"Ardent" Catholic Nancy Pelosi on abortion

[MichaelFJF]

It is no less precise than the teaching of the church.

....except that she was wrong and the Church DOES teach that life begins at conception.

 

[Filia Mariae]

It is no less precise than the teaching of the church.

It's not an issue of precision, but of pedantry.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Can. 1398 A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae 5 excommunication.

Can. 1329 §2 In the case of a latae sententiae penalty attached to an offense, accomplices, even though not mentioned in the law or precept, incur the same penalty if, without their assistance, the crime would not have been committed...

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

"that at her Immaculate Conception she came into the world all radiant like the dawn" - Ineffabilis Deus


"Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart." - Ineffabilis Deus

 

[Davidnic]

Can. 1398 A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae 5 excommunication.

Can. 1329 §2 In the case of a latae sententiae penalty attached to an offense, accomplices, even though not mentioned in the law or precept, incur the same penalty if, without their assistance, the crime would not have been committed...

Point?

 

[InTheCloud]

This tread was not about Biden, is about Nancy Pelosi misrepresenting Catholic teaching to fit her own politics.
As a foreigner I have no real stake here (but I do like Mc Cain for sentimental reasons).

But I cringe when I see American Catholics misrepresenting Chuch teachings for temporal political reasons.

Why the cannot just be pro life Democrats? Or keep their mouths and their religion preferences shut while you are in office.

But Biden, Pelosi, Kerrey, Cuomo misrepresent Catholic teachings for political gain. They want to proclaim themselves as godly people who believe and will defend to death Roe vs Wade. That is were the travesty lies.

They want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[Davidnic]

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Yep, there is an intrinsic connection with the Immaculate Conception that is one of the reasons it is a Truth of Reason as defined by Dogmatic Theology.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Point?

Life begins at conception. That is why abortion results in automatic ex-communication.

And I don't see how anyone that votes for pro-choice policies, like Pelosi, can not be considered an accomplice.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

..

 

[Davidnic]

Life begins at conception. That is why abortion results in automatic ex-communication.

And I don't see how anyone that votes for pro-choice policies, like Pelosi, can be considered an accomplice.

I get the first part. I have already argued that it is a Truth of Reason as defined by Dogmatic Theology and is Theologically Certain by virtue of the principle of intrinsic connection. I did that back in post #33. So we agree and I get you on that one.

But that is dogmatic theology, a different branch from moral theology. To address the second issue is the realm of moral theology.

So as to if the voter is an accomplice, that is more complicated. I posted this in a thread about the denial of Communion..but the same principles of cooperation apply here.

With a vote, ours or a politician the idea of cooperation comes into play with elements of formal, immediate, material and all that stuff.

Things need to be assessed as to, are they:

• Formal (shares intention to do evil) or Material (Does not share)

• Immediate (direct) or Mediate (indirect)

• Remote or Proximate (actual relation in sequence of events or intrinsic connection to the act.)

• Active (helping to happen) or Passive (allowing to happen)

Formal is always illicit.

Immediate Material is illicit if it takes a human life (depending on double effect considerations)

Mediate Material has factors to consider like proportionate reason

The Vatican gave a good summary in this document (about vaccines made from fetuses) under the section: The principle of licit cooperation in evil

But what is a politician's vote? If it does not share the intention to protect abortion but rather seeks to address some other ill...is it immediate or mediate or proximate or remote. Those things can be debated and I have seen both ends argued by priests and bishops.

I think one clear thing is that if a politician is voting with the mindset that they are protecting the right to have an abortion no matter what (even if all social concerns were to be eliminated or mitigated, as Pelosi is doing) and for whatever reason is given. And if they are protecting that choice in that vein...then there are some serious moral considerations that need to take place between priest and parishioner.

Because at that point they are sharing the intention to commit an intrinsic evil...and with the legislative power they have then that intention can be argued proximate and not remote and the intention makes it formal and not material. And those are huge differences.

So the intentions and proportionate reasons will be a huge factor in the person's spiritual disposition and what kind of cooperation is given.

Now as far as the voter...in this we now have the very interesting issue of "unjust alternative choice". If no one satisfies the moral requirements on different issues and in many ways proportionate reasons can not apply because both choices support different intrinsic evils. That is a pickle.

But it is not an "unjust alternative choice" because we can vote third party. Of course, the viability of that option can be debated and some would maintain that it is not viable and is an illusionary option so there is the problem of "unjust alternative choice".

I would not be one of the latter. I would argue that the only think that keeps third party votes not a viable option is people refusing to make them. But that is a different issue. the bottom line here is these and other factors make it almost impossible to say a voters vote places them in a place where they can not have the Eucharist or in the case of this be excommunicated. For excommunication, even automatic ones, canon law has strict conditions that need to be met that are not met by a voter in most cases.

