The Church v. Politicians or Is There Finally Some BITE Back in Catholicism?


Anyone who visits here regularly knows at least two things about me: I am Catholic, practicing in the Tridentine tradition (that’s the old Latin, Pre-Vatican II version) and I am virulently anti abortion in all its forms. For any reason. No politically correct excuses of rape or incest. No exceptions.

When people accuse me of being against women, I calmly tell them no, I’m simply pro-child. I don’t believe a woman, any woman, is entitled to kill her unborn child for any reason–when she begins a pregnancy, she is no longer a singular being but is in fact an incubator for a new life. If that makes me anti-woman, so be it.

Believe me, I’ve heard it all. And, when I point out no matter how loud I’m screeched at, or how hysterical the other person becomes, the other person generally gives up and goes directly to ad homs.

Again, so be it. I have walked my talk and am entitled to my views. If you don’t like them, don’t listen. But don’t attempt to change my mind either, particularly in a hysterical manner.

Which brings us to politicians.

We have four very prominent politicians who proclaim to be Catholic, yet are rabidly pro-death (do NOT argue with me on this–you are either pro-life or pro-death; choice is a politically correct term chosen so you don’t have to face the gruesome reality of your “choice”). Those politicians are Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Joe Biden.

Surprise! They’re all democrats.

Surprise! They think the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Bible and Church Doctrine are something you can pick and choose from, sort of like an ecclesiastical buffet.

The trouble is, it doesn’t work like that. You either follow Church canon and are in line with your chosen faith or you don’t and you aren’t. When you are out of line with the Church because you don’t understand something or don’t know something, that’s fine–as long as you are striving for understanding or the answer. To be PURPOSELY out of line with Doctrine is quite another matter. It shows you have CHOSEN to distance yourself, through your own arrogance, from the teachings.

Might I remind anyone here that God gave us free will–yes. Absolutely He gave us free will. Part of that free will is to choose whether we follow Him in our faith or distance ourselves from Him by rejecting His teachings. But you don’t get to pick and choose for expediency.

In matters of life, the Church has always been firm–life begins at natural conception and ends at natural death. From the inception of the Church over 2,000 years ago, this has been the teaching.

On July 25, 1968–in the wake of the advent of “The Pill” and the subsequent sexual revolution–Pope Paul VI published the groundbreaking encyclical “Humanae Vitae”.

From Section I: Problem and Competency of the Magisterium, Point 2:

2. The changes that have taken place are of considerable importance and varied in nature. In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships. This can easily induce public authorities to be tempted to take even harsher measures to avert this danger. There is also the fact that not only working and housing conditions but the greater demands made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation in which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for a large family.

Also noteworthy is a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society, of the value of conjugal love in marriage and the relationship of conjugal acts to this love.

But the most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man’s stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life—over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life.

The next subsection is “New Questions” Point 3:

Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.

And the last, “Interpreting the Moral Law” Point 4:

No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation. (3)

All of this is very basic. However, it does illustrate those politicians were called out by the Church. The Church in no way dismissed women, nor has it ever. It recognizes women have a separate but equal calling. That has been drowned out by the screeds of the femi-nazis. One of those is Nancy Pelosi.

Several times now, Nancy Pelosi has decided she can be all Catholic and totally pro-death, including partial birth abortion. Most recently on Meet the Press and her follow up interview. The YouTube video is below and relevant quotes are below it, from A Shepherd’s Voice here:

Text:

The corruption of reason is one of the logical consequences of legalized abortion.

Here is the Speaker of the House this morning on “Meet the Press”:

MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you’re looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, “Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?” what would you tell him?

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.”

To answer the simple question “When does life begin?” Nancy Pelosi chooses to cite the authority of a bishop who lived 1500 years ago. Madame Speaker, we don’t ask the Doctors of the Church to “make that definition.” One does not read St. Augustine to find out when life begins. One reads modern textbooks on biology and embryology. And when one does that, one finds out that we do know when life begins:

Nancy: “And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.”

Actual expert: “When scientists could examine embryos under the microscope, they recognized that the processes of development constituted a continuum from fertilization through delivery. There is no magic moment at which an embryo suddenly becomes something different.” -William L. Nyhan, M.D.; Ph.D; “The Heredity Factor, ” p256. (Professor Nyhan is a graduate of Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Illinois, and one-time Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California.)

