Erie, Pa., Aug 15, 2018 / 04:59 pm (CNA).- Bishop Donald Trautman responded Tuesday to the Pennsylvania grand jury report on allegations of clerical sex abuse of minors, saying he did not condone or enable such abuse during his tenure leading the Diocese of Erie.
Abuse victims “should understand that neither this Statement nor my Response to the grand jury Report is intended to diminish the horrible abuse inflicted upon them and the immense suffering they have endured. I desire only to clarify that I neither condoned nor enabled clergy abuse. Rather, I did just the opposite,” Bishop Trautman said in his Aug. 14 statement.
A redacted version of the report had been released earlier that day, following an 18-month investigation into thousands of alleged instances of abuse spanning several decades. The report detailed allegations made in the dioceses of Allentown, Erie, Greensburg, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, and Scranton.
Trautman was Bishop of Erie from 1990 until his 2012 retirement, at the age of 76.
The grand jury report’s section on the Diocese of Erie recounted priests’ sexual contact with minors, and said that “Diocesan administrators, including the Bishops, had knowledge of this conduct and yet priests were regularly placed in ministry after the Diocese was on notice that a complaint of child sexual abuse had been made. This conduct enabled offenders and endangered the welfare of children.”
The report also said the Erie diocese made settlements with victims which contained confidentiality agreements, and that diocesan administrators, including bishops, “often dissuaded victims from reporting abuse to police, pressured law enforcement to terminate or avoid an investigation, or conducted their own deficient, biased investigating without reporting crimes against children to the proper authorities.”
It identified 41 offenders from the diocese, and gave lengthy accounts of what it called three “examples of institutional failure”: the cases of Fathers Chester Gawronski, William Presley, and Thomas Smith.
Bishop Trautman’s statement indicated his “prayerful support to all victims of clergy sexual abuse” and “a sincere apology to all who have been harmed by clergy abuse.”
“My time spent as Bishop of the Diocese addressing sexual abuse has been the most demoralizing, trying and pain-filled experience of my priestly life. I have seen first-hand how the terrible acts of clergy abusers devastate the lives of innocent victims,” he said.
He commended the grand jury’s efforts to help abuse victims, saying its report “rightfully chastises clergy who committed horrible crimes against children. Unfortunately, the grand jury Report neglects to also emphasize the concrete steps some Church leaders took to correct and curtail abuse and to help victims.”
The bishop said that his record “includes disciplining, defrocking and ultimately laicizing pedophiles in the Diocese.”
He added that it “also includes efforts to provide care and support for victims,” which statement he supported with appended letters from victims expressing gratitude for his pastoral care.
“As a pastor of souls, I shepherd the good – the innocent victims of abuse – as well as the bad, the abusers who undeniably engaged in despicable acts and were rightfully removed from ministry,” Bishop Trautman wrote.
Noting the report’s lengthy discussions of three priests whose situations it called “examples of institutional failures”, the bishop emphasized “that I removed each of them from ministry and had each laicized. All of their improper conduct with children pre-dated me becoming Bishop of Erie.”
He maintained his faithful fulfillment of the Charter for the Protection of Childen and Young People, adopted by the US bishops in 2002, and his faithful fulfillment of all Pennsylvania laws on sex abuse.
“From the day I took office as Bishop of the Diocese of Erie, I did my best to correct the sin of sex abuse,” Bishop Trautman said. “I personally met with and counseled abuse victims. I removed sixteen offenders from active ministry … As early as 1993, I established new guidelines concerning clergy abuse.”
He also recounted the several measures he took from 2002 onwards regarding clerical abuse.
“These are not the actions of a Bishop trying to hide or mask pedophile priests to the detriment of children or victims of abuse,” he wrote. “I did not move priests from parish to parish to cover up abuse allegations or fail to take action when an allegation was raised … There simply is no pattern or practice of putting the Church’s image or a priest’s reputation above the protection of children.”
Bishop Trautman said that the report “does not fully or accurately discuss my record as Bishop for twenty-two years in dealing with clergy abuse. While unfortunate, these omissions are consistent with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s findings that the grand jury process that produced the Report suffered from ‘limitations upon its truth-finding capabilities’ and lacked ‘fundamental fairness.’”
