![o{]:)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Speaker Pelosi “thanks God” for tax-payer funded abortion language
About the new Senate Bill, from Lifesite:
[Pelosi said] the Senate bill "doesn’t have a public option, doesn’t expand Medicare for the (age) 55 to 64 group, and has abortion language that is completely different from the House – thank God."
God bless "Catholic" Speaker Pelosi, who invokes God in thanks for tax-payer funding of abortion.
Yes, but will God be thanking her come judgment day?
Comment by JosephMary — 17 December 2009 @ 7:29 pmCan someone just please excommunicate this woman?
Comment by thomas tucker — 17 December 2009 @ 7:40 pmAn entirely appropriate comment for the Theologian of the House to make (if you don’t remember, see this piece.
Sounds like an authoritative interpretation of the Magesterium.
(note: if I need to say it, a slight amount of sarcasm was embedded in the above)
Comment by markomalley — 17 December 2009 @ 7:42 pmAnother ex cathedra statement from Thelogian Barbie.
Comment by Sean P. Dailey — 17 December 2009 @ 7:46 pmShe is a national disgrace.
Comment by Stephen McMullen — 17 December 2009 @ 7:59 pmI’m sure she would argue it was mere “ceremonial deism”.
Comment by Rob Cartusciello — 17 December 2009 @ 8:14 pmWhy does her Archbishop not do anything?!? Why does the Church allow her to continue in this?!
Comment by Marius2k4 — 17 December 2009 @ 9:43 pmThere’s no public option now. I don’t think taxpayers will be paying for anything through taxes, except mandated insurance premia.
Comment by jamie r — 17 December 2009 @ 9:59 pmWhat does she mean it would expand medicare for a certain age range? Does that mean medicare would be more accessible/available/whatever? Wasn’t this whole fiasco initiated based on some people not being able to get health insurance? Am I getting her meaning backwards or was she actually an opponent of a health care bill for that purpose and just wants to get abortion in the bill since others are running it through anyway or should I make the assumption that she’s a hypocritical freak who says one thing to one person and another to the next?
Comment by The Cobbler — 17 December 2009 @ 10:09 pmSome say she has already excommunicated herself (latae sententiae) but a notorious public scandal needs to be dealt with a formal, public, excommunication. Maybe, just maybe, that would jolt her to her senses.
Comment by Tantum Ergo — 17 December 2009 @ 10:39 pmSome say she has already excommunicated herself (latae sententiae) . . .
Comment by Tantum Ergo
If that’s so, then she cannot go to Communion.
Comment by robtbrown — 17 December 2009 @ 11:26 pmIf she does and is not in the state of grace then she is commiting sacrilege. Which is a far greater sin than what she is doing in the public square. She is taking a sacrament and macking a mockery of it.
Comment by moon1234 — 18 December 2009 @ 1:14 amAm I the only one who heard thunder rumble in the distance when she said that?
Comment by Geoffrey — 18 December 2009 @ 1:25 amOh Pelosi, wrong and wrong again, assisting in killing the unborn and impoverishing the disabled!
As someone studying the Medicare system, the expanded Medicare coverage was greatly needed for the poor. The currently calculation functions in such a way that if a person on SSDI gets more expensive coverage that puts their monthly income under $1133, they then get no share of cost medicare. Have one dollar over that and they will receive $620 per month, with the rest going to cover their medical insurance. Currently the only way social workers have of fixing this is wasting more of the government’s money.
Comment by Melody — 18 December 2009 @ 3:41 amLord have mercy on Pelosi and on us all!
Comment by Kate — 18 December 2009 @ 6:09 amAnd we are told that there is no crisis in the Church, Really?
Comment by ssoldie — 18 December 2009 @ 7:19 am“Am I the only one who heard thunder rumble in the distance when she said that?”
I wouldn’t stand too close to her… she might have MORE than a one in a million (or whatever it is) chance of getting hit by lightning!
Comment by bookworm — 18 December 2009 @ 7:37 am“As someone studying the Medicare system, the expanded Medicare coverage was greatly needed for the poor.”
I’m curious, why not expand Medicaid instead? Perhaps we could expand the income bracket that it covers and increase the payment so that doctors don’t simply avoid Medicaid patients.
I don’t really understand the argument for using Medicare as a vehicle to help the poor. Medicare is a system that people who have paid sufficient amounts in Medicare taxes get to take advantage of. If we’re truly looking to help poor people, that seems like a very counter-intuitive criterion.
Comment by Discipulus Humilis — 18 December 2009 @ 8:04 amThe bishops’naive mollycoddling of Speaker Pelosi has been completely ineffective, just as their attempt to be supportive of President Obama’s healthcare reform. As drastic as this may sound, it’s time for the bishops to realize that the current American government is NOT a friend to the Church.
Comment by TNCath — 18 December 2009 @ 8:17 amIt makes perfect sense if you understand that by “God”, she’s actually referring to Molech.
Comment by Chris M — 18 December 2009 @ 8:32 amYes, her god, who is the father of lies.
Comment by Fr. Marie-Paul — 18 December 2009 @ 8:41 amWhat dose “doesn’t expand Medicare for the (age) 55 to 64 group” mean, that if you are 56 you are cut off any medicare?