Unless, again, they vote desiring to protect the choice to have abortions for simple and direct choice regardless of social factors and simply to protect the right to choose even for convenience. In that case, the intention to aid in furthering an intrinsic evil is pretty clear.

I am not saying people should vote for these politicians, I am simply pointing out that the situation in canon law and moral theology is not a simple if then matter.

I'll also point out again that Geo has had this conversation many times. And he does not do it to be pedantic (as in ostentatious or pretentious in his learning, since there is a little talk about what that means) or support Nancy Pelosi. There have been other threads on it. None have garnered this kind of attention...likely because they don't have a politicians name in the title.

He is not advocating abortion and has a record of standing against it. So let's stop attributing intentions to each other outside of what is directly provable. Every person in this thread so far is much smarter and better than that.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

....except that she was wrong and the Church DOES teach that life begins at conception.

Folks like her and Kerry need to be ex-communicated immediately.

 

[geocajun]

It's not an issue of precision, but of pedantry.

Pedantic is a synonym for precision or perfection. I know you badly want to use is a pejorative, and feel free, but don't get upset when I tell you that technically, the term does mean precise

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Davidnic, I'm sorry- I wasn't suggesting voting for Pelosi was wrong.

 

[Davidnic]

Davidnic, I'm sorry- I wasn't suggesting voting for Pelosi was wrong.

It's ok. I just wanted some clarification, it's been a long day and I was wondering where you were going with it. These issues can get...well...heated. Speaking of that...

I am going to get ready to watch Bob Casey Jr's speech and hope he makes a strong pro-life comment in the time he has. I know that is not the focus of his speech but I badly want to see a pro-life democrat make a strong stand and carve an identity for that underrepresented part of their party. A few have been making noise this week and being very strong. At least that is what I have read in some articles and blogs from on site. I would like to see the beginning of a pro-life Democrat push where over the next few years they serve as a foil to the planned parenthood influence in the party. They have made some important strides and culture changes with the power they gained from the last election and if projections hold they should gain even more seats in 2008. Hopefully one day they will be able to have the forefront of the party rather than people like Pelosi, who twist things like she has.

 

[MrJim]

This tread was not about Biden, is about Nancy Pelosi misrepresenting Catholic teaching to fit her own politics.
As a foreigner I have no real stake here (but I do like Mc Cain for sentimental reasons).

But I cringe when I see American Catholics misrepresenting Chuch teachings for temporal political reasons.

Why the cannot just be pro life Democrats? Or keep their mouths and their religion preferences shut while you are in office.

But Biden, Pelosi, Kerrey, Cuomo misrepresent Catholic teachings for political gain. They want to proclaim themselves as godly people who believe and will defend to death Roe vs Wade. That is were the travesty lies.

They want to have their cake and eat it too.

I'm the OP and I approve this message

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Folks like her and Kerry need to be ex-communicated immediately.

May the wheat that would suffer be saved from you.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

As opposed to the wheat that believe her and think abortion is okay?

She is a public figure that is telling people that the Church doesn't have a position on when life begins. I don't care about her, I care about the people she will effect.

 

[Voegelin]

From the Guardian and AP tonight:

Pelosi stands by abortion comments

DENVER (AP) - Under fire from U.S. Catholic bishops, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not backing off contentious comments about abortion she made . . .

I used to think I had a fair grasp of politics. But the Speaker of the House of Representatives engaging in a dispute with several Catholic bishops and archbishops in the middle of her party's national nominating convention?

This makes no sense at all.

 

[Rhamiel]

From the Guardian and AP tonight:

Pelosi stands by abortion comments

DENVER (AP) - Under fire from U.S. Catholic bishops, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not backing off contentious comments about abortion she made . . .

I used to think I had a fair grasp of politics. But the Speaker of the House of Representatives engaging in a dispute with several Catholic bishops and archbishops in the middle of her party's national nominating convention?

This makes no sense at all.

what does she hope to gain? is it to show that the dems have a backbone? Even though i do not like her, it almost makes me sad to see some one shoot themself in the foot

 

[SolomonVII]

Setting the record straight on what the church does teach or doesn't teach isn't obscuring anything. Why be afraid of the truth?
The outcome is the same - life must be protected from the moment of conception.
I haven't obscured anything about the teaching of the church - but rather I have just made it more clear for you.

The thread is about Pelosi making it seem like her own contrary views are those of an ardent Catholic. Your choice of timing for making the rather small point that you are making cetainly serves a political end favorable to Pelosi and the rest of the pro-choice Democrats.