Pelosi's bishop calls for ex-communication of pols now pushing for abortion

[OKSTATE1]

September 8, 2021

Pelosi's bishop calls for ex-communication of pols now pushing for abortion​

By Monica Showalter

Is the Catholic Church finally showing some leadership?

Sure looks like it, with this Washington Post op-ed by San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone:

Prominent politicians lost no time in reacting hyperbolically to the Supreme Court’s decision refusing to enjoin Texas’s new law banning abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat. President Biden announced a “whole-of-government effort” to find ways to overcome the Texas measure. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) denounced the Supreme Court’s refusal as a “cowardly, dark-of-night decision to uphold a flagrantly unconstitutional assault on women’s rights and health,” and promised new legal action: “This ban necessitates codifying Roe v. Wade” in federal law.
As a faith leader in the Catholic community, I find it especially disturbing that so many of the politicians on the wrong side of the preeminent human rights issue of our time are self-professed Catholics. This is a perennial challenge for bishops in the United States: This summer, we provoked an uproar by discussing whether public officials who support abortion should receive the sacrament of the Eucharist. We were accused of inappropriately injecting religion into politics, of butting in where we didn’t belong.
I see matters differently. When considering what duties Catholic bishops have with respect to prominent laymen in public life who openly oppose church teachings on abortion, I look to this country’s last great human rights movement — still within my living memory — for inspiration on how we should respond.

The example of New Orleans Archbishop Joseph Rummel, who courageously confronted the evils of racism, is one that I especially admire. Rummel did not “stay in his lane.” Unlike several other bishops throughout this country’s history, he did not prioritize keeping parishioners and the public happy above advancing racial justice.

He goes into how Rummel cracked the whip on racists within the Catholic Church who were all in for segregated parishes and pews, a shocking thing, really, given that it radically goes against not just Church teaching but Church history. More about that later.

Cordileone points out that ex-communication is hardly a non-factor in keeping the Catholic flock intact -- Rummel, for one, wasn't scared of it:

Many White Catholics were furious at this disruption of the long-entrenched segregationist status quo. They staged protests and boycotts. Rummel patiently sent letters urging a conversion of heart, but he was also willing to threaten opponents of desegregation with excommunication.
On April 16, 1962, he followed through, excommunicating a former judge, a well-known writer and a segregationist community organizer. Two of the three later repented and died Catholics in good standing.

That ought to get wokester-focused, race-obsessed leftist politicians' attention. The bishop in New Orleans wouldn't put up with a grave evil of racism in his parishes, and Cordileone is now signaling the same intent.

I think he had to, given that creatures such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as well as Joe Biden have been so loud and extreme about their abortion advocacy. They aren't just quietly enabling abortion and saying they're "personally opposed" anymore, as Democrats have attempted to weasel out with in the past, they're now addicted to money and powerful abortion lobbies, and thus, speak the party line of groups such as Planned Parenthood now.

It's time someone put a stop to that runaway train which is only getting worse, and one archbishop has now stepped forward. Too bad it's not all of them. But this op-ed may just open the door.

What do I think will happen next?

Well, the op-ed will have some striking power when the bishops meet again in November and hash it out some more. Cordileone's chief opponent among his fellow bishops, San Diego's leftist Bishop Robert McElroy, has been pretty quiet since this op-ed came out and yes, I did a thorough search. He's been vocal in his advocacy of not "politicizing" the Eucharist, whatever that means, as if human life itself were a policy difference instead of an immutable fact.

The other thing I think will happen is that Cordileone will be attacked, not merely opposed with words. Democrats, leftists, and the vast abortion money lobby will wheel out their highly politicized slime machines and start smearing and "investigating" looking for something to pin on him. They play dirty, so get ready for something ugly from them, get ready for something untrue. The Church faithful should get even more ready to dismiss their tricks.

Why has Cordileone done this? It seems he's in tune with actual Catholic teaching as the defenders of abortion politicians are not.

