Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cardinal Egan Blasts Pelosi (in brilliantly scathing response) [Open]
CMR ^ | August 26, 2008 | Matthew Archbold

Posted on 08/26/2008 10:37:18 AM PDT by NYer

Wow! This is a brilliantly scathing response to Nancy Pelosi and her comments on Meet The Press Sunday concerning abortion. Here's the amazing statement in full.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 26, 2008

STATEMENT OF HIS EMINENCE, EDWARD CARDINAL EGAN CONCERNING REMARKS MADE BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008. What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.

We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. 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.

Edward Cardinal Egan

Archbishop of New York


August 26, 2008
Wow! Wow! Wow!


TOPICS: Catholic; Religion & Politics; Theology
KEYWORDS: abortion; eagan; egan; pelosi
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-167 last
To: A.A. Cunningham

This letter from her priest is great!


151 posted on 08/26/2008 7:07:15 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

And btw that is

TITLE III.

THE SUBJECT LIABLE TO PENAL SANCTIONS (Cann. 1321 - 1330)

That was linked.


152 posted on 08/26/2008 7:10:00 PM PDT by netmilsmom (The Party of Darkness prefers to have the lights out. - Go Fierce 50!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
Dear netmilsmom,

You posted some excerpts from Canon Law, but frankly, they don't make your case. Those who procure abortions are excommunicated latae sententiae. Their direct conspirators also incur it.

But you haven't made the case at all that pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians are the direct conspirators of individual women procuring individual abortions.

And you haven't made a case that these folks are excommunicated latae sententiae on other grounds.

Just asserting your position isn't the same thing as making the argument.


sitetest

153 posted on 08/26/2008 7:11:34 PM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

wow! Is this for real?


154 posted on 08/26/2008 7:12:49 PM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

Well, my FRiend, you are more than welcome to follow each of my posts with that disclaimer.

G’Night!


155 posted on 08/26/2008 7:19:45 PM PDT by netmilsmom (The Party of Darkness prefers to have the lights out. - Go Fierce 50!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
Dear netmilsmom,

I'm not going to follow you around to attach disclaimers to your posts.

I'm not responsible for the falsehoods posted by others.


sitetest

156 posted on 08/26/2008 7:33:11 PM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

And I’m not responsible for making you understand the link I put in, my FRiend.

That’s just something that you will have to read and comprehend yourself. Think what I’m saying is false? Fine, that’s your right.

Until the Vatican says I’m wrong, not you, you are actually accusing me of “bearing false witness” Not kosher, but you have to reconcile that on your soul. I don’t.


157 posted on 08/27/2008 5:18:35 AM PDT by netmilsmom (The Party of Darkness prefers to have the lights out. - Go Fierce 50!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
Dear netmilsmom,

What is false is to represent your opinion as the authentic teaching of the Church.


sitetest

158 posted on 08/27/2008 5:20:01 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

And that my FRiend is your opinion.


159 posted on 08/27/2008 5:41:40 AM PDT by netmilsmom (The Party of Darkness prefers to have the lights out. - Go Fierce 50!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
You apparently haven't been paying attention

You have that right.

160 posted on 08/27/2008 5:45:52 AM PDT by bcsco (Obama's just biden his time until McCain wins in November.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

Ooops sorry, hit the button too soon.
I have given you references of where my interpertation comes from. It is stated clearly in the documents I posted for you.

Your rebuttal has been, I don’t see it that way and you have given examples of your opinion.

That’s fine. Neither of us are right or wrong until the Vatican takes action. Understanding that neither of us are Vatican lawyers. My opinion runs true to what my pastor also believes (who btw has a PhD) so, you can call it false but I’ll go with his opinion, rather than yours. Luckily, we have a wonderful Priest who has no problem with guiding us in these matters.

If you can point our where I stated that this is the “authentic teaching of the church” or “Has been done” I am more than willing to retract it.


161 posted on 08/27/2008 5:48:07 AM PDT by netmilsmom (The Party of Darkness prefers to have the lights out. - Go Fierce 50!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: ELS; chimera; NYer

Thanks all of you for an interesting discussion. Nancy has placed herself outside the Catholic Faith. That is evident. Also evident is scandalous behavior should she receive Holy Communion in the future. Hopefully, this public reprobation of her remarks this past Sunday by leading Catholic clerics would make that impossible.

As to public penance, I can understand the need so that others know she’s regained her belief and standing within the Church. It was the private repentance I was focusing on.

Again, thanks for a great roundtable.


162 posted on 08/27/2008 5:57:15 AM PDT by bcsco (Obama's just biden his time until McCain wins in November.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
Dear netmilsmom,

“Your rebuttal has been, I don’t see it that way and you have given examples of your opinion.”

You have again misrepresented my view.

“Neither of us are right or wrong until the Vatican takes action.”

To have an opinion where there is not clarity is not wrong.

To say other than that it is one's opinion is wrong.

