Letter to the faithful on the Notification sent to Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Bishops of the Church of England still sit in our House of Lords, (our upper house), and can send back legislation for amendment if they see fit and can sway the opinions of their fellow peers. They cannot frame primary legislation though because we are a Democracy not a Theocracy.
.

 

For some reason I cannot access the Archdiocese of San Francisco's website. I get a 403 Forbidden error message.

 

A link was posted below it that works. I am not sure why this one no longer works

 

That's not a link to the archdiocese's website but to the Catholic News Agency.

 

Thank you. The feeling is mutual.

 

I know. The Archdiocese website seems to be down a lot for some reason.

 

Good to know it's not me or my PC.

 

I think the argument you’re making is why Pelosi should not be Catholic.

 

More Protestants need to look at the Bible, church fathers, and reformers on this issue. The relationship between Church and state has often been more closely intertwined in Protestant countries (even in the United States for a time) than in Romanist countries. Luther's reformation was held together by princes, Constantine converted Rome, Calvin's Reformation was allowed by the city council, and Henry VIII...

 

More relevant still is the history of England itself in the century preceding the ratification of the US Constitution. The Founders and Framers were well aware that religious controversies led to fights over control of the State Church, that eventually plunged England into Civil War. Adopting secular government, that leaves religion to the consciences of individuals, was their solution to that problem, by way of prevention. It was one of the wisest decisions they made (among many).

 

No, because she is a very public figure causing a very public scandal to the faithful, who may be confused and think it OK to be aggressively pro-abortion. So the matter is no longer private, as it would be were if you or I.

 

I think Pelosi has been clear in her public statements that enactment of a total ban would violate the Constitution and thus her oath to uphold it. Does the Archbishop expect her to violate her oath as the price of readmission to communion?

Leaving the matter to the consciences of individuals and families via legislation in such a way that a decision either way can be made safely and privately, is not the same thing as encouraging people everywhere to go get abortions. The empirical evidence to date strongly supports the contention that progressive policies are more effective at reducing and limiting abortions than are outright bans. Unless Pelosi is actively encouraging women to go get abortions when there isn’t an urgent medical need, I don’t see why there can’t be a distinction between legislation she supports, and the manner in which she conducts her private life.

I certainly would not want to be treated this way if I were in her shoes. The message that democratic officeholding is incompatible with religious fidelity - which is the real lesson to be drawn here regarding the Catholic Church’s view of the matter - is not one that other Christians should be excited to promote.

 

I think now that Roe is being repelled or at least looks that way would not cause her to break her oath of office. I think that is why action was being done.

 

Unless she believes the Supreme Court is wrong, that is.

 

The legislation Pelosi advocated passing was not going to "provide guidelines," it was going to codify abortion-on-demand, for any reason whatsoever, as being generally legal. The bill would actually have expanded abortion protections beyond the current legal landscape; for example, it probably would have done away with the current requirement to notify parents of minors who seek an abortion (because parental involvement laws now on the books would "complicate" or "delay" access to abortion). The bill would have codified a "Constitutional right" to have an abortion, which no mere law may do; one must have a Constitutional Convention or similar procedure to modify our Constitution. Moreover, if I'm not mistaken, the bill would have expanded this "right" to include abortions at any stage of pregnancy, even mere hours before actual childbirth. Now, how can anyone say with a straight face that this bill did not promote and encourage more abortions (that is, child killings) to take place?

Also, the "total ban" claim is a strawman argument. No one is suggesting a total ban. Besides, at this point the Court's decision merely allows the people of each state to debate and pass laws restricting abortion, with the caveat that exceptions for some circumstances (particularly if the mother's life is jeopardized) are generally viewed by nearly everyone as appropriate.

 

Pelosi isn't acting on good-faith Christian belief. She's acting on politics, pandering to her base (most of whom are godless).

 

Agreed. IMO she acts more like a worshiper of Molech.

 

Which do you think is more important to Nancy Pelosi? Membership in Congress, or membership in the church?

if the people of San Francisco want to elect a pro-choice politician to represent them in congress, that’s the will of the people of San Francisco. But for a politician to alter their morals so that they continue to be elected is pure cynicism. Pelosi should, if she is indeed a faithful Catholic, present herself to voters as such and then let the people decide whether they want her to represent them.

 

Straw man.

 

Beats me. My point is that it shouldn’t have to be an either/or proposition at all. Fortunately, the odds that other churches (or other diocese of the RCC for that matter) will follow suit are low.