Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Benedict Hammers a Confused Speaker

By

The ox in this case was Nancy Pelosi’s. And true to his usual form, His Holiness didn’t hesitate. You see, Miz Pelosi had made the ultimate faux pas for someone who claims to be “an ardent, practicing catholic.” (Her words, not mine.)

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a self-proclaimed “ardent, practicing Catholic,” had an opportunity last week to meet a fellow ardent Catholic, Pope Benedict XVI.

It appears that the pope used the visit to educate a confused Pelosi about the Roman Catholic Church’s long-held position on the life issue.

Appearing on Meet the Press just prior to the Democratic National Convention, Pelosi told the country that, over the centuries, the Catholic Church had been unable to define when life begins. “We just don’t know,” she chirped.

The Vatican’s statement after last week’s meeting between Pelosi and the pope began: “His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death.”

Pope Benedict did not allow any photos of the meeting, making a second and equally bracing instructional point: Dissenting Catholic politicians who deliberately mislead others about the church’s core teachings will not be given another chance to do so by having their picture taken with the vicar of Christ.

Whatever she may lack, she’s very good at the fine art of obfuscation.

Usually. This time, it jumped up and bit her in the ass.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. He certainly is a true authority on life.  Oh yes, his opinion holds great sway.

    <

    p>What a joke!

      • LOLOLOLOLOL!

        <

        p>you should come clean and not just refer to yourself as “Presbyterian”, because i think you know that many people will think you mean the standard variety.  you should make clear that you are of the minority offshoot that is as conservative as pope ratzinger, so it is no surprise that you enjoy watching him slap the hand of a major government official who disagrees with him on non-theological social issues (a realm where popes are not considered inerrant).

        • For the uninformed, Laurel is referring to the Presbyterian Church in America, in which I am a Ruling Elder (not a Deacon, and not a short term election, but a lifetime commitment, albeit an uncompensated one). And we’re not quite sure who broke away from whom.

          <

          p>The PC (US), which is the liberal branch of the Presbyterian Church, is presbyterian in name and form of government only. They no longer follow the Westminster Confession as amended, 1936, but have drafted a very watered-down version of same, so as to appeal to those who accept abortion and same-sex marriage. They are so far removed from the Scottish church as to be unrecognizable.

          <

          p>As to the social issues, I suspect you are referring to abortion and marriage other than between man and woman. These are not non-theological social issues, much as the liberal left would like them to be.

          <

          p>And, like Pope Benedict, we denounce the holocaust deniers. We also denounce the holocaust of abortion, which, in the years since Roe v.Wade, has claimed more than fifty million innocent children’s lives. It is, even worse, based on the fiction put forth by Miz Pelosi, that the church is not certain when life begins.

          <

          p>My dairy, which your comments apear to be an attempt to obfuscate, is intended to point out that Miz Pelosi is either too confused to be a leader, or is a damned liar.

          <

          p>Best,
          Chuck

          • “… much as the liberal left would like them to be.”

            <

            p>I don’t particularly care about your theological issues.  Suffice to say that we don’t live in a theocratic society, which means our government’s dealing with them is necessarily ‘non-theological’.  You can ‘theologize’ your opinions on social issues all you want, but any justification for binding others to those opinions civilly, must address them precisely as “non-theological social issues”.  

              • … by this statement:  “These are not non-theological social issues, much as the liberal left would like them to be.”  Are you suggesting that the liberal left is somehow impinging on your ‘theological issues’?  

                • because both are directly addressed by theological documents (the Holy Bible comes to mind, as does the Koran (or Quran, if you prefer) and the Talmud), and are provided with specific direction as to the five w’s (who, what, where, when, how) and other trivia. The liberal left attacks both the documents, and the religions they define.

                  <

                  p>Yeah, Mr Lynn, I’d say that was impinging. Somehow.

                  <

                  p>Best,
                  Chuck

                • Criticism and impinging are two different things.  For example, christian criticism of homosexual marriage as an anathema (on theological or non-theological basis) is just that… criticism.  Voting away the rights they gained in CA, that’s impinging.  I’ll entreat you to recognize the difference.

                  <

                  p>If the ‘liberal left’ ever votes away your right to your religion or religious views, you can accuse it of ‘impinging’.  Until then I’d rephrase what you say above.

