Nancy Pelosi barred from communion for abortion support

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You seem to be making the same mistake about secular government again. Perhaps being a monarchy with a religious requirement for the monarch is bending your understanding.

Secular government is just: Government not in charge of religion. Religion not in charge of government.

Anyone (and everyone) who is not part of a religion that is an absolute majority in their country should *automatically* be for secular government, (And you can't be in an effective theocratic alliance with a denomination that would suppress your denomination if it had the chance.

A non-secular democracy is hardly a democracy at all.

If a majority of people are Christian and presumably in a democracy the majority decide, it would be more of a democracy if said majority had their opinions ratified by law. That's the essence of Democracy. If you force the majority to be unable to rule by their deeply held religious opinions, then you are curtailing their position and ability to enact law. Seems like it's you who doesn't understand Democracy.

Not that I am a fan of pure democracy or liberal democracy in general so I don't really care for said conceptions of government. Here's the thing, if Christians have to sacrifice their ability to enact law according to their standards and submit that to secularists like you for approval, it seems like a bad deal.

 

[cow451]

Not that I am a fan of pure democracy or liberal democracy in general.

How about a liberal theocracy?

 

[TLK Valentine]

So you don't really have any reason to oppose Cordileone doing what he did?

No more so than any other politician making a political statement.

 

[Valletta]

Supporting people's rights and liberties is not akin to promoting abortion.

Just because a politician doesn't make abortion illegal it doesn't mean that they think it is moral, and it doesn't mean that they are advising people that they should have abortions. It just means they don't think it should be illegal.

It's the same thing as adultery. Just because a politician doesn't make adultery illegal, it doesn't mean they think it is moral, and it doesn't mean they are advising people that they should cheat on their spouses.

Nancy's constant reference to herself as a devout Catholic misrepresents the teachings of the Church, no devout Catholic preaches abortion, so the bishop was quite specific, writing the following in his recent letter, my highlights:

That is why I communicated my concerns to you via letter on April 7, 2022, and informed you there that, should you not publicly repudiate your advocacy for abortion “rights” or else refrain from referring to your Catholic faith in public and receiving Holy Communion, I would have no choice but to make a declaration, in keeping with canon 915, that you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.

Instead of taking the time to meet with the bishop she gave her time to the Seattle Times, the Times reported on May 4 Pelosi said: “The very idea that they would be telling women the size, timing or whatever of their family, the personal nature of this is so appalling, and I say that as a devout Catholic.”

 

[Hans Blaster]

If a majority of people are Christian and presumably in a democracy the majority decide, it would be more of a democracy if said majority had their opinions ratified by law. That's the essence of Democracy. If you force the majority to be unable to rule by their deeply held religious opinions, then you are curtailing their position and ability to enact law. Seems like it's you who doesn't understand Democracy.

Not that I am a fan of pure democracy or liberal democracy in general.

I didn't think we were talking about the general concept of democracy (though it surprises me not at all that you don't support liberal democracy given you theocratic leanings). Ive been talking about why you should want your government to be secular.

Part of the problem with your "majority are Christians" notion is that they don't agree with each other. In the US (the subject of this thread) Christians are about 70% of the population, so at least 75% of Christians would have to agree (if they were in the right places to tilt the EC and elect the Congress) to get a bare overall majority to impose there theological will on the whole of the country. That's not only not happening anytime soon, its *never* going to happen.

 

[stevil]

Nancy's constant reference to herself as a devout Catholic misrepresents the teachings of the Church, no devout Catholic preaches abortion, so the bishop was quite specific, writing the following in his recent letter, my highlights:

She isn't preaching. She isn't a priest.
She is supporting human rights, and the idea of small government, by letting the people make their own choices.

That is why I communicated my concerns to you via letter on April 7, 2022, and informed you there that, should you not publicly repudiate your advocacy for abortion “rights” or else refrain from referring to your Catholic faith in public and receiving Holy Communion,

I don't know who this guy thinks he is. Nancy is a member of the Catholic church, he cannot insist that she keep that a secret from the public.

Nancy is supporting human rights and minimal government. And this isn't against the Catholic or biblical teachings. Nancy isn't having an abortion or trying to convince anyone to have an abortion.

Instead of taking the time to meet with the bishop she gave her time to the Seattle Times, the Times reported on May 4 Pelosi said: “The very idea that they would be telling women the size, timing or whatever of their family, the personal nature of this is so appalling, and I say that as a devout Catholic.”

I don't know why she would bother meeting with this bishop.
And really them "punishing" her by witholding little tiny bits of bread. I'm sure Nancy has no shortage of food, and bread in particular is found in abundance in all grocery stores and dairies.

 

[stevil]

Yes, Nancy Pelosi supports abortion and would see it's practice spread throughout all of the United states.

I wonder if she supports sex education and contraceptives?
If she does then she is supporting measures to avoid unwanted pregnancies and hence she is actively seeking to reduce abortions.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Nancy's constant reference to herself as a devout Catholic misrepresents the teachings of the Church, no devout Catholic preaches abortion, so the bishop was quite specific, writing the following in his recent letter, my highlights:

Speaker Pelosi doesn't "preach" abortion -- unless you've got her on record requiring or even recommending people to get one...

That is why I communicated my concerns to you via letter on April 7, 2022, and informed you there that, should you not publicly repudiate your advocacy for abortion “rights” or else refrain from referring to your Catholic faith in public and receiving Holy Communion, I would have no choice but to make a declaration, in keeping with canon 915, that you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.

Mr. Cordileone has an interesting approach to lobbying, I'll give him that.

Instead of taking the time to meet with the bishop she gave her time to the Seattle Times, the Times reported on May 4 Pelosi said: “The very idea that they would be telling women the size, timing or whatever of their family, the personal nature of this is so appalling, and I say that as a devout Catholic.”

