Nancy Pelosi now denied Communion at Catholic Church.

[Hijinx]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/24/vatican-court-head-no-communion-nancy-pelosi/

It took them long enough.

I am anxious now to hear what Cardinal Weuhrl has to say about it.

 

[BOP]

She's liable to spontaneously combust if she ever darkens the door of a church.

 

[edinsomd]

Someone should just throw a bucket of water on her and be done with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aopdD9Cu-So

 

[mamatutu]

Someone should just throw a bucket of water on her and be done with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aopdD9Cu-So

Wish it could be that easy! You are the second reference to the Wizard of Oz today. BOP said Nancy's just mad because somebody dropped a house on her sister!

 

[SoMD_Fun_Guy]

Someone should just throw a bucket of water on her and be done with it.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

Apparently OP isn't Catholic, nor does she possess any media literacy whatsoever.

Here's a link to the actual interview, not sure why I'm bothering -- no one will read it:

http://thewandererpress.com/most-vi...ke-insights-on-the-church-and-modern-society/

And here's the relevant material:

Q. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, when recently questioned at a press briefing about the moral difference between what Dr. Gosnell did in murdering a baby born alive at 23 weeks as compared to the practice of aborting a baby moments before birth, refused to answer. Instead she is reported to have responded: “As a practicing and respectful Catholic this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this. I don’t think it should have anything to do with politics.” How are we to react to such a seemingly scandalous statement? Is this a case where Canon 915 might properly be applied? [Editor’s Note: Canon 915 of the Church’s Code of Canon Law states that those who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”]

A. Certainly this is a case when Canon 915 must be applied. This is a person who obstinately, after repeated admonitions, persists in a grave sin — cooperating with the crime of procured abortion — and still professes to be a devout Catholic. This is a prime example of what Blessed John Paul II referred to as the situation of Catholics who have divorced their faith from their public life and therefore are not serving their brothers and sisters in the way that they must — in safeguarding and promoting the life of the innocent and defenseless unborn, in safeguarding and promoting the integrity of marriage and the family.

What Congresswoman Pelosi is speaking of is not particular confessional beliefs or practices of the Catholic Church. It belongs to the natural moral law which is written on every human heart and which the Catholic Church obviously also teaches: that natural moral law which is so wonderfully illumined for us by Our Lord Jesus Christ by His saving teaching, but most of all by His Passion and death.

To say that these are simply questions of Catholic Faith which have no part in politics is just false and wrong. I fear for Congresswoman Pelosi if she does not come to understand how gravely in error she is. I invite her to reflect upon the example of St. Thomas More who acted rightly in a similar situation even at the cost of his life.

Cardinal Burke was merely opining. This is not something that would be handled by the Apostolic Signatura. Pelosi has not been barred from receiving Holy Communion.

What else would anyone expect from a "fully informed" voter?

 

[Hijinx]

Apparently OP isn't Catholic, nor does she possess any media literacy whatsoever.

Here's a link to the actual interview, not sure why I'm bothering -- no one will read it:

http://thewandererpress.com/most-vi...ke-insights-on-the-church-and-modern-society/

If you could read you would see that I was wondering what Cardinal Weuhrl would do.

If you are so well informed you would see that Cardinal Weurhl is the head of the Washington Diocese and he can stop Pelosi from Communion.

And here's the relevant material:



Cardinal Burke was merely opining. This is not something that would be handled by the Apostolic Signatura. Pelosi has not been barred from receiving Holy Communion.

What else would anyone expect from a "fully informed" voter?

If you read you can see that I was wondering what Cardinal Weurhl would have to say.
If you are so well informed you would see that Cardinal Weurhl is the head of the Washington Diocese and he can stop Pelosi from Communion.

Well what else would one expect from a fully informed azzhole like you.

 

[BOP]

Apparently OP isn't Catholic, nor does she possess any media literacy whatsoever.

Here's a link to the actual interview, not sure why I'm bothering -- no one will read it:

http://thewandererpress.com/most-vi...ke-insights-on-the-church-and-modern-society/

And here's the relevant material:



Cardinal Burke was merely opining. This is not something that would be handled by the Apostolic Signatura. Pelosi has not been barred from receiving Holy Communion.

What else would anyone expect from a "fully informed" voter?

Yeah, you tell 'em, Sparky! After all, the Cardinal is only, what, the number 2 man in the entire church, or something like that? What does he know, and why should his opinion count for anything!?

 

[LibertyBeacon]

If you read you can see that I was wondering what Cardinal Weurhl would have to say.
If you are so well informed you would see that Cardinal Weurhl is the head of the Washington Diocese and he can stop Pelosi from Communion.

Has she been barred from Communion? No. No she hasn't.

 

[Hijinx]

Has she been barred from Communion? No. No she hasn't.

Should she be?? Yes ,Yes, she should. we shall see what Cardianal Weurhl has to say.

IMO he will chicken out.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

Should she be?? Yes ,Yes, she should. we shall see what Cardianal Weurhl has to say.

IMO he will chicken out.

If you want my view on that, then I think it's awfully dangerous to have a situation where the Canon of a church overrides the will of the people, her constituency. The goal of the Church is not to punish her within their doctrinal guidelines, it is to change her political stance at the threat of effectively having one of her sacraments taken away. I think perhaps you've not thought this all the way through and what some of the unintended consequences of that might be.

 

[mamatutu]

Not that I agree with Pelosi in any way shape or form. The last time I checked the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and religion. This is petty stuff compared to what is happening in the world to date. Case in point. Cold War II.

