CNSNews.com asked Pelosi, who is Catholic, whether she supported her  church in the lawsuits it has filed, which argue that the  administration’s regulation violates the freedom of religion guaranteed  by the First Amendment.

What about the 43 Catholic institutions [that] have now sued the  administration over the regulation that requires them to provide  contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacients in their health care  plans?” CNSNews.com asked. “They say that violates their religious  freedom.  Do you support the Catholic Church in their lawsuits against  the administration?”

Well, I don’t think that’s the entire Catholic Church,” Pelosi  responded. “Those people have a right to sue, but I don’t think they’re  speaking ex cathedra for the Catholic Church.

“And there are people in the Catholic Church, including some of the  bishops, who have suggested that some of this may be premature,” Pelosi said.

It is unclear why Pelosi would have pointed out that when an archbishop—such as Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, Cardinal Donald  Wuerl of Washington, D.C. or Archbishop Carlson of St. Louis—sues the federal government in actions designed to protect the First Amendment rights of  American Catholics he is not speaking “ex cathedra.”

“Ex cathedra” refers to the infallible authority that Catholics believe the pope exerts when he makes a formal and solemn declaration on  matters of faith and morals. It is not a term to describe lawsuits the church files in civilian courts.

In a 1993 audience, Pope John Paul II quoted the first Vatican  Council in explaining the Catholic understanding of the “ex cathedra”  authority of the pope.

When the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in exercising his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians he defines with his supreme apostolic authority that a doctrine on faith and morals is to be held by the whole Church, through the divine assistance promised him in the person of St. Peter, he enjoys that  infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished to endow his Church  in defining a doctrine on faith and morals,” said the Vatican Council.

The Catholic teachings that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally wrong—the basis for the suits that the archdioceses, dioceses, universities, schools and charitable organizations have brought against the Obama  administration–are in fact inalterable teachings that the church says are rooted in natural law.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

35 Responses to Lying Worthless Political Hack and Ex Cathedra

  • She’ll be made a Cardinal in the new government sponsored “catholic” Church. As a theologian, logistician, and general brainiac, she is held in the highest regard by wannabe Pope Obama. His ignorance, Joseph “I see no difference in a man marrying a man” Biden also is a great admirer of Ms. Pelosi. This sacred trio, along with a supporting cast of apostates, headed up by that grand old gal Kathleen Sebilius, is looking forward to a long reign over their baby murdering, homosexual marrying, euthanizing, flock.

  • What Catholic theologian ever suggested a Pope is infallible in his laws, or in his commands, or in his acts of state, or in his administration, nor in his public policy?

  • When I read or hear anything about Nancy Pelosi, I automatically think of the Great Whore of Babylon in Revelation 17 and 18. I realize that St. John’s reference is more to a place (e.g., a city or nation) than a person, but nevertheless, mention of Pelosi always elicts this imagery in Revelation 17:1-6.

    1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked with me, saying to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters, 2 with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication.”

    3 So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication. 5 And on her forehead a name was written:

    MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT,
    THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS
    AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS
    OF THE EARTH.

    6 I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.

  • Nah Paul, the Book of Revelations is not the book for Pelosi. Now this is the book for her:

    http://classiclit.about.com/od/brantsebastian/fr/afprshipoffools.htm

  • I sit corrected again! 😉

    How appropriate for this Administration and the Senate: “A Ship of Fools.”

    “Brant was a preacher of words set to rhyme. In 112 chapters, he describes the effects of having strayed from God and of engaging in irrational circumstances. Brant laced his work with satirical observations, thus the ‘Ship of Fools’ offers readers an often tragicomic perspective on the effects of the protagonists’ conduct. The fools would like to sail for Narragonia (from German Narr for ‘fool’), a fool’s paradise, a desired utopia. Nevertheless, the author also suggests how foolish conduct can be defeated: by living the life that respects the will and the demands of God.”

    I like that term: “Narragonia”.

    I never heard of this book. I shall now have to buy and read it. Thanks, Donald.

  • Pelosi is important because she is textbook dissident when she throws the ex cathedra card. They really believe that the only two unambiguously ex cathedra pronouncements are the Immaculate Conception and Assumption–and somehow that means everything else is negotiable under the rubric of “Primacy of conscience”. Well, even five minutes of perusal tells you that what they hold isn’t primacy of conscience, but moral relativism disguised as primacy of conscience with the help of some cherry-picked, or flat-out wrong quotes from Aquinas, Ratzinger from the 60’s, et al.

  • The Pope is infallible when the Pope speaks the TRUTH. If the TRUTH is not the TRUTH, then it is a lie…perjury, sin. The Pope speaks the TRUTH and is infallible “ex-cathedera”, as the Vicar of Jesus Christ. Pelosi cannot be infallible or speak “ex-cathedra” because Pelosi is not ordained, nor is Pelosi able to espouse the Bride of Christ. In speaking of the Blessed Virgin, Holy Scripture says: “Her voice was not heard in the assembly”. Pelosi’s voice will not be heard in the assembly, because only TRUTH is to be spoken and heard in the streets and in the assembly.

  • It has occurred to me that Pelosi is not a fool. Pelosi uses her fallibility to lie, cheat and steal.

  • Thanks for the book recommendation, Don. Kindle link is here: http://amzn.to/KGpHRI

    Interesting point, Mary. How quick the left is to raise the specter of “ex cathedra” in this situation irrespective of its non-application and yet quickly turn around and make proclamations themselves that they believe are de facto ex-cathedra.

  • The dismissive attitude is typical of liberals. I’ve seen this in dealing with local school administration. Unless you have unanimous participation by the whole population, they’ll dismiss your concerns and “not representative of everyone”. Of course, they don’t apply that standard to themselves, so if you point out to Pelosi or Seblius that their positions are actually in the minority, and not representative of everyone, or even of most, you get a blank stare back. With maybe a couple of blinks thrown in for emphasis.

  • Why the Church tolerates her is beyond me. She should have been ex-communicated long ago, along with Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden. So-called “Catholics” like these is what has kept me away from the church.

  • “So called ‘Catholics’ like these is what has kept me away from the church.”

    I get your drift and I understand your frustration with why this is allowed to continue. That said, and with all due respect…. how does YOUR staying away from the Church — if you believe it to be the Body of Christ, you believe its teachings to be true, and you believe its sacraments to be genuine sources of grace — do anything to convert sinners, or save your own soul? Isn’t that a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face?

    I suppose the idea is that if enough people stop attending and giving money to the Church until pro-abort Catholic pols like Pelosi, et. al., are excommunicated, eventually the hierarchy will get the message. However, I think the actual effect would be just the opposite . If faithful pro-life Catholics stay home, then the pews are going to be populated, if at all, strictly by liberal pro-choice Catholics or those who really don’t care too much about life issues. In other words we would be destroying the Church in order to “save” it.

  • If it’s any consolation Joe she will be held that much more culpable. In any event don’t let the bishops keep you from doing the right thing. The Lord promised that the gates of Hades wouldn’t prevail against His Church not that he would spare us from the insufferable US Bishops.

  • “They say that violates their religious freedom. Do you support the Catholic Church in their lawsuits against the administration?”

    “Well, I don’t think that’s the entire Catholic Church,” Pelosi responded. “Those people have a right to sue, but I don’t think they’re speaking ex cathedra for the Catholic Church.

    “And there are people in the Catholic Church, including some of the bishops, who have suggested that some of this may be premature,” Pelosi said.

    Those people have a right to sue … those people with that ‘conscience thing’.

    Eroding, eroding, eroding so some day every one can just mindlessly go for all the varieties of death her admin offers and enjoy the perversions of nature on the way there. Questioners will be answered with fly swatters.

  • “As a devout catholic I disagree with church leaders when I am at work, but I have full respect for them.” this is either a lie or a flat out lie, talk about lack of integrity “I disagree with you at work, but I still agree with you as a catholic.” balone.

  • There should be a “or” in between “a” and “lie”.

  • Well, I don’t think that’s the entire Catholic Church,” Pelosi responded. “Those people have a right to sue, but I don’t think they’re speaking ex cathedra for the Catholic Church.”
    It is the duty of the state, the government, Pelosi, Obama, Biden to protect Religious Freedom. The government has chosen to delete Religious Freedom for our First Amendment, trample on sovereign personhood, make beasts of burden of men and property of the state of citizens.The bishops speak not only for evey Catholic Church member but for every citizen, every constitutent, every person ever created to be equal and free. FREEDOM

  • Obama, Pelosi, Biden, Sebelius, the whole lot of them would not be here if their parents had aborted or contracepted them. The whole lot of them would not be here if they had no parents, only practicing homosexuals. INGRATES. iNGRATES TAKING OUR MONEY TO ENSLAVE US.
    Yeah. I guess they would be perturbed by the bishops saying “WHO IS LIKE UNTO GOD”

    Pelosi, Pelosi, anyone, Going once, going twice, do I hear Pelosi? Gone to the devil.

  • Than again Mary Obama is a Bastard son so he obviously didn’t get enough fatherly love to know right from wrong, he has enough self-esteem but not enough objectivity to counter balance his self-esteem.

