Tag Archives: Nancy Pelosi

CCHD’s new moral theologian?

Star rise, star fall…

According to the USCCB”s recent review and renewal pledge to reform the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, new structures will help assist CCHD in applying prohibitions on funding groups which act in conflict with Catholic social and moral teachings… A new staff position on CCHD mission and identity will be added, including an ongoing consulting relationship with a moral theologian, and a CCHD Review Board to advise the bishops and the CCHD…

NOTE: Recent reports say Nancy Pelosi, Girl Theologian, may well be available following November 2nd. 

HAPPY HOLLOWEEN…

END OF POST

Gerald Warner: Ground Zero mosque is an insult to 9/11 victims

By Gerald Warner

A MOSQUE is not the most provocative structure that could be erected in the vicinity of New York’s Ground Zero – an al-Qaeda training school, for example, would arouse more antipathy – but in the catalogue of tactless initiatives an Islamic cultural centre and mosque rank pretty high. This inflammatory gesture has so offended majority opinion in America that it is now set to become a major issue in the mid-term elections in November.

Ground Zero is the inelegant name for the Lower Manhattan site that is now America’s most evocative national shrine. In the Trade Center, whose twin towers formerly stood there, 2,752 people were murdered by Islamist fanatics. To erect a mosque just two blocks from that site is testing American tolerance to breaking point. Polls show that two thirds of the nation are opposed to this development and regard it as an insult to the 9/11 victims. They are right.

The stock excuse of Muslim and secular liberal supporters of the development, called Cordoba House, is that the 9/11 terrorists were promoting a perverted version of Islam, whereas Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is heading the project, is a leading moderate involved in reconciliation work with non-Muslims. That argument would hold more water if Imam Rauf’s interfaith irenicism extended to recognising the sensitivities of 9/11 victims’ families and the wider public, impelling him to transfer the project to an alternative site. Instead, he has already rejected an offer by Governor David Paterson of New York to provide municipal land in a less sensitive area.

Such intransigence is more eloquent than Rauf’s writings about how inoffensive Islam is. Among New York’s 600,000 Muslims there is a general view that the mosque must be built. One of them said: “If this really is a free country then, by all rights, you must, you must allow it.” Nobody is denying that right to the Muslim community: even opponents of the mosque acknowledge the right to build it; what is in question is the wisdom of doing so and the lack of sensitivity towards the feelings of other Americans that it displays. Muslim comment on the subject has largely expressed a stubborn determination to proceed, with the paranoid implication that to change the site would somehow abdicate their rights as citizens: it has become a virility symbol.

Islamic paranoia pales to insignificance beside that of Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives and, within the ranks of Democrat fanatics, capo di tutti fruitcakes. Pelosi has created her own conspiracy theory: she has called for an investigation into the protests against the project, which she described as a “concerted effort to make this a political issue by some”, and to discover who is funding it.

When the Speaker of the House of Representatives imagines it would require funding to motivate Americans to protest against a mosque close to Ground Zero, it demonstrates the total divorce of the Obama clique from the feelings of mainstream America.

Her demand for an investigation also highlights the police-state mentality of the regime in confronting opposition.

The central axiom of politics in America today is that no situation is ever so dire that it cannot be aggravated by the intervention of Barack Obama. This controversy is no exception. On 13 August, at a White House dinner to celebrate the breaking of the Ramadan fast, Obama declared: “As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practise their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community centre on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”

Some people might have thought that a foolhardy stance by a president with an Islamic background who has inexplicably lost his birth certificate. Democrats facing re-election at the November mid-terms must have wondered what more Obama could do to seal their doom. Many of those headed for the electoral abattoir must have made their feelings known, for the very next day President Pantywaist was in reverse gear: “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there.”

That was an impressive demonstration of Obama’s skill in alienating all points of view in just 48 hours. This row will not go away. A protest rally is planned for 11 September, at which Geert Wilders will be a speaker.

American Muslims have only themselves to blame for the mounting hostility towards them. Newt Gingrich has called the mosque “an assertion of Islamist triumphalism”. What it undoubtedly reveals is how far the Islamic community, doggedly pursuing a “right” at the expense of sensitivity to others’ pain, remains unassimilated into mainstream America.