The fact is that Nancy Pelosi deliberately chooses not to consult the experts as to when a human life begins. She must make this choice because she knows she can only maintain her support for legalized abortion by a deliberately cultivated ignorance.

But truth is one. To justify her support of legalized abortion, Nancy must not only ignore the teachings of scientists, who are the proper authorities on the question of when life begins. She must also ignore the teaching of the Church, who are the proper authorities on the morality of abortion:

“Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops—who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine—I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.”
-Pope John Paul II; “Evangelium Vitae,” paragraph 62, March 25, 1995.

Pelosi says “that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time.” Both assertions in that statement are false. She has not seriously studied the issue at all–to do so would force her to change her position. And no “ardent, practicing Catholic” has ever been, or ever will be, “pro-choice” on abortion.

Reactions were swift and immediate:

From Faithworl (Catholic Bishops Correct Pelosi on Abortion):

In a statement late on Tuesday, Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs said: “Those Catholics who take a public stance in opposition to the most fundamental moral teaching of the Church place themselves outside full communion with the Church, and they should not present themselves for the reception of Holy Communion.”

From FoxNews (Congressman Calls Pelosi’s Abortion Remarks Scandalous):

“I hope she understands this is not an historical controversy recently settled but a long-standing, fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church that abortion is inherently immoral. And perhaps it will help open her heart,” he continued.

Pope Benedict XVI weighs in here:

“Children are the major richness and the most precious good of a family,” he said.

“For this reason, it is necessary to help all people to be aware that the intrinsic evil of the crime of abortion, which attacks human life at its beginning, is also an aggression against society itself,” the pope said.

Many, MANY others have weighed in on this. The fact is the Church is VERY clear on it’s stands regarding life and death and always has been. It is unequivocal. You cannot be a practicing Catholic and be pro-death. It’s a dichotomy which will never meet.

Pelosi has garnered special attention and is finally being called out publicly, to the point of being denied Holy Communion:

National Catholic Reporter Online: San Francisco Archbishop Invites Pelosi to Discuss Abortion here and Archbishop Niederauer Responds to House Speaker’s Statements here:

If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of the church, or knowingly and obstinately repudiate her definitive teachings on moral issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain.”

and:

In The Catechism of the Catholic Church we find this statement: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, willed either as an end or a means, is grossly contrary to the moral law.” (2270-71) The Catechism then quotes the Didache (also referred to as The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), the oldest extant manual of church order, dating from the late first or early second century: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

Well. That seems pretty clear to me.

Since Vatican II, the Church has been pretty lax on a lot of her teachings. Many, particularly on the liberal side of the aisle, feel the Church isn’t lax enough–they want birth control, women priests, Holy Communion without Penance, “freedom” to cohabitate without marriage, etc. They simply don’t understand the Church will not change her stance on these items–ever. No matter the currently in vogue “revolution”, the Church will not change for expediency. She can’t change. These are doctrines laid down by Jesus Himself. They are forever. And the unchanging nature of the Church on these doctrines is what has made the Catholic Church the Universal church all these centuries.

Since Vatican II, churches are closing, seminaries and convents are closing, pews sit empty. Why? Because of the changes. The people DID NOT want the changes. Those changes didn’t strengthen the Church, they weakened her.

Pope John Paul II started the road back to what she was; Benedict XVI is following in his footsteps. But understand this–artificial birth control, pro-death views, demanding women priests, demanding accomodations for homosexual behavior–the doctrines will not change. There was one good thing that came out of Vatican II. Instead of feeling condemned in confession, the trend has indeed been on hate the sin, love the sinner.

The Church has given her warning. If you are a politician and/or a public figure and claiming to be Catholic, and if as a Catholic politician and/or public figure you are espousing positions outside of Church doctrine, you will be denied Holy Communion. Both Pelosi, Biden and Kerry have been told not to approach. As it should be.

Is this a matter of separation of Church and State? No–because you have to make a choice at sometime. If you make a public choice to live outside your stated faith, that faith has the right to deny you the benefits of that faith as you are not a steward by example. It really is that simple.