Here's a curious fact about the pair and I think it's significant: McElroy is a native of San Francisco and all its leftist culture. Cordileone is a native of San Diego and all its Reagan-country culture. They seem to have been flipped into the opposite geographies. Los Angeles archbishop José H.Gomez hails from northern Mexico and San Antonio, Texas, and he's on the same page as Cordileone on the critical importance of life, too. I think all of this might actually mean something.

 

[OKSTATE1]

It goes back to Church history:

As most of us are shocked to learn that there were Catholics who supported racism in the pews in New Orleans, we note that it's not just so obviously contrary to Church teachings, but it's at odds with Church history.

Several centuries ago, when the New World was discovered and colonized by Europeans, the Church was adamant that Native Americans were people with souls and actually had to lay that out. A lot of Catholic colonists and soldiers didn't believe it and had to be told.

According to Wikipedia, the Church came out with this:

Sublimis Deus (English: The sublime God;[1] erroneously cited as Sublimus Dei and occasionally as Sic Dilexit[2]) is a bull promulgated by Pope Paul III on June 2, 1537, which forbids the enslavement of the indigenous peoples of the Americas (called Indians of the West and the South) and all other people.[3] It goes on to state that the Indians are fully rational human beings who have rights to freedom and private property, even if they are heathen.[4][5][6][7][8][9] Another related document is the ecclesiastical letter Pastorale officium, issued May 29, 1537, and usually seen as a companion document to Sublimis Deus.[10]

...and the pope in his language got real tough:

In Sublimis Deus, Paul III unequivocally declares the indigenous peoples of the Americas to be rational beings with souls, denouncing any idea to the contrary as directly inspired by the "enemy of the human race" (Satan). He goes on to condemn [the Indians'] reduction to slavery in the strongest terms, declaring it null and void for any people known as well as any that could be discovered in the future, entitles their right to liberty and property, and concludes with a call for their evangelization.

Sound like the same logic of Rummel in New Orleans? Sound like Cordileone on human life? It does. And the latter two on the matter of such miscreants are so comparatively ... gentle.

The 16th century Spaniards were terrified of ex-communication, and so, while in episodes they and the Spanish leaders ignored the bull or stopped it, the teaching ultimately prevailed. It's significant didn't oppose those teachings with brazen words actually justifying killing Indians as the claiming-to-be-Catholic abortion politicians do in the states. Eventually, for them, the word from the Church sank in, which is one reason why many Catholic countries in the New World still have large indigenous populations.

That papal bull also opened the door to 18th-century saints like Father Junipero Serra who made it his lifework to try to save the Indians from Spanish soldiers through his establishment of missions. Since Native Americans had souls, the Church teaching held that they were to be saved, and since the predatory Spaniards didn't always get that much, Serra would also teach the Indians useful skills so the Spaniards couldn't ignore theology. That was what the missions were about. What he was up against was Spanish soldiers who would have been otherwise perfectly comfortable slaughtering them and enslaving them as non-human. Serra saw a lot of that going on around Mexico and wanted it to stop.

Since Serra's flagship mission was in San Diego, it's interesting that Cordileone is a San Diego native. I think there's a connection. Cordileone cites the well-known experience of racism in the Deep South as a means of getting the Catholic pro-abortion politicians' attention, but behind that is his own city's backstory. Opposing Church teachings on life, whether of Indians, black people's right to live humanly, or now abortion, is something that opponents can't weasel out of. With Serra backing Cordileone, the law is laid down.

 

[my_2cents]

September 8, 2021

Pelosi's bishop calls for ex-communication of pols now pushing for abortion​

By Monica Showalter

Is the Catholic Church finally showing some leadership?

No, these are just certain bishops (thankfully they are in the minority) within the Catholic Church who have decided to be pawns as it relates to the the right-wing agenda in this nation.

They are also are very lousy at applying their logic across the board. Are these same bishops calling for ex-communication of Republican politicians who support the death penalty remaining legal?

 

[Mr.OSU]

No, these are just certain bishops within the Catholic Church who have decided to be pawns as it relates to the the right-wing agenda in this nation.

They are also are very lousy at applying their logic across the board. Are these same bishops calling for ex-communication of Republican politicians who support the death penalty remaining legal?