Comment by AnnaTrad51 — 18 December 2009 @ 8:56 amGod gives us what we need, the Devil gives us what we want.
Comment by Kimberly — 18 December 2009 @ 8:59 amShe was called on the carpet, so to speak, by the Holy Father. Nothing has changed. Just mho, but she more than any other Catholic politician is in need of a good public reprimand. If her bishop won’t do it, perhaps HE needs to be summoned to Rome to explain why.
Comment by Girgadis — 18 December 2009 @ 9:19 amWait a second. They’ve been saying over and over that none of these bills will cause abortion to be funded, that pro-lifers are up in arms about nothing, and that that’s just being used as an excuse by ultra-conservatives to block all progress on health care. No amendments to block abortion funding were supposed to be necessary, because it wasn’t in there, and we were just being reactionary ninnies. Right?
So if the House bill explicitly prevents abortion funding (although I think that’s a very optimistic view of the Stupak Amendment), and this one has very different abortion language, doesn’t that by definition mean it does allow a certain amount of abortion funding? It proves not only that they were lying and misrepresenting the views of the opposition all along, but that they know that.
Comment by Aaron — 18 December 2009 @ 9:54 amCould someone explain to me what is accomplished by this idea that someone such as Pelosi has excommunicated herself by her actions? Most anyone who is into a seriously sinful condition is going to be blind to that fact. Rationalization kicks in, and there is simply no tangible sense in the person that they are doing anything wrong.
These “Catholic” politicians are never going to see their own errors if our Bishops continue to leave them to their own devices. It’s probably that I don’t understand the concept of excommunicating ones’ self, but it seems pretty meaningless to me because the person who has done this to himself will be the last one on earth to every acknowledge the fact.
What the faithful Catholics in this country and the world need to see is a strong response from our Bishops such as public excommunication of pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians. Doesn’t a public scandal demand a public response?
Comment by Jaybirdnbham — 18 December 2009 @ 10:00 amAs Chris noted above she is obviously not thanking God but rather some other god, perhaps her personal demon who has given her riches and power in this life – so the word should not be capitalized.
Comment by Michaelus — 18 December 2009 @ 10:19 amThank goodness I don’t have TV now-I would hit the mute button whenever she opens her mouth!
Yes-why isn’t she excommunicated? AND the other so-called ‘catholics’ that are in Congress?
Arrgh…Lord have mercy on us!
Comment by irishgirl — 18 December 2009 @ 10:31 amNothing happens unless God permits it. This includes people like Ms. Pelosi and the other pro-abort Catholic politicians.
Think about it. Because of Pelosi’s hard-heartedness (and the hard-heartedness of some others), we have had an extended, highly public debate about abortion. The tide has turned against the pro-aborts, and public opinion on the matter is clear—the majority of the American people are against abortion. This is beyond being plausibly deniable. Planned Parenthood is failing. Catholics and others of faith who have been silent for years are speaking up and being heard. Gay “marriage” and euthanasia will be next.
It might be a bit too early to celebrate, but can you not see the connection between all those (nominal) Catholics who went to the wrong side, and the groundswell that is coming to sweep them away. Yes, we can expect pushback, maybe even violence and repression, but nobody ever said life would be easy.
I hope that God will allow Ms. Pelosi and the others to experience a conversion of heart, and I also say, thank God for this opportunity.
Comment by Bill in Texas — 18 December 2009 @ 12:07 pmWhy, why, why is she and other Catholics who support abortion not excommunicated publically?
Comment by Supertradmom — 18 December 2009 @ 12:09 pmWhy are pro-aborts not excommunicated publicly?
1. Maybe their bishops do not want to risk the retaliation of Planned Parenthood, the government
and the liberal nd feminist parishioners. What if the donations dry up or they get taxed?
Comment by rakesvines — 18 December 2009 @ 1:12 pm2. Who knows if the bishops are blackmailed to keep silent? There might be skeletons in the sacristy.
3. Perhaps the bishops are closet supporters of a woman’s right to choose.
4. Or the bishop is no longer zealous and is just waiting to retire comfortably.
How long will the bishops allow this public scandal to continue? Once again Pelosi spoke for the bishops…
Hello??? didn’t the Bishops help force the Stupak amendment in your presence? Someone call the exorcist please.
Comment by John 6:54 — 18 December 2009 @ 1:44 pmSupertradmom and Rakesvines: Good points regarding “Why are pro-aborts not excommunicated publicly?”
One other thing to consider—the pro-abortion Catholic politicians are laymen and laywomen. Who instructed them? For at least a couple of decades, a number of priest theologians and (if the stories are true) even bishops abetted the intellectual development of the “choice” political position.
When excommunicated, I understand that one may be entitled to defend themselves in tribunals or other canon law bodies. Wouldn’t the smart layman or laywoman’s defense be that they were instructed in this position by priests and prelates who are still in good standing with the Church?
If it meant that a bishop would have to take action against (often elderly at this point) priests or discredit the leadership of one of your predecessors, wouldn’t it be difficult not to think twice about publicly taking on one of these politicians? How much moral courage would it take to do what (in the opinion of most of us here on this blog) is the right thing in these cases?
