The American Spectator : Deo Gratias

Text Size

Deo Gratias

By Lisa Fabrizio on 11.17.10 @ 6:07AM

Someone will have to explain the concept to Nancy Pelosi.

We've come to a weird place in the history of our nation. With the advent of the Tea Party movement has come a neo-nascent appreciation for our founding documents; particularly the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and with it a more proper understanding of the role of virtue and religion in that founding. And yet, at the same time a widening gap grows between these folks and the many Americans who believe that any hint of religious faith in the public square is wrong.

A further irony is that while other certain other religions have received over-abundant, bend-over-backward accommodation by those who are otherwise quick to cite separation of church and state as gospel, Catholics have particularly borne the brunt of their hostility in this country. Recently, the Board of Governors of the city of San Francisco -- that bastion of American morality and patriotism -- apparently tiring of directing their self-hate at America, have now chosen to vent their anger at the Catholic Church, the very organization whence they derive their name and heritage.

I mention this because San Francisco is the home of the soon-to-be de-gaveled Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, a self-proclaimed "ardent, practicing Catholic," who, like the leaders of the district she represents, has left many folks confused about her motives.

As is well documented, Pelosi supports, and even advocates gay marriage, contraception and of course, abortion; all positions rock-solidly opposed by the Church. You may remember how she embarrassed herself on national television, misrepresenting Catholic doctrine on abortion, saying that the Church has never made itself clear on the subject. Her confusion might have been averted had she simply flipped through the copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that I'm sure she keeps handy at all times and read this:

Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.

Pelosi and other Catholics who try to justify giving public scandal by openly defying Church teaching on grave sin, use issues like the death penalty and the Iraq War to counter that it is Republicans who are really opposing Church doctrine. This is, of course, patent nonsense as pointed out by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith had this to say on the subject:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

To put it mildly, having pro-abortion politicians like Pelosi, John Kerry and Joe Biden as representative of Catholicism in America has been an embarrassment. But the first week of November blew a refreshing wind into the House Chamber, where in a few weeks there will be a true, practicing Catholic in the Speaker's Chair. The temptation to shout "Deo Gratias!" is very hard to suppress.

Unlike those mentioned above, John Boehner doesn't wear his faith on his sleeve. He doesn't have to; his deeds reflect it. He has received numerous awards for his defense of freedom and innocent life and has even gone so far as to link the two:

Americans love life and we love freedom. They're both intertwined, permanently, as part of the American character. America is a nation built on freedom. And without respect for life, freedom is in jeopardy. When human life takes a back seat to other priorities -- personal comforts, economics -- freedom is diminished. By contrast, when we affirm the dignity of life, we affirm our commitment to freedom.

According to exit polling from the just-concluded midterm elections, 55 per cent of Catholics -- an increase of 20 per cent over 2008 -- voted Republican, in no small part due to the treacherous surrender of so-called pro-life Democrats on the healthcare bill. Let us all pray that Speaker Boehner will continue to fight for liberty and justice for all; the born and the unborn.

About the Author

Lisa Fabrizio is a columnist who hails from Connecticut (mailbox@lisafab.com).

Letter to the Editor View all comments (74) | Leave a comment

drudge ette obama| 11.17.10 @ 6:19AM

Pelosi is a cultural Catholic and her theologically inconsistent views will all come out in the wash. Someone needs to refuse to wafer her at mass until she opens the little door and sits in the dark confessional room.

All that aside, is there no end to the horrid photos of Pelosi that appear omnipotently in the press. How can someone distorts her face so differently each time?

pineapple1| 11.17.10 @ 7:41AM

With Photoshop. But don't try it at home. Her images and those of Michelle Antoinette will crash the program.

Anthony| 11.17.10 @ 9:10AM

A good point, but her sitting in a dark confessional would produce nothing other than giving her face a brief respite from the sun.
As you have stated, Pelosi is a cultural Catholic, I suspect that also means she's an elitist, which means Catholicism is what she says it is, hence she has no conflict. It's sorta like the way she and her ilk govern and view the Constitution.
She and her friends need to be placed in a dark room for many years, it's our only hope.

Stephanie| 11.17.10 @ 6:26AM

She is evil, drudge ette. Plain and simple.

1FreeMan| 11.17.10 @ 9:15AM

There will always be a poser, a pretend Christian, who is a spiritual sell-out to evil in a place of power at just the most opportune time. Let me remind you of the legislation passed under her gavel that even she did not read. And Obama... SHE is the one who signed the papers in Denver certifying him as constitutionally eligible to run for president. If it turns out that he is not a natural born citizen of the US (which, c'mon, we all know already) then Pelosi is the one who should be charged with a federal crime right after the "One". Between Soros and Pelosi they "Made a King" and we have been turned into surfs.

Evil? I bet we will never know just how evil... but I can guess.

Booger| 11.17.10 @ 6:34AM

From the desk of the Reverend Mary Moonbeam Black Crow O'Shannasey-Mitchell:

