Posted on 08/28/2008 9:47:45 PM PDT by Teófilo
CNN' fails to report on Pelosi's faux pas.
Folks, this from LifeSiteNews.com:
Two More Bishops Make 8 Who Have Come Out against Pelosi's 'Catholic' Abortion Theology
By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Two more bishops have released statements condemning House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's widely publicized claim that the Catholic faith could support abortion.
Bishop Michael J. Sheridan of Colorado Springs and Bishop David A. Zubik of Pittsburgh join the other six Catholic bishops who have already corrected Pelosi's false claims, made during an appearnace on NBC's Meet the Press, that when life begins has been "an issue of controversy" throughout the history of the Church and that, therefore, the Catholic faith can support abortion.
Bishop Sheridan warned Catholics in his statement Tuesday that Pelosi's picture of Church history and teaching is categorically false. "Speaker Pelosi's outrageous attempt to present what she considers the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding abortion is simply wrong and should be disregarded by every faithful Catholic," he wrote.
Quoting Pope John Paul II, Bishop Sheridan reminded his readers that violating the right to life undermines all human rights, which are present "from the moment of conception until natural death."
"The teachings of the Church on abortion are consistent and unambiguous, and it is very disturbing to hear someone who claims to be a Catholic distort these teachings and sow seeds of confusion among the faithful by attempting to relativize the right to life," said Bishop Sheridan.
Bishop Zubik on Wednesday also condemned Pelosi for going too far: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stepped out of her political role and completely misrepresented the teaching of the Catholic Church in regard to abortion." The bishop went on to reject the notion that Church condemnation of abortion "is somehow new and therefore unsettled."
Both bishops cited the first-century Didache, the earliest collection of Catholic moral teachings besides the Bible, to show that the Catholic Church from the beginning has unequivocally condemned violence against unborn life: "You shall not kill the embryo by abortion."
Pelosi's own bishop, Archbishop George Hugh Niederauer, has thus far made no comment. His spokesman Maurice Healy told LifeSiteNews.com that the Archbishop would be publishing something on the matter in his regular column in the diocesan newspaper on September 5.
Bishop Sheridan's full statement: http://www.diocs.org/images/Abortion%20Statement%20_2_%201pg...
Bishop Zubik's full statement: http://www.diopitt.org/
See related LifeSiteNews.com articles:
Pelosi Spokeswoman About-face: Catholic Church "Clear" on Life Teaching After All - But Catholics Need Not Listen
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08082706.html"Catholic" Speaker Pelosi Denies that Catholicism Condemns Abortion
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08082502.htmlCardinals, Bishops and Congressmen Slam Pelosi on Abortion
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08082601.htmlNew York Cardinal - Pelosi Not Worthy of "Providing Leadership in a Civilized Democracy"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08082605.html
My better known colleague, Christopher Blosser from Catholics in the Public Square, reports that by his (and the American Papist's) count 11 bishops have come out against Pelosi's comments. Christopher also quotes NewsBusters observation that CNN has placed a total news blackout on Nancy Pelosi’s misrepresentation of Catholic teaching and history on abortion and the subsequent reaction from several prominent Catholic bishops and from pro-life politicians. In fact, if you go to CNN's website you'll see that this news service is all Obama star-struck and is for the moment unable or unwilling to report on anything that might detract from candidate Obama's ascendancy in American politics.
Pretty pathetic, if you ask me. If you had any doubt that the Big Media plays favorites when it comes to issues close to their ideological core, CNN's news blackout on Pelosi's gaffe should dispel them.
Good for them.
have they tried an exorcism?
The way I understand the Catholic perception on abortion is this:
Life begins at the moment of conception
When life begins the human organism is given an immortal soul
An immortal soul is created with “original sin” which blocks it from the presence of God
Only by the Sacrament of Baptism, performed on a living human, can that immortal soul be given the opportunity to be saved
By killing a baby in its mother's womb you are damning that soul to a state of Limbo forever, frustrating the desire of the God who created it to have it enjoy eternity with Him forever
Abortion, therefore, is worse than murder. You are killing a human being, damning an immortal soul, and defying the will of God.