I am against the death penalty…..but you are comparing an innocent child against a likely horrific human being.

 

[my_2cents]

I am against the death penalty…..but you are comparing an innocent child against a likely horrific human being.

The Catholic Church teaches that the death penalty is wrong. It teaches that the death penalty is "inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person." The Catholic Church "works with determination for its abolition worldwide." (Quotes from Catechism of the Catholic Church)

So if these bishops were being consistent (and not just playing politics), they would also be calling for the ex-communication of Republican politicians who support the death penalty remaining legal.

With all of that said, I'm just trying to figure out if the Republican Party truly does believe in separation of church and state? It would appear that many in the party don't. Indeed, it often appears that many Republicans would have no opposition to the establishment of a theocracy in this country (as long as that theocracy is beholden to their view of the Christian religion).

Hello The Handmaid's Tale.

 

[aix_xpert]

No, these are just certain bishops (thankfully they are in the minority) within the Catholic Church who have decided to be pawns as it relates to the the right-wing agenda in this nation.

They are also are very lousy at applying their logic across the board. Are these same bishops calling for ex-communication of Republican politicians who support the death penalty remaining legal?

Actually, the bible supports the death penalty. At least the old testament does. Now the new testament does talk about 'turning the other cheek', but nowhere does it indicate that evil should go unpunished or that you are not subject to man's laws (and punishments).

 

[my_2cents]

Actually, the bible supports the death penalty. At least the old testament does. Now the new testament does talk about 'turning the other cheek', but nowhere does it indicate that evil should go unpunished or that you are not subject to man's laws (and punishments).

And there are Christians (and Jews) who believe the Bible teaches that life begins at birth, at first breath and not conception. There are also Christians (and Jews) who find in the Bible an abortion procedure described as discipline for an unfaithful wife (Numbers 5:11-31). Interesting how one doesn't see that Numbers passage preached a lot nowadays.

This thread though is referencing Catholic teaching, and it is rather clear that the Catholic Church teaches that the death penalty is wrong.

 

[MR. TANNER BOYLE]

The Catholic Church teaches that the death penalty is wrong. It teaches that the death penalty is "inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person." The Catholic Church "works with determination for its abolition worldwide." (Quotes from Catechism of the Catholic Church)

So if these bishops were being consistent (and not just playing politics), they would also be calling for the ex-communication of Republican politicians who support the death penalty remaining legal.

With all of that said, I'm just trying to figure out if the Republican Party truly does believe in separation of church and state? It would appear that many in the party don't. Indeed, it often appears that many Republicans would have no opposition to the establishment of a theocracy in this country (as long as that theocracy is beholden to their view of the Christian religion).

Hello The Handmaid's Tale.

I’m catholic, and comparing the current widespread, outspoken lunacy of abortion to the death penalty is laughable. But if you provide a list of republican Catholics that support the death penalty I’ll make sure the bishop gets it.

 

[my_2cents]

I’m catholic, and comparing the current widespread, outspoken lunacy of abortion to the death penalty is laughable. But if you provide a list of republican Catholics that support the death penalty I’ll make sure the bishop gets it.

I'm Catholic as well. And I am simply referencing the full life ethic teaching of our Church, something some "pro-lifers" tend to ignore.

And I'm sure the bishop is very familiar with those Republican Catholic politicians who support the death penalty remaining legal. One is currently a favorite among some for the Republican nomination in 2024.

 

[OKSTATE1]

The death penalty has been mostly left as state issue versus a Federal issue. Each state gets to decide if they want the death penalty. Why should abortion be no different? Let each state decide.

Dem Catholics use to say they were not personally for abortion, but now they have weaponized the resources of the Federal government at the 2 highest positions in the land in the Prez and the Speaker of the House who are Catholic to circumvent the wishes of each state and potentially a SCOTUS that might be inclined to let each state decide when life begins in the womb and how they want to legalize abortion.

Let us all know when the Federal government weaponizes the government with a Catholic Republican Prez and Speaker to force states that do not have the death penalty, to have the death penalty and that charge is being lead by Republican Catholics and the DOJ.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

No, these are just certain bishops (thankfully they are in the minority) within the Catholic Church who have decided to be pawns as it relates to the the right-wing agenda in this nation.

