These remarks by the corrupt Ms. Pelosi are merely an extension, demonstrating that the corruption extends to her cerebral cavity's innards.
Brokaw got to the question of abortion/when life begins.
I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, [really?] this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. [Largely to find excuses for her position.] And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. [Maybe Thomas Aquinas said that. In 1250 or so, before OB/GYNs were invented...] We don’t know. [Wrong. YOU prefer NOT to know.] The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, [Flat-out lie, think "health/wellbeing of the woman" tripe] it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this [Yah. Tertullian, around 275 AD or before, discussed it--and the Didache before him--and both UNequivocally condemned abortion.]
Then the real shocker: Brokaw says that the Catholic Church, of which Pelosi claims to be an "ardent" member, defines the beginning of life as conception.
And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that.
This is, my friends, the very definition of "deluded." For her to claim that the Roman Catholic Church arrived at its definition of abortion 'in the last 50 years or something...' tells me that Ms. Pelosi, at the very best, is suffering from serious brain damage.
From ProEcclesia, quoting Abp. Chaput of Denver:
Ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the Christian tradition overwhelmingly held that abortion was grievously evil. In the absence of modern medical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the unborn child might be animated or "ensouled." But none diminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong.
Corrupt, yes. Catholic? By baptism only.
There's a fine discussion at the link (below.)
HT: MWBH
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"At what point does a baby get human rights? ...in your view?"
That was Rick Warren's question to Obama. I would think that the issue of rights should be within his pay grade regardless of the theological or scientific perspectives.
I read up on this a bit, because I was taken aback by her claim that St. Augustine favored abortion in the first trimester. It turns out that St. Augustine was endorsing Aristotle's concept that a fetus goes through all the kinds of souls -- vegetable, animal, human -- in the course of progression. During the first 90 days or so, it is thought (by the ancient Greeks and Aristotle) to have a vegetative soul, rather than a fully human soul.
Which, really, is an interesting concept. Presumably it's OK to kill vegetables -- indeed, morally neutral to do so -- and therefore, Pelosi may even be correct on the question of what St. Augustine believed.
Not to endorse her position -- I don't agree -- but it's not quite as odd as it sounded in the press.
Except that Augustine, as with the rest of the Fathers, thought of abortion as murder--at any point along the time-line.
The discussion was (and still is) about "ensoulment," or "humanity." Nobody really knows when the soul is infused--but there's no question that the conceptus (etc. through time) is a human, Ari/Augie aside.
What is also sad is her comment about receiving Communion despite her pro-abortion stance. She said it was "a regional thing..." While bishops like Chaput and Burke have condemned it, she has "no problems in San Francisco..."
Way to go your Excellencies! Nothing like presenting a divided front to confuse the (already confused) laity...
Post a Comment