"In 2012, President Obama ribbed Mitt Romney for having a “foreign policy of the 1980s.”

If Time magazine's new cover is any indication, Romney is having the last laugh for that line.

In the evocatively titled article “Cold War II,” journalist Simon Shuster describes the West's fecklessness as Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 and its 298 passengers lay smoldering in a Ukrainian field.

“The American President announced no deadlines, drew no red lines and made no threats," Shuster writes. "Even as U.S. intelligence sources asserted with growing confidence that Russian weapons and Russian allies were behind the missile attack, U.S. diplomats were met with roadblocks as they tried to rally Europe to stiffen sanctions against [Vladimir] Putin.”

The tragedy is thought to be the handiwork of pro-Russian separatists armed with Russian-made surface-to-air missile launchers."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/time-...mneys-cold-war-foreign-policy/article/2551261

 

[Hijinx]

If you want my view on that, then I think it's awfully dangerous to have a situation where the Canon of a church overrides the will of the people, her constituency. The goal of the Church is not to punish her within their doctrinal guidelines, it is to change her political stance at the threat of effectively having one of her sacraments taken away. I think perhaps you've not thought this all the way through and what some of the unintended consequences of that might be.

If a Church decides to change it's Doctrine that it has had for 2000 years because of the will of the people , it can be called a Church, but it isn't Catholic.
The Church cannot change her stance on abortion, and should not try, but at the same time she cannot call herself a Catholic and stand for killing life inside a Mother.

In your stance you see the Church as trying to get her to change her stance with a threat,
IMO they are merely telling her that she cannot claim to be a Catholic and continue to vote to murder innocents in the womb.

There are many other Church's today that are fine with making their rules to suit those who go there.They are doing well just for that reason. Many Catholics who do not want to obey the rules are going there,they are flourishing. If Nancy does not like the Theological structure of the Catholic Church she should go to one of these others, but she should not be allowed to receive the sacraments of the Catholic Church if she cannot obey it's rules. Some women who were much more attached to the Church than Nancy, women who were Nun's have quit to make their own rules. Nancy should join them. She isn't entitled to make her own rules and claim to be Catholic.

The unintended Consequences of forbidding Nancy Pelosi to receive Communion in the Church is the loss of a political ally.
Does the Church need a political ally at the cost of desecrating and suborning it's own rules?

And is Nancy Pelosi a political ally or does she just use the Church for votes?

 

[Merlin99]

If you want my view on that, then I think it's awfully dangerous to have a situation where the Canon of a church overrides the will of the people, her constituency. The goal of the Church is not to punish her within their doctrinal guidelines, it is to change her political stance at the threat of effectively having one of her sacraments taken away. I think perhaps you've not thought this all the way through and what some of the unintended consequences of that might be.

Can't say I agree with you here. The church is guaranteed, by the 1st amendment, the right to the free exercise of their religion. This includes the right to extend (or retract) the sacraments to anyone it wishes.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

If a Church decides to change it's Doctrine that it has had for 2000 years because of the will of the people , it can be called a Church, but it isn't Catholic.
The Church cannot change her stance on abortion, and should not try,

Again, if you pay attention to detail if you read the article, you will see it concludes with this:

I fear for Congresswoman Pelosi if she does not come to understand how gravely in error she is. I invite her to reflect upon the example of St. Thomas More who acted rightly in a similar situation even at the cost of his life.

Does that sound to you like she has a chance to re-think this and avoid being barred from Communion? It does to me. This is what Cardinal Burke said.

:shrug:

 

[LibertyBeacon]

Can't say I agree with you here. The church is guaranteed, by the 1st amendment, the right to the free exercise of their religion. This includes the right to extend (or retract) the sacraments to anyone it wishes.

We don't disagree. I am not suggesting the Church shouldn't be disallowed from barring her from Communion. I am saying there are implications for doing so which may not be visible or understood right away.

 

[Hijinx]

Again, if you pay attention to detail if you read the article, you will see it concludes with this:



Does that sound to you like she has a chance to re-think this and avoid being barred from Communion? It does to me. This is what Cardinal Burke said.

:shrug:

Cardinal Burke only invited her to reflect on the example of St. Thomas Moore. No one expects her to do so, not even Cardinal Burke.

St. Thomas Moore supported the faith, Nancy Pelosi does not, she has no fear of death from a Democrat Muslim President who she supports.

While she does not support the Church she claims to belong to. She is the exact opposite of St. Thomas Moore. IMO.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

Cardinal Burke only invited her to reflect on the example of St. Thomas Moore. No one expects her to do so, not even Cardinal Burke.

How do you know what Burke expects?

 

[vraiblonde]

If you want my view on that, then I think it's awfully dangerous to have a situation where the Canon of a church overrides the will of the people, her constituency. The goal of the Church is not to punish her within their doctrinal guidelines, it is to change her political stance at the threat of effectively having one of her sacraments taken away. I think perhaps you've not thought this all the way through and what some of the unintended consequences of that might be.

However, if Pelosi took her religion seriously, she wouldn't be a politician in the first place. Almost everything a politician does is counter to Christ's teachings.

Regardless, I can see how OP might have thought she had been officially denied, based on that story.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

Regardless, I can see how OP might have thought she had been officially denied, based on that story.

Sure, that's because the of the voice Burke spoke in. He was speaking in a confident, matter-of-fact way, i.e., if this then that according to Canon. But if you know anything about Catholicism (I was one for 30+ years before realizing all religion is a sham), you'd know that the Apostolic Signatura doesn't really do this kind of thing. They wouldn't be the ones to mete out this sort of punishment.