END OF POST

Pelosi’s LGBT Pride Video: “40 and fabulous.”

‘And a pinch to grow an inch…’

Back in 2007 silence and denial surrounded Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s refusal to condemn Folsom Street Fair promo material in which that blasphemous Last Supper depiction revealed numerous sex toys upon the table (altar for true Catholics), including a “red fist” representing the disgusting act of “fisting”. Drew Hammill, Pelosi’s press secretary at the time, was quoted as saying:

“As a Catholic, the speaker is confident that Christianity has not been harmed…” 

Sure.

I guess watching ones P’s & Q’s prior to a presidential election changes things once your party takes power… Nancy is no longer quiet about her anti-Catholic position on promoting homosexuality in America. And appears little concerned that such positions do, in fact, harm Christianity and the salvation of souls.  And so, these questions remain:

Where is her bishop, and why isn’t she excommunicated?

 

Make your voice known, contact:

Archbishop Most Rev. George H. Niederauer

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco
One Peter Yorke Way
San Francisco, CA 94109
(415) 614-5500
info@sfarchdiocese.org
E-mail us

END OF POST

Madison Bsp. Morlino: Speaker Pelosi, Network, CHA, not called to lead the Catholic faithful — Harming the Church…

“The right to life comes from God, not the state…”

 

Bishop Morlino Comments

 

HAT TIP/FR. Z…

 END OF POST

Pelosi’s “PURGATORIOS” — NYT pics divine again!

Someone explain, please… (COMMENTS OPEN)

“RESURRECTION”

“PURGATORIOS”

STORIES:

OBAMA– As Health Vote Awaits, Future of a Presidency Waits, Too PELOSI– Democrats Woo Abortion Foes in Push for Health Bill

PHOTO CREDITS NYT: NOLA LOPEZ, DAMON WINTER, STEPHEN CROWLEY

END OF POST

Waiting Room Conversation — ‘Mrs. Pelosi, Doctor Vasa will see you now.’

 

“When matters are serious and public, the Bishop may deem it necessary to declare that lack of communion explicitly. This declaration no more causes the excommunication than a doctor who diagnoses diabetes causes the diabetes he finds in his patient. The doctor recognizes the symptoms and writes the necessary prescription…”

ED. NOTE: Bishop Robert Vasa on Excommunication/Catholic Sentinel

Excommunication is a declaration of acts that severs ties

BEND — During the course of this past year there have been a number of occasions when bishops have hinted to laity that being Catholic involves a bit more than claiming the title. This has been done, in particular, with regard to politicians who may, in their own way, love Jesus, who may attend Sunday Mass and who do identify themselves as “faithful” Catholics. The press usually hints at the big “E” word, excommunication. The question of when a Catholic should be excommunicated has even been asked quite frequently and very seriously. While bishops are extremely reluctant to take the seemingly dramatic step of excommunication, I think there is very good reason for us to explore more thoroughly what excommunication really means and why it might be considered in certain circumstances.

The press would undoubtedly accuse Bishops who talk or even think about excommunication as being tyrannical power mongers but this is unfair. Excommunication is a declaration, based on solid evidence, that the actions or public teachings of a particular Catholic are categorically incompatible with the teachings of the Church. It is intended primarily as a means of getting the person who is in grave error to recognize the depth of his error and repent. A second reason, while somewhat secondary but no less important, is to assure the faithful who truly are faithful that what they believe to be the teaching of the Church is true and correct. Allowing their faith to be shaken or allowing them to be confused when Catholics publicly affirm something contrary to faith or morals, seemingly without consequences, scandalizes and confuses the faithful. This is no small matter. The Church, and particularly bishops, have an obligation to defend the faith but they also have an obligation to protect the faithful. We do not generally see the dissidence of public figures as something that harms the faithful but it has a deleterious effect upon them.

