"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." John Adams

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

Pelosi: St. Augustine Was Pro-Choice Too

I had Meet the Press on this morning as I was dressing the children for Church and although I didn't hear the question, I heard Pelosi refer to St. Augustine. I knew right away why. I've heard it from pro-choicers so many times before. So I searched for the reference online after Mass and found it at The Corner.

Brokaw: …“I if [Obama] were to come to you and say ‘help me out here, Madam Speaker, when does life begin,’ what would you tell him?

Pelosi: “I would say that as an ardent practicing Catholic this is an issue that I have studied for a long time, and what I know is over the centuries the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition. And St. Augustine said three months. We don’t know. The point is it that it shouldn’t have an impact on a woman’s right to chose.”
I'm going out on a limb here but I'll bet that's the only time Pelosi quotes Augustine during this campaign season.

I find it amusing in a retching vomit-inducing way that Pelosi runs for spiritual shelter on this question. Brokaw didn't ask about her religion. You know those Democrats, always bringing their religion into politics. Brokaw asked Pelosi when "life" began? Duh! Is there any question about that scientifically? Life begins at conception. On that, there is no dispute.

The only question is whether it should be considered human enough to warrant rights such as the right not to be killed for $320 at ten weeks old. But Pelosi runs from the science on this issue and attempts to camouflage her casualness towards life and death in mystery and the spiritual realm. But that's not what was asked.

As science has progressed, it is the pro-lifers who have continued to embrace the science on this issue, despite the label of being anti-science. The pro-choicers like Pelosi wish that anything that occurs inside a woman's womb remains a mystery. They want you to remain just as ignorant as the people were in the Middle Ages. There they go again, trying to drag us back to the Middle Ages, once again. They still want you to believe them when they say it's just a clump of cells despite the pictures you see everywhere of babies smiling in the womb.

But it bothers me when pro-choicers try to say that the Church is inconsistent on this issue by bringing in random quotes from saints.

Augustine might say to Pelosi:
If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.

Your Ad Here

16 comments:

Irenaeus said...

Here's an extensive list of comments on abortion and infanticide and such from Jews and Christians in antiquity in the context of Pelosi's lies.

mary margaret said...

irenaeus rocks!

Pelosi is either ill-informed or intentionally ignorant. I am a devotee of St Augustine and his mother, St Monica (my patron saint) and am seriously disgusted that Ms Pelosi would use St Augustine's words to justify condoning abortion. She should be ashamed of herself. Perhaps she should consult with one of our greatest living Augustinian scholars, PBXVI. (Somehow, I doubt that she would have the guts to do so.)

Diego said...

I believe that in this case, the time has come for the (very public) application of a time-honoured remedy for scandalous dissent -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y75OwTuQpqI

- bearing in mind, of course, that it is intended as a healing measure, and that we must continue to pray for the conversion of the person so censured.

Tip of the hat to Father Z for the original link. (http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/08/wsj-wymynpryst-liberation-ordination/)

Anonymous said...

Even if we believe that ensoulment occurs at some time after conception, no one would even know for sure when this was. And when you don't know, you must err on the side of caution, particularly when you are dealing with a life and death issue. Therefore,regardless of any theoretical possibility that life may begin at some later time, we must act as though life begins at conception, which I happen to believe anyway. I hope this isn't misunderstood. I am not making a case that life begins later than conception, only that it wouldn't matter if it did: it is still a sin of the highest order to abort a pregnancy. Kit

Anonymous said...

Also, even if we were sure that ensoulment occurs at a certain time, who is ever completely sure of the exact age of the fetus. It is an absurdity to say that if you abort on Tuesday it's okay, but Wednesday it's too late. In addition, as someone else has pointed out in the link above, the potential for ensoulment itself seems enough to define a human being. It is enough for me. Kit

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps she should consult with one of our greatest living Augustinian scholars, PBXVI."

She did, however, kiss his ring (and came mighty close to kissing something else) when she met him on the tarmac in DC.

Anonymous said...

Well according to Archbishop Chaput, one could vote for Pelosi, Kennedy or Biden...as long as your "vote" isn't for their position on abortion! He followed up with it by stating one could participate in an evil...

