Archbishop bars Pelosi from communion over support for abortion rights

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I spent years teaching Human Growth and Development at the University level. That included teaching about abortion.

I just don't get why atheists and agnostics would even care what the Bible says, if one thinks God doesn't exist, why would they even care what it says about abortion? It makes no sense to care. If you aren't a Christian and think Christianity is a made up religion with no basis in truth and everything in the Bible is nonsense, then why get upset about what it says and obsess over it?

Liberal progressives are making up their own morality and reject any morality that has to do with the God or Jesus of the Bible, and attempting to force it on others just as they accuse Christians of doing. The liberal progressives find abortion to be nearly a sacrament and have women on twitter and youtube joyfully and cheerfully recount their abortions as liberating experiences. Liberal morality finds it necessary and deems it moral to teach preschoolers and elementary children the ABC's of LGBT when before tiny children weren't even taught the ABC's of cisgenderism in public schools. Liberals say it is moral and just to put XY convicted rapists with a penis in a locked jail cell with an XX with a vagina, which has resulted in rape and unwanted pregnancy, because it protects the XY with a penis from harm. Liberals say it is moral and just to discriminate against one group to stop discrimination against another group. Liberal DA's in California tacitly strongly imply it is moral to steal and rob as long as what is stolen is less than $900 as they won't arrest or convict people for it. Liberal public schools say it is moral and just to not tell parents that they are helping their children transition genders, even giving young children drugs to block puberty which often result in permanent sterility.

As the liberal progressive pro-abortionists make up their new moral code, why on earth would they bother to care about the old moral codes in the Bible they consider oppressive?

I guess it is because they are convinced they and only they are right and their moral code is the only correct way to live and to think and everyone else must live by their moral code, OR ELSE - be doxed, be social media bullied, be fired, have their business destroyed, and now arrested and jailed as one person who posted suggested. The new liberal moral code even supports threatening Supreme Court justices families being terrorized in their homes, and threatening to kill Judges that don't rule the way that the new liberal progressive moral code demands. Liberals say their new and improved moral code is the only way to think,rule, or live. No questioning or challenging allowed.

Sorry if I misunderstood what you wrote.

As for Pelosi, the whole thing is a real nothing burger except liberals are mad that Christians won't play by their rules and don't agree with many of their newly made up moral codes.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

What bothers me is the timing and the decision before SCOTUS right now.

If they had done it maybe 10 years ago, perhaps I wouldn't be having the same problem. If they were doing it across the board, including all the Catholic legislators, Catholic doctors at Doctors without Borders, Planned Parenthood clinic staffers and the like, members of Catholic for Choice who openly support choice. But nope, they need to silence The Speaker of the House.

What bothers me is that they're making an example out of Pelosi by weaponizing their sacred rites to threaten the church members in high government.

Heck, back in the 1960s Catholic hospitals were providing abortion services. My older sister had an abortion at a Catholic hospital.

Catholic teaching also forbids contraception, but the Church hasn't denied communion to Catholic doctors who prescribe it.

My aunt having been a nun doesn't make me an expert on Canon law or catechism. I wasn't raised Catholic, I was raised evangelical Pentcostal. But my experience with my Catholic relatives gives me a respect for their deep devotion to the church, their faith in its tenets and a perspective on the weight and gravity that being denied the Eucharist is to a devote Catholic.

No but there IS Canon Law dealing with people who deliberately use their religious affiliation while flouting the Catholic Catechism.

I'm not sure what you mean here. But Nancy Pelosi hasn't used her Catholic faith to promote reproductive rights, she's made it clear that she supports those rights IN SPITE of her Catholic beliefs. She doesn't support forcing reproductive choices made by the Catholic Church on others. To her, it's a personal decision, made between a woman and her God, if she has one.

Church law is only as good as the number of followers that accept its authority. I'm quite certain that Pelosi has gotten dozens, if not hundreds, of offers from sympathetic priests from all over the world to administer the Eucharist to her and Catholics will still be getting abortions and taking contraceptives.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So all the liberals attempting to influence SCotUS, and the person who leaked the draft to influence them, should all be arrested, right?

a reply to: The2Billies

I spent years teaching Human Growth and Development at the University level. That included teaching about abortion.