  • Pope Benedict XVI called Pelosi into his office and spoke with her for about twenty minutes. Pelsoi’s “it is not “ex-cathedra” probably means she will not comply. The Ten Commandments are “ex-cathedra”. Jesus itemized the Commandmants in the Gospel.

  • “Why the Church tolerates her is beyond me. She should have been ex-communicated long ago, along with Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden. So-called “Catholics” like these is what has kept me away from the church.” I appreciate Elaine Krewer’s response. If these people do not like it. They can leave. Some years back I had to attend Mass with the people who murdered my brother. I ran from the chuch in tears. I stopped. I returned to the Mass. If they do not like it they can leave… and this goes for the not too Catholic Bishops, theologians and Pelosi.

  • Valentin: “Than again Mary Obama is a Bastard son so he obviously didn’t get enough fatherly love to know right from wrong, he has enough self-esteem but not enough objectivity to counter balance his self-esteem.”
    Obama’s parents gave him LIFE. America gave Obama LIBERTY. God gave Obama FREEDOM (the pursuit of Happiness). OBAMA NEEDS TO SHARE AND SHARE THE FREEDOM ENDOWED BY GOD. The bishops are giving Obama fatherly love right now.

  • Yes Mary it is true that his parents gave him life but his father left him when he was 2 so at least in his younger days he probably did not recieve much fatherly love. You are right though that The Bishops are giving him some sort of fatherly love as they should considering that they are supposed to tell people right from wrong and serve us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

  • That is if the people getting served are ready so that their souls don’t burn.

  • Amazing lack of charity toward the persons on these posts. I thought our Founding Brother Jesus said to love not hate, to treat others as we would wish for ourselves, and that what we do to others classes us as Sheep or Goats. St Augustine says ” we love the sinner but hate the sin.”

  • Christ was pretty good about calling a spade a spade while loving the sinner:

    “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,

    2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.

    3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.

    4 For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them.

    5 And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad, and enlarge their fringes.

    6 And they love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues,

    7 And salutations in the market place, and to be called by men, Rabbi.

    8 But be not you called Rabbi. For one is your master; and all you are brethren.

    9 And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.

    10 Neither be ye called masters; for one is you master, Christ.

    11 He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant.

    12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

    13 But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter.

    14 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers. For this you shall receive the greater judgment.

    15 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves.

    16 Woe to you blind guides, that say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but he that shall swear by the gold of the temple, is a debtor.

    17 Ye foolish and blind; for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

    18 And whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gift that is upon it, is a debtor.

    19 Ye blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

    20 He therefore that sweareth by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things that are upon it:

    21 And whosoever shall swear by temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth in it:

    22 And he that sweareth by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

    23 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cummin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone.

    24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel.

    25 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness.

    26 Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean.

    27 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness.

    28 So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

    29 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; that build the sepulchres of the prophets, and adorn the monuments of the just,

    30 And say: If we had been in the days of our Fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

    31 Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets.

    32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

    33 You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?

    34 Therefore behold I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you will put to death and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city:

    35 That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.

    36 Amen I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation.

    37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not?

    38 Behold, you house shall be left to you, desolate.

    39 For I say to you, you shall not see me henceforth till you say: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.”

  • Jesus’ condemnation of the hypocritical, rule-bending and burden binding efforts of the Teachers of His time did not contradict the Beatitudes which are co counter-cultural they are dismissed for the “real” world. His Last Supper new mandate, the mandatum, a new commandment I give – love one another. I repeat, we love the sinner but hate the sin. The language of several posts on here is neither Christian nor just. By the way, I did not vote for Mr Obama the first time, I saw his actual and hidden agenda from my study of how the atheism-secularism-anti Natural Law mentality creeps into societies

  • “The language of several posts on here is neither Christian nor just.”

    In your opinion Lone Thinker. It is never unChristian or unjust to tell the simple truth in either religion or politics.

  • Valentin: “some sort of fatherly love”? “some sort”? What the bishops are giving Obama is the TRUTH, the whole TRUTH, and nothing but the TRUTH. Abortion is murder. Obama is the servant of the people. The taxpayers are Obama’s employers. Being Obama’s constituent is shameful and painful. Every newly conceived human person is more qualified to be president by their innocence, their soul having not been sold to the devil. What did Obama expect? for the people and our bishops to roll over and play dead? It is called discipline, and patriotism. Obama has none of either. Obama’s contempt for the people he serves leaves me speechless.

  • There is a way of being FATHER-ly Valentin and also being corrective, disciplining. The model for ex-communication which St Paul shows is medicinal, not throwing the sinner under the bus, to convert, re-connect to the Body of Christ, the Church, DMcC. You seem to presume that telling the Truth has to be vulgar, insulting the person, instead of respecting the person while naming the sin. Jesus’ ultimate example of that was asking forgiveness for his accusers and those who engineered his death, because they did not know what they were doing. You seem to confuse tactics with goal. Each human is an eikon, image Greek of God who loves each unconditionally and knows the heart. That is why the Vatican or the Church has never ever named anyone who is in hell- not even Judas so we are asked in Matthew not to judge. The person, no- the objective action, yes.

  • LoneThinker wrote: “The model for ex-communication which St Paul shows is medicinal, not throwing the sinner under the bus, to convert, re-connect to the Body of Christ, the Church…”

    St. Paul wrote in 1st Corinthians 5:

    “1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”

    To follow in St. Paul’s example, the Bishops in the USCCB would have to publicly turn Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and every other liberal Democrat Catholic politician over to satan for the destruction of their flesh.

    However, I like how our Blessed Lord Himself dealt with Jezebel at the Church of Thyatira; Nancy Pelosi merits nothing less. As St. John wrote in Revelation 2:20-23:

    “20 Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. 21 And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. 22 Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. 23 I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.”

    And let’s not forget Hymenaeus and Alexander in 1st Timothy 1:18-20:

    “18 This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, 19 having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, 20 of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.”

    Last but not least, there is the example of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11. They weren’t thrown under the bus. They were struck dead where they stood:

    1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. 2 And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

    5 Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. 6 And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him.

    7 Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter answered her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?”

    She said, “Yes, for so much.”

    9 Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband. 11 So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things.

  • “The model for ex-communication which St Paul shows is medicinal, not throwing the sinner under the bus,”

    Saint Paul was also no slouch at calling a spade a spade:

    “I wish that those who are upsetting you would castrate themselves!”

    “1 Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. 2 Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, 3 Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, 4 Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God: 5 Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid. 6 For of these sort are they who creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires: 7 Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no farther; for their folly shall be manifest to all men, as theirs also was. ”

    And with apologies to all Cretans reading the blog in Internet land:

    “One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretans are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
    This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;”

  • I use that line from Paul to show that even he, who wrote i Cor 13 and was such a pastoral Father to his flock “lost it” over the Judaizers who wanted to impose circumcision on his Celtic church ( Galatian in Asia, today’s Turkey church who were not ever Jewish. His anger was quite understandable with those snakes creeping in to undermine his work, even if we shudder at his language. There are ample examples of the OT where God promises all sorts of vile punishments and relented. I am sure Paul exaggerated when he labelled all Cretans just as some Protestants do it for all Catholics and Leftists and Rightists do it to the other side. Thoughtful people try to make their criticisms accurate and just and truthful. Enough said, Eucharistic Congress opening starts now.

  • Oy!

    If you love the sinner you will do the Spiritual Works for her/him.

    Admonish the sinner.

    Counsel the doubtful.

    Instruct the ignorant.

    A translation of an OT Bible dictum: “Spare the rod, hate the child.”

  • Refraining from throwing the lack-of-charity card means never having to double down on a losing hand.

Lying Worthless Political Hack Drops Pinch of Incense on Emperor’s Altar

Friday, February 3, AD 2012

In a move that will come as no surprise to anyone who has paid the slightest attention to her political career, former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, or as I affectionately refer to her, the Lying Worthless Political Hack, indicated yesterday that she values her loyalty to her President far more than any loyalty to her Church:

 

QUESTION:

“The administration has issued a regulation that will require all healthcare plans to cover sterilization and all FDA approved contraceptives including those that induce abortions. This will force Catholic individuals and institutions to act against their consciences. All across the nation..”

PELOSI:

“Is this a speech or do we have a question disguised as speech?”

QUESTION:

We cannot and will not comply with this law.

Will you stand with your fellow Catholics in opposing this law?

PELOSI:

I’m going to stand with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made and I support it.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

21 Responses to Lying Worthless Political Hack Drops Pinch of Incense on Emperor’s Altar

  • And the difference between Livia Drusilla Julia Augusta, Uxor Augusti Caesaris et Mater Imperii Romani, and Nasty Pelosi is???????????????

  • “And the difference between Livia Drusilla Julia Augusta, Uxor Augusti Caesaris et Mater Imperii Romani, and Nasty Pelosi is???????????????”

    Botox.

  • You made me laugh, Phillip. True, oh so true!

  • Emperor very happy to see her also sustain burns with her ‘fellow’ Catholics and watch the smoke billow.
    Takes her to Catholic ER he threatened during this their year of allotment for burn treatment.
    Finds long waiting line for prerequisite, sincere conscience examination, then finds out about the repentance area before treatment. Not easy for Emperor to stop in this place – no one burning incense for Emperor.
    Has fund raiser party waiting, and then thinks scarring fine. Always someone to burn incense back at the party.
    They get out of line, blow the scene, and go to party.