They are also are very lousy at applying their logic across the board. Are these same bishops calling for ex-communication of Republican politicians who support the death penalty remaining legal?

Please cite the infallible authority setting forth the church’s position on the death penalty.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

I'm Catholic as well.

Nope.

 

[my_2cents]

The death penalty has been left as state issue versus a Federal issue. Each state gets to decide if they want the death penalty. Why should abortion be no different? Let each state decide.

Because the Supreme Court has ruled that a woman has a constitutional protected right as it relates to abortion. Thus, individual states do not have the authority to completely outlaw abortion.

Dem Catholics use to say they were not personally for abortion

Many still say that (or something similar) and that is exactly what they believe.

And Democrat Catholics have not "weaponized" anything. Those Democrat Catholics you reference believe that the law of the land as it relates to abortion should be protected and upheld. Republicans want to change the law.

If anyone has weaponized the abortion issue in this nation, it has been the conservative Christian groups that have sought to make abortion illegal.

 

[my_2cents]

Please cite the infallible authority setting forth the church’s position on the death penalty.

Well, that depends on what you mean by "infallible authority." Those are loaded words.

As for the Catholic Church's teaching regarding the death penalty, here you go...

Link

Link

Link

 

[my_2cents]

Nope.

Yep.

What, does it bother you that I'm a Catholic?

 

[OKSTATE1]

Because the Supreme Court has ruled that a woman has a constitutional protected right as it relates to abortion. Thus, individual states do not have the authority to completely outlaw abortion.


Many still say that (or something similar) and that is exactly what they believe.

And Democrat Catholics have not "weaponized" anything. Those Democrat Catholics you reference believe that the law of the land as it relates to abortion should be protected and upheld. Republicans want to change the law.

If anyone has weaponized the abortion issue in this nation, it has been the conservative Christian groups that have sought to make abortion illegal.

Texas has not outlawed abortion, just like the death penalty they have qualified how that law is applied and implemented. Let me know when Catholic Reps force states that don't want the death penalty even for capital crimes to have it, it will NEVER happen.

 

[OKSTATE1]

Does everyone not understand that women do not have just a binary choice? They can put the child up for adoption, we have US citizens adopting children from outside this country because they are not enough infants in the US to put up for adoption.

Regardless of religion, each party makes it a binary choice only for votes. It is pathetic.

 

[my_2cents]

Texas has not outlawed abortion, just like the death penalty they have qualified how that law is applied and implemented.

They have come real dang close to outlawing it and if they thought they could get away with it, they would fully outlaw it.

Let me ask you a question, did you support the Texas Right to Life group setting up a website where "whistle blowers" in Texas could report their fellow citizens who violated the new Texas law?

 

[my_2cents]

They can put the child up for adoption, we have US citizens adopting children from outside this country because they are not enough infants in the US to put up for adoption.

Yes they can. If that is what they so choose.

Hence "choice." It is up to the woman to make the choice. Not you. And not the government.

 

[Marocain Poke]

No abortion is worse than this administration.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

Well, that depends on what you mean by "infallible authority." Those are loaded words.

As for the Catholic Church's teaching regarding the death penalty, here you go...

Link

Link

Link

Sorry, but those are not infallible pronouncements, those are merely suggestions. If they were infallible, then they would render prior papal/church pronouncements fallible, which would call into question the whole concept of infallibility.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

Yep.

What, does it bother you that I'm a Catholic?

No, because you’re not Catholic, or, at best, you’re a really shitty Catholic, like Biden, Pelosi, the Kennedys, etc.

 

[my_2cents]

Sorry, but those are not infallible pronouncements, those are merely suggestions. If they were infallible, then they would render prior papal/church pronouncements fallible, which would call into question the whole concept of infallibility.

That is why I questioned what you meant by "infallible authority." Here is a decent summary of the Church's teaching on the death penalty as it relates to authority and other issues...

Link

 

[my_2cents]

No, because you’re not Catholic, or, at best, you’re a really shitty Catholic, like Biden, Pelosi, the Kennedys, etc.