The bishop concluded that “In the end, the focus should be on the victims and helping them heal. I send my prayers and deepest support to all victims of abuse, not just those abused by clergy, but victims of abuse across all segments of our society. Hopefully, the grand jury Report, despite its flaws, aids in the healing of all victims and furthers the just cause of stamping out abuse. Let God’s law prevail; let healing continue.”
Attached to Bishop Trautman’s 923-word statement were his June 20 response to the report, with several appended exhibitory documents, and an Aug. 2 joint stipulation to dismiss appeal, from the bishop and from state attorney general Josh Shapiro, in which the attorney general agreed that several statements in the report are “not specifically directed at Bishop Trautman.”
The bishop’s 15-page response to the report focused on his desire “to clarify, contrary to the tenor of the Report, that he neither condoned nor enabled clergy abuse.”
The response noted that “While the Grand Jury adopted and issued the Report, under typical grand jury practices, the language of the Report was drafted by the [Office of the Attorney General] not the Grand Jury.”
It mentions that the report made no mention of letters sent to Bishop Trautman by abuse victims expressing appreciation for his pastoral care (which letters were provided to the grand jury), and that written testimony submitted by Bishops Trautman and Persico, his successor, “is not substantively discussed in the Report, let alone included in it in full.”
“What these examples demonstrate is that the OAG, via the Grand Jury, with an agenda, has selectively chosen the words in the Report, what words to include in the Report, and how to portray those words in a manner – often a misleading one – that best suits their agenda.”
The response also noted that Bishop Trautman met personally, or attempted to do so, with each abuse victim. And, “when victims would permit him, he personally provided pastoral counselling for the victims’ well-being. He also helped ensure that victims had appropriate mental health treatment paid for by the Diocese.”
“Certainly, with hindsight, some isolated decisions made by Bishop Trautman concerning certain priests … might be subject to critique. But, what is clear from his overall conduct – and complete actual record – is that he cared deeply about the victims of abuse, did his best to help the victims both pastorally and financially, did not condone the horrific conduct of priests who abused minors, and consistently took action to remove abusers from active ministry.”
Since the report detailed the cases of Fathers Chester Gawronski, William Presley, and Thomas Smith, Bishop Trautman’s response addressed these at length.
The response explained that “New allegations against priests made while Bishop Trautman was in office resulted in the priest being taken out of active ministry.”
The exceptions to this rule were priests who “had been sent for a psychological evaluation” under Bishop Murphy, Trautman’s predecessor.
Each of these – including Gawronski, Presley, and Smith – were “already on a monitoring/aftercare program that had been recommended by psychiatric professionals. While in hindsight he might now act differently, given the recommendations and plans made before Bishop Trautman came to the Diocese from Buffalo and out of deference to Bishop Murphy, Bishop Trautman continued the monitoring/aftercare plans and assignments recommended by the professionals and put in place by his predecessor.”
And according to the response, “In several instances, even though mental health professionals advised that a priest could be returned to ministry, Bishop Trautman kept the priest out of public ministry.”
The response also noted that neither Gawronski, nor Presley, nor Smith “is known to have reoffended. During the time period each of these priests remained in active ministry after initial allegations were made, no allegation that they offended while in such ministry was or has been made.”
“When allegations of prior (usually decades old) abuse by each priest were raised while Bishop Trautman was in office, he acted to take each priest out of any ministry that would include contact with children and ultimately took each out of ministry all together,” the response stated.
Each of the three priests were dismissed from the clerical state in processes which were initiated by Bishop Trautman.
The bishop’s response included examples of potentially misleading writing in the grand jury report, authored by the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office.
For instance, it noted the report’s mention that Bishop Trautman allowed Fr. Gawronski to hear confessions for persons with disabilities in 1996.
The report stated: “By 1996, there was no possible doubt that Gawronski had spent most of his priesthood preying on the vulnerable. However, even as complaints continued, on November 6, 1996, Gawronski was notified that Trautman had approved his request to hear confessions for persons with disabilities.”