  • “I’m going to stand with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this.”

    The Bishops have to do something about this PRONTO. The fact that she claims to be speaking as a Catholic and on behalf of Catholics in supporting the HHS mandate makes this so much worse than the usual thumb in the eye the Church receives from the pro-abort “Catholic” contingent in government.

  • “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his [her] spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” 1st Corinthians 5:4-5

  • Jay – Yes. There’s a huge difference between an “I’m a Catholic but” and an “I’m a Catholic and” formulation. This statement used the latter, and if only for clarity’s sake some official has to denounce it.

  • The Bishops have to do something about this PRONTO. The fact that she claims to be speaking as a Catholic and on behalf of Catholics in supporting the HHS mandate makes this so much worse than the usual thumb in the eye the Church receives from the pro-abort “Catholic” contingent in government.

    Actually, it starts with Sibelius, who is gladly leading Obama’s Kulturkampf. If she’s not going to repent, she must be excommunicated. If not, then all the press releases are so much confetti and bluster.

    This is *the* defining moment. If this doesn’t prompt stern corrective action, then we have reached a breaking point. Are they up to it?

    I have my doubts.

  • Wherever else we disagree, I am completely with you on this one.

    It may be politic to quietly acknowledge that a public figure has excommunicated themselves by their actions but failure to call them out on it leads down a terrible road. Uncatechized Catholics are likely to be confused by the silence – concluding that Pelosi’s and Sibelius’ positions and actions are in accord with the faith.

    The time for quiet is past.

    Will the bishops stand up and be counted?

  • Is this something for the bishops – plural – to respond to? Even the best committee can rarely do more than draft a very good text in reply. People live in specific dioceses, under their local bishop and the Bishop of Rome.

  • Sad. I lament to think what the dread day of Judgment will be like for faithless Catholics like this.

    And, as always, we wait in expectation of her bishop doing something to address the scandal that is Nancy Pelosi.

  • “The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise — with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.” Time for all our bishops to recall these words of Lincoln. Action must be taken now against public apostates like Pelosi. The left in this country is fighting an undeclared war against the Church. Pope Benedict understands the stakes for freedom of religion in America:

    “In the light of these considerations, it is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres. The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life. Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.

    Here once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society. The preparation of committed lay leaders and the presentation of a convincing articulation of the Christian vision of man and society remain a primary task of the Church in your country; as essential components of the new evangelization, these concerns must shape the vision and goals of catechetical programs at every level.”

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/01/20/pope-benedict-religious-freedom-under-threat-in-america/

  • I imagine the USCCB will draft a strongly worded letter decrying Mitt Romney’s uncharitable immigration stance quickly followed by a second condemning his lukewarm opposition to water boarding.

  • As well as his thoughts that the social safety net is satisfactory.

  • And thus the persecution cometh – this is indeed an attack on the Church, from within and from without in the US.

    Kia kaha – stand strong.

  • Indeed Don. I think we are fortunate that Obama started this in an election year. I trust that he will have a Yamamoto moment about all this when he looks back:

  • Donald – Your mouth, er computer to God’s ears!!

  • What I am about to say may anger some of you. While I am in full support of the bishops in their opposition to this HHS mandate, I also have to say that they have contributed to this in no insignificant way. They have supported the big government nanny statism that has enabled this to happen. Obamacare got rammed down our throats with nary a peep about whether or not taking over one sixth of the U.S. economy can be squared with the principle of subsidiarity. To my knowledge Bp Lori of Bridgeport Conn. was the only exception.

    They also continue to take sides on issues they have no business taking sides on like capital punishment, national security/foreign policy, immigration etc. It matters not to them, it seems, that these very groups they link pinkies with are vehemently pro-abortion and (especially with the death penalty) use them as a wedge to divide pro-lifers and other faithful Catholics.

    Until individual bishops and the USCCB as a whole have the courage to own up to the part they played in helping to bring this travesty on steroids about, their opposition to it will ring hallow.

  • Greg Mockeridge: Capital punishment is the TEMPORAL punishment due to capital one murder. Temporal punishment cannot be removed as such, except by the person upon whom it is laid by his own sins and certainly not against the will of God. The bishops for their part pray the Lord’s prayer, “deliver us from evil” and “God’s will be done” and for this, the bishops are still bishops, but the bishops need to lead the people out of bondage to the devil and his minions, the devil’s footsoldiers and those people possessed of the devils. God created freedom.

  • Lying Worthless Political Hack Drops Pinch of Incense on Emperor’s Altar. Donald R. McClarey the soul of clarity. It is indeed poetry. This title inscribes the essence of Nancy Pelosi and exposes the devil inside.

  • Greg Mockeridge hits this one out of the park. Not only do the US Bishops support illegal immigration, they also support government theft, as in steal from Peter (taxpayers) and pay Paul (the poor souls emigrating from corrupt regimes supported by the US government). While my family lives from paycheck to paycheck, what right do the USCCB have in demanding my contributions? This is a macro-level assault on common sense I have witnessed at the parish level. At one time my parish had an elementary school that required weekly attendance at mass, contribution of time and talent at fundraising functions and payment of tuition. Except for non-Catholics. They were exempt from all the above. The school has been closed for nearly 2 decades.
    And I would like to second the other most important element, pro-abortion Catholics getting away with not only their support of genocide, but the public scandal that most assuredly contributes to the loss of many more bodies and souls.

Lying Worthless Political Hack Hates Catholic Conscience

Tuesday, November 22, AD 2011

 

 

It will come as little surprise to faithful readers of this blog, but the Lying Worthless Political Hack, as I affectionately refer to ex-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D. San Francisco), took  the opportunity during an interview with the Washington Post to slam the Church she purportedly is a member of:

On abortion

Pelosi recently was criticized for the way she characterized a bill to amend Republican-proposed conscience exemptions for health-care reform that allow providers to refuse to perform abortions. Pelosi called the measure, which passed last month with some help from Democrats, “savage,’’ and said, “When the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health-care providers do not have to intervene, if this bill is passed. It’s just appalling.”

In retrospect, does she think that assessment went too far? Not at all, she said: “They would” let women die on the floor, she said. “They would! Again, whatever their intention is, this is the effect.’’

Catholic health-care providers in particular have long said they’d have to go out of business without the conscience protections that Pelosi says amount to letting hospitals “say to a woman, ‘I’m sorry you could die’ if you don’t get an abortion.” Those who dispute that characterization “may not like the language,’’ she said, “but the truth is what I said. I’m a devout Catholic and I honor my faith and love it .?.?. but they have this conscience thing’’ that she insists put women at physical risk, although Catholic providers strongly disagree.

On one occasion, she said, laughing, one of her critics on the topic of abortion, speaking on the House floor, said, “Nancy Pelosi thinks she knows more about having babies than the pope. They think like this. And of course I do — I think the pope would agree — and I know more than you, too, mister.’’

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

9 Responses to Lying Worthless Political Hack Hates Catholic Conscience

  • The Church in America deserves all the trials and tribulations it is getting simply because Her Bishops will NOT turn over to Satan people like Nancy Pelosi. That’s what St. Paul told the Church at Corinth to do with a man sleeping with his father’s wife. And that is exactly what he would tell us to do with a woman promoting and extolling the infanticide of the unborn. 1st Corinthians 5:4-5:

    In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus

  • Don”t blame me. I voted for McCain.

    Plus, she made millions $$$ on trading inside info from her legislative activities.

  • She’ll receive communion, no questions ask, the first Sunday in Advent, with the tacit approval of her local ordinary.

    We can rage all we want at her, but she’s a symptom of the actual malady.

  • “askED.”

    Grrr. My two year old is going to have to reconsider her current vocation of living alarm clock. Stat.

  • Kind of makes me hope the atheists are right, because WE have MUCH to answer for allowing narrowbacks like Pelosi ruin this country!!!

  • Couldn’t help noticing in the video, Obama mentioning that defining when life begins is above his pay-grade.

    With the benefit of experience, it appears that most other things are as well.

    As for Pelosi, I wonder what her P.P and other parishioners think of her at her home parish – or does she scuttle off somewhere where she is less recogniseable?

  • “With the benefit of experience, it appears that most other things are as well.”

    Indeed Don! Some men rise to the challenge of high office, but unfortunately Mr. Obama is not among their number.

  • He has risen to the level of incompetant.

  • Pingback: Pelosi: Anti-Catholic Polical Hack | Cowboy Papist

And Your Little Dog, Too!

Tuesday, September 14, AD 2010

Hands down the most entertaining political ad I’ve seen this year.  John Dennis has the well-nigh hopeless task of defeating the Lying Worthless Political Hack, a\k\a Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House.  In Pelosi’s San Francisco District Che Guevara would probably be deemed to be a political moderate, but Dennis is running a feisty campaign nonetheless.  Here is his website.  He might be worth tossing a few dollars to if only as a salute for the entertainment value he is providing.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

9 Responses to And Your Little Dog, Too!

  • Genius – I had to rewatch that ad a few times because I kept laughing! The IRS flying monkeys is one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a long time! I wish I lived in Frisco just so I could vote for him!