Yes I am Catholic. As for your judgment as to what "type" of Catholic I am, I could care less.

 

[OKSTATE1]

Let me ask you a question, did you support the Texas Right to Life group setting up a website where "whistle blowers" in Texas could report their fellow citizens who violated the new Texas law?

If it is not illegal and if Texans want to live that way....I lean on state rights. I don't live in Texas so they can live how they want IMO. Have liberals not turned in business owners for not enforcing mask mandates and fellow citizens for not wearing a mask in liberal states? Have you been vocal on that? All of it seems silly to me. But hey, call the cops for me will ya if you see someone breaking in to my house, but in some Dim states they defunded the police and and liberal DA's don't prosecute for looting anymore. All laws should be enforced IMO and if they are bad then change the laws, if civilians decide to find ways to legally enforce laws and assist LE? That is life. With the stupid azz laws liberals are trying to enforce and the ones they are not in some liberal states? You have 2 choices: Win at the ballot box or move. That is your choice in Texas as well, what a great country we live in to have that freedom of choice.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

That is why I questioned what you meant by "infallible authority." Here is a decent summary of the Church's teaching on the death penalty as it relates to authority and other issues...

Link

For that to be infallible, the penal/prison system would have to be infallible as well. Given that the prison/penal system is made by men, infallibility is theologically impossible.

 

[my_2cents]

If it is not illegal and if Texans want to live that way....I lean on state rights.

So then you support states having the right to encourage such behavior as it relates to abortion. Good to know.

Again, just goes to show why Democrats should do everything in their power to draw attention to this law and how it represents what you on the far-right support in terms of abortion.

 

[OKSTATE1]

So then you support states having the right to encourage such behavior as it relates to abortion. Good to know.

Again, just goes to show why Democrats should do everything in their power to draw attention to this law and how it represents what you on the far-right support in terms of abortion.

The state is encouraging? No, that is private citizens. You don't get much right in this thread.

Good to know you support people being turned in over mask mandates, masks.....what a crime against humanity.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

BTW, anything coming from Papa Frank (and other Igantians) needs to be taken with a grain of salt. They sort of worship a different god.

 

[my_2cents]

The state is encouraging? No, that is private citizens. You don't get much right in this thread.

If the state passes a law with such behavior prescribed, the state is thus encouraging such behavior.

And you support it. As you clearly stated.

Don't run from your extremist position now. You are what we thought you were.

 

[aix_xpert]

Does everyone not understand that women do not have just a binary choice? They can put the child up for adoption, we have US citizens adopting children from outside this country because they are not enough infants in the US to put up for adoption.

Regardless of religion, each party makes it a binary choice only for votes. It is pathetic.

I disagree with this notion. It is a binary choice. Either you carry the baby to term or you abort. That is binary. What you do with the baby after birth (such as putting it up for adoption, keeping it, dropping it at a fire station, etc.) is (to me) a separate decision from the one above.

 

[my_2cents]

BTW, anything coming from Papa Frank (and other Igantians) needs to be taken with a grain of salt. They sort of worship a different god.

Showing your true colors now huh?

The Holy Father worships the same God all of us Catholics worship. He is the Vicar of Christ here on earth. And the Society of Jesus is a blessing to the Church, as was Saint Ignatius of Loyola.

 

[OKSTATE1]

If the state passes a law with such behavior prescribed, the state is thus encouraging such behavior.

And you support it. As you clearly stated.

Don't run from your extremist position now. You are what we thought you were.

LOL. "Extremist" position. Glad to know you prefer to make criminals out of those who do not wear a mask and should not of people violating Texas law as it relates to abortion. The law allows civil remedies only.

BTW - I am not certain the Texas law as it relates to allowing civil suits over its abortion law will end up passing the mustard with SCOTUS. I would predict it would be tossed out, but that is not what was originally asked. But notice Texas did not go as far to make it criminal. You can pay a fine, which Dims are ok buying their morality usually. It will be tested for sure. Too bad you are not crying over making criminals out of those "killers" who did not wear masks.