According to Catholic discipline on the subject, the possessed themselves need to request the exorcism in order for one to be granted. So, the answer to your question is “no.”
It can be argued - although I defer to the Magisterium on this - that aborted babies are baptized in blood and therefore are saved. So I don’t think that abortion frustrates God’s purpose for a soul in this way.
Abortion is not stronger than God’s salvific will, IMHO. Evil will never overcome Good in this or any other fashion; death will not have the last word.
-Theo
Maybe by the end of this whole thing, she won’t be the “devout practicing Catholic” she claims to be. It would be wonderful if a politician was finally turned away from communion. Biden, too. Finally, if they want to be seriously respected about the importance of pro-life, let’s see them send some Democrat politicians to the back of the church—without communion!
I’m far from an expert on Canon Law. But I remember reading about Jesuits who died because they were baptizing babies of Huron Indians who were dying from Smallpox.
You also have the case of Catholic Priests digging through the garbage behind abortion mills, looking for victims of baby killers to baptise before their souls left the body.
If a “Baptism of Blood” was true, why would they do it?
I also read somewhere on the net that the “Baptism of the Unborn” is unaccepted by Catholic theologians.
Censure, hell! PUBLICALLY EXCOMMUNICATE her, and deny her the sacraments until she either: [a] repents [unlikely], or [b] finds another Church more in line with her views to claim as her own .
And while they’re at it, send Teddy, “Clueless” Joe Biden, Rudy and the rest of them with her!
In all fairness to Madam Speaker, 1st grade teachers should be censuring her as well.
In all fairness to Madam Speaker, 1st grade teachers should be censuring her as well.
What I stated was not what I believed. to be Catholic doctrine on abortion. If you have evidence to the contrary, please direct me a source.
And there are very many Christians, Catholic and Proestant, who would disagree with what you are stating.
Calvinists believe in predestination which is divorced from any real worth on the part of the individual.
More than any other Christian religion, Catholicism uses logical arguments to defend their positions on matters of faith and morals and I can;t really disgree with the logic of that argument.
And I beleive God IS understanding and merciful - which is why he gave us freedom of choice. Unfortunately some people are weak and make the wrong choice.
“What I stated was not what I believed. to be Catholic doctrine on abortion. If you have evidence to the contrary, please direct me a source.”
SHOULD READ:
“What I stated was what I believed to be Catholic doctrine on abortion. If you have evidence to the contrary, please direct me a source.”
I’m far from an expert on Canon Law. But I remember reading about Jesuits who died because they were baptizing babies of Huron Indians who were dying from Smallpox.
These babies were not being aborted - even Native Americans knew not to do that - nor these heroic Jesuits ever have to face the horrors of the abortion Auschwitz.
You also have the case of Catholic Priests digging through the garbage behind abortion mills, looking for victims of baby killers to baptise before their souls left the body.
Which, if you ask me, is a very haphazard, hit-and-miss, uncertain proposition.
If a “Baptism of Blood” was true, why would they do it?
But, in principle, "Baptism of Blood" is a true thing with precedent in the theological tradition of the Church. It is a matter of discussing , if, when, and how it would extend to the unborn.
I also read somewhere on the net that the “Baptism of the Unborn” is unaccepted by Catholic theologians.
Well, the best I can say about this is that the 'Net is but a pointer systems for multiple conversations on a variety of subjects. The worse I can say is that just because you read it on the 'Net doesn't make it true.
But of course, you already knew that.
God is Mercy in Himself; His purpose in creating will not be frustrated by the Merchants of Death. An abortion will not close the way to God for an aborted baby, killed though no fault of his own. I am much inclined to believe, if with no other proof than God's Merciful Love, that He somehow extends the grace of baptismal regeneration to aborted babies and the matter and form of the sacrament is not necessary in this instance for these babies to be saved.