  • Rumor has it that she may retire in 2012 after this election.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75233

    Speaking of “retirement”, a Politico reporter with high connections within the Democratic Party and the White House has it on good authority that Obama is not going to run in 2012 for re-election. Heard it on the news and I can’t find it online yet.

  • Tito:

    I doubt that about Obama. He lives for the campaign; he’s been campaigning for 2012 since before the 2008 election was decided. The only way I could see it is if Obama pulled an Edwin Edwards-drop out of the election, hand your opponent a hallow victory (i.e. no mandate for change), and then return in four years after the opponent fails to reclaim power. If Obama calculates that he wasn’t win 2012 but that he could smoke Palin in 2016, then he might-but it seems a stretch (though I would love anything that prevents him from being in the office 858 days, 22 hours, 12 minutes, and 9 seconds from now-yes, I have a countdown clock on my desktop. Sue me.)

  • I don’t see it either, but the political ground is trending toward that possibility.

    LBJ quit when he read the political tee-leaves knowing full well he didn’t have a chance in hell to win.

  • Found it:

    A prominent insider of the Democratic Party is saying:

    “…the biggest fear of some of those close to him (Obama) is that he (Obama) might not really want to go on in 2012, that he (Obama) might not really care.”

    Here is the article:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42100.html

  • Roger Simon and Politico are good, but not infallible. The only way I foresee Obama not running in 2012 is if the GOP gets control of both houses of Congress AND manages not to mess anything up too badly in the following 2 years. A lot can happen in 2 years and one must never underestimate the ability of EITHER party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

  • The violence in this video is astonishing and stems from a Calvinistic outlook and a preference for the rich. Everyone knows that Nancy is a great Catholic because she knows(unlike some bloggers) that Catholics pray to saints.

  • I don’t think Obama cares about getting re-elected, I believe he is George Soro’s little flying monkey and all they care about is the destruction of the American Way. He seems to be concerned about getting the most damage done in the shortest amount of time.
    This video is great, very well done and very funny!

5 Responses to Did Jesus Have the Right to Life at the Moment of Conception?

Anne Rice Breaks Up With Christianity

Thursday, July 29, AD 2010

I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of …Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.

And with that announcement, Anne Rice publicly renounced her identity as a Christian on Facebook.

I’m compelled to wonder, however — who is the more preferable and honest of the two?

  • The “Anne Rice”‘s of the world — who recognize their open disagreement with traditional [Catholic / Orthodox] Christianity, and agree that they can no longer identify themselves as such because the moral positions they hold are fundamentally incompatible?
  • The “Nancy Pelosi”‘s of the world, who publicly repudiate various traditional moral positions of [Catholic / Orthodox] Christianity, yet simultaneously proclaim themselves “practicing Catholics” (up and including the reception of the Eucharist), and yet relegate their disagreements as “differences of opinion”?
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

39 Responses to Anne Rice Breaks Up With Christianity

  • Anne Rice hands down.

    She may not know a lot about Catholicism, she is at least honest in her beliefs.

    Madame Speaker on the other hand knows her faith very well and purposely and consciously goes against the teachings of God.

  • Wow. I know the sexual abuse scandal really bothered her but didn’t expect this.

    I think I would probably still prefer an Andrew Sullivan Catholic than the new Anne Rice though. Her lost of faith in the leadership combined with all the time she spends online being both urged by Maureen Dowd Catholics and attacked by Catholic Answers Catholics may have pushed her over the edge.

  • I don’t think that anyone ever accused Nancy Pelosi of being able to write, either.

  • “may have pushed her over the edge.”

    I think this loon has been over the edge for a long, long time.

    http://www.boundlessline.org/2007/08/anne-rices-mean.html

  • Liberal political commitments are more popular and easier to understand than orthodoxy.

    Interesting, though, it sounds like she still thinks of herself as a disciple of Christ? “In the name of…”

  • “…Obama, peace be upon him.”

  • “I’m compelled to wonder, however — who is the more preferable and honest of the two?”

    Ann Rice.

  • I like how you phrased the post so as to minimize negative comments about Ms. Rice, Chris. It highlights that she is – and has been – honest and upfront about her differences with traditional Christianity. The tone of her post suggests frustration and anger; it’s not clear exactly what the source for these are (and what is ‘anti-life’ about Christianity?), but whatever her difficulties are, it would be best to treat her with kindness and charity.

  • It is a complex question. As far as ecumenical efforts go, Pope Benedict has clearly stated that disagreements should be worked out within the context of communion. Ms. Rice’s list of grievances do not strike me as good reasons for leaving communion.

    As far as Nancy Pelosi goes, a lay person disagreeing with the bishops should not a public scandal make. She is a symptom of the larger catholic culture and not its cause. Does anyone doubt that if she resigned her House seat tomorrow that someone just as bad if not worse would take her place?

  • I find the post to be a little rambling. Ok, she likes gays, feminism, and birth control. Not surprising even if it is disappointing. But then she gets kinda weird.

    “Anti-Democrat?” I mean, some would argue but I think it’s weird she thinks Catholics must be Republicans (or can’t be Dems). I mean, many pro-lifers think that (with some good reason) but why she thinks that is odd.

    “Anti-secular humanism” I don’t know what that means; I’m not sure any religion accomodates pure secular humanism. What is she talking about?

    And finally, “anti-science?” How on earth is a Catholic anti-science? That one really confuses me.

    It makes me wonder whether she ever took the time to examine the beliefs she once claimed and are now rejecting. While I think she’s right to not claim Catholicism if she disagrees with it, I wonder what would have happened if she had actually challenged herself with the teachings of the Church.

  • It’s functionally impossible to be a Democrat if you’re pro-life. Besides, being a lib these days means believing in the pseudo-religion of government anyway. It necessarily crowds out other competing beliefs. Libs have made government into their new God.

  • I am praying this is a person that had a very bad day and like a lot of us hit the submit button too soon.

    I have a hard time thinking she will really leave her Christian faith.

  • I would expect that to the extent the tone of her tweet is angry, it’s because the process into and then out of organized Christianity has been difficult for her, and when we are dealing with difficult situations we often resort to anger as a way of reaching a decision — not unlike ending a relationship, where it becomes necessary to convince oneself that the other is bad.

    There are two ways of looking at such things, but I tend to lean towards thinking it’s more honest to renounce a religion if one seriously thinks it false on major issues, rather than claiming to know it better than it does itself.

  • We all know it already, but for the sake of the uninitiated who will probably find their way here to troll:

    * “I refuse to be anti-gay.”

    She refuses to defend the sanctity and true purpose of marriage and sexuality. She aligns herself with perversion.

    * “I refuse to be anti-feminist.”

    She refuses to accept that the political arguments for women’s equality, which have only ever been accepted and integrate en masse in Western Christian societies, do not automatically transpose themselves into a radicalized theology.

    * “I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control.”

    Again, perversion over the true purpose of sexuality.

    * “I refuse to be anti-Democrat.”

    I can’t blame her on that one. The current make-up of the Democrat party means that only those of the most agile and subtle intelligence can reconcile their faith with allegiance to it.

    *”I refuse to be anti-secular humanism.”

    Then she had no business ever being a Catholic. It was because I refused to be a secular humanist that I could become a Catholic again.

    * “I refuse to be anti-science.”

    She refuses to read a history book or the Church’s modern interaction with the sciences and understand the complete bankruptcy of this claim.

    * “I refuse to be anti-life.”

    Secular humanism IS anti-life.

    * “In the name of …Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”

    No comment.

  • Yes, I changed what I said and removed the comments. I went too far, as I sometimes do, and I won’t try to rationalize it.

  • Wow, this is a real bummer because the book she wrote about her reversion to the faith, “Called Out of Darkness,” was a pretty good book and I found it kind of inspiring.

    She sounded genuine in it, and admitted she had difficulties with certain Church teachings but figured that faith was more a matter of trusting that the popes, saints, Doctors of the Church, etc. knew what they were doing, than a matter of having 100 percent perfect personal understanding and agreement with EVERY point of Church doctrine and morals.

    Now I thought that was a good way to look at it… to realize that faith does NOT mean you have to know exactly where every nut and bolt on the Barque of Peter is located, and understand how every single part operates, it means you get on the boat, and stay on it, once you have determined that it is seaworthy, will get you where you need to go (heaven) and the captain knows what he’s doing. (That’s my metaphor, not hers, just to be clear)

    Her comment about being “anti-gay” probably has more to do with the fact that her son (her only surviving child) is gay than with any conscious “alignment with perversion”.

    Also, I have a book of interviews with her that was published in the mid-1990s, not too long before she returned to the Church. In it she makes some interesting comments about how disillusioned she had become with leftist/feminist “orthodoxy” and how in many ways it was far more repressive and anti-human than even the old fashioned, pre-Vatican II Catholicism she had grown up with. So I don’t know that she’s all that big a fan of secular humanism either.

    I agree with John Henry that she needs charity and understanding more than condemnation at this point, and that we should give her credit for being honest about her convictions.

  • “There are two ways of looking at such things, but I tend to lean towards thinking it’s more honest to renounce a religion if one seriously thinks it false on major issues, rather than claiming to know it better than it does itself.”