I find, very frequently, when I speak a bit more boldly on matters of morality or discipline, there are a significant number of the faithful who send messages of gratitude and support. It is their gratitude which stirs my heart for it makes me realize how much there is a need to support and affirm the clear and consistent teachings of our Catholic faith for the sake of the faithful. While the press may caricature such bishops in rather uncharitable fashion, I trust that they are men devoted to true compassion and to the truth itself. Their compassion extends to those who are misled and to those who, while not misled, are discouraged when their faith is attacked without rebuttal. This discouragement of the faithful is not insignificant. When we look at the word itself we see that its root is “courage” and allowing someone’s courage to be dissipated, or “dissed” as the young might say, is harmful to the person. En-couragement, by contrast, builds up the courage of the faithful and increases their strength for doing good. It is life giving and revitalizing. Allowing error, publicly expressed, to stand without comment or contradiction is discouraging.

When that moral error is espoused publicly by a Catholic who, by the likewise public and external act of receiving Holy Communion, appears to be in “good standing” then the faithful are doubly confused and doubly discouraged. In that case, the error is certainly not refuted. Furthermore, the impression is given that the error is positively condoned by the bishop and the Church. This is very dis-couraging to the faithful. In such a case, private “dialogue” is certainly appropriate but a public statement is also needed. In extreme cases, excommunication may be deemed necessary.

It seems to me that even if a decree of excommunication would be issued, the bishop would really not excommunicate anyone. He only declares that the person is excommunicated by virtue of the person’s own actions. The actions and words, contrary to faith and morals, are what excommunicate (i.e. break communion with the Church). When matters are serious and public, the Bishop may deem it necessary to declare that lack of communion explicitly. This declaration no more causes the excommunication than a doctor who diagnoses diabetes causes the diabetes he finds in his patient. The doctor recognizes the symptoms and writes the necessary prescription. Accusing the doctor of being a tyrannical power monger would never cross anyone’s mind. Even when the doctor tells the patient that they are “excommunicated” from sugar it is clear that his desire is solely the health of his patient. In fact, a doctor who told his diabetic patient that he could keep ingesting all the sugar he wanted without fear would be found grossly negligent and guilty of malpractice.

In the same way, bishops who recognize a serious spiritual malady and seek a prescription to remedy the error, after discussion and warning, may be required to simply state, “What you do and say is gravely wrong and puts you out of communion with the faith you claim to hold.” In serious cases, and the cases of misled Catholic public officials are often very serious, a declaration of the fact that the person is de facto out of communion may be the only responsible and charitable thing to do.

Failing to name error because of some kind of fear of offending the person in error is neither compassion nor charity. Confronting or challenging the error or evil of another is never easy yet it must be done.

The adage usually attributed to Edmund Burke was correct: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

The Lord has called bishops to be shepherds. That shepherding entails both leading and protecting. In an era when error runs rampant and false teachings abound, the voice of the Holy Father rings clear and true. The teachings of the Church are well documented and consistent. Bishops and the pastors who serve in their Dioceses have an obligation both to lead their people to the truth and protect them from error.

END OF POST

Bsp. Tobin’s consistent teaching on pro-abortion Catholic politicians: Giuliani, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Pelosi, Biden, Reed, and Kennedy (again…)

A little help here brother bishops…

From POLITICO:

The same bishop who is denying Communion to Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) claims he avoids politics — but he first made a national splash two years ago by comparing Rudy Giuliani to Pontius Pilate.

Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin wrote an op-ed in the Rhode Island Catholic attacking Giuliani in May 2007, the same year he allegedly wrote a letter to Kennedy informing the pro-choice Democrat he was not a “good practicing Catholic” because of the positions he has taken as a public official.

In the column — which was a public response to Giuliani’s invitation to a Providence fundraiser for his presidential campaign — Tobin wrote that he had no interest in politics, yet proceeded to call out many prominent Catholic politicians by name.

The article:

My R.S.V.P. to Rudy Giuliani

Bishop Thomas J. Tobin

5.31.07

I probably would have written this article anyhow, so distressed was I. But then I received an invitation to attend a fundraising luncheon for presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, and that absolutely confirmed my decision. The fundraiser is scheduled for Providence next week. For $500 I could attend a reception with the former New York City Mayor. For $1,500 I could attend a reception with a photo op. The first thought that came to my mind is that I’m not charging enough for my Confirmation photos!