                  <

                  p>For civic purposes (debating what should be law and such) marriage and abortion need to be discussed as non-theological issues because the basis for any resulting law can’t be theological.  If you consider that ‘impinging’, then you really need to go live in a theocracy where laws can be laws because of religious views.  This is what the ‘liberal left’ understands.  You somehow interpret this position as a ‘refusal’ to understand that there are questions on these issues that are theological for some.  I’m afraid you’re wrong on this point.  The ‘liberal left’ understand that the laws in this country need to be justified on a non-theological basis.

                • Their  “confession of faith” has repeated derogatory references to Catholicism.  For example:

                  <

                  p>

                  In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one, only sacrifice, the only propitiation for all the sins of His elect.

                  <

                  p>The PCA history calls Catholics out as not being “true Christians” and includes a long discussion of whether Catholic baptism is valid (they conclude it isn’t).  

                  <

                  p>While such sentiments are typical of evangelical churches, it’s shocking that a member of such a church would feel qualified to comment on what makes a good Catholic.

                  <

                  p>Hat tip to my (original flavor) Presbyterian Church Elder uncle for the pointers.

                • (try 7:23-24, 27) will help you to an understanding of your citation. Our differences over this issue are well known, but the scripture just sits there and begs recognition from both PC (US) and the Catholic Church. That they elect not to do so is a mystery to us.

                  <

                  p>Which does not prevent us from embracing both the Catholic and the PC (US) as brothers and sisters in Christ, even if they are brothers and sisters with whom we disagree.

                  <

                  p>And pass my regards to Mr. Original Flavor.

                  <

                  p>Best,
                  Chuck

                • but what I have said, I have said. We hold differing views of marriage. I suspect that will not change fior either of us.

                  <

                  p>Best,
                  Chuck

                • … the liberal left impinges on your religion.  I think I have shown reasoning that shows this not to be true.  I’ll take your lack of addressing any of my reasoning as vindication.

                • I take your point about secular policy debates needing to be divorced from theology.  However, that does not take away from the theological implications for many people.  For example, the United Church of Christ also treats these matters as theological issues, even as they come to different conclusions than the diarist based upon theology.

                • … agreement here.  My issue is the notion that there is this ‘liberal left’ that has allegedly decided that the issues are non-theological.  I know of nobody that disputes that there are theological implications (agreeable or not) to all kinds of questions including marriage and abortion.  I just don’t see that criticism of theological reasoning nor wanting to justify civil laws non-theologically is in any way demonstrative of impingment nor assertion of the non-existence of theological reasoning on the subject.  To take those conclusions away from the alleged ‘liberal left’ position is to completely (and perhaps deliberately) misunderstand the alleged ‘liberal left’.

          • Here is a file of the various documents governing the faith of the PCUSA, many of which have deep historical roots.  As far as I can tell from the footnotes, the Westminster Confession was only revised to clarify language, but not to alter meaning.  It is for God alone to judge the faithfulness of His people.  I get really tired your saying things like those people aren’t proper Presbyterians, the Speaker isn’t a proper Catholic, and general implications that anyone who does not interpret the Bible the way you do is not Christian.  It is the height of arrogance to judge the faith of others.  Yes, the PCUSA appears to be liberal, but the Gospels can easily be read as a progressive, some would even say radical, set of teachings that is truly inclusive of everyone without even mentioning the pet wedge issues of religious conservatives.

            • God alone to judge the faithfulness of his people. Changing the Westminster Confession without proving it from scripture, which the PC (US) have done, and then adhering to ther changes, is hardly adhering to the faith dictated by scripture.

              <

              p>AS to the Gospels, there isn’t much there that is progressive, unless you’re reading the KJV with no understanding of King James’ English. AND, you need to remember that this diary is dedicated to the understanding that Pelosi, et c., were wrong in her idea that abortion is a good idea, and that the Pope was correct in lambasting her for that. Laurel’s obfuscatiion doesn’t change the core issue.

              • Your first sentence appears to have been ignored by the time you got to your second sentence. If it’s for God alone, why are you proposing criteria regarding faithfulness. You’re not God.

                <

                p>At least, I don’t think you are.

                • And I didn’t write the scriptural proofs for the Confession. Nor do I ignore them, as do the PC (US).

                  <

                  p>And abortion is not a good idea, in the eyes of scripture.

                  <

                  p>Best,
                  Chuck

    • …the point is that she claimed not to know.  The merits of the position are debatable, but anyone who has paid attention, especially an “ardent, practicing Catholic”, should at least know that the Church’s position is life begins at conception.

      • and there is yet another point. If Miz Pelosi is indeed an ardent, practicing Catholic, she needs to act like one. If she does not intend to do that, then she should not refer to herself an ardent practicing Catholic. One cannot have it both ways, even if one is Speaker of the House.