    What is interesting is she is not just Catholicism but all Christianity

    She is not announcing she is joning the TEC or some other progressive Christian body where her views would be welcomed.

    So does she see well if Catholcism is wrong then all Christianity is wrong.

    Again I will keep her in my prayers. Something has set her off and people need to reach out to her.

    I think her reconversion was very genuine.

    Oh a side note I would say from what I can tell from the general Christian population and indeed the Catholic population they were respectful of her conversion. In fact I an think of several conservative traditional Catholic blogs right off the bat that were very gracious and Christian to her.

    Again she needs our prayers and I hope Catholics and Christians near her reach out to her

  • She had to choose between the ways of Christ and the ways of the world, and the world won. I pray that this is only one battle, and that she will come to understand that the teachings of the Church are born of love, not hate.

  • Pingback: The Anchoress | A First Things Blog
  • “I’m compelled to wonder, however — who is the more preferable and honest of the two?”

    Whichever will throw herself on the mercy of God on her deathbed.

    Honesty is merely a natural virtue, yes? Should we really prefer the honest apostate to the liar who has faith?

    Pelosi could be piously following the teachings of some dissenting priest or religious sister she encountered in her formative years and mistook for Catholic orthodoxy.

    For her part, Rice has a gay son, so family loyalty is possibly trumping loyalty to her faith.

    Neither should be religious ed teachers, and like the rest of us both deserve correction through competent personal contact when necessary. But why prefer the “noble pagan” to the crooked Christian?

  • It’s not like she’s doing anything groundbreaking here. Lots of people decide that the ‘real Jesus’ just happens to agree with their own stances on .. pretty much everything. Amazing coincidence.

  • “Why prefer the ‘noble pagan’ to the crooked Christian?”

    Remember the parable Christ told of the two sons whose father asked them to work in his vineyard… one said “Yes, I’ll go,” but never did, while the other said “No” but later changed his mind and went. “Which one did what the father wanted?” Christ asked.

  • Should we really prefer the honest apostate to the liar who has faith?

    That does presuppose the liar has faith. The other possibility is the liar is simply a liar and has no faith. But since she is a liar, you never can tell (though it would seem to be rather odd that a simpleton like me can understand the big points of Catholic moral teaching, but the third in line for the Presidency of the US cannot – and my teachers were no better than hers).

    That parable is a bit confusing here. It seem neither is doing the work in the vineyard at this point. Here, one says yes (Pelosi?) but does nothing (in fact, goes out of her way to ruin the vineyard), and the other (Rice) says “no” and….does nothing?

    Anyway, Rice probably just needs time alone to think things out. Pelosi needs a road to Damascus whooping, a divine 2×4 upside the head.

  • The blame falls squarely on the catechists, us included. We’ve failed to persuade her that (a) our intentions are good, and (b) our doctrines are right.

    For example, the Church isn’t anti-gay. It puts forward a holy but tough alternative to the gay lifestyle. We need to demonstrate that we’re not “anti”. Aristotle said that the first step toward persuading someone is to convince him of your good character. There’s a lot of hope for Rice because she seems to strongly believe in Christ’s good character.

  • I agree wholeheartedly with Anne’s decision to disassciate with organized Christianity. So much of the modern message has become anathema to the gospel, and the Church has historically demonstrated a reluctance to discipline itself in ways that reflect the true teachings of Jesus. Did Jesus bash gays as he traveled about in the company of men. Did he rant against making love except for the express purpose of procreation? Did Jesus tell us that women are somehow different and lesser in the eyes of God.

    Could Anne have rejected Catholicism but then wrapped herself in one of the “feel good” versions that preache the virtues of accumulated wealth and evangelical superiority?

    Must you belong to a Christian church, or start yet another dissatified sect, in order to identify and align yourself with the message of Jesus?

    Jesus did not charge us to go out and build an edifice, he didn’t lay out the design for the Vatican, and he never extolled us to jihad (Crusades). He never defended religious persecution (The Inquisition). He didn’t charge us to believe the Earth was the center and only relevant corner of creation (anti-science). And he never told us to place blind faith in religious leaders (Pharisees.papists and Swaggertites).

    Jesus told us to love one another. He told us to give to the poor and the needy. He told us to trust in His message and all would be revealed by the Spirit of God.

    I am a baptised Catholic that utterly rejects Catholicism and both organized and disorganized Christianity. I prefer to get my doctrine unfiltered by men with a selfish or heretical agenda. I prefer the simple uncomplicated truths that Jesus taught.

  • I am a baptised Catholic that utterly rejects Catholicism and both organized and disorganized Christianity. I prefer to get my doctrine unfiltered by men with a selfish or heretical agenda. I prefer the simple uncomplicated truths that Jesus taught.

    In the end the rejection of historical Christianity is a rejection of Christ. It is rather shallow and immature to think that your personal recreation of Christianity is ‘unfiltered by…a selfish or heretical agenda.’ At best you have replaced the selfish or heretical agendas of others with one of your own creation. Chesterton wrote that joining the Church freed him from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age; your comment is childish both in this sense and in the sense that only naivete could account for your uncritical self-confidence.

  • Pinky,
    I think you are too easy on her. I happen to know for a fact that folks have tried to catechise her and reason with her on Church issues, but she is exceedingly stubborn. In particular, when Sister McBride was excommunicated Rice went ballistic. When Church teaching was meticulously explicated re the intentional taking of an innocent human life she simply ignored all reasoning that disturbed her comfortable consequentialist views. And I do mean ignore. No engagement; no effort; just blind outrage. Did I say blind?

  • And tell us, Marc, how it is that you know of the “simple uncomplicated truths that Jesus taught”? Did He mystically appear to you in a dream and teach you these truths? Did a book containing these truths miraculously fall out of the sky and into your possession one day?

    The Bible didn’t just write itself. To the extent we know anything about Christ and the “simple uncomplicated truths” that He taught (and, in fact, some of Christ’s teachings are ANYTHING BUT “simple” or “uncomplicated” – see, e.g., divorce, remarriage, and adultery), it is because of the work of the Church. Some people may like to pick and choose which teachings of the Church they want to follow, but they should at least admit that that is what they are doing, and not pretend that they have some special insight into the “simple uncomplicated truths” of Christ apart from what the Church has taught for 2000 years.

  • I will pray that Anne Rice sees the error of her ways, along with those who agree with her. Earlier this year I wrote an article on this site entitled; “The Coming Open Rebellion Against God.” I believe this is another step in that direction. Anne’s ego, along with those who defend her, seems to suggest that they know better than the Church. How ridiculous, Jesus Himself said to the Apostles; He who Hears You Hears Me, He who Rejects You Rejects Me (Luke 10:16.)

    We fail to remember that even before Calvary many of Jesus’ followers left Him. It started with John 6 when most of His followers rejected Jesus after His disocourse (the longest in the Bible) on the Eucharist. Judas’ biggest sin was pride, thinking he knew better than everyone. We might recall that Judas got upset with Jesus when the pentient woman poured the expensive perfume over Him. Judas thinking because he hung around in the most well to do circles, he was naturally smarter than everyone. Sadly the sin of pride remains very alluring to many, especially today. Jesus gave us the Magesterium and popes (the Teaching Authority of the Church) which is unsettling those whose sin of pride tells them, they are so smart. I hope and pray that this sin is eradicated so the likes of Anne Rice and her defenders can truly see the wisdom of God and His ways.

  • I am a baptised Catholic that utterly rejects Catholicism and both organized and disorganized Christianity. I prefer to get my doctrine unfiltered by men with a selfish or heretical agenda. I prefer the simple uncomplicated truths that Jesus taught.

    Except that your declaration is manifestly untrue. As with every person I’ve seen issue encyclicals like yours, you haven’t abandoned organized religion, you’ve simply chosen to shrink it to a membership of one–yourself. You are simply the Pope of the Church of Marc Stephens, and you thunder with even more magisterial self-assurance than the Syllabus of Errors. Yours isn’t a declaration of liberation from organized religion–it’s a proclamation of your own infallibility.

  • Both are headed to the same place.

    Ms. Rice is, at least, open and candid; and not dangerous to our country and our way of life.

  • Her most recent post: ” My faith in Christ is central to my life. My conversion from a pessimistic atheist lost in a world I didn’t understand, to an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God is crucial to me. But following Christ does not mean following His followers. Christ is infinitely more important than C…hristianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been, or might become.”

    and personally I think she has a point. Christ is more important than Christianity in terms of an organization. We should all strive to be followers of Christ more than adherents to a system.

  • Also, we’re not to judge either Anne Rice or Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. Faith or lack therof is between that person and God.

  • Mike, yeah, I probably am going too easy on her. It was a visceral reaction. Any time the question “who’s the worst Catholic” is asked, the answer is supposed to be “me”.

  • No, we have every right to condemn public attacks on the Church.

    We’re not to judge a person’s SOUL. Their ARGUMENTS should be laid to waste with all of the terrible judgment we can muster.

  • IMAO, most writers don’t understand religion enough to talk about it sensibly. They seem to reduce everything to words. So to many of them, leaving a religion is more like throwing away old clothes or deciding you’re sick and tired of the color red. Of course, those decisions can be over dramatized with the right words as well.

  • Ms. Rice’s diatribe angers me. She reaches an immense audience from her pulpit and the opinions of many people are formed by what she preaches. Many souls were edified and brought back to the Church through her beautifully-written books about Jesus. How is she going to make reparations to the sheep that she formerly nourished with her writings about Jesus? Has the Rosary she brandished in many photographs been relegated to a bureau drawer? Had she been faithful in reciting the Rosary, it would have been a shield against the corruption she spoke about Christianity, thereby diminishing not only the Church, but Our Lord Jesus. This isn’t just about Ms. Rice’s soul. I think her diatribe was evil and self-centered and has the potential to kill the very souls that she was attempting to save. It’s just despicable.

  • Agreed Moe. She deserves rebuke, not coddling.

  • “Behold, there went out a sower to sow: And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the birds of the air came and devoured it up. And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth: But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. And some fell among thorns, the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit. And other fell on good ground, did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, some a hundred. He said unto them, He that has ears to hear, let him hear.

    “And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable…. And he said unto them, The sower soweth the word. And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts. And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness; And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word’s sake, immediately they are offended.”

    It seemed apropos.

How to Reverse the Catholic Exodus

Saturday, June 12, AD 2010

Let us pray for all those change agents that are striving to bring back the authentic Catholic culture inside parishes, chanceries, and apostolates.

To view RealCatholicTV click here.

For RealCatholicTV’s The Vortex click here.

For the RealCatholicTV YouTube Channel click here.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

5 Responses to How to Reverse the Catholic Exodus

The Values of the Word

Wednesday, June 2, AD 2010

I have to tip my blogging cap to the Lying Worthless Political Hack, aka Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House.  Everytime I think she has hit bottom, she somehow manages to dig down a bit further.    On May 6 she made this statement in a speech to the Catholic Community Conference:

“They ask me all the time, ‘What is your favorite this? What is your favorite that? What is your favorite that?’ And one time, ‘What is your favorite word?’ And I said, ‘My favorite word? That is really easy. My favorite word is the Word, is the Word. And that is everything. It says it all for us. And you know the biblical reference, you know the Gospel reference of the Word.”
 

“And that Word,” Pelosi said, “is, we have to give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word. The Word. Isn’t it a beautiful word when you think of it? It just covers everything. The Word.
 
“Fill it in with anything you want. But, of course, we know it means: ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.’ And that’s the great mystery of our faith. He will come again. He will come again. So, we have to make sure we’re prepared to answer in this life, or otherwise, as to how we have measured up.”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

16 Responses to The Values of the Word

The Dignity and Worth of Every Person

Tuesday, May 11, AD 2010

The Lying Worthless Poltical Hack, a\k\a Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, tells Priests and Bishops to speak out on immigration from the pulpit based upon a biblical concern for “the dignity and worth of every person”.

The respect that the Lying Worthless Political Hack has “for the dignity and worth” of the smallest and most helpless among us was well demonstrated by this quote from Naral Pro-Choice America in 2007 after Pelosi became speaker of the House:

“Americans who value freedom and privacy have many reasons to celebrate as Nancy Pelosi takes the Speaker’s gavel to make this historic move forward for our country.  For her nearly 20 years in office, Speaker Pelosi has been an effective advocate for women’s health and has championed her pro-choice values by consistently voting to protect a woman’s right to choose.  In November, voters across this country endorsed Speaker Pelosi’s call for a change and new direction by electing 23 new pro-choice members to the U.S. House of Representatives.  Today, we celebrate as Speaker Pelosi takes the reins; under her leadership Americans can expect a new focus on commonsense solutions, not the divisive attacks that marred the previous Congresses.”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

8 Responses to The Dignity and Worth of Every Person

  • Problem is that many U.S. bishops don’t need Nip Tuck Nancy to egg them on in using their good offices as a feather to tickle their ideological fancies on this issue. I mean you have both Cdl. Roger Mahony and Abp. Timothy Dolan engaging in New York Slimes-style smear tactics to disparage the good people of Arizona who are exercising their God-given right to protect themselves from the ravages of open borders malfeaseance.

  • Is it dignified to die of exposure in the desert?

    Do we celebrate the worth of those who are suffocated in unventilated containers snuck across the border by ‘coyotes’?

    Or the women trafficked … or raped … crossing the border?

    Or the drug violence? Or gang crime? Kidnapping? Murder. Mayhem. Is that all dignified?

    Anyone who supports the current border situation, or would cause a stampede by offering ‘amnesty’ … has a share of all this blood on their hands. Not very dignified to my way of thinking.

  • Or it could be because of the bishop’s longstanding support of immigrants, mainly because the US Catholic Church was built on the backs of poor, outcast immigrants.

    http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-090.shtml
    http://www.faithfulcitizenship.org/

    Despite the Speaker’s horrid theology on abortion, she’s right that more clergy should speak out on a just immigration policy. How can we say we respect all life when we spit on the poor and needy who come to us looking for a living (in a legal way)?

  • “How can we say we respect all life when we spit on the poor and needy who come to us looking for a living (in a legal way)?”

    Deporting illegal aliens is not spitting on them. No one of course is proposing that legal immigrants do not have every right to be here, so I do not understand the (in a legal way) that ended your sentence.

    In any case this post isn’t about the debate over immigration, but rather at the deafness the Lying Worthless Political Hack has to an essential teaching of her Church and her willingness to attempt to enlist the Church, with language the irony of which I am certain eludes her, when it becomes politically expedient for her to do so.

  • Mr Smith:

    Immigration is not the issue. It’s about illegal aliens storming across our borders and the attendent dangerous criminal activity. For the bishops to accuse those who take a differing view from that of the open borders crowd od being anti-immigration when they know it is nothing of the sort is reprehensible, to say nothing of being unbecoming the office of bishop.

    USCCB “pastoral” letters on these type issues are more ideological than pastoral and are not worth the paper they are written on esecially that “Faithful Citizenship” one.

  • Again we get to the claim that immigrants have a right to immigrate – which they do according to Catholic Social teaching. But Catholic Social teaching also notes that states have a right to regulate immigration. I suspect the Church understood that when it developed this teaching that there would be some poor immigrants who were cut off. Catholic Social teaching is not about achieving utopia in the here and now. It is about applying moral principles in a fallen world.

  • If the Demonrats were not assured of getting the votes of the illegals, do you think they would be fighting so hard for getting them in to the county AND giving them “defacto” votes (via ACORN, et al)?

  • Pingback: The Values of the Word « The American Catholic

Far Better Than Nothing

Tuesday, March 23, AD 2010

While pro-lifers, conservatives, and conservative pro-lifers all have different reasons for not being very pleased with Stupak and his fellow pro-life Democrats at the moment, because of their caving in to the Senate Bill abortion language and Obama’s vaporware executive order, I think it’s worth keeping in mind that if all Democrats were of the Obama/Pelosi persuasion in regards to abortion, we would undoubtedly have a “health care reform” bill which provided complete subsidies for abortion on demand for poor women, if not all women. The Senate language is not nearly as good as Stupak’s, and even with Stupak’s language included I think that the bill would have been deeply irresponsible for financial reasons. But let’s face it, the Democrats have a solid majority in the House and had until Brown’s election a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Without some Democrats breaking ranks with their party’s hard core pro-abortion platform, there would have been no way for the pro-life movement to keep the most extreme support for abortion possible out of the bill.

And while Stupak’s last minute flake-out is disappointing from a pro-life perspective (if he’d stuck to his guns, I would have happily donated to his re-election fund, simple because I admire steadfastness to pro-life principle, even in someone I disagree with on other issues) let’s also be honest about this: Those of us who retain a belief in fiscal responsibility and oppose statism would have been disappointed in the health care bill passing even with Stupak’s language. So while I admired his apparent steadfastness to pro-life principle, I like many other conservatives also appreciated that fact that his principle (had he stuck to it) would have resulted in the bill not passing. We can hardly be surprised that he didn’t share such a hope.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

24 Responses to Far Better Than Nothing

  • I never confused Stupak with a conservative. I did confuse Stupak with a pro-lifer. My mistake. I also confused him with a truthful man. Once again my mistake. The fact that his cave in led to ObamaCare becoming a law I regard as a national disaster. That Stupak revealed himself as a man of no principle I regard as a tragedy. He was a hero to pro-lifers everywhere and he revealed himself at the end to be anything but.

  • Darwin, I applaud your charitable attitude and posting, and I agree with it, for the most part, even from the depths of my disappointment. What really makes it unpalatable for me to be charitable to Stupak was the disgusting slap in the face that was his House floor speech during the motion to recommit on Sunday evening. I genuinely believe that he lost it temporarily, on an emotional and psychological level, when he declared that the Democrats were the pro-life party protecting life from unborn till death. That speech was so contrary to reality in its claims that I can’t imagine he’ll look on that speech in the future with anything but deep shame and guilt.

  • “What really makes it unpalatable for me to be charitable to Stupak was the disgusting slap in the face that was his House floor speech during the motion to recommit on Sunday evening.”

    Ditto, Kevin. What a disgraceful display that was. He was doing a victory dance with salt-coated shoes over freshly-opened wounds. It was despicable.