This opinion has been offered on different threads as the explanation of Catholic discipline to posters asking just what is Catholic discipline on this question.

To offer it as the explanation of Catholic discipline on the question is to falsify.

That is especially so in that you have not at all made a case justifying why pro-abort “Catholic” politicians can be said to have directly participated in the procurement of specific abortions. At this point, your assertion isn't even actually argued, just asserted. Try to make the argument.

But that's a bit off the point.

The point is that the idea that these folks are automatically excommunicated is being thrown around as an explanation of Catholic discipline as if it were a settled issue.

It is nothing close to that. At best, it's a theory, a speculation.


sitetest

163 posted on 08/27/2008 6:24:10 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

>>But that’s a bit off the point.<<

The whole thing is totally off the point!
But if you like, you can take it up with my priest.


164 posted on 08/27/2008 6:28:22 AM PDT by netmilsmom (The Party of Darkness prefers to have the lights out. - Go Fierce 50!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Salvation; ArrogantBustard; LadyDoc
Lets analyze the stunning new page that our sister Nancy has invited the prelates to turn.

Cardinal Egan has chosen to speak out about a Catholic who is not in his diocese. Very unusual for a bishop or cardinal. And very unusual for Cardinal Egan.

Excerpt from Cardinal Egan's statment:

"In simplest terms, they are human beings with an
inalienable right to live,
[just the biological facts, nothing new here]

a right
that the Speaker of the House of Representatives
is bound to defend
[again, nothing new]

at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons.
[new idea that basic non-sectarian humanism alone demands this, not religion]

They are not parts of their mothers, [nothing new]

and what they are depends not at all
upon the opinions of theologians of any faith.
[WOW: 'This is NOT about religion, this is about HUMANE TREATMENT of other humans REGARDLESS of your FAITH or lack of faith']

Anyone who dares [no nuance here: 'how dare you!']

to defend
that they may be legitimately killed
[no nuance here: 'we're talking about cold-blooded killing']

because another human being “chooses” to do so [scare quotes!: translated as 'choice is a vapid transparent lie']

or for any other equally ridiculous reason
[the pro-"choice" argument is so empty and shallow as to be ridiuclous - worthy of ridicule - utterly without any merit whatsoever]

should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name."
['In case you misunderstood me: that means you, too, OBAMA and HILLARY - we don't care what religion you are, this is not about religion, and if you support abortion, you are UNFIT TO LEAD']

165 posted on 08/27/2008 7:15:29 AM PDT by Notwithstanding ("You are either with America in our time of need or you are not" - Hillary from Senate well 9/12/01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Salvation; ArrogantBustard; LadyDoc
Lets analyze the stunning new page that our sister Nancy has invited the prelates to turn.

Cardinal Egan has chosen to speak out about a Catholic who is not in his diocese. Very unusual for a bishop or cardinal. And very unusual for Cardinal Egan.

Excerpt from Cardinal Egan's statment:

"In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live,
[just the biological facts, nothing new here]

a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend
[again, nothing new]

at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons.
[new idea that basic non-sectarian humanism alone demands this, not religion]

They are not parts of their mothers, [nothing new]

and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith.
[WOW: 'This is NOT about religion, this is about HUMANE TREATMENT of other humans REGARDLESS of your FAITH or lack of faith']

Anyone who dares [no nuance here: 'how dare you!']

to defend that they may be legitimately killed
[no nuance here: 'we're talking about cold-blooded killing']

because another human being “chooses” to do so [scare quotes!: translated as 'choice is a vapid transparent lie']

or for any other equally ridiculous reason
[the pro-"choice" argument is so empty and shallow as to be ridiuclous - worthy of ridicule - utterly without any merit whatsoever]

should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name."
['In case you misunderstood me: that means you, too, OBAMA and HILLARY - we don't care what religion you are, this is not about religion, and if you support abortion, you are UNFIT TO LEAD']

166 posted on 08/27/2008 7:18:11 AM PDT by Notwithstanding ("You are either with America in our time of need or you are not" - Hillary from Senate well 9/12/01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
I can't argue with a single thing you pointed out, as I, too, attend Mass with regularity and have taught PSR, cleaned the sanctuary, decorated it for Easter, etc. My husband ran the most successful Sunday School and PSR program in the diocese and we are both very familiar with the cafeteria Catholic mentality.

I do still stand by what I said. Ms. Pelosi shows up, goes through the motions and receives some (not all of the benefits of the sacraments), but hasn't given what she's heard a second thought, or if she has, she has willfully ignored it because it doesn't fit her idea of “how we can do better.”

This will be my last reply to you on this issue. Egan and others have it right. Ms. Pelosi has it wrong. She's either handicapped with “tin eared” syndrome or deliberately “tone deaf”. Not my call to make.

Apparently, she stands by her comments, as I will by mine.

167 posted on 08/27/2008 8:45:09 AM PDT by Constitutions Grandchild
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-167 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson