Thursday, January 11, 2007

Nancy Pelosi pushes Embryonic Stem Cell Vote Today in Effort to Overturn Bush Veto

Ron Dreher over at Cruncy Con says,
"The sanctity of life issue is not one among many. Why do some Catholic bishops continue to succor politicians like Pelosi? Where is the courage of Catholic bishops of yore, like the late Archbishop Joseph Rummel of New Orleans, who excommunicated several segregationist Louisiana Catholic politicians who tried to make it illegal for the Church to integrate Catholic schools? s reaction to Nancy Pelosi."


I’m disgusted as well with the USCCB constantly giving the Dems a pass because they check off the boxes on the left of their useless voter’s guide. The prudential issues of welfare, warfare, and wages.
The sanctity of human life, if it doesn’t outweigh all these issues combined, is apparently worthless to both Pelosi and the USCCB.
Judy Brown of American Life League says;
'Nancy Pelosi is an extremist at every level including her voracious appetite for power. Among her most telling quotes, one also finds the following as reported in Newsweek Magazine:
"As a staunch Roman Catholic, Pelosi has been a target of the most extreme anti-choice elements but has remained committed to a woman’s right to choose. During a floor debate on abortion in 1998, she said:
“I will say as a Catholic that I have done some of my own research on this…St. Augustine himself when he was asked would a fetus before 3 months…go to the judgment day and be resurrected into heaven as a person, he said, ‘No, because before 3 months, it isn’t a person.’ They made him a saint. He is a saint of the church. He has a different view from some of my colleagues on when life begins. We do not know. It is a mystery.”'
So she ignores Evangelium Vitae and all the moral teaching of the Church since the flawed science of St. Augustine, and pretends to have all the answers to the pro-lifers. Or does she?
Pelosi also said,
"To me it isn’t even a question. God has given us a free will. We’re all responsible for our actions. If you don’t want an abortion, you don’t believe in it, [then] don’t have one. But don’t tell somebody else what they can do in terms of honoring their responsibilities. My family is very pro-life. They’re not fanatics and they’re not activists. I think they’d like it if I were not so vocally pro-choice. (Newsweek, Oct. 23, 2006)

1 comment:

Katherine said...

In 1962 I was active in the National Catholic Conference for Interracial Justice. We worked closely with Archbishop Rummel, Cardinal Ritter, Cardinal O'Boyle and others on this important issue. The WSJ misses the mark as to what happened. Archbishop Rummel and the others were powerful, effective advocate of racial justice using pastoral and prophetic means. They rejected the idea of excommunicating politicians because they supported the "South Manifesto" or laws to maintain segregation of public facilities. They rejected the idea of excommunicating anyone for publicly calling for segregation of Catholic facilities. Rummel was very clear that excommunication was limited to attempting to use the power of the state to force the Catholic Church to segregate. In essence, the archbishop supported separation of church and state. An equivalent measure nowadays would be a law forcing Catholic hospital to do abortions. Anything less, if one is suggesting that Rummel's actions be followed, would call for pastoral responses rather than excommunication.