  • I wrote a (small) check to Stupak’s Republican challenger, Dan Benishek, on Sunday night. Benishek is a UP surgeon who seems a decent man – a pro-life conservative, the son of a miner. But I confess, on Sunday night I would have mailed a check to Mr. Ed if he was running against Stupak. Better a talking horse than the horse’s patoots that populate Congress now.

    Speaking of horse’s patoots, our elected reps are now debating this:

    Shouldn’t Obamacare provide Viagra for sex offenders. After all people who’ve “paid their debt to society” shouldn’t continue to be punished by using health care as a weapon. Believe it or not the issue is being debated in the Senate, because unless sex offenders are specifically excluded, they’ll get Viagra too.

  • I wish the other side in this debate could come up with statements as thoughtful and charitable as this one. The honest truth is that most people who supported the Stupak language really did not want to see this bill passed–for many reasons, some better than others. Stupak always made it clear that he did want it to pass because he sees universal government-controlled health care as an example of what government should be doing. It’s interesting too to see what he thinks government should NOT be doing: in that under-the-radar vote on the war in Afghanistan a few days ago, Stupak voted against the war.

  • “But I confess, on Sunday night I would have mailed a check to Mr. Ed if he was running against Stupak. Better a talking horse than the horse’s patoots that populate Congress now.”

    Brilliant Donna!

  • How badly were we gamed by this man? (And I say “we” because I too was under the impression that Stupak was a man of integrity, although I was against the healthcare bill for other reasons besides abortion.)

    “Stupak Defends District’s Planned Parenthood Clinics”

    PICKET: Then how come you didn’t vote for Pence’s amendment to de-fund Planned Parenthood back in 2009?

    STUPAK: I don’t think I ever voted to de-fund Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood does not do abortions…in my district. Planned Parenthood has a number of clinics in my district that provide health care for my people. Therefore, these clinics do quite well in my district, and I’m all for health care and extending it to everybody–access to health care, so that’s just another way. Also on Planned Parenthood , when they do it, there is a segregation of funds that go with it. It’s usually about four hundred million they tried to de-fund on Planned Parenthood. Maybe this time, I’ll look at it again if Pence brings it up. Maybe I’ll vote differently this time, but you’re right I did vote against it.

    Stupak also says, in practically the same breath:

    I’ve done all I could as one member to protect the sanctity of life

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/mar/23/stupak-defends-districts-planned-parenthood/

  • You know what, I’m sick of these defenses of Backstabbing Bart.

    Ron, I’m not going off on you personally – I like a lot of your comments on issues – but you’ve raised a couple of points here that I’ve seen OTHER people I typically like and respect bring up in Stupid’s defense as well.

    “The honest truth is that most people who supported the Stupak language really did not want to see this bill passed”

    I suppose it could be the case that there are people who were in denial about the whole thing. But most people I know who supported the Stupak language did so for one or both of these reasons:

    1) If Obamacare was determined to become law, AT LEAST the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment would stay in place. Stupak’s precious EO offers no such guarantees, and his speech during the debate following the vote was delusional.

    2) If the Stupak language was a part of the bill this time around, at least 40 rabidly pro-abortion Democrats in the House would have voted no, killing the bill. That’s why I supported it. And I see no reason to be ashamed of it. There’s nothing wrong with that motive.

    “Stupak always made it clear that he did want it to pass because he sees universal government-controlled health care as an example of what government should be doing.”

    But he also told us all that he wouldn’t vote for a bill that allowed public funding of abortion. And yet he did. So either he’s monumentally stupid for putting enough faith in this EO nonsense to change his vote – and we have a right to be angry with him for that alone – or he knew full well that this EO promise was weak, but it gave him just enough so that he could vote yes, to take the pressure off, to not be hated by everyone in his own party, or whatever.

    Stupak portrayed himself as a leader, as a fighter, as a man of principle. At the last hour he caved for a handful of magic beans that offers no guarantee of the things that he was so intransigent about for all these months.

    Stupidity or weakness, take your pick, either way, he deserves our contempt.

  • “Shouldn’t Obamacare provide Viagra for sex offenders. After all people who’ve “paid their debt to society” shouldn’t continue to be punished by using health care as a weapon. Believe it or not the issue is being debated in the Senate, because unless sex offenders are specifically excluded, they’ll get Viagra too.”

    Donna,

    I understand the Parliamentary tactic they are playing, but I have to wonder why Viagra or any similar prescription drug is covered by a health plan. Why would the cost of a recreational drug be paid by a health care plan. If Viagra isn’t a recreational drug nothing is. This thought struck me as odd a few years ago when I heard on CNBC (IIRC) that GM was the single largest purchaser of Viagra because of their retiree health care plan. What??? Up until that moment I naively believed people spent their own money on crap like that.

    That is the sad punch line to this horrendous health care “reform” bill. Some people actually believe it will not exceed the cost estimates without considering how much health care can be consumed once it is “free.” How many people will sign up for Viagra or a hundred other medical treatments that they would not if personally paying for it themselves.

  • Largebill: exactly. But that’s government and the entitlement mentality for you. Contrary to leftist belief, no conservative I know argues that the present system needs no reforming or that uninsured people should be left to die in the street.

    But this changes everything and drags the government into everything touching on healthcare issues. It’s one thing to help pay for people who, say, have lost coverage because they were laid off and have serious health conditions. But paying for somebody’s Viagra? Someone who sees Viagra as an entitlement? They’ve got to be joking – except they’re not.

    (Not to mention the disgust I feel at having to foot the bill for somebody’s abortion…)

  • I think you guys are getting a little off track here. I’m no fan of this bill, and I get the idea that’s setting you off about the Viagra, but I think it’s wrong headed. I’m sure some people use Viagra to enable themselves to do things they shouldn’t be doing, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not a drug that should be covered by insurance. We’re Catholics, not Puritans or Stoics. As Catholics we view intimacy between spouses as a great good, even a necessary condition for their marriage and their souls. If someone’s plumbing stops working, that is a medical issue, and thankfully something has been developed that can help people get around the condition. There’s absolutely no reason to object to the use of such medicine or that it would be covered by medical insurance.

    Oh, and lest you think this says something about my condition – my plumbing still works fine, thank you. 😉 Still, nobody knows what’s going to happen in the future to any of us, and a drug like can help marriages stay strong and that keeps families together, and even saves souls.

  • If the Stupak language was a part of the bill this time around, at least 40 rabidly pro-abortion Democrats in the House would have voted no, killing the bill.

    I’m not sure this is plausible. After all, the original House bill passed despite having the Stupak language in it.

  • “[L]et’s also be honest about this: Those of us who retain a belief in fiscal responsibility and oppose statism would have been disappointed in the health care bill passing even with Stupak’s language.”

    Huh? I’m shocked.

    So what does it matter if we’d all be disappointed anyway? Is that the sum of it?

    Evidently the intrinsically evil nature of abortion escapes you. Please let me clarify. Children born into a bankrupt dictatorship (worst case scenarios, both, for fiscal responsibility and statism) are still born. They have the chance to live and breathe and giggle and laugh and clap their hands.

    Children killed by an state funded abortion don’t enjoy any of that. They’re dead before they could draw their first breath of air, before they could look upon their mother and father, before they could so much as eat and sigh and sleep.

    I would much, much, much rather I lived in a country that financially impoverished itself with a crazy healthcare bill (i.e. giving viagra to criminals) than one that morally bankrupted itself by using my taxes to kill babies.

    Further — you write ‘So while I admired his apparent steadfastness to pro-life principle, I like many other conservatives also appreciated that fact that his principle (had he stuck to it) would have resulted in the bill not passing. We can hardly be surprised that he didn’t share such a hope.’

    ‘[H]ope?’ Yeah, right. Sorry, but you have to swallow a whole lot to not recognize that he held out so as to sell his vote more dearly. That or he just doesn’t comprehend the nature of abortion, the nature of evil.

    Please let me translate your equivalence into practical terms — well, the bill is just going to pass anyway (i.e. they’ll kill the babies anyway), so I might as well vote for it (participate in an intrinsically evil act) (and condemn my soul to hell for all of eternity).

    Do you see what you’ve written? Do you understand my perspective?

  • BA,

    It is what they pledged to do after the first time it passed.

    http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/letter-from-house-dems-pledging-to-vote-against-bill-with-stupak/

    And they were threatening to do it all the way up until the day of the vote.

    http://www.valuesvoternews.com/2010/03/stupak-deal-fails-as-pro-choice.html

    I don’t know why they settled for it the first time around, but evidently they changed their minds.

    I read reports of some pro-abort female House Dems breaking down into tears after the first vote because of Stupak.

  • Joe,

    They settled for it the first time around because they very openly expected that after the Senate passed its version, that provision would be stripped out of the final bill in conference.

    Brown taking Kennedy’s Senate seat derailed those plans.

  • Joe,

    Talk is cheap. Stupak was also pledging to vote against the bill if he didn’t get his way until the day before the vote.

  • Joe,

    But here’s the thing, while many of us who opposed the bill in its entirity (while also wanting to have it be as anti-abortion as possible if we had to swallow the bitter bill at all) Stupak clearly thought the bill itself was a good thing so long as it didn’t fund abortion.