        <

        p>Best,
        Chuck

        • “Miz Pelosi”?

          <

          p>Are you simply incapable of not using childish renamings? They mar all your comments.

          <

          p>If we examine approve/disapprove polling, we find that rather robust majorities of Americans disapprove of Rep. Boehner and Sen. McConnell. (Note: I used actual names! You can too!) On the other hand, the last time I looked, polling showed more Americans approve of the Speaker than disapprove of her.

          <

          p>The idea of demonizing Rep. Pelosi has not worked out so well for Republicans.

          <

          p>You guys ran on it on it in 2006 with ads prominently featuring San Francisco exotica.

          <

          p>You lost.

          <

          p>You guys ran on it some more in 2008.

          <

          p>You lost some more.

          <

          p>You guys continue to run on it.

          <

          p>For future reference: Loser is spelled with one “o”.

          • If someone will help me understand KBusch’s comment “Are you simply incapable of not using childish renamings? They mar all your comments” regarding Miz Pelosi, I will try to respond to his comment.
            As to looser vs loser, I have a keyboard that I’m considering trading for a Cheezburger. I kin has?

            <

            p>Best,
            Chuck

            • You could apologize for your post. That would be faster and save us from having to explain the obvious.

            • I’m pretty sure that happened early in January (as well as January 2007) when the majority of her colleagues elected her to that post.

              • she rises to or above the level of Sam Rayburn (with whom I usually disagreed, but always respected), instead of lowering herself to the level of, wait, don’t tell me, WHO was that guy from South Dakota, you know, the one who was Speaker, and the citizens dumped . . . and Obama had to fire before he even hired him . . . ???

                • Everything you’ve said in this thread has been moronic.

                  <

                  p>The same line of argument has been pursued with liberals for decades with the same result elicited here. It’s stupid. Why did you bother? Perhaps derision is a vitamin for creatures from your planet. You must require a certain quantity to maintain health.

                  <

                  p>In any case, few are going to read this other than those of us contributing to it. So it’s a waste of time to answer accusations from Planet Fantasy. Your assertion will have to count as sufficient disproof.

                • I misread Huh’s comment and thought it was Chimpchump accusing Pelosi of being corrupt!

                  <

                  p>Oh well.

                  <

                  p>Apologies on all sides.

        • When you’re done with Catholics and Presbyterians, are you planning on moving on to the Baptists, Methodists, Eastern Orthodox, Shia, Zen Buddhists, and Zoastrians?

          <

          p>No doubt an equally productive use of your copious free time.

            • As a schismatic, he will probably want to distinguish between weak and strong atheists. He might have to check that the weak atheists are sufficiently impure and the strong atheists sufficiently pure. Zeal is necessary here.

              <

              p>Subtlety too. This is a job for discerning minds like Senator Santorum’s.

          • It’s ZOROastrins. They don’t carve zzz’s with their blades, but are from those who were ruled by the Three Wise Men, of whom you may have heard, from their mention in the gospel . . . For your edification, they are from Eastern Persia (check the map, and see what’s east of Iran?) one of the oldest religions on earth, and since the birth of Christ, they have subscribed to an understanding of the Christ Child as an important person to them.

            <

            p>Best,
            Chuck

                • The useful thing about apostolic succession is that it provides an easy way to navigate around all the confusion that is the Bible. The Bible contradicts itself — and not just Torah versus Gospels but other places as well. How does one extract rules for living from it. The Roman Catholic Church has a simple answer: our authority.

                  <

                  p>The Protestant project has tried to do away with apostolic succession, to arrive by some combination of reason and literary criticism at a mechanism for deriving moral commandments from a loose anthology of variant-riddled Hebrew and Koine.

                  <

                  p>As best I can tell, this project never seems to resolve any of these questions coherently. What’s even more interesting is that certain standard ways of reading things into Scripture continue, handed down by tradition as if all Western Christians were still Catholics. The story of Noah has much less detail in Genesis than people think. This exchange about the Three Kings (or maybe they weren’t) shows up something similar.

                  <

                  p>I’m reminded of the role of Hadith in Islam.

                • Most don’t know, for example, who the guys were who assembled it into its present form and why.  Most can’t distinguish lines from Shakespeare from verses in the Bible.  The list goes on and on, and I am a perfect example of how this happens.  