Then you should know its rich history, dating back to our earliest records.

As to the rest of your post? I guess it'll remain a mystery to you.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So all the liberals attempting to influence SCotUS, and the person who leaked the draft to influence them, should all be arrested, right?

What kind of threat are these pussy hatted protesters leveraging to threaten SCOTUS that they should be arrested? The 1st Amendment gives them the right to peacefully redress their grievances.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Hahahahahahahaha. But the Archbishop needs to be arrested. So predictable.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So all the liberals attempting to influence SCotUS, and the person who leaked the draft to influence them, should all be arrested, right?

What kind of threat are these pussy hatted protesters leveraging to threaten SCOTUS that they should be arrested? The 1st Amendment gives them the right to peacefully redress their grievances.

Yes, I believe I heard somewhere that it’s against the law to the homes of SCOTUS Justices and protest and threaten their families. What say you about the actual Rule of Law ? They can protest rulings all they want but not go to their homes and threaten family members.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I’ve seen several video clips of her going on about her religious affiliation. Whether it’s abortion rights or Green New Deals for Agenda 21, she is pushing radical agendas while claiming to be Catholic.
By the way, communism has been infiltrating the Church for decades. Here’s a long but very interesting interview with Dr. Paul Kengor. www.crisismagazine.com...
Pelosi seems to be painted by the most radical left elements as being more centrist, but everything she’s been doing suggests she’s more radical than the dnc wants people to think. After all, she seems to have ceded to aoc and other members of the DSA.
It is no wonder that she would pretend to be a Catholic but use her democratic prowess to move forward the most radical agendas.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I really don't see any difference in intent between protesting in front of Supreme Court or the justices' homes.

If you think the protesters outside the courthouse or outside the justices' home will have any influence on how the justices decide, then you also have to believe the Archbishop singling out The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi for public punishment, for not legislating and promoting the "Catholic Way", and his decree will have an influence on 6 justices that are practicing Catholics of the 9 justice, too.

If protesters who have the audacity to protest SCOTUS while they're deliberating arrested and charged with interfering with the justice process, then the Archbishop should be arrested and charged too.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: The2Billies

I spent years teaching Human Growth and Development at the University level. That included teaching about abortion.

Then you should know its rich history, dating back to our earliest records.

As to the rest of your post? I guess it'll remain a mystery to you.

Yes I do know the gruesome history of abortion, rooted in infanticide and ritual sacrifice through burning an infant alive in a post-birth abortion sacrificial ritual in antiquity. Looks like the pro-abortion crowd today wants to return to its roots in infanticide after the healthy fetus is viable (able to survive outside the womb) supporting abortion far beyond a first trimester pre-viability abortion. Part of the new morality that the liberal left wants to impose on everyone else.

As for the rest it clearly lays out what is ahead for the US as the liberal left imposes their "new morality" on US citizens. Liberals openly plan to force everyone to follow and approve of openly all of their new morals - or else.

a reply to: The2Billies

As for the rest it clearly lays out what is ahead for the US as the liberal left takes over the "new morality" that they wish to force everyone to follow and approve of openly, while supporting and encouraging arrest and jail for those who disapprove of the "new morality" of the liberal left.

New morality? Roe V Wade was decided by a majority Republican SCOTUS justices and has been the law of the land for almost 50 years. From what I've read of your posts, you support Roe V Wade. Is this about Roe V Wade or LGBTQ issues?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: The2Billies

As for the rest it clearly lays out what is ahead for the US as the liberal left takes over the "new morality" that they wish to force everyone to follow and approve of openly, while supporting and encouraging arrest and jail for those who disapprove of the "new morality" of the liberal left.

New morality? Roe V Wade was decided by a majority Republican SCOTUS justices and has been the law of the land for almost 50 years. From what I've read of your posts, you support Roe V Wade. Is this about Roe V Wade or LGBTQ issues?