Nevertheless, and more to the point, I have no idea why I received an invitation to Giuliani’s fundraiser. I don’t know the Mayor; I’ve never met him. I try to avoid partisan politics. Heck, I’m not even a Republican. But most of all, I would never support a candidate who supports legalized abortion.

Rudy’s public proclamations on abortion are pathetic and confusing. Even worse, they’re hypocritical.

Now this is what we get from Rudy as he attempted to explain his ambiguous position on abortion in a speech at Houston Baptist College earlier this month: “Here are the two strong beliefs that I have, here are the two pillars of my thinking . . . One is, I believe abortion is wrong. I think it is morally wrong . . . The second pillar that guides my thinking . . . where [people of good faith] come to different conclusions about this, about something so very, very personal, I believe you have to respect their viewpoint. You give them a level of choice here . . . I’ve always believed both of these things.”

What? This drivel from the man who received high marks, and properly so, for his clear vision and personal courage in healing New York City, and by extension, the nation, after the horrific terrorist attacks of September 11.

Rudy mentions the two pillars of his position. But you know what happens if you sit on a stool with two legs? Yep, it collapses. And so does Rudy’s position and along with it his integrity and reputation.

Rudy’s explanation is a classic expression of the position on abortion we’ve heard from weak-kneed politicians so frequently in recent years: “I’m personally opposed to but don’t want to impose my views on other people.” The incongruity of that position has been exposed many times now. As I’ve asked previously, would we let any politician get away with the same pathetic cop-out on other issues: “I’m personally opposed to . . . racial discrimination, sexual abuse, prostitution, drug abuse, polygamy, incest . . . but don’t want to impose my beliefs on others?”

Why is it that when I hear someone explaining this position I think of sad figure of Pontius Pilate in the Gospels who personally found no guilt in Jesus but for fear of the crowd washed his hands of the whole affair and handed Jesus over to be crucified. I can just hear Pilate saying, “You know, I’m personally opposed to crucifixion but don’t want to impose my belief on others.”

Okay, let’s ask Mayor Giuliani to think about his position for a minute.

Hey Rudy, you say that you believe abortion is morally wrong. Why do you say that Rudy, why do you believe that abortion is wrong? Is abortion the killing of an innocent child? Is it an offense against human dignity? Is it a cruel and violent act? Does it harm the woman who has the abortion? And if your answer to any of these questions is yes, Rudy, why would you permit people to . . . kill an innocent child, offend human dignity, commit a cruel and violent act or do harm to the mother? This is the name of choice? Huh?

Rudy’s preposterous position is compounded by the fact that he professes to be a Catholic. As Catholics we are called, indeed required, to be pro-life, to cherish and protect human life as a precious gift of God from the moment of conception until the time of natural death. As a leader, as public official, Rudy Giuliani has a special obligation in that regard.

In The Gospel of Life Pope John Paul made the obligation to defend human life very explicit: “This task is the particular responsibility of civil leaders . . . No one can ever renounce this responsibility, especially when he or she has a legislative or decision-making mandate.” (#90) And more recently, the Bishops of the United States wrote: “If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to repudiate [the Church’s] definitive teaching on moral issues, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the Church.” (Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper, p. 11)

Rudy’s defection from the Catholic Faith on this moral issue is not unique, of course. Catholic politicians of both parties, nationwide, have followed a similar path in abandoning the Faith for the sake of political expediency: Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Pat Leahy, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden come quickly to mind. And on a local level of course, Congressman Patrick Kennedy and Senator Jack Reed. How these intelligent men and women will someday stand before the judgment seat of God and explain why they legitimized the death of countless innocent children in the sin of abortion is beyond me. (“But God, really, I was personally opposed to it but just couldn’t do anything about it.”)

Oh well, as you can see by now, I won’t be attending the fundraiser for Rudy Giuliani. If Rudy wants to see me he’ll have to arrange an appointment at my office. We’ll talk about his position on abortion. And if he wants a photo it will cost him $1,500 as a donation for the pro-life work of the Church.