                  <

                  p>My father, a Baptist minister, started herding me towards baptism before I really understood what it was all about.  To him, it was just “time” for me to get down to accepting Christ into my heart.  Somehow he never seemed to check to be sure that I had any clue what that really meant.  And so I officially became a Christian, except that I had never read even one book of the Bible through start to finish, and had no idea what the history was of the religion I’d been press-ganged into.  

                  <

                  p>Most people just go along with the religion they are reared to revere, and live entire lives quite ignorant of the book they will defend until blue in the face.  Unless churches refuse to induct children and only invite in adults who demonstrate their true understanding of the book they wish to swear fealty to, this problem will never end.  But that’ll never happen, because Christianity is more about filling the pews with butts (and the coffers with cash) than it is with communing with true co-religionists.

                • Laurel, you said,
                  “But that’ll never happen, because Christianity is more about filling the pews with butts (and the coffers with cash) than it is with communing with true co-religionists.”

                  <

                  p>Well, well. From your post, and its vehemence toward your father, I’d suggest that you’ve decided to judge all subject books by that cover. But let me enlighten you just a little, regarding that final quote.

                  <

                  p>Our (Bellewood Presbyterian) coffers are pretty empty. That’s because we aren’t interested so much in filling them, as we are in spending the money.

                  <

                  p>We spend the money to re-roof homes on the Yakima Indian Reservation in eastern Washington, to provide food for starving reservation families whose fathers spend the government check on drugs and booze, and to provide free drug and alcohol rehab for the teen-aged daughters and sons of those fathers. Last year, a third of our congregation coughed up five hundred dollars each, so they could go spend a week rehabbing their homes. They spent the money on building materials, slept on a concrete floor in a rotting building on the reservation, and ate what they could cook in their very little free time.

                  <

                  p>We spend the money to buy meals for the homeless, served at Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission. We don’t ask them to pray first, we pray for them (and with them, if they wish) that they don’t starve to death. We help them get off the drugs that put them on the street, help them rehab themselves, and help them find work; in some cases we even hire them ourselves.

                  <

                  p>We spend the money on Mission to the World. Did you know that FORTY-SEVEN PERCENT of Africans are now Christian? Looks like answering the Great Comission (read the last few verses of Matthew!) is paying dividends. We spend the money to build churches in India. I have a picture on my refrigerator of a Christian church in India, built entirely with funds from our little congregation of less than 125 people, most of whom are not very well off.

                  <

                  p>Every year, at Thaksgiving and again at Christmas, I go to the local Safeway (think A&P, or whatever supermarkets are in Mass), and fill a grocery cart with premium food. Its a holiday. Those who are without shouldn’t have to eat canned soup and mouldy bread on such a holiday. I take the groceries to a local food bank.

                  <

                  p>So do most of the fathers in my church.

                  <

                  p>Sorry about your relationship with your father. But I’m not your father, and you piss me off when you try to cut me from what you think is his bolt of cloth. I commend to you Matthew, Chapter Seven, Verses One and Two.

                  <

                  p>They’re about judgement.

                  <

                  p>Best,
                  Chuck

                • Remarkably condescending and presumptuous — with the usual dash of unintended irony.

                  <

                  p>It’s all about judgment, isn’t it?

                • So you intended to make yourself look foolish, uncharitable, and obnoxious.

                  <

                  p>Chacun à son goût.

                • in defense of my church, to take mild umbrage with an errant comment.

                  <

                  p>And the irony is in the fact that you find it unacceptable, while attacking me.

                  <

                  p>Parfois, la meilleure défense est une bonne attaque!

                  <

                  p>Best,
                  Chuck

                • no, actually.  but i’m not at all surprised that that is the conclusion you jump to.

                • I herewith withdraw the vehemence phrase and substitute “from your post and the apparent mild umbrage you take over your father’s herding you toward baptism and press-ganging you into accepting Christ into your heart, when you had no idea what that really meant, . . .”

                  <

                  p>Chalk it up to the late hour.

                  <

                  p>Best,
                  Chuck

                • My church will only accept those who are choosing to join, including teenagers at the traditional age for confirmation.  Besides one need not be a member to attend church or contribute money and vice versa.

                • WHAT the “Protestant Project” is. Or, exactly, what difference the “Three Wise Men” assumption makes. There may have been two (‘men’ is plural), or twenty-two, however, three gifts imply three givers. But I find interesting your assertion that the bible is confusing.

                  <

                  p>As to Apostolic Succession, even the Episcopal Church embraces the concept. The conservative branches of the ‘project,’ church, however, referencing to the Book of Hebrews, which, I am certain, you will tell me is somehow confused, decry the necessity for priests, based on the Ultimate Sacrifice of The One Great high Priest.

