Pelosi's 'us' vs. 'them'
By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Feb 14, 2011
In September 2008, Nancy Pelosi, then the Speaker of the House, announced that she had accepted an invitation to speak privately with Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco. The archbishop had issued that invitation after Pelosi, who identifies herself as a Catholic, grotesquely misrepresented the teaching of the Church on the issue of abortion.
Today, 41 months later, has the crucial meeting taken place? We don’t know. We do know that Pelosi—who is, thank God, no longer the Speaker, but remains in Congress—continues to represent herself as a Catholic while advocating unrestricted legal abortion. If her archbishop has rebuked her, he has done so privately—whereas her support for abortion, and other causes incompatible with Catholic teaching, is very public.
Her most recent outburst-- an attack on supporters of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act—is particularly instructive. Pelosi says that those who support the Act are “in a different philosophical place” from people like herself and her supporters. In a sentence that is grammatically incomplete but rhetorically clear, she continues:
So that’s why homosexuality, that’s why birth control, all these things that are not consistent with their beliefs that are all about procreation.
Notice the wording. Pelosi speaks about “their” beliefs. Who are “they”—these people who are “in a different philosophical place” from the former Speaker? They are people who oppose abortion, homosexuality, contraception, and embryo research. They are pro-lifers.
Not all pro-lifers are Catholic, but all Catholics are pro-lifers. For anyone who is in communion with the Church, it is morally obligatory to take the pro-life side. Pelosi doesn’t.
The pressing question, in the case of Nancy Pelosi, is whether she remains a Catholic in good standing, or whether she has separated herself from the communion of the Church. Hasn’t she now answered the question herself? She thinks of loyal Catholics as “them,” her rivals. She is in a different place.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: JimKcda -
Jul. 26, 2017 2:40 PM ET USA
I disagree with "SavedbyGrace" No response to an attack, physical or verbal usually means you agree or you have no reply and you give up. Jesus did reply to those who had legitimate authority over Him; e.g., Pontius Pilate. (Sp). "Are you a king? Yes, but my kingdom is not of this world..." He did not reply to those who did not have authority over Him.
Posted by: Saved by Grace -
Jul. 23, 2017 4:06 PM ET USA
Sometimes I wonder if these unjust criticisms would get less traction if we simple made no reply at all. Sort of like Jesus when he was on trial. I for one would not even know about this incident if it were not for rebuttal articles. While I agree with the rebuttals, I think it's pretty unbecoming to fight in public. Let the bullies from the Vatican wonder why we make no response to their left leaning tripe!
Posted by: iprayiam5731 -
Jul. 20, 2017 9:20 AM ET USA
Concerning the Twitter post, must be nice to be able to claim that the very fact that people disagree with you proves you're right. That's basically an "I know you are but what am I?" response. Even sadder than the article itself is this display of absolute disregard for logic, principled argument, or even honest debate with detractors. How about respond to criticism with academic rigor instead cheap insults, dismissing and claiming victory over critique by virtue of its existence
Posted by: shrink -
Jul. 20, 2017 6:13 AM ET USA
This partisan vision (as bad as it is) is a much less serious problem than an earlier revelation by Spadaro, who claims that "2 + 2 in Theology can make 5." If Spadaro really believes this, in the metaphysical sense that he seems to intend, then he is mad; for consider Spadaro's willingness to deny an obvious logical necessity, and then think of what becomes of his understanding of facts. Consider also, to the extent that this Pope listens to him, does he share in the madness?
Posted by: impossible -
Feb. 16, 2011 11:21 AM ET USA
When Pelosi and other Catholic politicians remain in manifest heresy/grave sin and are considered by their bishops to have excommunicated themselves, why the reluctance to make the excommunication official? Why do their bishops refuse to obey the clean language of Canon 915? Why doen't the Pope issue a definitive statement on the subject - on the clear meaning of Canon 915? If anyone who reads this disagrees with 915 clearly forbidding giving Holy Communion to them explain it to me.
Posted by: sparch -
Feb. 15, 2011 10:30 AM ET USA
I think too she refers to the many Catholics that pick and choose what they beleive, beyond what the church teaches. What many of us choose to beleive, as you know, makes up a mosaic of many good, bad and ugly beleifs that do not always conform to the church. They act as an easy spiritual destination without the intellectual purity and rigor that the Church offers.
Posted by: -
Feb. 15, 2011 1:05 AM ET USA
I believe a few Easter Rites still have Anathema! I'm sure they would be more than happy...
Posted by: michaelwilmes -
Feb. 14, 2011 4:48 PM ET USA
AGAIN. Where is George?!?
Posted by: dover beachcomber -
Feb. 14, 2011 3:02 PM ET USA
What a pity that we no longer have the rite of Anathema!