Here, for those who think abortion is no big deal, are a few views of “women’s choice” espoused by Biden, Pelosi, Kerry and Kennedy:

This is a saline abortion:

This is a partial birth abortion:


I dare anyone to tell me these children were simply blobs of tissue. This is what pro-death means. This is what is meant by those screaming for “women’s rights”.

People like me are very dangerous indeed. We are not perfect by any means. But we do the best we can to walk our talk. And for that, we are screamed at and called “religious” as if it were a dirty word. Perhaps it’s because those who believe in this kind of “enlightenment” are truly dangerous–and yes, evil. This isn’t about a woman’s choice, her personal doctor and her body. This is about the wholesale slaughter of children, pure and simple.

Pelosi, Biden, Kerry and Kennedy–I truly hope you see the light. Otherwise, I hope you remove yourself from the Catholic family. We cherish our children whereas you cherish the killing of them.

The Church v. Politicians or Is There Finally Some BITE Back in Catholicism?


Anyone who visits here regularly knows at least two things about me: I am Catholic, practicing in the Tridentine tradition (that’s the old Latin, Pre-Vatican II version) and I am virulently anti abortion in all its forms. For any reason. No politically correct excuses of rape or incest. No exceptions.

When people accuse me of being against women, I calmly tell them no, I’m simply pro-child. I don’t believe a woman, any woman, is entitled to kill her unborn child for any reason–when she begins a pregnancy, she is no longer a singular being but is in fact an incubator for a new life. If that makes me anti-woman, so be it.

Believe me, I’ve heard it all. And, when I point out no matter how loud I’m screeched at, or how hysterical the other person becomes, the other person generally gives up and goes directly to ad homs.

Again, so be it. I have walked my talk and am entitled to my views. If you don’t like them, don’t listen. But don’t attempt to change my mind either, particularly in a hysterical manner.

Which brings us to politicians.

We have four very prominent politicians who proclaim to be Catholic, yet are rabidly pro-death (do NOT argue with me on this–you are either pro-life or pro-death; choice is a politically correct term chosen so you don’t have to face the gruesome reality of your “choice”). Those politicians are Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Joe Biden.

Surprise! They’re all democrats.

Surprise! They think the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Bible and Church Doctrine are something you can pick and choose from, sort of like an ecclesiastical buffet.

The trouble is, it doesn’t work like that. You either follow Church canon and are in line with your chosen faith or you don’t and you aren’t. When you are out of line with the Church because you don’t understand something or don’t know something, that’s fine–as long as you are striving for understanding or the answer. To be PURPOSELY out of line with Doctrine is quite another matter. It shows you have CHOSEN to distance yourself, through your own arrogance, from the teachings.

Might I remind anyone here that God gave us free will–yes. Absolutely He gave us free will. Part of that free will is to choose whether we follow Him in our faith or distance ourselves from Him by rejecting His teachings. But you don’t get to pick and choose for expediency.

In matters of life, the Church has always been firm–life begins at natural conception and ends at natural death. From the inception of the Church over 2,000 years ago, this has been the teaching.

On July 25, 1968–in the wake of the advent of “The Pill” and the subsequent sexual revolution–Pope Paul VI published the groundbreaking encyclical “Humanae Vitae”.

From Section I: Problem and Competency of the Magisterium, Point 2:

2. The changes that have taken place are of considerable importance and varied in nature. In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships. This can easily induce public authorities to be tempted to take even harsher measures to avert this danger. There is also the fact that not only working and housing conditions but the greater demands made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation in which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for a large family.

Also noteworthy is a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society, of the value of conjugal love in marriage and the relationship of conjugal acts to this love.

But the most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man’s stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life—over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life.

The next subsection is “New Questions” Point 3:

Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.

And the last, “Interpreting the Moral Law” Point 4:

No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation. (3)

All of this is very basic. However, it does illustrate those politicians were called out by the Church. The Church in no way dismissed women, nor has it ever. It recognizes women have a separate but equal calling. That has been drowned out by the screeds of the femi-nazis. One of those is Nancy Pelosi.

Several times now, Nancy Pelosi has decided she can be all Catholic and totally pro-death, including partial birth abortion. Most recently on Meet the Press and her follow up interview. The YouTube video is below and relevant quotes are below it, from A Shepherd’s Voice here:

Text:

The corruption of reason is one of the logical consequences of legalized abortion.