                  <

                  p>I am struggling to understand your point, as it relates to the church.

                  <

                  p>Best,
                  Chuck

            • … that this isn’t a judgment on faith?

              <

              p>”These are not non-theological social issues, much as the liberal left would like them to be. “

              <

              p>Isn’t one way to define what one’s faith encompasses by defining what it doesn’t?  

                • elected to approach His holiness. She APPEARS (operative word) to have hoped for a photo-op, one that would legitimize her liberal leanings, as regards abortion and same-sex marriage.

                  <

                  p>I think I stated above that she can’t have it both ways. And while I have NOT declared myself a judge of what makes a good catholic, I am reasonably knowledgeable regarding the faith. It accords no room for either abortion, or same-sex marriage, which, I believe, among others, are the Pelosi issues with which His Holiness took umbrage.

                  <

                  p>Best,
                  Chuck

                • You have no way of knowing either what the Speaker was hoping for or what the Pope’s motivations were.   Your statements come purely from your own hatred of the Speaker.

                  <

                  p>

                • but I don’t hate her, either. The issue is, I think, one of respect. I may have wished that Sam Rayburn would be voted out of office, but I surely had respect for him. I cannot say the same of Pelosi.

                  <

                  p>And, as I suggested in my response above, APPEARS is an operative word.

                  <

                  p>Best,
                  Chuck

                • If you want to play that game, it appears to me that you and your church are doing Satan’s work here on earth.  Hope you don’t take offense.

                • It appears to me that you were looking to offend. It appears to me that you’d rather be an asshole than to engage in honest dialogue.

                  <

                  p>Hope YOU don’t take offense.

                  <

                  p>Best,
                  Chuck

                • Please take a look in the mirror.  Your comments in this thread range from inane to insulting.  

                • Just because two people share the same picture frame doesn’t mean they agree on anything.

                • Maybe I should have said “doesn’t mean they agree on EVERYTHING” to be clearer.  Certainly there was plenty they didn’t see eye to eye on.

            • There are any number of articles on this meeting.   You chose to post one which mocked the Speaker and her faith along with commentary about how much you enjoyed seeing her “ox get gored.”.  To attempt to distance yourself from it is the height of hypocrisy.  

              • it happened to be an op-ed piece with which I emphatically agreed, not because it mocked anyone. I said somewhere in this thread that I respected Sam Rayburn. Sam brought dignity to the office, not agendae. Yes, he had them, but they were not surfaced, and they were not used to slap the opposition.

                <

                p>For all that he was a Democrat, Sam Rayburn knew how to work with the opposition, for the good of the country. He would never have placed his party above that country. IMHO, Pelosi has — ‘way too many times! Nancy is no Sam Rayburn!

                <

                p>And her faith? You either are an “ardent, practicing Catholic,” or, you’re not. Pelosi has demonstrated that she is not. That’s sufficient unto this diary.  

                <

                p>Best,
                Chuck

                <

                p>Romney/Palin, 2012
                Palin/Jeb Bush, 2020
                Bush/?, 2028

                • I’m a Texan.  Speaker Sam was famous for having something on everyone.  Great for us, of course, but blackmail is not the same as reaching across the aisle.

                • J. Edgar Hoover wore pink panties under his suit, but he never SHOWED them!

                  <

                  p>Is there a message in there somewhere? Duh! Sam never reached across the isle, but when those on the other side reached across to him, he responded.

                  <

                  p>Best,
                  Chuck  

        • Have you a problem with women?  What prompts a person to mock or degrade the Mr. or Ms. or Mrs. or Miss of a person’s name other than a pure disregard or disdain for the gender of that person?  

          • I don’t have a problem with women. And there is no intent to mock Miz Pelosi. Having grown up in Western North Carolina and East Tennessee, I find the colloquialism part of my natural lexicon. Living in South Snohomish County, Washington, hasn’t changed that. At my advanced age, Im still a Tennessee bowoy.

            <

            p>Bye, y’all,
            Chuck

            • Does your folksy lexicon have a place in it for “bowoy” for a black man, too?  Your “colloquialism” is sexist, condescending, and disrespectful, so you might want to work on your diction even at your “advanced age.”  

            • Were you able to make it down to Olympia for the hearings on the DP Expansion Bill?  Just wondering which of those guys out front holding the “homosex is sin” signs was you.

              • Laurel? I would have thought by now that you understood my position on the issues you keep raising; I’ve made them quite clear to you in the past.