    I’m guessing that this massively pissed Stupak off, and was one of his prime motivating factors in that bitter floor speech.

    I disagree with him and think he’s wrong in seeing those of us on the conservative side of the pro-life movement as the bad guys in this. But I can see why he was becoming increasingly angry with his position — feeling like he was being used by people who opposed the bill regardless.

  • I think you’re right Darwin. I also think part of the problem is that we thought Stupak was standing for something more than what he was standing for. We thought he was for this bill other than the abortion issue – and not without reason – by his own words we had it that as much as he wanted HCR passed, abortion was a non-starter and the Senate bill didn’t pass the test, plus the Senate bill was bad legislation and the means by which it came was unacceptible.

    He generated a lot of goodwill from pro-lifers from most political persuasions and they admired his principled stand. In hindsight, we discovered he was indeed fighting to get abortion provisions out of the legislation, but it wasn’t that important to him where he wouldn’t still vote for it. Many of his supporters feel betrayed by him and he feels betrayed by his supporters. It’s actually quite understandable. I think he’s wrong to have done a 180 the Senate bill, or to think the EO satisfies any concerns, or to think that abortion shouldn’t be a deal breaker for Obamacare, but his equation is different. Aside from those understandable differences, his speech at the time of the vote and subsequent comments take it to a different level. A level where it’s difficult to respect him in spite of those differences and reveal a rather bitter partisan bordering on the delusional.

  • Stupak led the most successful pro-life insurgency within the Democratic Party in recent memory. Nobody expected his amendment to pass with the support it did, and pro-choice organizations reacted with horror that a new front was opening within their stronghold.

    His amendment was dead in the Senate though. His insurgency failed.

    A man in Stupak’s position can’t afford to appear totally uncompromising all of the time.

    But he extracted a concession from the President, which can help hold Obamacare accountable. He also helped his party by allowing Pelosi to give vulnerable Democrats the chance to vote “no.” (She likely had enough votes in reserve, but because of the pro-life Dems she didn’t have to use them.)

    Here’s some comments from the end of Stupak’s Sunday press conference that have been under-reported:

    “…the statutory language, we’d love to have it. But we can’t get it through the Senate. And we’re not giving up. If there was something we missed, we’re coming back with legislative fixes. These right-to-life Democrats, who really carried the right-to-life ball throughout this whole debate, we will continue to do that. We will work with our colleagues to get the job done.”

    In my view, Stupak cut his losses while raising the profile of pro-life Democrats and getting Obama to commit to something. He can be held accountable too.

    The speed with which many pro-lifers turned on him is disturbing to me. If there were more Democrats like him, he would have won. But he lost, and so he tried to lose in a manner most advantageous to his cause and to his career. I think he deserves gratitude for that failed attempt, and criticism of him has gone overboard. The Senate and those who excluded the Stupak Amendment from the Senate bill bear far more blame, as do the Catholic groups whose misinformation sapped his coalition’s strength at a critical time.

    If the GOP’s incompetence and the Hispanicization of America have barred Republicans from Congressional majorities for the foreseeable future, Stupak & co. are the best hope for the pro-life cause in Congress. Don’t punish a man who stood up for months against his party leadership and activists. Punish the leadership and the activists, so that that man won’t have to surrender again in the future.

  • BA,

    Evidently the House leadership and the White House assigned a higher value to that cheap talk than you do – it’s the main reason why they cooked up this EO nonsense to begin with. They had to please their own first, and then try to rope in Stupak. It shouldn’t have worked, but it did, because of the weakness of one man.

    Darwin,

    Frankly, I don’t give a damn about his feelings. This bill will fund abortion, and I maintain that he was either a fool or a coward for accepting the empty promises of an EO from Obama, the most pro-abortion president in American history.

  • Though to be fair, all this really does is reduce Stupak to the level of an average politician, whereas before, we had reason to believe he was at least trying to be a decent human being.

  • Evidently the House leadership and the White House assigned a higher value to that cheap talk than you do – it’s the main reason why they cooked up this EO nonsense to begin with.

    They cooked up the EO nonsense to get Stupak’s vote, not the votes of pro-choicers, who they already had.

  • There were 23 Democrats who voted for the Stupak Amendment and voted against the Senate “reconciliation” bill on Sunday. 23, out of 253. 9%.

    175 out of 177 Republicans voted for the Stupak Amendment and against the reconciliation bill. That’s 99%.

    Remember those percentages the next time someone tells you that the GOP isn’t really pro-life, that Scott Brown and Rudy Giuliani prove that the Republicans are secretly pro-abortion, that the Democratic Party is moderate on life issues, that there’s really no difference between the parties at all.

  • BA,

    The EO was all they had left to offer Stupak once they satisfied the pro-choicers.

    Though I don’t have the link saved (darn it), Pelosi was going to allow another vote on the Stupak amendment until the radical pro-choice Dems threatened to vote no if it passed – which, like the first time around, it would have. This was in the news. I remember reading it and thinking that it would be great.

    But after the radical pro-abort Dems renewed their threat, Pelosi et. al. had to deny Stupak another vote. But they still needed his vote on the bill – hence the EO. Garbage!

Pro-Lifers Invade the Pro-Abortion City of San Francisco

Tuesday, February 2, AD 2010

Recently the City of San Francisco got to experience a peaceful and powerful Pro-Life march on January 23.  In what is being billed as the largest gathering of Pro-Lifers in San Francisco ever, an estimated 40,000 volunteers from all ages, cultures, and nations descended on what is known to be the most egregious community of new Carthaginians in the country.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

6 Responses to Pro-Lifers Invade the Pro-Abortion City of San Francisco

If You Want The Political Left To Run Governments, Look At What The Religious Left Has Done To Religion (Left It In Tatters)

Monday, January 25, AD 2010

There is a undercurrent in American society that somehow believes that if the mafia ran things, the country would be better off. There was one city (Newark, New Jersey) where the mafia once controlled much of the city. When their grip on power was done, the city was in tatters. The same could be said for liberals running religion.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

40 Responses to If You Want The Political Left To Run Governments, Look At What The Religious Left Has Done To Religion (Left It In Tatters)

Archbishop Niederauer Instructs Nancy Pelosi on Free Will, Conscience and Moral Choice

Sunday, January 17, AD 2010

A few weeks ago I had posted my thoughts on Nancy Pelosi’s scadalous Newsweek interview, in which she chalked up her disagreements with the Bishops on Catholic moral teaching as a “difference of opinion.” At the time I had expressed my curiosity (and honest frustration) as to when her local bishop, George H. Niederauer, would be moved to respond.

He has, and I am thankful for it:

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

7 Responses to Archbishop Niederauer Instructs Nancy Pelosi on Free Will, Conscience and Moral Choice

  • From the many times this professed Catholic has stated her views and had conversations with her Bishop as stated by her, when will she be asked to refrain and adhere to the tenets of the Church as she contiunes to embrassed the Church by her public statements and actions. She has been instructed enough. Is is time the Bishop ask her to refrain from the Eurchrist or leave the Church until she conforms to its teachings.

  • I wish this response could be published in Newsweek, or some place people would get to read it.

  • Enough! Without the use of Excommunication, the Bishops have become toothless watchdogs. The discussion devolves into opinion, with no authority to resolve or end it.

  • Unfortunately, I rather doubt that excommunication would mean much to Pelosi et al… her protestations to the contrary, she seems to have little taste for authentic Catholicism.

  • If your child was doing terrible things, drugs, stealing, etc. and you told him to stop and he refused and you did not give him/her a consequence, that would indicate to the child that what he’s doing is no big deal and so he would go right on doing it. Pelosi and other ‘Catholic’ pro-abortion politicians thumb their noses at the Bishops constantly and the Bishops still permit them to receive the Eucharist…this emboldens Pelosi and her colleagues to tell others that they are right and the Bishops just have another ‘opinion’ especially when the Bishops themselves do not agree with each other…

  • To be fair, this is the first I have heard of the Bp. making a clear public statement directed right at Pelosi. Perhaps this is the first step towards more concrete action should the public reprimand prove unfruitful.

  • I heard Nancy Pelosi speaking last night about her favorite word. I suspect you’ve heard or possibly seen the video, but in case you haven’t, you can find it at youtube and you particularly want to hear the question from one of the reporters in the audience. Ms. Pelosi basically said that “The Word” is her favorite ‘word’ and then went on to say and The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us. The question was when did Jesus first come into the world made flesh; at the Annunciation, conception or at The Birth of Our Lord. Ms. Pelosi’s response was she would rather talk about that in church where we all bow our heads at these words, although she just talked about it from a podium in from of a roomful (at least with the exception of one) of secularists and had no problem with that. My point is that she’s making a mockery of the Catholic faith. If you haven’t seen the video, try to locate it. I believe the true Catholic Church is very strong and faithful. Its those that are pretending to be Catholic and using Her for political gain or otherwise that gives the Church the appearance of being split. We’re not. It’s as though we’ve been infiltrated by nonbelievers whose sole purpose is to create discension within the Catholic Church, to do nothing but harm the Church. History does have a tendency to repeat itself and I believe this has happened in the past. It will take great fortitude but I believe we can overcome this obstacle if we recognize it and act.