Here is the Speaker of the House this morning on “Meet the Press”:

MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you’re looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, “Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?” what would you tell him?

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.”

To answer the simple question “When does life begin?” Nancy Pelosi chooses to cite the authority of a bishop who lived 1500 years ago. Madame Speaker, we don’t ask the Doctors of the Church to “make that definition.” One does not read St. Augustine to find out when life begins. One reads modern textbooks on biology and embryology. And when one does that, one finds out that we do know when life begins:

Nancy: “And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.”

Actual expert: “When scientists could examine embryos under the microscope, they recognized that the processes of development constituted a continuum from fertilization through delivery. There is no magic moment at which an embryo suddenly becomes something different.” -William L. Nyhan, M.D.; Ph.D; “The Heredity Factor, ” p256. (Professor Nyhan is a graduate of Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Illinois, and one-time Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California.)

The fact is that Nancy Pelosi deliberately chooses not to consult the experts as to when a human life begins. She must make this choice because she knows she can only maintain her support for legalized abortion by a deliberately cultivated ignorance.

But truth is one. To justify her support of legalized abortion, Nancy must not only ignore the teachings of scientists, who are the proper authorities on the question of when life begins. She must also ignore the teaching of the Church, who are the proper authorities on the morality of abortion:

“Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops—who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine—I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.”
-Pope John Paul II; “Evangelium Vitae,” paragraph 62, March 25, 1995.

Pelosi says “that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time.” Both assertions in that statement are false. She has not seriously studied the issue at all–to do so would force her to change her position. And no “ardent, practicing Catholic” has ever been, or ever will be, “pro-choice” on abortion.

Reactions were swift and immediate:

From Faithworl (Catholic Bishops Correct Pelosi on Abortion):

In a statement late on Tuesday, Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs said: “Those Catholics who take a public stance in opposition to the most fundamental moral teaching of the Church place themselves outside full communion with the Church, and they should not present themselves for the reception of Holy Communion.”

From FoxNews (Congressman Calls Pelosi’s Abortion Remarks Scandalous):

“I hope she understands this is not an historical controversy recently settled but a long-standing, fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church that abortion is inherently immoral. And perhaps it will help open her heart,” he continued.

Pope Benedict XVI weighs in here:

“Children are the major richness and the most precious good of a family,” he said.

“For this reason, it is necessary to help all people to be aware that the intrinsic evil of the crime of abortion, which attacks human life at its beginning, is also an aggression against society itself,” the pope said.

Many, MANY others have weighed in on this. The fact is the Church is VERY clear on it’s stands regarding life and death and always has been. It is unequivocal. You cannot be a practicing Catholic and be pro-death. It’s a dichotomy which will never meet.

Pelosi has garnered special attention and is finally being called out publicly, to the point of being denied Holy Communion:

National Catholic Reporter Online: San Francisco Archbishop Invites Pelosi to Discuss Abortion here and Archbishop Niederauer Responds to House Speaker’s Statements here:

If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of the church, or knowingly and obstinately repudiate her definitive teachings on moral issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain.”

and:

In The Catechism of the Catholic Church we find this statement: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, willed either as an end or a means, is grossly contrary to the moral law.” (2270-71) The Catechism then quotes the Didache (also referred to as The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), the oldest extant manual of church order, dating from the late first or early second century: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

Well. That seems pretty clear to me.

Since Vatican II, the Church has been pretty lax on a lot of her teachings. Many, particularly on the liberal side of the aisle, feel the Church isn’t lax enough–they want birth control, women priests, Holy Communion without Penance, “freedom” to cohabitate without marriage, etc. They simply don’t understand the Church will not change her stance on these items–ever. No matter the currently in vogue “revolution”, the Church will not change for expediency. She can’t change. These are doctrines laid down by Jesus Himself. They are forever. And the unchanging nature of the Church on these doctrines is what has made the Catholic Church the Universal church all these centuries.

Since Vatican II, churches are closing, seminaries and convents are closing, pews sit empty. Why? Because of the changes. The people DID NOT want the changes. Those changes didn’t strengthen the Church, they weakened her.

Pope John Paul II started the road back to what she was; Benedict XVI is following in his footsteps. But understand this–artificial birth control, pro-death views, demanding women priests, demanding accomodations for homosexual behavior–the doctrines will not change. There was one good thing that came out of Vatican II. Instead of feeling condemned in confession, the trend has indeed been on hate the sin, love the sinner.

The Church has given her warning. If you are a politician and/or a public figure and claiming to be Catholic, and if as a Catholic politician and/or public figure you are espousing positions outside of Church doctrine, you will be denied Holy Communion. Both Pelosi, Biden and Kerry have been told not to approach. As it should be.

Is this a matter of separation of Church and State? No–because you have to make a choice at sometime. If you make a public choice to live outside your stated faith, that faith has the right to deny you the benefits of that faith as you are not a steward by example. It really is that simple.

Here, for those who think abortion is no big deal, are a few views of “women’s choice” espoused by Biden, Pelosi, Kerry and Kennedy:

This is a saline abortion:

This is a partial birth abortion:


I dare anyone to tell me these children were simply blobs of tissue. This is what pro-death means. This is what is meant by those screaming for “women’s rights”.

People like me are very dangerous indeed. We are not perfect by any means. But we do the best we can to walk our talk. And for that, we are screamed at and called “religious” as if it were a dirty word. Perhaps it’s because those who believe in this kind of “enlightenment” are truly dangerous–and yes, evil. This isn’t about a woman’s choice, her personal doctor and her body. This is about the wholesale slaughter of children, pure and simple.

Pelosi, Biden, Kerry and Kennedy–I truly hope you see the light. Otherwise, I hope you remove yourself from the Catholic family. We cherish our children whereas you cherish the killing of them.

Nancy Pelosi is a Liar

Nancy Pelosi on when life begins

On Meet the Depressed…er…Press this morning… 
MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you’re looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, “Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?” what would you tell him?

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…
  
From: Hyscience 

August 24, 2008

Nancy Pelosi Lied On National TV About The Catholic Church’s Position On Abortion

Topics: Political News and commentaries

Clearly, unequivocally, and no possible doubt whatsoever, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is either a babbling idiot who makes claims and says things with no thought whatsoever as to the validity of her statements, or she callously and blatantly lied on Meet the Press today while attempting to spin the Catholic doctrine on human life.

Pelosi has decided on her own that Pope Benedict’s warning that Catholic politicians that support abortion risked excommunication from the Church and should not receive communion if they support abortion. She actually told Tom Brokaw that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, she has studied the issue of abortion for a long time and she knows that over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to “make that definition.”

… 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…

She even goes on to say that the Catholic Church’s present position on the pill began 50 years ago with the event of the pill.
Pelosi is so typical of the liberal Democrats. They see the world and life as they want to see it, and express their distorted perceptions as such, and seldom, if ever, see the world and life as it really is based on the facts and uncontested truth.

For the benefit of Madam Pelosi and the Democratic Party, Church writings specifically naming abortion as murder appear as early as 70 AD in the Didache, the first written catechism of the Christian church, and in spite of the attempts of various writers and groups, and even some church authorities and a few popes to the contrary, the history of the position of the Catholic Church that abortion is murder and that it is evil dates back as early as the Didache and remains the same to this day. And as for Pelosi deciding on her own what the position of the Church is at the time of her sitting before Brokaw based upon her own readings and interpretations – if in fact she actually did so, perhaps as a practicing Catholic, as she so claims to be, instead, might consider following her faith as her Pope and mine, Pope Benedict XVI, proclaims. (Which is what a “practicing” Catholic does)

By the way, one cannot honestly say they are a “practicing catholic” and support abortion. Each position unequivocally disqualifies the other.

Related:
Pope warns Catholic politicians who back abortion.
Abortion is crime against society

Nancy Pelosi is a Liar

Nancy Pelosi on when life begins

On Meet the Depressed…er…Press this morning… 
MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you’re looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, “Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?” what would you tell him?

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…
  
From: Hyscience 

August 24, 2008

Nancy Pelosi Lied On National TV About The Catholic Church’s Position On Abortion

Topics: Political News and commentaries

Clearly, unequivocally, and no possible doubt whatsoever, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is either a babbling idiot who makes claims and says things with no thought whatsoever as to the validity of her statements, or she callously and blatantly lied on Meet the Press today while attempting to spin the Catholic doctrine on human life.

Pelosi has decided on her own that Pope Benedict’s warning that Catholic politicians that support abortion risked excommunication from the Church and should not receive communion if they support abortion. She actually told Tom Brokaw that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, she has studied the issue of abortion for a long time and she knows that over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to “make that definition.”

… 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…

She even goes on to say that the Catholic Church’s present position on the pill began 50 years ago with the event of the pill.
Pelosi is so typical of the liberal Democrats. They see the world and life as they want to see it, and express their distorted perceptions as such, and seldom, if ever, see the world and life as it really is based on the facts and uncontested truth.

For the benefit of Madam Pelosi and the Democratic Party, Church writings specifically naming abortion as murder appear as early as 70 AD in the Didache, the first written catechism of the Christian church, and in spite of the attempts of various writers and groups, and even some church authorities and a few popes to the contrary, the history of the position of the Catholic Church that abortion is murder and that it is evil dates back as early as the Didache and remains the same to this day. And as for Pelosi deciding on her own what the position of the Church is at the time of her sitting before Brokaw based upon her own readings and interpretations – if in fact she actually did so, perhaps as a practicing Catholic, as she so claims to be, instead, might consider following her faith as her Pope and mine, Pope Benedict XVI, proclaims. (Which is what a “practicing” Catholic does)

By the way, one cannot honestly say they are a “practicing catholic” and support abortion. Each position unequivocally disqualifies the other.

Related:
Pope warns Catholic politicians who back abortion.
Abortion is crime against society

On Birthdays and Roe…

Anyone who reads my posts with any regularity knows I’m rabidly anti-abortion in any form, for any reason. No matter how much I rant, though, these two pictures say far more than I ever could.


Babies are miracles. There is no other way to describe them. Perhaps I’m feeling this more than the ordinary person due to some news I received on Christmas. My oldest is pregnant with her fourth, and possibly fifth child (twins are everywhere in the families).

Now, this may not seem so remarkable; people become grandparents all the time. I thoroughly love being a grandma. But is is remarkable because by all rights my daughter shouldn’t be pregnant.

See, her fiance had testicular cancer as a teen. Her two youngest children are his. So they’ve already bucked the odds with two beautiful, healthy children. However. My daughter had her tubes tied 13 months ago, after the birth of her third. Immediately after the birth. She had been pregnant for two straight years (the grandbabies are 5, 2 and 1).

So, we have a man who is technically sterile and a woman who has been sterilized herself–and they are now pregnant again.

If that’s not a miracle, I don’t know what is.

There is danger involved as well. Because she had the ligation, there was a very good chance this child was an ectopic pregnancy and my daughter has been in extreme pain and ordered on bedrest. It was just too early to tell.

Well, this past weekend, we finally found out–after a rather protracted emergency room visit. The baby is not ectopic and is stronly situated. We will have at least one new addition in late August. I’m sadistic enough to want twins, but any child is more than welcome in our family.

Tell me, if this child ISN’T a miracle, can you please explain to me what is a miracle?

God likes babies and sometimes goes to some awesome lengths to see to their arrival. Abortion destroys these miracles. It sickens me and makes me weep for those mothers who will never hold that child and those children who will never have a birthday.

God help us if we continue to kill these miracles.

Also posted at Real Clear Politics here and Grizzly Groundswell here.

On Birthdays and Roe…

Anyone who reads my posts with any regularity knows I’m rabidly anti-abortion in any form, for any reason. No matter how much I rant, though, these two pictures say far more than I ever could.


Babies are miracles. There is no other way to describe them. Perhaps I’m feeling this more than the ordinary person due to some news I received on Christmas. My oldest is pregnant with her fourth, and possibly fifth child (twins are everywhere in the families).

Now, this may not seem so remarkable; people become grandparents all the time. I thoroughly love being a grandma. But is is remarkable because by all rights my daughter shouldn’t be pregnant.

See, her fiance had testicular cancer as a teen. Her two youngest children are his. So they’ve already bucked the odds with two beautiful, healthy children. However. My daughter had her tubes tied 13 months ago, after the birth of her third. Immediately after the birth. She had been pregnant for two straight years (the grandbabies are 5, 2 and 1).

