I'm SO ANGRY!!!!
http://zenit.org/article-23474?l=english
HELLO?! "Since the FIRST century..." !!!!!
The Dems REALLY need to live up to what they're supposed to stand for and represent the unrepresented like they did back in the civil rights movement, but this time, for the MOST unrepresented!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
Can humans ever really separate Church and State that definitively??
"The task of witness is not easy. There are many today who claim that God should be left on the sidelines, and that religion and faith, while fine for individuals, should either be excluded from the public forum altogether or included only in the pursuit of limited pragmatic goals. This secularist vision seeks to explain human life and shape society with little or no reference to the Creator. It presents itself as neutral, impartial and inclusive of everyone. But in reality, like every ideology, secularism imposes a world-view. If God is irrelevant to public life, then society will be shaped in a godless image. When God is eclipsed, our ability to recognize the natural order, purpose, and the “good” begins to wane. What was ostensibly promoted as human ingenuity soon manifests itself as folly, greed and selfish exploitation. And so we have become more and more aware of our need for humility before the delicate complexity of God’s world."
Pope Benedict XVI, Message at welcoming celebration at WYD2008, Sydney, 17, July, 2008.
And what's a "godless image"? If Heaven is eternity with God, then what's it called when we fashion a world that's "godless"?? And who's church would something like that be called?
Is that going too far? hmmmm.....
Posts
5 comments:
Makes me happy:
"In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name."
Cardinal Egan, Archbishop of New York's response to Speaker Pelosi.
http://www.zenit.org/article-23476?l=english
You know, I've noticed that some of the most uninformed Christians/Catholics seem to have the most access to the public stage. I think we need to encourage more "informed" (and compassionate) believers to stand up and get involved with the legislative proceess. That will be the only way we can turn this country around!
As much as we want to criticize these public figures... we cannot deny that they are out there 'trying' to make a difference. It is just unfortunate that they are sometimes (or, some would say, oftentimes) misguided in their values.
So I see that we are left with 2 solutions:
1. We inform our leaders of the Truth of their faith. (Although, some will say you can't 'teach an old dog new tricks.')
2. We get off our butts and become leaders ourselves! (But, obviously, with compassion and lots of patience.)
What are we afraid of?
I don't criticize Pelosi for her trying to make a difference. I commend all those out there doing it, and I support those that are in line with my views with my vote.
What she actually DID was at BEST lie to the public and misrepresent and actually defame the Catholic Church, or at WORST stand obstinately against the public and clear official teaching of the Catholic Church (even Tom Brokaw knew of it).
Here's why: She qualified her statements in the beginning that she's an "ardent, practicing Catholic" AND that she's studied this "issue" for a "long time." She spoke with authority in interpreting the doctors of the Church.
Let's start with the best case scenario, she lied:
She either lied about the Church's official position (which Tom Brokaw called her on and she persisted obstinately and continued) OR she lied about her being an "ardent" and "practicing" Catholic in the context of her credibility as speaking for Catholics. If this is what she believes, she can be ardent, but she's certainly not practicing in the sense of the word that she needs to qualify her statements here. Or, she could have lied about knowing about this "issue." But she goes on and quotes Roe V. Wade which states clearly the Roman Catholic perspective (Section IX, part B, third paragraph) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=410&page=113)
In fact, her quote of Roe V Wade is wrong as well, the opinion of the Supreme Court then was only to say that the law doesn't know when life begins and so won't offer unborn babies the protection, and so the laws against abortions were unconstitutional (end of section IX). And to say because the law doesn't know, means we can do what we want is faulty logic. that's like saying, we don't know if there are citizens in the enemy town, but since we don't know there are, we'll have the right to bomb it. She should have quoted another case if she wanted to make the point of the right to choose of a woman. But for Catholics who are "practicing" overturning Roe should go without saying because even within the document it states clearly what the official Catholic stance is and then says the law won't speak on it.
Worst Case Scenario:
She did study the "issue" and came across St. Augustine (and maybe even St. Thomas Aquinas' writings) about "ensoulment," or "quickening." The interpretations aren't very difficult and if she's truly studied it, she would know the Church's official interpretation (which is clear from the documents) and in saying what she said, she removed herself from the teaching authority of the Church by obstinately standing against what's been announced and proclaimed clearly and publicly. A teaching that's been consistent even throughout all of Christian history in all the denominations until the 20th century (refer to Humane Vitae post). By doing that and proclaiming that she knew the teaching of the Church (what she might refer to as the "Truth" maybe?), she offends me as a Catholic and I don't see how any faithful Catholic wouldn't be offended by her own words. (If her qualifying statements had been "I'm not sure..." or "I'm only a sinner, but I think..." or even "I believe...." it would have been fine.) Even Pope Paul VI did not proclaim Humane Vitae on his own authority, but relied on the authority of the teaching Tradition of Christian history.
Speaker Pelosi's words were NOT misguided in either case: she either intentionally lied, or intentionally stands against the authority of the Church that she claims to be a part of. So solution one won't work because it's not a matter of ignorance. It's like an African American saying the African Americans were never mistreated here in US! As a wolf in sheep's clothing, her sheep costume sucks! And I "ardently" think she "should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name." So, I guess we're stuck with solution 2 and ask her for her resignation.
Sadly, this isn't a one party issue, there are self proclaimed "devout" Catholics that are public and have a wide audience on both sides!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usTWwSbpWRc
My main problem with Pelosi is that she's a public official and not JUST a public figure.
i'm incredibly late on commenting, but i lived 1 block away from Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., and that is also Pelosi's home parish.
OH SNAP!
"We respect the right of elected officials such as Speaker Pelosi to address matters of public policy that are before them, but the interpretation of Catholic faith has rightfully been entrusted to the Catholic bishops," he said in a statement. "Given this responsibility to teach, it is important to make this correction for the record. […]
Post a Comment