Dear Congregants,

I realize that many of you have become concerned with the decreasing size of our faith community here at Gaia Heart Episcopal Church and Gay Dating Service. I further realize that we have of late lost many of our less enlightened members to those bigoted "churches" which oppose full rights for our LBGTPB (Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, Transgendered, Pedophile, Bestiality) community. However, after discussing this matter with some of my fellow clergy, I believe we have hit upon a solution. It appears there are large numbers of the LBGTPB community residing within the restrictive, patriarchal, homophobic churches of some of the so-called "christian" churches around us. What we need to do is increase our outreach to these individuals, so that they may come out from those churches and into a welcoming, friendly congregation that will accept them where and who they are.
Here are some of the ideas I have for Gaia Heart Episcopal Church and Gay Dating Service:
1) LGBTPB affirmation day. We will take out ads in all local papers, billboards, and the adult services section of Craigslist. We need to let these folks know there's a place where they can come to get their thing on, whatever it is, and still be accepted. I believe if we can get the word out like this, especially on Craigslist, it will really help our membership drive.
2) We need to advertise our alternate views class of religious history and get more clergy in here to take part. I really think our "Baal, misrepresented icon of male sexual prowess" and "Dagon, the fun god of sun and surf" classes could be quite attractive to many of the LBGTBP community.
3) Now that we have a local Pagan community, we need to reach out to them by stressing that being a christian and a Pagan do not have to be exclusive choices. We'll accept you as both! Considering the increasing size of the local Pagan community, this should open up quite a lot of membership possibilities to us.
4) Increase funding for our legal defense fund. As you know, the current fascist police state we live under is highly oppressive to our LBGTBP community. By increasing the amount of money we can pay to top-notch defense counsel we should be able to attract many new members who may need defense counsel from time to time. This is especially true of the "P" community, who remain stigmatized and demonized by most of our fellow "christians". By showing that we will warmly welcome them just as they are we should be able to attract all kinds of new members!
5) Finally, we need to distribute the new bibles we have finally received from Mephistopheles Press Publishing. I love that they have finally had the courage to excise the collected writings of the apostle Paul, which were clearly apocraphyl, and have replaced it with the gospels of Thomas, Judas, Mary Magdalene, The Seven Sons of Sceva, The Confessions of Caligula and the Remembrances of Nero. I believe this new version, with its updated text, is just what we need to reach the LBGTBP community being persecuted in churches all around us!
These are just some of my thoughts. Please feel free to add any ideas of your own, and remember to always use protection on that first date!
I look forward to seeing you at our Friday night "love feast" (and everyone remember to bring your own lubricants this time).

In deepest Eros,

The Right Reverend Mary Moonbeam Black Crow O'Shannassey-Mitchell

Stammon| 11.17.10 @ 9:49AM

You think this is a joke, but you should try and put up with the Presbyterian Synod in Louisville.
They are literally driving people out of the church.

Louis Jenkins| 11.17.10 @ 11:40AM

The Presbyterian USA has become a wormheap of ideas and methods. How anyone can remain a member of it is a mystery.

Occam's Tool| 11.17.10 @ 12:47PM

You mean the Presbyterianazi Church USA?

Occam's Tool| 11.17.10 @ 12:48PM

The PCA has virulent opposition to the State of Israel and Jews.

David W| 11.17.10 @ 1:28PM

I grew up in the Presbyterian Church (someplace in the Texas Panhandle). It amazed me what the leaders of the Church were supporting. If I remember correctly, it was okay to have a homosexual as a minister - as long as he or she wasn't a practicing homosexual. What the hell is the difference - whether practicing or not (as if they would really stop)? It's still wrong.

Lest anyone say, "well, if God didn't want them to be that way he wouldn't have made them that way," just think about the other ways people behave/act/are born. Is their behavior or situation okay since they were "made" that way? Give a pedophile a pat on the back and say God Bless? Don’t give the child with the cleft palate surgery because God wanted him born that way? Where does one draw the line? And what happens when a church fails to draw the line? I don’t know if individual homosexuals will go to Heaven or Hell (or neither). But I’m pretty sure those Preachers/Church Leaders/Politicians/Scrotum Inflators who are out there supporting them and encouraging their chosen behavior (and bullying those who don’t) will not be going to Heaven.

John DuBose| 11.17.10 @ 2:19PM

There is a BIG difference between doing homosexual deeds by choice and being aflicted by homosexual desires that one occasionally secumbs to. No one but the man himself and God can tell the difference. If his congregation wants to give him a break, that is absolutely their business. ( Not mine )

Impeach Don't Wait| 11.17.10 @ 8:17PM

"If I remember correctly, it was okay to have a homosexual as a minister - as long as he or she wasn't a practicing homosexual. What the hell is the difference - whether practicing or not (as if they would really stop)?"

It's called repentance and spiritual conversion (new birth). It does happen. Lots of heterosexuals feel "safe" but are lost, and born-again (saved) homosexuals can be faithful (celibate), and greatly used by God.

Margie| 11.17.10 @ 11:48AM

Ah yes, that rascally Apostle Paul... if ONLY we could be rid of him for good, once and for all! Why, he makes some of us look so bad what with preaching the pure and unadulterated gospel of Jesus Christ! A man who never minced words, never parsed them, never said a thing in opposition to Jesus Himself or His will. How could he have been so faithful and true? Why, it is impossible! Mephistopheles knows if we rid the Bible of Paul it will make things SO much easier for those who refuse the narrow gate that leads to Life Eternal, and it will indeed be "help" and increase the number of those desirous to be about the gate that is wide and leads to destruction. Mt. 7:13 & 14.

Oldefarte| 11.17.10 @ 5:19PM

Margie, Perhaps the Almighty should do unto Pilosi, Kerry, the Kennedys, the Cuomos,etc what he did to Saul; when he/God knocked Saul off of his riding horse and exclaimed SAUL, SAUL, WHY HAST THOU FORSAKEN ME? [Saul thereafter became God's deciple and thereafter became Saint Paul]!!!!!

Margie| 11.17.10 @ 9:28PM

Hey Oldefarte,

That would be a wonderful thing to behold, I love it when God decides to have mercy upon whomever He wills. He did it also to me. And I do believe that's what it would take for them, too.

Appleby| 11.17.10 @ 6:54AM

The election of Archbishop Timothy Dolan as head of the Catholic Bishops is also a clear sign that the Catholic Church is finally understanding that there are millions of Catholics who will follow the Churchs lead back to traditionoal Catholic teaching if only someone will lead! If we stop focusing on numbers and weed out the people who will not follow doctrine, and go back to St. Pauls teaching that we should do nothing that will lead a weaker brother or sister into sin, while teaching the catechism again, we will soon have a believing Church again and then the numbers will increase.

We cannot be a shining city on a hill if we do not turn on our lights.

Meanwhile, I will pray for Pelosi, Kerry and Biden and the fallen away Catholics in my congregation, including our young organist who told me earnestly that His Holiness was simply wrong in telling the Africans to practice abstinence instead of using condoms, and in order to *attract TheKids* to the church, he needs to abandon Catholic doctrine.