I freely admit that might be in error, but if I am to err, I will do so on the side of God's boundless Mercy.
"Eternal Father: I offer you the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of your dearly beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."
-Theo
Interesting.
Certainly a more humane view of things.
It is absolutely true that the Church, true to her Judaic roots, from the earliest days taught that abortion was murder. But is equally true that it was none other than St. Augustine who changed this teaching.
He reverted to the pagan (Aristotelian) belief that the fetus undergoes "stages" of animation, first having vegetable soul, then animal soul then human soul, a beleif known as "the ensoulment."
The human embryo undergoes animal-like morphological changes, at first having an amorphous appearance, then gradually showing gills and other animal-like features.
The ancients must have looked at aborted fetuses at different stages of pregnancy and concluded that the fetus didn't really "look" human until after the 1st trimester (roughly 90 days post-conception ), so they concluded that it didn't have a human soul until that time.
Of course, at that time, the Church did not teach Immaculate Conception, so any grace at the moment of conception was not a dogmatic position of the Church, East or West. In fact, such a dogma would have been impossible, considering Augustinian teaching on abortion!
Interestingly, it was Augustinian teaching of the so-called "original sin" that is the basis for the Catholic dogma of Immaculate Conception. The enormity of Augustinian alienation of the Church from its patristic roots is astonishing!
This theory of staged animation, coupled with Augustinian influence in the West resulted in various teachings by various popes, all the way into the 17th century, allowing abortion up to the stasge of human 'animation,' which was set at 40 days for males and 90 days for females by +Augustine, and at 116 days by Pope Gregory XIV.
The concept of 'simultaneous animation' was brought forth in the 17th century, asserting "ensoulment" at the moment of conception.
In 1869, Pope Pius IX reversed Pope Gregory XIV's 16th century (pro-abortionist) reversal of Pope Sixtus V's 14th century (anti-abortionist) ruling.
In the 19th century Pope Leo XIII prohibited any procedure that killed fetuses.
The Eastern Church never accepted Augustine's teachings and, while recognizing him as a saint, also recognized many errors of his teachings that eventually poisoned the entire western Christianity.
In contrast, +Augustine is a pillar of western Christianity and his teachings on the original sin, as well as abortion, have had far reaching consequences on the heresies of the West that followed.
Once the Church accepted the dogma of Immaculate Conception, without addressing or retracting Augustinian teachings on abortion, it made the concept of "simultaneous animation" part of that dogma, for God would not make a "vegetable" or an "animal" full of grace!
From there on, whatever the Catholic Church taught before that, all Catholics are required to consider a fetus to be human from the moment of conception.
Regardless of the history of the Chjurch, Nancy Pelosi is in conflict with the dogma of her Church. Citing historical reasons is simply pointless, because the Church (East and West) before Augusitine taught all abortion was murder.
The problem is that the Church never condemned Augustinian teachings on abortion as pagan. I realize that many of these teachings were done out of ignorance, but they were clearly not patristic, which is what one can about the Catholic Church for the past millennium if not longer.
As such, Pelosi (or Biden or Kerry) is on shaky grounds with a pro-choice platform, and should be given an opportunity to repent and recant her beliefs, or be excommunicated.
I hear you loud and clear and through you the stance of many in Orthodoxy regarding St. Augustine. You probably read my post on him yesterday, btw.
I am far from being an expert on St. Augustine. His thought is quite vast and I haven’t scratched the surface yet, so I an unable to dispute or validate the dogmatic “genealogy” you propose in this post. I am going to have to defer to people more knowledgeable than I to mount a coherent argument.
I will limit myself to say that St. Augustine himself condemned abortion at any stage of gestation, and that his speculation related to “ensoulment” did not affect that judgment. Pelosi can’t appeal to St. Augustine to justify her stance on abortion simply because St. Augustine himself decried it.
In Christ,
-P.
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.