New morality the left is trying desperately to force everyone to accept their "new morality" and if they don't the left engages in many forms of punishment, oppressive and repressive methods from doxing to threatening to kill (as happened to the Supreme Court justices):
A conglomerate of issues that the liberal left is attempting to impose on everyone in the US as moral and correct:
From gender issues such as penalties for not using the preferred pronoun (begun already as children are kicked out of school for "misgendering") -
to passing laws that tacitly make theft moral (in CA you can steal up to $900 worth of goods without being prosecuted) -
to post viability abortion of healthy would be infants -
to insisting on teaching the tinest of our children the ABC's of LGBTQ+ -
to making other people pay debts you incurred willingly by using their tax money to pay your debt (college) -
to teaching people that history proves white people are born inherent evil oppressors and people of color are born inherently oppressed, increasing racism 4 fold -
to insisting that everyone you meet is a potential sexual partner changing the dynamics of friendship -
to approving of rioting, looting, burning cities if the people are rioting "for" liberal issues (VP Harris raised bail money to get people out of jail for what the liberal left deems "love", as in summer of love).

As for Roe V Wade, it was not a good decision and one that has been written about over the years as anti-constitutional, usurping the power that was supposed to rest with the states and not with the Supreme Court.

I support the Supreme Court returning the issue to the states where it belonged all along.

It DOES NOT and WILL NOT outlaw abortion in the US.

My stance on abortion:
First trimester: very sad, nothing to call liberating, and reluctantly I say it should remain legal. These days one can be certain one is pregnant within a week or two of fertilization giving nearly 3 months to have an abortion. My daughter knew one of her children was genetically ill at 4 weeks of pregnancy, plenty early to have an abortion if one so chooses.

Second trimester: horrendously sad and awful to consider since the fetus is now fully a human being, I have to break it up into 2 parts.
Pre-24 weeks, should remain legal although I find it repugnant when done by a healthy XX to a healthy fetus.
Post-24 weeks (proven viability) should be illegal for a healthy XX with a healthy baby.

Third trimester: Illegal for any XX with a healthy baby. An emergency C-section can take as little as 5 minutes to save the life of an XX, while an abortion at this stage takes hours to days and is far more likely to kill the XX. Only legal if the infant has a serious life ending issue that means it is sure to die or suffer and die within a year.

So if you think I am for Roe v Wade you are sadly mistaken. Even as a Prof who taught in Univ, I find abortion to be sad in the first trimester, repugnant in the second, and in most circumstances infanticide in the third trimester.

I am a Christian and as such wrestle with my support of first term abortion, but I am still a Christian and a conservative Christian at that. I am repelled by the blatant Christophobia that is spreading to the point where liberals feel free to terrorize families of Justices and threaten to kill them, and want a Bishop arrested and jailed for saying the rules of his denomination mean that Pelosi et al are not welcome to take communion with them and should go elsewhere for communion.

I hope this helps you understand where I am coming from. Terrified of the totalitarian bent that is being played out with open attempts at oppressive repression (doxing/ social media bullying / getting people fired / personal destruction / destroy businesses / rioting / looting / burning cities / terrorizing families with protests outside homes) all done within the past 2 years by the liberal left : all this by the very people who accuse Christians of oppression and blame them for things done hundreds of years ago by their ancestors, accusing them of being personally responsible for those crimes (Spanish inquisition, etc) .

a reply to: The2Billies

So if you think I am for Roe v Wade you are sadly mistaken.

Am I, though?

My stance on abortion:
First trimester: very sad, nothing to call liberating, and reluctantly I say it should remain legal. These days one can be certain one is pregnant within a week or two of fertilization giving nearly 3 months to have an abortion. My daughter knew one of her children was genetically ill at 4 weeks of pregnancy, plenty early to have an abortion if one so chooses.

Roe affirms a woman's right to access abortion on demand with no state interference for the 1st trimester. That doesn't conflict with your opinion above.

Second trimester: horrendously sad and awful to consider since the fetus is now fully a human being, I have to break it up into 2 parts.
Pre-24 weeks, should remain legal although I find it repugnant when done by a healthy XX to a healthy fetus.
Post-24 weeks (proven viability) should be illegal for a healthy XX with a healthy baby.

Third trimester: Illegal for any XX with a healthy baby. An emergency C-section can take as little as 5 minutes to save the life of an XX, while an abortion at this stage takes hours to days and is far more likely to kill the XX. Only legal if the infant has a serious life ending issue that means it is sure to die or suffer and die within a year.