I am not advocating a theocracy; I am simply advocating that if one IS a Catholic, one must PRACTICE the Catholic faith in a way that makes people aware of what makes one different from the kid in the t-shirt that says Bush Is A Poo Poo Head.

gearjammer| 11.17.10 @ 1:53PM

Keep it in your pants when it comes to
Dolan. Like all the Catholic bosses he loves illegals and open borders. And, he,d do cartwheels over Obamacare if only there was an abortion exclusion. The Catholic bosses are not the friends of American Patriots.

PJ| 11.17.10 @ 4:47PM

gearjammer,
You're truly correct on this. I'm afraid with the few exceptions, the American bishops do not understand the concept of subsidiarity & the concept of defending borders. Both concepts the pope preaches on.

Tim*| 11.17.10 @ 7:03AM

“An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support.”

Fulton J. Sheen

Maxwell| 11.17.10 @ 9:35AM

First let me state my family is not Catholic. I remember back in the late 50's my father would watch Bishop Fulton J. Sheen on TV. He always remarked after his program what a great mind he had. Now I am 62 years old and I still remember many of my fathers words. If I am lucky I catch the re-runs of the good Bishop's program. His words and wisdom are still relevant today.

TennesseeVolunteer| 11.17.10 @ 7:11AM

There is a new Archbishop to be put into place on December 3 in Seattle, WA. Bishop Pete Sartain is a man's man and a conservative voice who prayerfully leads his people. He was our parish priest and is TRULY a Man of God. The lib Catholics in Seattle are about to get real leadership from a real Catholic.

Dammit Denny| 11.17.10 @ 7:31AM

Stone her...

Akaky| 11.17.10 @ 1:48PM

Hey, there's an idea...

singe mansoor| 11.17.10 @ 7:38AM

Is Catholic leadership really composed of only a handful of old, self loathing, closeted Gay, pseudo celibate. priests?

If it is, it's too bad.

Tim*| 11.17.10 @ 7:56AM

"There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be."
— Fulton J. Sheen

Melvin| 11.17.10 @ 7:42AM

I dunno, maybe I'm wrong, but I call it, "Convenient Catholicism." Pelosi, Kerry, Biden, and the like love to wear the religion such as Catholicism on their cuff when it politically suits them.
They don't even try to live by the Church's tenants, but of course when a photo op is available these limousine liberals are the first to the parish door.

Miked| 11.17.10 @ 7:47AM

First, my obligatory 'kudos' to Booger for his always brilliant commentary. You really need to compile your comments in some sort of collection, man. I'm sure it would sell; although it IS difficult to ger much of anything published nowadays unless you're a victimized member of some minority, a serial killer, an ex-president, corrupt politician, a sexual deviate (In the Climton's cases one and the same!) or a sports figure. But, keep at it Booger.

It is my fondest hope that the Catholic Church finally grow a collective set of 'brass spherical objects' because they sure haven't stood up for much of anything on their own college campuses. They even allowed the 'ABORTIONIST IN CHIEF' to speak at a commencement at Notre Dame! This is certainly NOT the church that taught me guilt and the fear of hellfires during my formative years! To paraphrase Lady Maggie Thatcher: "They've gone all wobbly on us." Catholic Church: GROW A PAIR AND STAND UP FOR WHAT YOU SAY WE SHOULD BELIEVE!

Stephanie| 11.17.10 @ 1:02PM

And have you read that Notre Dame is down in donations since that infamous speech?

cuban pete| 11.17.10 @ 4:30PM

Stephanie:
I believe ND fired the instructor who led the pro-life protest to BHO's speech.

PJ| 11.17.10 @ 4:40PM

Stephanie,
I read they're down by millions of dollars! I may have even seen by over 100 million. We'll see if they go back to their roots.

Melvin| 11.17.10 @ 8:06AM

I'm sorry people, but, many of the regulars know my shortfuzed temper. I'm sick and damn tired every time the Catholic Church is mentioned, people crawl out of the closet and start with this, Catholic Priests are nothing but low down perverts, pedophiles and closet homosexuals.
But guess what? So are the other churches, they have their closet gays, peverts, molesters and adulterers.
Why doesn't anyone ever bust on many Baptist ministers for hosing the females of their flock? The TV evangelists with, "Forgive me for I have sinned."
Look at all the self-righteous SOB's that profess to be men and women of religion and damn near all of them are fu**** each other.
TV is awash of Madison Avenue pimping young boys and girls on national ads and nary a word from the self-righteous, "Wellllll, those Catholics are a bunch of deviants?"
Where is the moral indignation of seeing middle school girls dressing like street walkers when they leave the house with their parents permission. Many middle schools have been caught up in scandals of female students being judged in how well they perform oral sex on school grounds.
College Campuses are awash in social diseases from students deviant lifestyles and academia hands out Valtrex like it was Halloween candy.
Before you self-righteous hypocritical bastards start casting the accusatory stones, you better cleanup your own damn back yards first

Now that I have that rant off my chest. Yes, the Catholic Church needs to continue to get its act together, but not all of the priests are deviants, but as Conservative Catholics advance and remove many of the Liberal Catholics that more or less gave the wink and the nod of this type of behavior this issue will correct itself in time.

Dan Hirsch| 11.17.10 @ 8:34AM

Melvin,

Look again at the postings: only one, by "singe mansoor" even references what you are decrying. It's not that bad...

On the other hand, you might want to re-read your posting. You point to the failures (SINS) of other denominations as exculpatory. Other's failures do not excuse our own.

I have read many good posts you have written here, go slow, have peace. It's not that bad...

In the hope of assisting you,

Tim*| 11.17.10 @ 9:19AM

Aaaand, Catholic failures don't excuse the under-reported & under-challenged rampant sex abuse in public schools & other religious groups.

Melvin| 11.17.10 @ 9:38AM

Your correct Dan, sometimes my explosiveness is my own worst enemy. This may not be a very good excuse for my lack of patience but, jeez this thing with all Catholics priests are a tad weird just gets a little old thats all.

