Pope tells Pelosi: Catholics cannot back abortion

How can Pelosi "misrepresent Church teachings" when she is not a representative of the Church, but a representative on the people of the UNITED STATES? Perhaps the Pope has willfully forgotten that the U.S. is not a CATHOLIC THEOCRACY like Vatican City.

If she says "I am a Roman Catholic" then she is a representative of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. No one is denying her right to believe or say anthing, but if she says "I am a Roman Catholic" and then says that the Roman Catholic church teaches what the Roman Catholic Church clearly doesn't not teach, then the Roman Catholic Church has every right, and indeed a responsibility to correct her.

(The Church, the "pillar and bulwark of the truth," "has received this solemn command of Christ from the apostles to announce the saving truth." "To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls.") CCC p2032

So Jimmy Carter was a representative of the Baptist Church? He spoke for them?

If Pelosi is to be controlled by the Catholic Church, I don't want her in office. She should represent (in her capacity as a Congressman) the people of her district, not the Church.

I think the term "Pro-Choice Catholic" is an oxymoron. If you are Catholic you are supposed to obey the Pope. If you're not going to obey the Pope, find another name to call yourself, cuz you ain't Catholic.

Yes Larry, in many ways President Carter was a “representative” of the Baptist Church. On the other hand, that is a broader notion than the “Catholic Church” as there are many varieties of Baptists, there is not the same strictness in terms of religious dogma, and most importantly, he did not (in general) speak about what his faith officially believes.

Representative (noun) one that stands for a number or class (as of persons or things) : one that in some way corresponds to, replaces, or is equivalent to someone or something else

No one here is talking about “control.” The question is false identity. You cannot be, in all good conscience, a faithful member of any community and at the same time strongly believe and profess things that are radically opposite of the central tenants of that organization. And when you do those things the organization has the right to remind you of the tenants of that organization and eventually the right to remove you from that organization. This is true whether we are talking about the Catholic Church, the NAACP, or the Democratic Party. (Remember the attempt to “excommunicate” Senator Lieberman – who technically is currently an independent – from the Democratic Party for having supported a Republican in the Presidential Election?)

Note the following from the article: Note I can’t recall President Carter making such definitive and erroneous statements about Baptist Dogma.

Pelosi met a storm of criticism from conservative Catholics in August when she told a talk show that the question of exactly when life begins "shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose".

She said when life began was still "an issue of controversy" in the Church and that "God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions."

The Church teaches that life begins at the moment of conception and ends at the moment of natural death.

"God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions."

One could argue the point that, since this statement is in fact correct and in the Bible (as opposed to the ban on abortion, which appears nowhere in the Bible) Pelosi is not going against her faith. In fact, once could argue that blindly following the dictates of one person is directly opposed to the will of God, because he did give us each free will. Pelosi I don't believe ever said the Catholic Church teaches X, Y, or Z. She made a statement as to her interpretation of the Bible, which exists independently of the Church.

In either case, none of this has anything to do with the fact that Pelosi's job is not to force the will of the Catholic Church onto the citizens of the U.S. her job is to do the will of the people that elected her.

The other name for a pro-choice catholic is a Lutheran.

Julie Ann Dawson, I am with you. It breaks my heart that the Roman Catholic church is so punitive when honorable, sincere people attempt to search their own consciences regarding these enormously important life questions.

Julie, you raise an interesting point, but you seem to miss my point. The point is that “in the church” the question of when life begins is not an “issue of controversy.” It is only an issue of controversy to those who want to kill the unborn. (Just as those who want to promote euthanasia try to say that the other end is an equal point of controversy.

Whether abortion is “in the Bible” or not is a relatively moot point to a Catholic. Sola Scriptura is a Protestant heresy, not a Catholic teaching. Back in the time of the Apostles, the Gnostics used to quote the scriptures often. Peter writes in his letters about how they twisted the writings of Paul to their own damnation. Paul says that all scripture is useful, but it is the “church” which is the real pillar and bulwark of truth.

Of course if one wishes to use the Bible, because even though it can be twisted it is useful, it is likewise important to note that Christ gave a severe warning about those who cause others to go astray. This becomes exceptionally important for people like Pelosi, not because she is in government but because she is a “public” figure.

Here is a dialogue she made with Tom Brokaw last August for those who have been saying that she has not publically made statements as a Roman Catholic which are in direct opposition to the traditions and teachings of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church:

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…

MR. BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it…

REP. PELOSI: I understand that.

MR. BROKAW: …begins at the point of conception.

REP. PELOSI: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions.