During the 2nd trimester, Roe affirms the States' right to interfere in abortion procedures to protect the health of the mother and allows the states' to ban abortion altogether after viability, except in cases of the health and life of the woman. That doesn't conflict with your opinion either.

It's sounds to me like you're pro Roe V Wade.

...A conglomerate of issues that the liberal left is attempting to impose on everyone in the US as moral and correct:
From gender issues such as penalties for not using the preferred pronoun (begun already as children are kicked out of school for "misgendering") -
to passing laws that tacitly make theft moral (in CA you can steal up to $900 worth of goods without being prosecuted) -
to post viability abortion of healthy would be infants - ...

Those are all state, not federal, issues. You don't like laws certain states make, but you're okay with overturning Roe and giving those personal, very sad and sometimes very tragic decisions over to the states?

What about states that would forces a 12 year old to give birth to her rapist's kid? How many rapists will have kids that their mothers have to share custody with? How many 15 year old girls will face life in prison for taking a knitting needle to themselves because they're too scared to tell anyone they're pregnant because of some state's law?

Roe keeps abortions safe. Overturning Roe won't stop abortion, it'll just make safe abortions harder to get for the people that need it the most.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: The2Billies

So if you think I am for Roe v Wade you are sadly mistaken.

Am I, though?

My stance on abortion:
First trimester: very sad, nothing to call liberating, and reluctantly I say it should remain legal. These days one can be certain one is pregnant within a week or two of fertilization giving nearly 3 months to have an abortion. My daughter knew one of her children was genetically ill at 4 weeks of pregnancy, plenty early to have an abortion if one so chooses.

Roe affirms a woman's right to access abortion on demand with no state interference for the 1st trimester. That doesn't conflict with your opinion above.

Second trimester: horrendously sad and awful to consider since the fetus is now fully a human being, I have to break it up into 2 parts.
Pre-24 weeks, should remain legal although I find it repugnant when done by a healthy XX to a healthy fetus.
Post-24 weeks (proven viability) should be illegal for a healthy XX with a healthy baby.

Third trimester: Illegal for any XX with a healthy baby. An emergency C-section can take as little as 5 minutes to save the life of an XX, while an abortion at this stage takes hours to days and is far more likely to kill the XX. Only legal if the infant has a serious life ending issue that means it is sure to die or suffer and die within a year.

During the 2nd trimester, Roe affirms the States' right to interfere in abortion procedures to protect the health of the mother and allows the states' to ban abortion altogether after viability, except in cases of the health and life of the woman. That doesn't conflict with your opinion either.

It's sounds to me like you're pro Roe V Wade.

...A conglomerate of issues that the liberal left is attempting to impose on everyone in the US as moral and correct:
From gender issues such as penalties for not using the preferred pronoun (begun already as children are kicked out of school for "misgendering") -
to passing laws that tacitly make theft moral (in CA you can steal up to $900 worth of goods without being prosecuted) -
to post viability abortion of healthy would be infants - ...

Those are all state, not federal, issues. You don't like laws certain states make, but you're okay with overturning Roe and giving those personal, very sad and sometimes very tragic decisions over to the states?

What about states that would forces a 12 year old to give birth to her rapist's kid? How many rapists will have kids that their mothers have to share custody with? How many 15 year old girls will face life in prison for taking a knitting needle to themselves because they're too scared to tell anyone they're pregnant because of some state's law?

Roe keeps abortions safe. Overturning Roe won't stop abortion, it'll just make safe abortions harder to get for the people that need it the most.

As a constitutionalist I agree with the Supreme Court and all the writings over the years that discussed how it was an over reach of the Supreme Court. So I am against Roe vs Wade, no matter what you think.

Pro-abortionists can fight it at the state level where it is supposed to be.

Like it or not, I am against Roe vs Wade as an over reach and judicial activism.

You talk about the consequences of a possible law that a state may choose. Every law has its consequences.