Frisbee| 11.17.10 @ 9:17PM

God Bless you Melvin. And Dan Hirsch, thanks for your input. I find the spectator has some of the highest quality commenters.

Frisbee| 11.17.10 @ 9:19PM

And if you want to jois a group that is trying to clean up catholic academia, try the Cardinal Newman Society www.cardinalnewmansociety.org

Cindy| 11.17.10 @ 9:13AM

This is not just a Catholic issue. I am an Evangelical Christian and we have problems in our church as well.
The problem is that we compare our actions to others and conclude that we're not bad.
We all need to look to Jesus as our true role model.

Frisbee| 11.17.10 @ 9:22PM

Yes, Cindy, and we should remember that it was Jesus himself that chose Judas. Betrayal and "wolves in sheep's clothing" go way back.

chris| 11.17.10 @ 8:48AM

Lisa, great article.
Pelosi/Kennedy/Biden/Kerry/etc. views on abortion are perfectly illustrated by a Seinfeld episode where Elaine, the house liberal, criticized a pregnant woman for smoking a cigarette because it would hurt the "fetus." On another episode, Elaine criticized everyone she met who did not agree with her on abortion on demand. This is the liberal/democrat mentality. It is ok to kill the unborn baby at any time,even immediately while being born, but it is not ok to smoke a cigarette. Smoking a cigarette is a greater evil than killing the baby.

justasimplepatriot| 11.17.10 @ 8:54AM

Nancy has proven:

Botox is more than skin deep.

Petronius| 11.17.10 @ 9:51AM

Might I suggest a burckha?

Anthony| 11.17.10 @ 3:52PM

Why spoil the fun with a burka? Nancy is back as MINORITY leader. The face of insane leftism; the gift that just keeps giving.
It must come as a relief to Nancy that she no longer has to pass bills in order to know what's in them. Oh the heavy burden of leadership.
Hey, I think Nancy has a belated date with the CIA, whom she claimed was out to get her. Perhaps we'll be treated to Nancy being waterboarded on national T.V. Now that's my kind of reality T.V.

MacDaddy| 11.17.10 @ 9:57AM

I just knew this thread would wander off on the tangent of putting forth and decrying all of the horrible, terrible things done, and still being done, and which will continue to be done, by people who profess to be Godly and faithful and representative of God and religion. These things are what they are: terrible sins against God and men.

This discussion changes NOT ONE WHIT the undisputable truth of what Jesus Christ represented. Nor does it change the FACT that if all, heck....even if MORE of us, learned Christ's message and walked it in the world, then the world would be a lighter place and we would be, more productive, more joyful people, with more joyful, healthier and fulfilling lives.

cats1cowboy| 11.17.10 @ 11:09AM

"... I suspect that also means she's an elitist, which means Catholicism is what she says it is, hence she has no conflict. It's sorta like the way she and her ilk govern and view the Constitution." It's called Humpty-Dumpty-ism. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty [elitist] said in a rather a scornful tone [while poking his finger in her face], "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty [elitist] [while poking his finger in her face], "which is to be master – that's all."

Ted R.| 11.17.10 @ 1:22PM

More hand-wringing about anti-Catholic bias? Give me a break. Catholics have become fully mainstreamed in American society, in spite of their public-relations nightmare of the last two decades.

Catholicism can and does appeal to both sides of the political aisle, including to liberals who honestly disagree with The Holy See on right-to-life issues. The simple fact of the matter is this: the genius of western society is its Secularism. Secularism has de-fanged the violence that religious dogmatism always spawns. Secularism domesticated Christianty, taught it the virtues of tolerance, taught it to live out the true meaning of its creed of compassion, taught it to speak the language of Social Justice - even when the Church had for ages been allied with kings and Inquisitors.
For centuries, Christianity taught that slavery and unfree labor was part of the Providential order. It was the humanist tradition, and the secularism it established, that over time pushed religion in the West in the direction of respecting freedom of conscience.

And whether you choose to believe it or not, abortion-rights advocates believe, as a matter of conscience, that the individual autonomy of women is incompatible with forcing them to carry to term human embryonic beings.

Liberalism is not at odds with Catholicism, really, on the question of abortion. There are many staunch liberals, such as myself, who are opposed to abortion on demand. The disagreement we have over abortion, is a disagreement that goes on WITHIN the Classical liberal tradition - of which modern liberalism forms the left flank. Whenever Catholics reach for non-mysterious reasons to oppose abortion - viz. human-rights considerations - they are participants in this disagreement in the secular, liberal tradition.

I have no problem with church figures coming into the public sphere and voicing their views on matters of public interest. I think they are at their leave to threaten politicians with removal from the faith-community, if politicians don't make certain commitments with their votes. However, once they start doing this to private citizens, the time has come to strip religious institutions of their tax-exempt status.

chris| 11.17.10 @ 2:37PM

ted:
what is a "human embryonic beaing?" did you make this term up? why don't you use plain english, such as an unborn baby. when you make up these silly terms you are trying to get away from the plain fact that you are killing a baby. If you believe it is ok to kill the baby because of the mother's autonomy to not carry the baby, then say it.
second, how do you "honestly" disagree with the Holy See? the Catholic Church has always opposed abortion as a moral evil. the only way you can disagree "honestly" is if you believe you are not killing a baby. If this is what you believe then what exactly are you killing?

Ted R.| 11.17.10 @ 3:27PM

Well, it's probably inaccurate to call embryonic humans "babies," because a baby, in my estimation of the term, is a being that is not immediately dependent on its gestator. A baby can live apart from the mother's body, breathe on its own, etc.

I certainly would refer to the unborn as human - and that status, for me, is sufficient to entitle them to life-rights.

However, most pro-choicers don't agree. They will say that what matters is NOT what species the unborn in question belongs to, but whether it has sufficient autonomy to be worthy of the State's protection. Since (unviable) unborns cannot survive when they are removed from the mother's metabolism, pro-choice advocates will say, they are not LEGALLY entitled to protection. Legal autonomy, the advocates say, is predicated on a being's possession of integral metabolic life. An "unfinished," non-viable human being, does not have a sufficient claim on continued use of the resources of another, properly autonomous human being (the mother), against that human's will.

I'm sure you think all that a monstrous rationalization, and I'm inclined to agree with you. A human should be entitled to rights merely by the fact of its membership in the species.

But from the point of view of the pro-choicers, its is simply common sense that absolutely dependent life cannot make an absolute claim on the resources of fully free and autonomous human beings. They think it's absurd for the State to force women to contintue to devote their resources - time, bodily, financial, etc. - for a human being who, in its earliest stages of life, contributes nothing and knows from nothing about it own "interests."

You can call that supremely self-serving reasoning, and I'm inclined to agree. But not all self-serving reasoning has no basis in logic. A similar logic is at work amongst conservatives, for example, who don't want resources taken from them to give health care to the poorer members of society.

Personally, I find it rather ironic that it was the liberals that ended up being the pro-choice advocates, and the conservatives who ended up being against it. In many ways, given their respective ideologies, I would have thought that the conservatives would have come down on the side of free-choice vs. state-mandated expropriation, and that the liberals should be the ones demanding that the lives and interests of the most vulnerable in society get state support... but such are the hypocrisies that all people have a habit of trafficking in.

The bottom line is this: if you want to understand how pro-choicers honestly disagree, think of it like this - think of how mad you Cons get when the libs talk about raising taxes on the rich (let alone on the middle class). Got a picture of that? (I'm sure you do). Now think of the level of offense that you would have, if unjustified government expropriation reached not just to your wallet , but to your very BODY. Think that if someone else said that you did not HONESTLY take offense to that, you'd go ballistic? Then maybe you'll understand the world a little better from the pro-choice point of view, friend. One thing's for sure: Until you start understanding your opponent better, you're never going to see the change in the culture you want.

Ryan| 11.17.10 @ 4:38PM

You've hit the nail on the head, for the most part.

It's continually been an issue of two warring paradigms that refuse to come at an issue from the other side.

I've had a conversation with someone so pro-choice as well that they could NOT comprehend right-to-life at all.

There has also been mischaracterization on both sides - we really DON'T want to control women's bodies, and they really DO want fewer abortions - but neither side really seems to see that.

But I think you're attaching libertarianism too close to conservatism above - remember, this is a social, not a fiscal matter. With the religious viewpoint that many of us have, we naturally take the pro-life side.

chris| 11.17.10 @ 4:53PM

ted, thanks for reply. i think you give liberals too much credit. i think their bottom line is they want to do what they want to do, to be free of responsibility of taking care of a chile. all the logical arguments about whether a "fetus" is directly dependent for survival on the mother can be applied to babies up to 3 or 4 or 5 years old. they are directly dependent on an adult for survival. and according to obamacare children can stay on their parents' health insurance to age 26. this logic was used by Paul Singer, of Princeton, to rationalize allowing parentss to kill their children up to age 2,
the bottom line in justifying abortion is that you do not believe you are killing a human being. this is the same type of logic that was used to justify slavery. the slave was not a person. for voting rights of the states he was considered three-fifths of a person. In the Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court ruled that a slave was not a person but "personal property," and therefore not worthy of protection of the federal government when the slave was in a free state. as the personal property of the owner, the owner could bring the slave to a free state, and the slave could not obtain his freedom, even though federal law clearly provided he would obtain freedom if in a free state. but the court engaged in the word games of calling the slave "personal property" and not a human being.
we are playing the same word games today by calling a baby a "fetus" or a "non-viable" being,etc. this is a slippery slope lead to much evil.

Ted R.| 11.17.10 @ 8:46PM

I agree that a self-serving logic is at the root of the pro-choice position; but there is also self-serving logic in always putting one's own interests before those of society ("it's MY money!!), and we often don't want to say that that's a bad thing.

It's true that choicers want to deny the humanity of the fetus. Prima facie it would seem that they are *obviously* wrong, because any gestating being is a member of the same species as its mother.

But what choicers are getting at, in their confused ways of thinking about it, is that there is more to being human than merely being a member of a species; a richer body of qualities have to be in play, in order for a living thing to count, in a MORAL and LEGAL way - not in a narrow SCIENTIFIC way, as "human." Religious believers themselves implicitly acknowledge this, when they add a soul to the hominid primate body. You may think this reasoning is abominable, but for many people it's just common sense. "I'm sorry, but an embryonic human being the size of a dot of an i, is JUST THE SAME as a five-year old? You're crazy!" they'll say.

Yes, Singer has carried this kind of reasoning to its logical extremes, but you can put in place logical criteria that exempt all viable fetal life from the kinds of arguments he makes.

Playing devil's advocate a bit more: if the criterion of whether we have a fully-formed human, in the MORAL sense of the term, concerns whether that human being is viable outside the womb, then it is not the case that a five-month old fetus and a three year-old child are equally liable of being killed. Just the opposite, in fact. They both possess the integral metabolic life that makes them not ABSOLUTELY dependent on the resources of any given single other person; they are viable, in other words, and as such possess moral autonomy and all the protections attendant upon such autonomy. That is how a pro-choicer might answer Singer, and might answer you.

I agree that the whole argument from "viability" is inadequate to defend abortion, but the point is that you have to tackle the choicers on their own ground, you have to wrestle down what to THEM seems like common sense self-interest.

Impeach Don't Wait| 11.17.10 @ 9:19PM

With due respect...

I disagree that a similar logic is at work amongst conservatives who don't want resources taken from them to give health care to the poorer members of society. These are two different things. Conservatives don't want poor people to not have any health care, they just want it provided without the government using the populace as deep pockets to maintain a permanently dependent class, with the attendant escalating taxation, etc., dragging the whole society down at the whim of GOVERNMENT--when there can be better ways to get everyone reasonable care while preserving individual freedom, property ownership, and economic viability. In other words: Yes, WE WANT POOR PEOPLE TO HAVE HEALTH CARE! Resources are already taken from us "to give health care to the poorer members of society." It's just that GOVERNMENT will always say it's just not enough. When is enough enough? It's never enough with government. It will sink the whole society and we'll end up with NOBODY getting particularly good health care--plus a dead economy to boot. Conservatives want to find a better way. Liberals want the government to take care of us using other people's property (money), and they use your accusation of us not wanting our resources used as an excuse to make conservatives appear heartless.