                <

                p>I haven’t a clue whether there were any guys standing out front of whatever government building housed the hearings on whatever day they took place. I don’t have time for such nonsense. I’m a writer, a slave to my keyboard and the cyclops.

                <

                p>In fact, I will send you autographed copies of a romantic trilogy I’m trying to finish, and get off to a harried agent and an impatient publisher, when they’re released during the next couple of years.

                <

                p>Oh, the titles?
                La Boîte de Papeterie – Natalie et Rachael
                Voyage d’un Coeur Désolé – Allison et Mai
                Une Légère Nuance de Bleu – Monique et Andrea

                <

                p>One of them is, in fact, dedicated to you, among others. (The second is dedicated to the memories of two friends; Julie London and Peggy Lee, and the third to my retired military lesbian friend.)

                <

                p>And no, I will NOT tell you my nom de plume.

                <

                p>Best,
                Chuck

        • By a long shot.

          <

          p>The Church’s opinion on the matter is, and has long been, pretty clearly stated, to put it mildly.  Pelosi, who has proved herself to be not a great politician in the past, did so again by stating otherwise and quite rightly got called out.  Pretty dumb on her part, really.

          <

          p>But you seem to suggest, incorrectly, that Ms. Pelosi and others must be in complete agreement with said position, as stated by the Pope, in order to consider themselves Catholic.  You are simply mistaken.

          <

          p>Despite periodic threats by dyspeptic clergy, and the breathless reporting by the nitwits in media about same, there is a reason that this has not ever happened: there isn’t really any canonical justification for doing so.

          <

          p>The range of opinion within the Catholic Church is therefore broader than you seem to assume, notwithstanding what Pope Benedict says to reporters.

          • within a lot of churches, the Roman Catholic among them. But opinions are not scripture, and ultimately, if an opinion within the boundaries of the church differ with scripture, they are incorrect, in the eyes of the church.

            <

            p>Polosi can consider herself anything she wishes. That won’t stop the church, or, for that matter, me, from calling her out.

            <

            p>Best,
            Chuck

            • How strange it is for lectures on Catholic orthodoxy come from a schismatic Protestant.

              <

              p>Scripture is neither as clear nor as definitive as you would have it, and is therefore the starting point, best suited for raising questions rather than answering them.

              <

              p>If I thought otherwise, I would probably be, I don’t know, a a Protestant.

                • To wit, tradition and the Church itself (e.g., through a Council).

                  <

                  p>In my view, many Protestant churches have deprived themselves of these, to their cost, and thus inevitably go through splintering, merging, re-splintering and re-merging as a result.  YMMV, obviously.

                  <

                  p>That you would ask such a question indicates, again, that you are not in much of a position to opine on Speaker Pelosi’s faith, since you do not appear to understand the most fundamental distinction between hers and your own.

                • with the history of the church as am I. That being the case, you will remember that about half the schism was caused by politics, and the other half by the behavior of the Roman church at the time. Henry VIII wanted to get divorced, but Martin Luther did not err in his ninety-five theses, except by nailing them to the church door, and damaging the woodwork.

                  <

                  p>Henry’s penchant for periodic re-wifing weighed heavily on the minds of the Scots, who looked askance at such behavior. This was not ultimately because they wanted to adhere to the tenets of the Roman church, but because they clung to scripture, which forbids such shenanigans.

                  <

                  p>Today, the question comes down, not so much to the erroroneous behavior of the Roman church, but their adherence to sources outside the scriptures, the very sources you cite. Somewhere in here, I cited Hebrews, which decries the necessity of priestly intervention, based on the supreme sacrifice of Christ, the “Great High Priest,” as the author calls Him, citing his ‘once-for-all’ sacrifice.

                  <

                  p>Yet we haved more in common with the Catholic church than we have differences, which is why we still adhere to the Nicene Creed. We qualify that with the Westminster Confession. The Presbyterian Church in America have not treated the document as a living document, as have the PC (US), because the document is based on scriptural proof. If scripture is treated as inerrant, so should be the scripture-based Confession of the church.

                  <

                  p>There are two differences between the PCA-accepted Confession, and the original 1647 document. First, it no longer calls the pope the antichrist, as did the original. Second, we have removed the prohibition of a widower marrying his deceased wife’s sister. These changes were made because there is no scriptural basis for them, and such basis as was put forth by the 1643-47 Assembly of Divines was at best, flimsy, driven again by the politics of the time, rather than scripture.

                  <

                  p>Full Disclosure: I taught a three-year cycle of the thirty-three chapters of the Confession for some time.

