On February 18th, 2009 at 10:21 pm, MNUSMCDavid said:
If you don’t like the Catholic faith… leave it…. and just shut up. I’m tired of the anti-Catholic rhetoric… just shut up and go away.

AMEN!!!!

Pelosi, like Kennedy, Roberts, Kerry, and other high US officials, has a duty to put her personal views before those of the Pope.

If that’s the case, then she has a duty not to participate in and receive the Eucharist of a faith which her “personal views” clearly contradict.

As Prince Consort said, the Pope would not reasonably keep silent if a racist Congressman visited the Vatican, would he? Should he? No.

The Pope’s job is to keep united the Catholic Church and to direct the faithful in matters of morals, theology, and natural law – all three of which are incompatible with abortion. Of course, having the gift of free will means Pelosi – or any other Catholic – is free not to follow the faith.

But then the honest thing to do is leave. The Episcopal Church would welcome them with open arms.

This particular guy just rehabilitated a guy who denies the Holocaust.

And our current president believes he can dialogue with people who celebrate the Holocaust, and use diplomacy with people who want to wipe Israel off the map. It’s ironic that many liberals think we can rehabilitate terrorists or sexual offenders or violent criminals, but hold no sympathy for a religious person who holds asinine views.

It seems as if the requirement is the Pope excommunicate people they don’t like, but turn a blind eye to people they do.

Pope Benedict lifted the bonds of excommunication on the SSPX bishops for a violation of canon law, namely that bishops – including Williamson – were ordained without the consent and approval of the Vatican. This lifting of excommunication had nothing to do with Williamson’s personal views on anything, but reuniting in full communion with Rome a traditionalist group of Catholics.

As is, I repeat, one of the Pope’s jobs.

They can’t have it one way on abortion and another on an obvious illegal activity; They are both absolute truths to me and why I no longer attend.

“To me”. Therein lies the trouble.

Let’s look at the differences:

Abortion: Historical Christianity has condemned this from the beginning, first documented in a late 1st Century work called the Didache. This has always been a non-negotiable, even when the matter of ensoulment was still open to discussion.

Immigration: The Judeo-Christian teaching in and of itself is very clear: “The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” (Leviticus 19:34). The immigrant is to be welcomed. That being said, the immigrant also has the responsibility to abide by the country’s lawa: “There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.” (Exodus 12:49). How this is applied can vary under the circumstances, and is a matter of prudence. Do I agree that some bishops interpret this teaching in an imprudent manner, and violate just laws in doing so? Yes. On the other hand, if the laws concerning immigration are found to be unjust, then they ought to be broken, for an unjust law is no law at all.

I think the lovely and knowledgeable English_queen summed things up nicely in the earlier part of this discussion.

In sum: Abortion is and has always been a non-negotiable. Immigration is something that may be regulated depending on circumstances of the time.

When she is following her personal views that are polar opposite from the church, she shouldn’t portray herself as being a devout Catholic.

That’s about as bad as a jew supporting a candidate that doesn’t support Israel.

(Not that it changes your main argument, and offered in a friendly way) It’s not the same. There is no Pope of Jewry. There are Head Rabbis, but they don’t agree and there is no rule saying a Jew has to follow them even if they would agree.

In fact, when the state of Israel was founded, the most orthodox Jews did not support it because it went against their belief that only the Messiah would create the new Jewish state in what now is Israel. This comes out in the very nice novel “The Chosen” by Chaim Potok (Two Jewish kids in New York City. The more religious one’s Dad is annoyed that the less religious one helps Israel.).

No, he removed the bonds of excommunication, which is a different thing. That means Williamson (the man you mention) has the opportunity to get his act together if he so chooses.

He has a history of protecting sex offenders at the expense of more sex offense.

Once he became Pope, he started really cracking down, now that he was in charge.

He clearly is against abortion.

He is upholding a teaching that has been in the Church for 2000 years (more on that when I address BJC).

Pelosi, like Kennedy, Roberts, Kerry, and other high US officials, has a duty to put her personal views before those of the Pope.

Let’s travel back in time about, say, 45 years. A Louisiana congressman, who is a Catholic and a segregationist, has an audience with the Pope. Should the Pope stay silent on the subject of racism and segregation, or rebuke the congressman for holding and enforcing views incompatible with his faith?

On February 18th, 2009 at 7:47 pm, John Deaux said:

When she is following her personal views that are polar opposite from the church, she shouldn’t portray herself as being a devout Catholic.

That’s about as bad as a jew supporting a candidate that doesn’t support Israel.

Pure ownage.

On February 18th, 2009 at 6:26 pm, lgm said:

When she is following her personal views that are polar opposite from the church, she shouldn’t portray herself as being a devout Catholic.

That’s about as bad as a jew supporting a candidate that doesn’t support Israel.

Being rebuked by the Pope for one’s position on abortion does not make one a bad person or refute one’s position on abortion. Pelosi, like Kennedy, Roberts, Kerry, and other high US officials, has a duty to put her personal views before those of the Pope.

On February 18th, 2009 at 5:16 pm, wren said: ….When will the citizens of San Francisco realize how often Nancy Pelosi distorts the truth?

The majority of the people in Pelosi’s district are just like her. They wouldn’t know the truth even if you smacked them in the head with it!!

Hmmm…She doesn’t mention the Pope’s lesson about the dignity of human life.

Do you think we should believe Nancy Pelosi’s description of the meeting or the Pope’s description?

When will the citizens of San Francisco realize how often Nancy Pelosi distorts the truth?