By the way: regarding a "fetus": Is it a baby? Why isn't it? Who says it isn't? "Viability" is a convenient line someone tried to draw to win the argument. Want to know why I believe that? Partial-birth abortion. In a partial-birth abortion, the abortionist clearly kills a living baby. (Look it up.)

You say, "think of the level of offense that you would have, if unjustified government expropriation reached not just to your wallet , but to your very BODY." Come on, add the rest: And then reached to the BODY OF THE LIVING BABY WITHIN ME, TO KILL IT. Now you have the rest of the story. It's not just about "my" body. It's about a victim. One with no voice and accorded "low value". Anything human, helpless, and accorded low value must be protected in my opinion.

I understand that well. For that reason I think I understand my opponent very well.

Nice discussion.

Margie| 11.17.10 @ 6:49PM

"Secularism domesticated Christianty, taught it the virtues of tolerance, taught it to live out the true meaning of its creed of compassion, taught it to speak the language of Social Justice - even when the Church had for ages been allied with kings and Inquisitors.
For centuries, Christianity taught that slavery and unfree labor was part of the Providential order. It was the humanist tradition, and the secularism it established, that over time pushed religion in the West in the direction of respecting freedom of conscience."

What a load! I can't believe not a soul took on the new Liberal Reader previously known as Nate before that!!

Reading his sickening posts filled with lies makes me want to barf.

You have GOT to be kidding me if you think that for one moment any of what you just said can possibly be construed as truth.

Secularism seeks to destroy Christianity. It is enjoyable to those like you who desire a watered down false gospel, but I for one will not allow you to lie out right.

Social Justice is the perverted gospel of the Rev. Wrights of this world, it is not the gospel of Jesus Christ!

And calling abortion "rights" "freedom of conscience" is another sick and lame attempt of yours to try and justify the act!

How smooth are your words and how slickly they attempt to lull asleep the dull of hearing and dull of heart! But they are false just the same!

You need to repent, Liberal Reader.

Ted R.| 11.17.10 @ 8:15PM

Well, you don't agree with me Margie, that's clear enough. But your counterargument is, sorry to say, pretty lame. And repeatedly accusing me trolling here as someone else is REALLY lame.

And the truth is, is that the freedom of conscience that the Secular state guarantees, has greatly BENEFITTED religion, though like most Cons you are blissfully oblivious to this fact. Not having a state church means that the number of religious confessions - and the enthusiasm inspiring them - proliferate like wildfire. It is no coincidence that America is the most religious of all Western societies. One of the reasons why religion is moribund in Europe, is that for a long time many European countries did grant certain confessions a monopoly on religion in public life - the Catholic Church in France, for example. Taking away competition that way is a surefire way to kill the energy for supporting it.

Of course, the great problem that the Secular state poses to the traditional religious worldview, is that it denies religion's age-old claim of TOTAL authority in society. Christianity in the past - just like Islam today - denied the freedom of conscience. The supreme proof of this, as far as Christianity is concerned, is that Jesus never lifted a finger against slavery.

Secularism does pose a mortal threat to all those religions that want, in their heart of hearts, to seize back political power, and make slaves of the infidels. I detect a similar dark desire in you. But we WILL stop you.

Margie| 11.17.10 @ 8:50PM

You're a whack job and a blatant liar! "We?" LOL. Where have I heard that before? I hear it from all the other whack jobs like you who call good evil and evil good just like you're doing.

Christianity never "denied freedom of conscience." (Abortion). Christianity denies murder, and protects the life of the unborn.

Where is it that you come from? The depths of Hell? Because that is surely what spirit you speak from!

Ha! Good luck with your sickness and with your lies. God is just. You aren't fooling most, and you certainly aren't fooling Him!

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight! Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine, and valiant men in mixing strong drink, who acquit the guilty for a bribe, and deprive the innocent of his right!" Is. 5:20-23.

Ted R.| 11.17.10 @ 10:12PM

John Adams knew people like yourself, Margie. Of dogmatists like you, he said that given the slightest chance, they would "whip and crop and pillory and roast. If they could, they would."

If you could, you would. But we WILL stop you from EVER doing it again.

Margie| 11.17.10 @ 10:21PM

Like we said when we were kiddo's~ "You're so full of crap your eyes are brown!"

Frisbee| 11.17.10 @ 9:27PM

Abortion is murder. The Church teaches that there are many ways to participate in a sin, other than actually committing it. Some ways of participating in a sin are, for example, by silence, by consent, or by counsel. So you people who may be "personally opposed" but wouldn't stop people from aborting are actually guilty by consent. And you thought you were so smart and nuanced. Nope. On the road to hell. Get off the road to hell and STOP COUNSELLING AND CONSENTING TO THE HOLOCAUST. Repent and get to confession.

Frisbee| 11.17.10 @ 9:30PM

Ted R actually had the nerve to say "Secularism has de-fanged the violence that religious dogmatism always spawns."

Which secularism? Hitler's? Stalin's?

You've got it backwards. If anything, the rejection of religion has unleashed the furious murderous spirit that is at the heart of irreligious man.

Ted R.| 11.17.10 @ 10:08PM

No, no, you have it backwards. THE cardinal principle of the Secular society IS freedom of conscience. Any society, be it ancient or modern that glorifies hierarchy and arbitrary authority - whether it be by religious figures or strongmen with guns - is totalitarian at its core.