                  <

                  p>Best,
                  Chuck

                • he went rogue because he didn’t want to share power.  The remarrying thing was a good pr move though.

                • I’m sure the chance to seize valuable Church property never floated through his mind ’till after his falling out with the Papists…

                • It does sound like you have it backwards.  Remarriage was the primary motivator and just a few years before had defended the Pope and Roman Church.  Catherine of Aragon had born him only a daughter, the future Queen “Bloody” Mary I, but Henry wanted a son.  Henry began to think a lack of son was God’s punishment for marrying his brother’s widow (Catherine had previously been married to Henry’s older brother Arthur who had been heir apparant until he prematurely died without having had children.) and petitioned Rome for an annulment.  There is a passage in Leviticus which forbids this, but other passages that make it sound like this is exactly what SHOULD be done.  There was an inquiry as to whether Catherine’s marriage to Arthur had been consumated.

                  <

                  p>This is where politics comes in.  The Pope was in the pocket of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (aka King Charles I of Spain) who was the nephew of Catherine.  (As a point of reference Catherine was the daughter of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella who sponsored Christopher Columbus.)  Catherine had appealed to her nephew to block the divorce.  It was only when Henry decided he could get nowhere with Rome that he declared himself head of the Church of England, though he conveniently kept the “Defender of the Faith” title bestowed by the Pope which continues to be held by English sovereigns.  If there were a PR intent it failed miserably.  English public opinion sided with Catherine and never accepted Anne Boleyn as their Queen, at least during her lifetime.  My guess is that her esteem rose somewhat once her daughter, Elizabeth I, became Queen.

                • “The Pope was in the pocket of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V.”

                  <

                  p>Actually, more like imprisoned by Charles. Clement VII was the hapless resident of the Vatican when Charles whooped up on Italy (the FIRST time; he did it again eight years later), sacking Rome in 1527, and “controlling access” to Clement, such that Henry’s envoy couldn’t get to him to request yet another anullment Bull.

                  <

                  p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…
                  (among others)

                  <

                  p>But you’ve summed it up quite nicely, Christopher. You should teach history! And just think how much less intriguing European history would have been without the Hapsburgs!

                  <

                  p>Best,
                  Chuck

                • Regarding the Pope-Emperor relationship I could not remember without notes exactly what the degree of dependence was.  (I wrote the above completely off the cuff.)  As for teaching history, I actually did get my MA history teaching license a few months ago and am looking to pursue that.  I absolutely agree about the Hapsburgs.  History can be fascinating if presented the right way, but the standard reaction seems to be that history is boring:(

                • Initiated by political issues, still extant because of subtle yet significant theological issues.  News at 11.

      • can say we don’t have time for silly things like debating civil rights for lgbt people, but we can waste time on crap like this.  if you do care about this issue, i suggest to verify that pelosi really said what santorum says she said, and that she wasn’t taken out of context.  because you know, jackasses like him lie.  this is vital to the nation, so do let’s spend days debating it.

        • You’re a bigger person than that. You, of all people, should know by now that I do not intend to infringe the rights of lgbt folks. And I do not know that Santorum lies. I DO know, however, that the Inquirer is NOT the Evening Bulletin!

          <

          p>Best,
          Chuck

        • Regardless of your personal feelings, he’s the spiritual leader of over a billion people who do believe.  If you don’t respect the man, respect the office.  I wouldn’t make a similar rise-getting comment about Katharine Schori or Ayatollah al-Sistani.  I would obviously question their theology (micro or macro) but not just blanketly insult them.

          • that he was the head of teh doctrine of the faithful for ages, and that he is a human being and not infallible, even by church standards, when it comes to matters like choice and marriage.  

            <

            p>it is true that i don’t have any particular regard for his office, but if i wanted to actually insult it, i wouldn’t have used his title of “pope”.  rather, i’d choose something…else.  if it is insulting that the guy be referred to by his own name, then i guess there’s nothing i can do about that.  

            <

            p>you might consider that it is pretty mild for me to call a man by his name when he refers to people like me, an entire class of human beings, as sinners, ill, responsible for the destruction of teh rainforests, works against our civil rights and our human rights, supports our imprisonment in african and other countries.  so joe, i think your outrage is a little misplaced, to put it mildly.

            • to put it mildly.  

              <

              p>Or the world would have been better without the Catholic Church.  Because then the ancient Roman and Greek works would have been lost, Montesquieu wouldn’t have written the Spirit of the Laws, the founding fathers wouldn’t even know who Tully was, and we probably wouldn’t have the country we have today.