See his interview with Raymond Arroyo (who didn't challenge him) this Friday past on "The World Over". Its was unbelievable.

Until bishops like this get tough with Catholics, the Pelosis of the world will continue to be the voice of Catholicism.

Irenaeus said...

WHoa whoa whoa...Chaput has been very good on this issue, perhaps the best, next to maybe Burke. Again and again, Chaput has said you can vote for a pro-abortion candidate if you can explain to the murdered children on judgment day why you did so. It's a constant theme of his.

Anonymous said...

Irenaeus said...
WHoa whoa whoa...Chaput has been very good on this issue, perhaps the best, next to maybe Burke. Again and again, Chaput has said you can vote for a pro-abortion candidate if you can explain to the murdered children on judgment day why you did so. It's a constant theme of his.

You need to review the show tape...he spoke out of both sides of his mouth.

It's not the murdered children, but God one needs to explain things to. Chaput doesn't help the faithful by muddying the waters with theologibabble.

His words merely give voters a way to vote for abortionists.

Anonymous said...

Plus, if human life didn't begin at conception, then please explain again how INVITRO FERTILIZATION works again?

An embryo comes into being apart from the woman's body... now what exactly is an human embryo if not an individual member of our species?

If that human being doesn't have human rights then NO ONE has "rights" at all - the most we have are grants, revocable grants by anyone who is stronger than we are.

Rusty Shackleford said...

I'm so sick and tired of these cafeteria Catholic politicians.

Mon.Con. fan said...

Abp Chaput & Bp Conley have already replied to this foolishness:

http://www.archden.org/images/ArchbishopCorner/ByTopic/onseparationofsense%26state_openlettercjc8.25.08.pdf

Mau said...

Anonymous said . . .
Well according to Archbishop Chaput, one could vote for Pelosi, Kennedy or Biden...as long as your "vote" isn't for their position on abortion!

I watched the Ab Chaput interview on EWTN's website. Chaput stated one could vote for a pro-abortion candidate for a compelling reason but then went on to say he could not imagine a compelling enough reason. He then went on to express a scenario in which one might choose between two pro-abortion candidates and vote for one as long as the reason for voting for that particular candidate was not because they were pro-abortion.

I also disagree with your assertion that Raymond Arroyo did not pursue that line of questioning.

Anonymous then said. . .
He followed up with it by stating one could participate in an evil...

This part of the interview was where I had a problem because Chaput used the USCCB's statement from the conference in 2004 drawn from Cardinal McCarrick's representation of his correspondence with then Cardinal Ratzinger which has been an on-going controversy. The following is what Cardinal McCarrick claimed to be Cardinal Ratzinger's thoughts on the issue:

"However, when a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted if there are proportionate reasons."

Anonymous said...

Mau,

You're hair splitting only makes you feel better, but doesn't comport with the fact that Chaput gave a window (however small) of opportunity for pro-abortion Catholics to vote for infanticide. If he cannot discern a reason to do so, why even give us dummies a glint of a reason to vote that way? Why, for the sake of our souls (and his) won't he just equivocally state: you shall NOT vote for a pro-abortion candidate...period. What happened to the days where bishops were clear, steadfast, and honest in their speech. Nowadays we have jelly-filled men confusing people with their babble.

It would've been perfect if he said "Raymond, there may be some bishops who may find a compelling reason for guiding their flock to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, but I for one will not do that. To vote for a candidate that supports the murder of innocent children is anathema to the faith and puts a Catholic's soul at risk. A non-vote is also a proper response. We must remember that God's laws trump mens' laws and as Catholics we must always put God's law first.

Mau said...

Anonymous said. . .
You're hair splitting only makes you feel better

Well, no not really.

Anonymous said...

It's time to take the gloves off, and Archbishop Chaput has done so. Why oh why have our bishops been so mambypamby? Just look where it has gotten us! And still there are people who consider themselves Catholics in good standing who will vote for B.H. Obama. It is painfully obvious that we have had bad bishops.

--William

Post a Comment