The Liberal ethos, the Liberal worldview, the worldview of secular humanism - THAT is the new way of living in the world that blew apart all the old traditionalisms and authoritarian power structures. Modern Fascism and Communism (or, for that matter, political Islam) are just atavistic manifestations of that ancient impulse to dominate others. Secularism put religion in a corner, yes - but the dogmatism and urge for complete domination at the heart of religion came roaring back, in a new, modern form, in 20th century totalitarianism. True liberalism never leads to authoritarianism. Unless you think that the Kaiser's Germany or the Czar's Russia were liberal states. Wake up from your Glenn Beck propoganda and actually learn something about history.

chris| 11.18.10 @ 11:34AM

ted,
the problem is that today's "liberals" are not what you refer to as "true liberalism." today they call themselves "progressives." they what you refer to as true liberals are more in line with today's conservatives/libertarians who prefer a limited government which means, among others, low taxes, avoiding foreign entanglements, and generally leaving people alone to lead their lives.
it also means separation of church and state in that the state does not establish a religion or interfere with one's exercise of religion.
today's liberals want to rule and regulate your life because they believe they know better, whether it is a restaurant using salt or selling a happy meal or numerous other regulations. look at our federal tax code, it regulates conduct by giving you a deduction and credit for cerain activities that the government wants to encourage. a flat tax or sales tax would not do this and would restrict the power of the federal government.
today's liberal/progressive ideology does lead to authoritarianism---the desire to control. russia and germany did it by pure force, islam by force and religion, other countries by having a nanny state with a powerful central government.

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 1:21PM

"Ted R" knows this, believe me. He is a lying snake.

Perusha The Offender| 11.17.10 @ 1:30PM

Ever heard of Religious Provincialism?

Have you ever wondered WHY you were born in America to an X religion believing family, say, instead of in China or Africa or----and thus taught to “believe” in whatever religion was common there?

Living in any particular “province” on Earth’s skin shouldn’t necessarily result in “believing” in ANYTHING! Where one is born and grows up, DOES, however, still, these dark days, continue to program most people, making them fit and bound to “their” religion.

The Cosmically humorous Truth is that every religion DOES, at its Radiant Transcendental Core, absolutely harbor the Very same true Understanding about everything---and, nothing.

Aldous Huxley authored what could be taken as quite the perfectly researched book, “The Perennial Philosophy”, which dug deeply into most of the popular religions, to expose those essential adherents of each of them, who Truly presented what it’s all about---Alphie.

For example, even Islam has the Sufis, with their whirling dervishes etc. You might know that the provincial religion, Islam, which is now going through “growing pains”, since it is relatively such a new one, is completely at odds with Sufis. The dominant strain of Islam “believes” Sufism is anathema to the “True” religion Mohammed “gifted” the world with.

For Christianity, I wonder how many current believers have ever heard of Bruno, and how the Catholic church burned him at the stake for his radical beliefs.

We are perfectly aware of how the Internet and all the follow-on accoutrements have tied the whole world---meaning almost each individual human to each other one---together, so that we are basically in communion, er, communication, 24/7.

Well, still hidden and unacknowledged, is the fact that the same is true concerning religion.

We don’t have the RIGHT to believe in religious provincialism anymore, and this has long been true!

The religious crutch provided by CW religion, the “I am saved and you are not” conviction, hiding in plain sight by most Americans who rely on their IDEA of Jesus Christ, and what they take to be His message, could serve to be inspected, and transcended.

For those who don’t know, or who have forgotten, or who don’t WANT to know, a Bruno type individual is always “crucified”, or worse, for EACH provincial religion.

What was Bruno’s sin? He was a blasphemer! He was judged by the priests of his day to have proclaimed that HE was God, which is about as revolting a “belief’ that true believers can imagine anyone openly admitting.

Absolutely, though, Bruno and many others over time, simply Understood that---there is ONLY God. Or, THIS is the other world, ALREADY. There is nothing to attain.

Surely, the most childish extant “belief” for most members of any particular provincial religion is their take on what “God” means.

There are at least three aspects to God. There is God the Creator, or Yahweh for Judeo-Christianity, and Brahma for Hinduism; God the Savior or sustainer, or Jesus Christ for Christians, and Vishnu for Hinduism; and God the Destroyer, or the Devil for Christians, and Shiva for Hindus.

Can anyone doubt that THEY and all things begin, continue, and end? How can God be less than ALL of them? Christians deny the Devil, and Jews even deny Christ. Atheists deny ALL of it!

By the way, both atheists and believers are---believers. Atheists believe there is NO God, but they are still believers. Where is their evidence for this core belief?

Who am I to pen such blasphemous words?

The man of Understanding asserts. He denies. He sometimes denies what he already asserted. Sometimes he asserts what he previously denied.

You are never in danger of knowing anything!

Also, life is NOT about “believing” in “God”, or anything at all.

Paradoxically, it IS about “knowing” “God”, Absolutely, in the way a man and woman “know” each other, in union of only apparent opposites.

Being the One, that which there is NO other.

Ryan| 11.17.10 @ 4:41PM

What was Christ's message, then?

Perusha The Offender| 11.17.10 @ 6:30PM

Thanks for the question.

Actually, I just reread what I wrote, and noticed I made a typo in the last sentence, which could even be the "answer", or at least "an" "answer"--

It should read---"Being the One, THAN which there is no other."

Jesus, along with Buddha, Krishna, and many other mostly unknown humans, was God Realized, an Enlightened Being, who's only message was and is that just as He is ONE with "Our Father", or Absolute Radiant Transcendental Being, so are you.

Not "you", the ego, but the Real you, the ONE, of which "you" are an apparent manifestation.

Essentially, there is ONE message---wake up!

When we get up in the morning, we realize we are awake, and the dreams we enjoyed or suffered when asleep, are as fluff, nothing.

A Guru---Light Bringer---such as Jesus Christ, only exists to wake the conventionally awake man or woman, from this swarm of humanity dream, to the Very same God Realized Condition He is in. This reality is a Dream Play of the Beloved.

Or, as one of my favorite hoary Zen sayings goes, "Return to what you were before your mother and father were born."

In our glorification of science era, why don't we go all the way---the Tao--and return to what we were before the Big Bang occurred?