                • … is that the vast majority of ‘rediscovery’ of ancient works was due to Northern Europe’s re-aquainting themselves with the works in Spain, which was not a ‘crusade’ except in the propaganda sense.

                  <

                  p>

                  The fall of Toledo was more of a ‘nudge’ of Toledo.

                  <

                  p>

              • what i’ve said is that the world would be better if the church stopped systematically attacking people that don’t belong to it.  if they stop trying to keep me sub-human in the face of the law, i’ll be happy to ignore them to their hearts content.

                • or, at least my church, to attack anyone. We want you here, that is, in our corporate body. We will NEVER attack you, we will simply welcome you into who and what we are. If you struggle with that, we will help you understand the meaning, and we will never insist that you be anything you are not willing to be. You are welcome to sit in our pews forever, if that is what it takes for you.

                  <

                  p>Should you wish to go beyond the welcome to sit with us, we will gladly help you understand what that means. But even if you don’t, we would never attack you. You are a precious human being, Laurel, and making you less would insult the God Who created you.

                  <

                  p>Best,
                  Chuck

                • no wonder you don’t recognize santorum’s lies, you’re so full of them yourself.

                  <

                  p>are you celibate yet, chuck?

                • :-)> And, BTW, I meant everything I wrote in the post that obviously insensed you. It stands — if you don’t come in the door screaming YOUR prejudices at US before you know who we are.

            • Laurel, you said:
              “you might consider that it is pretty mild for me to call a man by his name when he refers to people like me, an entire class of human beings, as sinners, ill, responsible for the destruction of teh rainforests, works against our civil rights and our human rights, supports our imprisonment in african and other countries.  so joe, i think your outrage is a little misplaced, to put it mildly.”

              <

              p>I think the Pope probably has little tolerance for anything — or anyone — he considers in opposition to the teachings of scripture. Given that Benedict/Ratzinger is unusually outspoken, for a Pope, I would probably anticipate that he would be a little (make that a lot!) more vociferous than most of his predecessors on subjects about which he seems to be passionate.

              <

              p>As an activist, you raise, and staunchly (mild word, in your case!) support issues with which Benedict is likely to take umbrage, given that he is the Vicar of Christ. I suggest two things; first, that, with him, you go there at your own peril; and second, that you should not consider yourself a victim when he slaps you around about that on his turf.

              <

              p>Try to remember that the spiritual ruler of a billion people doesn’t have to be a gentleman on anyone’s terms, other than his own.

              <

              p>Best,
              Chuck

                • so understanding. And, BTW, I was speaking metaphorically, not literally, and generally, not specifically. The Pope did indeed “slap” Pelosi around, on his turf, when she went there at her peril.

                  <

                  p>Best,
                  Chuck

                • I’m still not accepting that you got it. Pelosi went with an agenda. Benedict cut her off at the knees, her staff’s attempts at spinning the visit notwithstanding. You can sweep that under YOUR rug, but not under mine . . .

                  <

                  p>Best,
                  Chuck

          • It’s certainly not as if I’ve been keeping track of clergy, but Joseph Ratzinger was a significant figure before assuming the papacy. Imagining we live in an alternative universe for a moment, it would be like President McCain changing his name to President Beneficence upon assuming office. We would sort of not want to forget his prior pre-Presidential history, but the name change would invite that.

            <

            p>I’m reminded of philosophical meditations on what the difference is among signifiers like “morning star”, “evening star”, and “Venus”.

            • And I’m not saying that we should forget what Benedict prior to his ascendancy to the Papacy, but neither should we hold that his name change is a break from his past.  It’s the tradition.  

  2. When a writer begins

    I commend to all of you, whether pro-life or pro-choice, Rick Santorum’s Article from the Philly Inquirer.

    I know just what to do!

    • is always good for a laugh, though.  I kinda miss him.   Senator SuperDuper Diaper Dave Vitter of Louisiana is my current fave when it comes to sex-obsessed conservative Republicans, but he’s not nearly as much fun (except for the Diaper Dave moniker).

      • regarding Darfur.  It’s sad that we don’t seem to have anyone in the Senate with the same zeal for intervening in the genocide there as he did.

        •  but if you choose to remember him that way, that’s your business.  I’ll remember him for his idiotic insulting statements suggesting gay and lesbian Americans are bestial.  His respect for human rights is laughable.  There’s a reason most will remember as Sen. Man-On-Dog and not for any efforts he might have made regarding Darfur.    

Archives