 

[OKSTATE1]

I disagree with this notion. It is a binary choice. Either you carry the baby to term or you abort. That is binary. What you do with the baby after birth (such as putting it up for adoption, keeping it, dropping it at a fire station, etc.) is (to me) a separate decision from the one above.

I disagree as someone who was adopted. I see your point but you DO have 3 options. If we would focus on the third option the first 2 don't look so dramatic in terms of the fear of life long responsibility. Abortion for many carries a life long stigma and many regret it after the fact.

 

[my_2cents]

Glad to know you prefer to make criminals out of those who do not wear a mask

When did I ever say I supported such nonsense?

Stop creating straw men and imposing upon me what you think I believe.

BTW - I am not certain the Texas law as it relates to allowing civil suits over its abortion law will end up passing the mustard with SCOTUS.

Why does this matter?

You stated you supported states having a right to prescribe such behavior as it relates to abortion. Thus you would want the Supreme Court to uphold this provision of the law on the notion of states' rights.

Like I stated, there is no need for you to try to walk back your extremist position now.

 

[MR. TANNER BOYLE]

Those Democrat Catholics you reference believe that the law of the land as it relates to abortion should be protected and upheld.

They should stop pretending to be catholic.

 

[my_2cents]

They should stop pretending to be catholic.

No pretending is occurring. They just believe in separation of church and state.

Do you?

 

[OKSTATE1]

When did I ever say I supported such nonsense?

Stop creating straw men and imposing upon me what you think I believe.

Why does this matter?

You stated you supported states having a right to prescribe such behavior as it relates to abortion. Thus you would want the Supreme Court to uphold this provision of the law on the notion of states' rights.

Like I stated, there is no need for you to try to walk back your extremist position now.

LOL. I am not walking back shit. And absent of addressing my questions I can only come to certain conclusions. You asked me questions and I answered. Like Biden you are afraid to answer all questions when it pertains to how and why the lib mind thinks in what is enforced or not. I already know like Biden you would not answer and deflect. And like Biden claim victory where no victory exists. Typical delusional Dim.

If you think it is an extremist view for each state to write its own laws by politicians elected by those citizens, and for those laws to be followed until such time they are tested and either past mustard or not? Not sure what to say, that is how it works in this Country. Correct? That is extremist for you because you just want to dictate, like the mask question you avoid.

I don't live in or vote in Texas (no skin in the game and those laws never would impact my family anyway), so they get to live by the laws they pass until such time they are changed or a higher court throws them out. Only extremist position here is someone like you wanting to enforce your belief system on a state that you neither vote in or live in most likely.

I think it is crazy what Minneapolis has done with defund the police, etc... I would NEVER live there, I just laugh if they want to create a criminal waste land. Don't suspect that it will ever impact me (they can have it) and I will avoid that City like the plague, ditto for Portland. We are free people, we can easily live like we want to in this Country, the uniqueness of each state allows that, until such time as the Feds one day become a dictatorship.

 

[aix_xpert]

I disagree as someone who was adopted. I see your point but you DO have 3 options. If we would focus on the third option the first 2 don't look so dramatic in terms of the fear of life long responsibility.

The framing of the question matters. If the question is about options if a mother doesn't want to keep the baby, then you are absolutely correct. Abortion is not the only choice, and we should promote adoption as a viable alternative. I also think that clinics that promote abortion, such as planned parenthood, should be required to disclose their financial incentives behind promoting abortion. Much like a financial advisor should be required to tell us if he's profiting from the services he is recommending, the same should be true of these clinics.

 

[OKSTATE1]

The framing of the question matters. If the question is about options if a mother doesn't want to keep the baby, then you are absolutely correct. Abortion is not the only choice, and we should promote adoption as a viable alternative. I also think that clinics that promote abortion, such as planned parenthood, should be required to disclose their financial incentives behind promoting abortion. Much like a financial advisor should be required to tell us if he's profiting from the services he is recommending, the same should be true of these clinics.

They also should discuss adoption, those women usually get great medical care as part of that process. They also might, and mean might, be able to know their child as they get older.