I guess the point is that from my easy chair I can wonder about why they aren’t excommunicated, but the situation facing a bishop might be more complicated and of higher stakes than I can understand with the information I have in my position.
Does that mean that our bishops shouldn’t take action? Of course not, but it might do a bit more to explain why it’s not currently occuring.
In Christ,
Comment by Nathan — 18 December 2009 @ 1:53 pmGee-za-whizz! Aren’t we fortunate to have Nancy to explain the Church’s teachings to us??
Side note: We are expecting a big snowfall in the East, 10-20”. Perhaps this is Our Lord and Our Blessed Mother’s way of sending home all the Senator’s, etc., in DC, delaying a vote on this awful Health Care Bill until at least after the holidays? Prayers please.
Comment by wanda — 18 December 2009 @ 3:05 pmWhen oh when if ever is this CINO going to be dealt with by her Ordinary in a public manner so as to offset the public scandal she consistently causes?
Comment by EXCHIEF — 18 December 2009 @ 3:14 pmWell, isn’t this just consistent with the “culture of death” in its need for and promotion of the “sacrament” of abortion (as the late Fr. John Hardon, SJ called it)?
Comment by nazareth priest — 18 December 2009 @ 3:26 pmMaybe it’s the god of the Aztecs she is referring to that demanded human sacrifice; that culture of death that Our Lady of Guadalupe conquered…don’t ask me to spell that awful name…I think you know what I’m talking about!
I don’t believe Hardon ever associated abortion with a sacrament. You will have to come up with a reference for that. That is just too bizarre even for a Jesuit.
Comment by rakesvines — 18 December 2009 @ 3:50 pmrakesvines: If I am wrong, I stand corrected.
Comment by nazareth priest — 18 December 2009 @ 4:42 pmI believe he was making an analogy; the ‘culture of death’ made abortion a ‘sacrament’ in the inverse, and diabolic way, that the ‘culture of life’ made all human life sacred. It was merely a way to make a point; not in any way an equivocation. Like I said before, if I have misstated Fr. Hardon in any way, I stand corrected.
As much as I’d like to see these people excommunicated, I don’t think that’s the most important thing that needs to happen. Most people, including many Catholics, don’t understand excommunication anyway, and it would be portrayed incorrectly by the press as Church meddling in politics. (Not that the Church shouldn’t do that, but that would be the story, and it’d be a distraction.)
But the bishops need to come out and clearly state Church teaching when prominent Catholics contradict it, especially when they put words in the bishops’ mouths. There should be a letter from the bishop in every bulletin in Pelosi’s district this Sunday, making it clear that she’s misstating the Church’s position on abortion, and reinforcing what that position is. Her bishop should be on TV this weekend, countering the specifics of what she’s shoveling. When people hear something enough times from a variety of media sources, they come to believe it. The pro-abortion side has used that fact extremely well for the past few decades, and it’s about time they stopped having such an easy time of it.
As someone said earlier, this has become a teaching opportunity. More people than ever are listening, waiting for the Church to speak with a clear voice.
Comment by Aaron — 18 December 2009 @ 7:29 pmDiscipulus Humilis
Comment by Melody — 19 December 2009 @ 5:24 amFirstly Medicaid is a system of state programs rather than Federal, and is usually a kind of supplemental insurance to Medicare.
SSDI is a welfare program for those who have at least 40 work credits with Social Security, so they have paid into it. For those with disabling medical conditions, help with medical bills is often exactly what they need to get back on the road to self-sufficiency, and there are several incentives designed to benefit disabled people who work. Many newly disabled need this kind of help because they can no longer do the same work and have to learn another trade.
Others are people close to retirement who are hit with a disabling illness, which is why the age 55 to 64 expansion is greatly needed. Imagine if something serious happens to you at age 63 and you can no longer work. Wouldn’t you be thankful for this program?
rakesvines, nazareth priest,
I’d guess this is the Hardon article to which you refer. He calls abortion a pagan sacrifice, and says “As believing Catholics, we know that behind the murder of unborn children is the superhuman mind and malevolent will of Satan and his minions.”
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Abortion_Euthanasia/Abortion_Euthanasia_005.htm
Comment by Frank H — 19 December 2009 @ 7:03 amIn reply did Miss America hear “To me…? You talkin’ to me?”
Comment by Kerry — 19 December 2009 @ 10:31 amApparently the pro-aborts managed to buy Sen. Nelson.
Now we are in it. Work very hard to get your individual states to opt out of private insurance coverage for abortions.
And we need to work harder than ever to help women make the choice for life.
Comment by Bill in Texas — 19 December 2009 @ 1:27 pmI can just hear Pelosi saying this right now:
“Thank God that we have subdued Sen. Nelson and his pro-life allies in the Senate!”
Come on, people. Seriously? This is breaking the 2nd Commandment to the extreme! (And this would be the time when I would get mad and have my head explode, but I don’t want to get there. :-D)
Comment by J-T Delacroix — 19 December 2009 @ 4:04 pm