So, we have a man who is technically sterile and a woman who has been sterilized herself–and they are now pregnant again.

If that’s not a miracle, I don’t know what is.

There is danger involved as well. Because she had the ligation, there was a very good chance this child was an ectopic pregnancy and my daughter has been in extreme pain and ordered on bedrest. It was just too early to tell.

Well, this past weekend, we finally found out–after a rather protracted emergency room visit. The baby is not ectopic and is stronly situated. We will have at least one new addition in late August. I’m sadistic enough to want twins, but any child is more than welcome in our family.

Tell me, if this child ISN’T a miracle, can you please explain to me what is a miracle?

God likes babies and sometimes goes to some awesome lengths to see to their arrival. Abortion destroys these miracles. It sickens me and makes me weep for those mothers who will never hold that child and those children who will never have a birthday.

God help us if we continue to kill these miracles.

Also posted at Real Clear Politics here and Grizzly Groundswell here.

I Had to Ruminate on This–Vick vs. Humans

A few days ago, I received an article from A Newt One regarding Michael Vick. It was a powerful article and I will link it at the bottom of this article. But the author brought up something that’s been on my mind for quite some time, and that is the value of a human life vs. the value of an animal life.

Anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of me knows I’m virulently pro-life. I don’t believe abortion should be legal for ANY reason, no matter how many ways you can say “but what if”…

None. No reason at all. Abortion is murder, plain and simple, in any form and for any reason. If you want to know why I feel this way, please check my previous posts on the issue, and they will be linked below as well.

John Edwards made a stupefyingly stupid statement regarding the war on terror, stating it was nothing more than a bumper sticker war. Well, here’s some bumper stickers for ya:



I WISH I saw more of THESE particular bumper stickers.

But we don’t and we won’t because they’re not politically correct. They speak to a culture of life instead of a culture of death. They deny a woman her choice to hire a murderer and become an accomplice in her own child’s murder.

They speak to a conscience most people lack these days, a conscience that’s been suppressed in favor of defeat, hate America, glorify excess and revel in bad behavior.

They make a rational person stop and think about what’s going on inside a womb–a heart beating, nerves feeling, a baby sucking his or her thumb, engaging in life, feeling protected–until the murderer’s scalpel invades his or her domain and starts cutting that child to pieces because that child had the misfortune to be conceived by an irresponsible bitch who lay down and spread her legs and doesn’t want to be bothered. Or, in a much rarer instance, where the child had the misfortune to be conceived during an act of violence such as a rape or child molestation. Either way, the child is a complete innocent paying the ultimate price for nothing more than existence and a murderer has been hired, the blood money paid and the child is killed.

The murderer and accomplice(s) go scott free with no consequences, free to murder again. With impunity. And this happens over 4,000 times per DAY.

Enter Michael Vick.

I’m not a huge sports fan–I know everybody has their hobbies and for a vast majority of people that includes professional sports. That’s fine. I’m appalled at the outrageous salaries professional players are paid. One reason I’m not a fan. And the fact those salary costs are passed down to the consumer in ticket prices, memorabilia, etc.

Up until this latest “scandal” broke, I didn’t even know who Michael Vick was, nor did I care.

Along with my feelings on abortion, though, I am a pet lover. I’ve had or known a few pit bulls of my own, all of them the most gentle of dogs, fiercely protective of their loved ones, incredibly gentle with the younger members of a family. I currently have 4 cats–1 I inherited from my dead mother, 1 I inherited from my dying stepmom, 1 who walked into my house and adopted ME, and one I rescued from an abusive situation. I also have one dog–inherited from my dying stepmom as well. One thing keeping her agitated was who was going to take her animals and care for them. Most of my pets have been “mutts” because, frankly, mutts don’t have the inbred problems purebreds have. However, my stepmom’s animals are purebreds (the cat is a Himalayan with siamese markings, the dog is an American eskimo). My stepmom’s dog has not endeared herself to anyone, but for some reason we get along and I couldn’t hurt my stepmom, so I took the dog as well and she has since calmed down immensely and become a valuable member of the household.