Not every lobbyist gets a meeting with the politicians that they try to influence.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I wonder if she supports sex education and contraceptives?
If she does then she is supporting measures to avoid unwanted pregnancies and hence she is actively seeking to reduce abortions.

If that were all she was supporting she would probably be fine. But she's beyond that and supports a position the Catholic Church considers to be murder.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If that were all she was supporting she would probably be fine. But she's beyond that and supports a position the Catholic Church considers to be murder.

You do know the Church is *also* against all contraceptives, right?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I didn't think we were talking about the general concept of democracy (though it surprises me not at all that you don't support liberal democracy given you theocratic leanings). Ive been talking about why you should want your government to be secular.

Part of the problem with your "majority are Christians" notion is that they don't agree with each other. In the US (the subject of this thread) Christians are about 70% of the population, so at least 75% of Christians would have to agree (if they were in the right places to tilt the EC and elect the Congress) to get a bare overall majority to impose there theological will on the whole of the country. That's not only not happening anytime soon, its *never* going to happen.

I am no theocrat, but I do see the importance of religion in society. I am not advocating for theocracy. But it doesn't surprise me Hans that a modern Atheist cannot distinguish between these things.

But my point regarding the majority argument is that you said that without secularism there isn't a true democracy. Christians can differ on many things but we hold things in common. Your rule would prohibit Christians if we agreed in the majority from influencing law. That isn't democracy in my reckoning. That's your modern secular liberalism.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You do know the Church is *also* against all contraceptives, right?

Yes I do know that. I also know the Catholic Church considers certain things to be more evil than others. To wear a condom for instance is less evil than to abort one's child. And Nancy Pelosi supports both.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes I do know that. I also know the Catholic Church considers certain things to be more evil than others. To wear a condom for instance is less evil than to abort one's child. And Nancy Pelosi supports both.

That she does -- so if she were to say "having dome some soul searching on the matter, I am now personally opposed to contraception and birth control... However, my duties as an elective representative require me to uphold the Constitution and continue to allow people the right to choose these things."

Then would she be worthy of Communion?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am no theocrat, but I do see the importance of religion in society. I am not advocating for theocracy. But it doesn't surprise me Hans that a modern Atheist cannot distinguish between these things.

But my point regarding the majority argument is that you said that without secularism there isn't a true democracy. Christians can differ on many things but we hold things in common. Your rule would prohibit Christians if we agreed in the majority from influencing law. That isn't democracy in my reckoning. That's your modern secular liberalism.

It's odd that you say that. I understood secular government and the separation of government from religion as an 8 year old Catholic boy. I didn't even know what an atheist was.

It's not about the importance of religion in society. Have as much religion as you want. (I'll take none in my life, please.) It's about religion having legal power. Does any religion in your country have legal power over non-members? (None does in my country and that's that way it's been for centuries.)

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

That she does -- so if she were to say "having dome some soul searching on the matter, I am now personally opposed to contraception and birth control... However, my duties as an elective representative require me to uphold the Constitution and continue to allow people the right to choose these things."

Then would she be worthy of Communion?

She doesn't do that though. She goes beyond upholding the constitution to supporting efforts to enshrine abortion into law. This is an active goal for her and that's the problem. If she was working within the system to undermine Abortion and made it clear she agrees with the Catholic Church, Catholics and many other Christians would have no problem with her.

 

[TLK Valentine]

She doesn't do that though. She goes beyond upholding the constitution to supporting efforts to enshrine abortion into law. This is an active goal for her and that's the problem. If she was working within the system to undermine Abortion and made it clear she agrees with the Catholic Church, Catholics and many other Christians would have no problem with her.

But if she did as I described, Then would she be worthy?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It's odd that you say that. I understood secular government and the separation of government from religion as an 8 year old Catholic boy. I didn't even know what an atheist was.

It's not about the importance of religion in society. Have as much religion as you want. (I'll take none in my life, please.) It's about religion having legal power. Does any religion in your country have legal power over non-members? (None does in my country and that's that way it's been for centuries.)

What you don't understand Hans is that to be in favour of Christianity influencing law does not make you a theocrat or an advocate of theocracy. Most Christian governments and societies were not historically theocratic. They were also secular, but the secular nature was to distinguish between the Church and the monarch. So you could have a secular country in which Christianity was the spiritual and cultural source of law and governance.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

But if she did as I described, Then would she be worthy?

I wouldn't have a problem with it and politically that would be the ideal. How else do you change the system except from within? Sadly Nancy doesn't do that, and instead she uses her position to advocate against her Church's position while going around claiming to be a devout Catholic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What you don't understand Hans is that to be in favour of Christianity influencing law does not make you a theocrat or an advocate of theocracy. Most Christian governments and societies were not historically theocratic. They were also secular, but the secular nature was to distinguish between the Church and the monarch. So you could have a secular country in which Christianity was the spiritual and cultural source of law and governance.

I'm not sure why I'm talking to you anymore. You don't listen or comprehend. And you're obsessing over a church (two actually if you include the church of the british monarch) you're not a member of in a country you're not a citizen of, nor do you seem to have any comprehension of our government and history. On top of that you don't even support the nature of your own government (being both secular and a liberal democracy).

 

[TLK Valentine]

I wouldn't have a problem with it and politically that would be the ideal. How else do you change the system except from within?

Did you pay attention to the scenario I described? I said that she would personally be opposed to contraception and abortion, but would be compelled politically to allow it to continue.

Sadly Nancy doesn't do that, and instead she uses her position to advocate against her Church's position while going around claiming to be a devout Catholic.

So she doesn't get Communion until she uses her position to act in accordance with the Bishop's wishes?