Here is a nice quote I found on the web:

Pelosi is completely right that God gives us free will, and that we all have to make our decisions, deal with our own consciences and deal with the repercussions both here and in the afterlife. I know pro-life Catholics who have very ambiguous feelings about Roe-v-Wade specifically because of free will. But Pelosi is seriously misrepresenting what the Catholic Church teaches, and she is doing it in order to spin and obfuscate. Excuse the crudity, but it takes some pair of balls, frankly, to try to argue that the Roman Catholic Church has any sort of wishy-washy teaching or belief about the sacredness of human life, or the gravity of expediently and arbitrarily ending human life, whether at its beginnings or its end, or experimenting with human life.

And the Catholic Response from another web site:

On the first point, the church came out swinging. They responded in numbers and intensity that has surprised Catholic insiders. Statements came in from the United States Council of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop of Washington D.C. Donald Wuerl, Archbishop Charles Chaput of the Denver… and even Edward Cardinal Egan of the New York Archdiocese.

All voiced variations of the same theme: “Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion (USCCB)…..” and, that “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.” (Archbishop Donald Wuerl), they also pointed out that the church has had this position for about, oh… 2,000 years!

Christopher, I admit I cheated when I used President Carter as my example. The Baptists are a far "looser" (though no less fervent and strict in their adherence to what is right) organization than the Catholic Church. :-)

But I also want to point out that even within the Catholic Church there are many "schools of thought" and even organizations whose theology is in sharp contrast to other organizations within the Church. Now I can in no way claim to be an expert on the Catholic Church but from what I have learned about history, the above statement seems to be correct. Yet they all claim to be Catholics and in good standing.

So I would be reluctant to say that there is any particular point of dogma in the Church on which point complete and universal adherence is required in order for one to consider one's self a Catholic. The Creed of Nicea (sp) does not mention abortion I believe for example. So I think that reasonable people would say that good Catholics in good conscience can disagree about issues in the Church.

But mine is the view of an outsider, not that of a Catholic and not that of a student of the Church. It should have no weight.

One of the basic teachings of the Catholic Church is the Apostolic tradition. There are many areas where there are subjects were there are differing opinions. Note that even with the Church's strict definition of life from conception to natural death one can cite examples (through the principle of double effect) that can permit a procedure that produces the effect of an abortion.

In the Roman Catholic Church the word "Magisterium" refers to the teaching authority of the church. This authority is understood to be embodied in the episcopacy, which is the aggregation of the current bishops of the church, led by the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), who has authority over the bishops, individually and as a body, as well as over each and every Catholic directly. According to Catholic doctrine, the Magisterium is able to teach or interpret the truths of the Faith, and it does so either non-infallibly or infallibly.

Decisions on matters of faith or morals of the ordinary magisterium of the Pope or the communion of bishops must be met by the faithful with a religious submission of intellect and will. Doing otherwise puts one apart from full communion with the Church. Openly disagreeing with such decisions is a clear visible sign of this lack of communion.

Even though President Carter and the Baptists are a looser concept, I can't give a similar example of the president openly stating that there is disagreement among the Baptists about Sola Scriptura, or Baptism, for example, as was the case with Pelosi. Nor is there a example where by actions, he deliberately went against the fundamental teachings of the Baptist faith. This is not the case wit Pelosi; who wants to have her Catholic cake and trample it underfoot at the same time.

Christopher,

Do Catholics give a religious submission of intellect to decisions of the Pope or the communion of bishops? I mean, does such a pronouncement by the Pope or the bishops actually result in almost all Catholics giving intellectual submission? Does it actually change what they believe and how they act? You would know better than I since I am not of the Church and would not even know when such decrees go out let alone their substance. But it would seem remarkable to me if they did have such an effect on the greater body of the Catholic faith.

Larry,

Clearly there is always a difference between principle and practice. A good example of this was the issue of slavery. Few Roman Catholics in the southern states knew the decisions of the pope because the bishops in the U.S. were reluctant to pass the papal letters (commonly known as bulls) to the faithful. A number of “Catholics” do not submit in a vast number of areas. Some are even called “Cafeteria Catholics” because they pick and choose what they want to follow. But, on the other hand, there are a large number of people who are faithful to the teachings of the magisterium.

So it's about like I thought. Most people give lip service (as in all other areas of life) but go right along doing and thinking pretty much what they did before. I guess that's just human nature.

If she wants to speak for herself, then so be it. The problem is that she says she is speaking for th Catholic Church and then misrepresents the Church's teachings. If she had said
"I am a Catholic and my church teaches against abotion but I believe it is a fundamental right to be given in the United States. I have chosen to follow my own beliefs and not those of my church in regard to abortion rights and my position as the Speaker of the house of the United States"
there probably wouldn't be any controversy. She didn't. She said she was Catholic and knew what the Catholic Church taught and then explained that they taught something that they don't which was untrue.

For me personally abortion is just not a choice, I can't make that decision or speak for others who have to make thier own choices and live with the consequences of those choices. Nonetheless I do believe that every woman has a right to make her own choice and both the church and government need to reamain separate and butt out of it all together.