I’m also a meat-eater. I firmly believe in the hierarchy of life, when God gave man dominion over the animals it was for the proper use of animals and animals to serve man–NOT the other way around.

That in no way implies ANYONE has a right to grossly abuse the animals under their care.

What Michael Vick has done to those animals under his care is horrible. It’s disgusting. There are simply no words for it.

There’s a controversy over whether or not Michael Vick should be banned for life from football. Of course he should. Why is there even a controversy? For crying out loud, Pete Rose was banned for life for GAMBLING. What Vick has done is so far beyond what Rose did, there’s no comparison. So why is it even being discussed?

Because this country has lost all sense of a moral compass is why it’s being discussed.

Murder is acceptable, at least if it’s an unborn child being murdered. Gambling is *gasp* horrible and the gambler has to be banned for life.

Murdering, maiming, engaging in illegal behavior? That’s up for discussion. BUT only if it’s an animal’s life under discussion. Humans don’t count–unless you’re one of the current crop of celebs–Lohan, Spears, Ritchie, Hilton, Smith. Or a corrupt sports star–Bonds, Vick.

Whatever happened to true heroes and stars? Police, Firemen, REAL Teachers (not paid shills of the NEA), Astronauts, sports stars of old, Hollywood stars who were virulently Pro American, Doctors. Stars who, had they engaged in behavior considered acceptable today, were black-listed as box-office poison, shunned for their immorality? Whatever happened to the people kids looked up to who loved God, cried unashamedly when the National Anthem was played and would no more think of murdering a baby than the man in the moon (back when it was made of green cheese)? People of conscience, not afraid to speak out when something was wrong, and to shun the wrong doer? Whatever happened to those people?

They don’t exist anymore–not really. Or they’ve become part of the slumbering giant awakening and saying NO MORE WILL WE TOLERATE THIS NONSENSE.

In the meantime, it’s more acceptable to discuss the fate of a man who willingly destroyed canine life and ignore the fate of the murdering doctors and their accomplices, the birth incubators because that’s not “chic”. It’s acceptable to kill an unborn human with not a second thought while it’s an outrage to kill an animal.

Michael Vick should be no more than a blip on our radar screens…a passing news story, with a simple byline–NFL star stripped of contract, banned for life for animal atrocities, prison sentence to follow excessive fines, stripped of all awards, end of story.

Instead of worrying about the casualty counts of the war on terror, how about we start publishing the statistics on the everyday murders going on in our backyard each and every day? The libs want to publish the names, addresses and pictures of sex offenders and drunk drivers–cool, do it. How about the names, addresses and pictures of abortion doctors, women getting abortions and all the attendant personnel each day on the evening news? And, while you’re at it, publish their abortion of choice–full, gory pictures of the child they’ve slain right alongside mom’s picture? There was certainly no hesitation to publish the gory pictures of Vick’s handiwork.

Since when is an animal’s life worth more than a human’s? What kind of idiotic world are we living in?

One we deserve–for not putting a stop to this insanity 30+ years ago. When Roe v. Wade was legislated from the bench and murder was made legal. One where human life was legislated as irrelevant.

However, in a truly just world, the picture below would be a fait accompli:

Until we as a nation put our priorities back in order, this kind of insanity will continue. The first step to restoring our sanity is to put human life above animal life, where our Creator intended it to be.

Quit killing humans with impunity. Punish the abortion mill workers and their murdering customers.

Punish those that abuse animals. That’s abuse–not using them for what God intended–to SERVE us, not the other way around.

My Previous Abortion Posts are here:
http://missbethsvictorydance.blogspot.com/2007/03/my-pet-rant-of-all-time-abortion.html
http://missbethsvictorydance.blogspot.com/2007/03/statistics-on-abortion.html
http://missbethsvictorydance.blogspot.com/2007/04/thank-you-supreme-court-9-or-at-least-5.html
http://missbethsvictorydance.blogspot.com/2007/04/this-is-partial-birth-abortion.html
http://missbethsvictorydance.blogspot.com/2007/04/state-of-nevada-v-daryl-o-clark-ndoc.html

A Newt One’s post is here:
http://www.anewtone.com/2007_08_22_archive.html
Title for it is: Dogs are More Precious than Babies