Dangerous Knowledge! It got Bruno burned to death!

By the way, convention has it that we are bodies that have, if we're lucky, spiritual experiences.

Showing, yet again, how CW is usually at least debatable, in Absolute Truth, we are each Spirits seeming to "have" a bodily experience---for a while!

"Be Consciousness.
Contemplate Consciousness.
Transcend everything in Consciousness.
This is the epitome of the Way of Truth."

By Da Free John, from "Elutherios-The Liberator"

Carlie Coats| 11.17.10 @ 1:33PM

In terms of religious toleration, Pelosi should be glad that Odin-worship is for all practical purposes extinct: for them, oath-breaking is a capital offense (hanging from an oak tree), and her oath of office is in radical conflict with her "The Constitution? You're joking!" remarks...

Oldefarte| 11.17.10 @ 3:21PM

Pilosi [Kennedys, Kerry, etc] are all lying HYPOCRITES regarding their membership in the Catholic Church. Their liberalism philosophy is nothing but WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION in general terms, since it represents using other people money [their tax payments which constitute governmental receipts]. It has been documented that these liberals are extremely stingy when it comes to donating their own money to charititable causes, but are conversely extremely generous when they are hypocritically spending other peoples' money [and the absurdity of it comes from the fact that most of these liberals have extreme amounts of personal wealth]. Their latest desire to have the Bush tax cuts expire [forcing everyone's taxes to increase so that they can pay for their welfare proposals of nonstimulus and health care] is an example of this. Their desire to constantly provide welfare paid for by taxpayers in order to gain the votes of the welfare recipients in return reflects this hypocracy; and goes against the teachings of not only the Catholic Church but also those of every other Christian church as well. Sadly, the Catholic Church is too meek in enforcing their withholding of sacraments of the Eucharist etc from these wayward Catholic politicians as a penance for their arrogant defiance of Church laws/doctrines!!!!!

Frank Natoli| 11.17.10 @ 5:29PM

Pelosi et al can pass a polygraph on being faithful to Church teaching because the Church teachers do not deny her Communion or otherwise publicly declare her "not a Catholic".

My mother was a Belgian during the time of the German occupation, and she told me a story of a black uniformed "Catholic" SS officer who was denied Communion in her church.

Communion yes, Communion no. Ambiguity zero.

As to why "Catholic" clergy say "Communion yes" to Pelosi et al, I leave that to a future Fabrizio column.

ExPat| 11.17.10 @ 11:45PM

I think Pelosi's deepest thoughts about Catholism revolved around the dress for her first Communion and the party her Dad would through later in Baltimore, no doubt at a Mafiosi owned establishment.

KyMouse| 11.18.10 @ 11:33AM

Would any of our Catholic commentors please explain this to me: A Catholic co-worker recently showed me a 2011 wall calendar about eucharistic miracles, and the text for April and September repeats medieval blood libels against Jews.

For April, the text describes the Eucharistic Miracle of Poznan (Poland) of 1399. “Some desecrators,” the text says, stole three consecrated Hosts and “out of contempt, pierced Them with pointed instruments.” The Hosts were rescued, and the Church of Corpus Domini in Poznan venerates them “to this very day.”

For September, the calendar’s text recounts the Easter miracle of 1290 that took place in Paris, when “a non-believer who hated the Faith” got hold of a Host, stabbed it, and threw it into boiling water. It, too, was rescued.

Look up either of those accounts in other sources and you’ll see that the people who took the Hosts are identified as Jews. At www.therealpresence.org, you can read about how a man named “Jonathas” was the villain of the Paris story, and how his house was confiscated and turned into a chapel. (There is an illustrated full-page entitled “Eucharistic Miracle of Paris.”)

When I looked up the Paris story online this morning, I found an apartment listing in Paris at “the site where once stood the house of a jew [sic] named Jonathas..he was condemned to be burned alive and his property and his house was [sic] confiscated…[on the site was built] an expiatory chapel called the Chapel of the Miracle.” The apartment is listed under “Carmelite Convent-Billets.”

It’s interesting that both The Real Presence’s account of these stories, and the calendar (I’m not sure if it is published by TRP), are careful not to identify the “thieves” as Jews. But if Catholics are to believe every other detail of the stories, how can they avoid believing the ethnic identity that was so clearly spelled out in medieval accounts?

The whole thing is disgusting. This anti-Jewish garbage should be a source of shame to every Catholic.

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 1:19PM

KY Mouse,

Some Catholics actually agree with something called Supersessionism. You have seen the rabid anti-semite Tim* and his posts. He has written that a Pope believes this as well. If you look it up you will see that this means that they believe that the church has actually replaced Israel.

It's a great excuse to hate the Jews.

KyMouse| 11.19.10 @ 2:00PM

Very true, Margie.

It's amazing that the blood libel stories about Paris 1290 and Poznan 1399 are included in the Vatican International Exhibition, "The Eucharistic Miracles of the World." A catalog of the illustrated panels about each "miracle" was compiled in cooperation with the Pontifical Academy Cultorum Martyrum.

I thought the Vatican had repented of its hatred toward Jews, but obviously not.

Rest assured, I'll bring this up again when other TAS articles warrant it.

KyMouse| 11.19.10 @ 4:10PM

By the way, another blood libel against Jews that is included in the Vatican International Exhibition is the Church-approved eucharistic miracle that is said to have taken place in Brussels in 1370.

The Vatican exhibit says that "desecrators stole Hosts and struck at them with knives as a way of showing their rebellion...the desecrators were condemnded to death by the Duke of Brabant..."

The Web site of the Cathedral of St. Michael and St. Gudula says that "it is a fact that in May 1370, some six Jews living in Brussels and Leuven were burnt at the stake after being accused of the theft and desecration of the Blessed Sacrament...the guilt of the Jews has never been established. On the contrary, it has never even been proven that the hosts had in fact been desecrated..."

And yet this "miracle" is listed as "approved by the Church." Hey, what's a few more dead Jews?

I look forward to hearing what our Catholic commentors have to say about all of this.