Forcing prisons to put convicted rapists who claim to be women in a womens prison has had consequences. Rape and pregnancy for the XX forceably locked into a cell with a convicted rapist by laws passed by liberal activists. Not one liberal has expressed this consequence is an issue. They say that the safety of the XY with a penis who has raped several XX has more of a right to be safe than XX with a vagina. We can do what abouts all day.

I am opposed to Roe vs Wade and support laws that limit abortion as I discussed earlier. You can project all you want, won't change my mind.

I remain terrified of people who think it is justified to arrest and jail a Bishop for openly expressing the Catholic Church's pro-life stance. I remain terrified of people who think it is ok to protest at the homes of Justices and terrify their families. I am not only terrified but find people who threaten to kill Judges for their decision they don't like to be domestic terrorists trying to force people to do their will. Just as they claim pro-life people are doing, there is no difference as far as I am concerned.

Sorry you won't convince me.

I want to greatly limit abortion and that is antithetical to the pro-abortion crowd who are for post-birth abortion (infantcide) and want to codify it into law. So no I can never support their cause.

a reply to: The2Billies

You talk about the consequences of a possible law that a state may choose. Every law has its consequences.

Forcing prisons to put convicted rapists who claim to be women in a womens prison has had consequences.

So, it is about LGBTQ issues.

Sorry you won't convince me.

Nor you me.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: The2Billies

Sorry you won't convince me.

Nor you me.

I outlined the long list of issues I have with the liberal left and you cherry picked the one you want to try to "shame" me with, since I happened to use it as a comparable example to our discussion.

This is a typical liberal left tactic, very predictable.

Much like the tactics of the pro-abortion crowd are very predictable and typical left behavior. The pro-abortion leftsist are not just trying to shame but to harass and threaten a Bishop who did what he had to do under the rules of his denomination, not allow Pelosi to take communion in his church.

I agree you won't convince me and I won't convince you and you can't pull the tired old liberal tactic of you are an ist/ism/phobe on me and expect it to work.

So we are done then.

originally posted by: everyone
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I doubt pelosi is bothered by this behind closed doors. Her default church is the church of satan.

The communion wine is much stronger in her church.

www.gotoliquorstore.com...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What bothers me is that they're making an example out of Pelosi by weaponizing their sacred rites to threaten the church members in high government.

What bothers me is how the radical progressives made an example of Brett Kavanaugh, dragging his name and his family through the mud in their desire to achieve a goal, in their desire to keep conservatives out and pack the Court. It is truly brutal.
Timing? What timing is that exactly ?
It is going to be what it is as they say.
How about the “timing” of covid, monkey pox, terrible vaccines that kill and injure people for money, the lockdowns, the war in Ukraine, the baby formula shortage, shortages in general a la Cubano style?!??? Are you okay with that ?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
All Pelosi has to do is denounce her Catholic faith.

Easy enough to do and this would not even be a story.

God kills loads of kids for petty reasons in the Bible so I don't see why he'd be against abortion, unless it stops him sending all babies to hell to be tortured for eternity for his own amusement like he usually does under his original sin declaration.

Jesus would likely be against it, but that God fella had more fun killing innocent kids than planned parenthood.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I really don't see any difference in intent between protesting in front of Supreme Court or the justices' homes.

You don’t... really ? Well do you even care about the Law ? CSS
So whatever you personally think... this is the Law www.washingtonpost.com...
So NBC according to that reference, it’s illegal to protest at a building too ie Supreme Court)
Seems to liberals it’s okay to threaten people at their homes or fed err al buildings if you are a liberal or progressive and fighting for BLM, Antifa, abortion or whatever, but if you are a conservative age you protest ejection fraud you should be put in jail indefinitely,
See what I mean ?

If you think the protesters outside the courthouse or outside the justices' home will have any influence on how the justices decide, then you also have to believe the Archbishop singling out The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi for public punishment,

No I don’t have to believe that and I don’t believe that. Imagine you are at hone with your family, and here comes the Antifa crowd with their pitchforks and torches and they’ve been burning and looting entire cities and they come to your home and threaten your family. Just be honest here about it.
The Archbishop is telling Ms Pelosi she may not take communion since abortion is considered an egregious sin by the Catholic Church( at least since the first century ). So there’s no comparison here. Sorry you don’t like it.