“What the Report does not include,” the response states, “is that this was a one-time event, with multiple priests and church personnel participating, that the event would take place at the St. Mark’s Center (the building where the Diocesan offices, including the Bishop’s office, are located), and that Gawronski’s participation was at the request of a religious sister who served as Coordinator for the Ministry to Persons with Disabilities. Why not disclose the full facts about the request? Does the request lose its sensational nature when put in actual context?”
The response also pointed to potentially misleading statements in the report regarding Fr. Presley.
The report mentioned an April 2003 press release from the Erie diocese regarding the removal of Fr. Presley’s faculties, in which the diocese stated it had “no information to provide on other possible allegations against the priest.” The report called the press release “false and misleading.”
The response noted that the press release quoted in the report, while “inartful … is simply a statement of ‘no comment.’ Contrary to the allegation in the Report, this was not a false statement.”
The response also addressed the report’s presentation of a 2005 diocesan investigation undertaken with a view to having Fr. Presley, who had retired in 2000, dismissed from the clerical state.
The investigation was led by Msgr. Mark Bartchak, who wrote to Bishop Trautman Aug. 25 of that year indicating he had gathered sufficient evidence for Presley’s dismissal, and asking if he should continue to follow up on further potential leads. Bartchak indicated that Trautman said that would be unnecessary.
The report called this a “curb” of the diocese’s investigation intented “to prevent finding additional victims.”
“When read in context,” the response says, “Bishop Trautman is simply answering an inquiry from Rev. Bartchak and, using the same words from the inquiry, telling him that, if the Diocese had enough evidence to succeed in the laicization process (which they did), he need not further investigate facts that likely would not lead to a violation of Cannon law [sic] because of the age of the victim. Again, this simply is not an effort to somehow hide Presley and his conduct.”
The report also read that with regard to Presley, “The truth was that Murphy, Trautman, and the Diocese of Erie intentionally waited out the statute of limitations and curbed their own investigation to prevent finding additional victims.”
The response called the allegation that Bishop Trautman had “intentionally waited out” the statute of limitations “baseless.”
“The allegations brought to Bishop Trautman’s attention in 2002 – on which he quickly acted – concerned conduct that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. The statute of limitations had, unfortunately, expired long ago,” the response said.
“Despite their artful (and sometimes misleading) construction, a close reading of the summaries found in the Report’s Appendix reveals the same course of action throughout Bishop Trautman’s 22 years in office,” the response concluded: “Bishop Trautman consistently acted to protect children and remove priests from ministry.”
[…]
Speaker Pelosi and Abp. Cordileone had a disagreement about who should decide this [family size and timing]? Really? That’s what she heard?
Funny. I’ve been impressed by the cardinal’s unfailing articulateness.
I agree that his articulateness has been outstanding, but his actions have been, to date, non-existent. For every Catholic who sees his remarks, ten, twenty, or one hundred will see “Catholic” Pelosi’s remarks. The Catholic Church will not “turn around” until our actions mirror our words.
I would guess that virtually every active Catholic knows someone who thinks they are a good Catholic, but who doesn’t follow Church teachings.
Speaker Pelosi’s remarks are rationalizations; she is a Catholic in name only and not practice. God will judge and I ask her to go back and study the 10 Commandments and the Bible.Dr.Maxine Turek
Nancy Pelosi is not a Catholic. She has other attitudes or free will choices that are in error with the fasith. She uses the mantle of of “Catholic” as dressing for being a good person. I am stopping here because I also am a sinner. I dread have Jesus as my judge but rejoice having Him as my savior. Mrs. Pelosi should consider these words.
Yes, God gave us free will to choose Heaven or Hell. Nancy has chosen the latter.
I note Erik Rosales’ frequent challenging questions in his capacity as EWTN’s Capitol Hill correspondent.
“…vigilantes and bounty hunters…” Silly me, I thought the Aztec Pelosi was referring to the well-paid Abortion Industry and other such head hunters.
God gave us a will to choose His good because His good leads to our eternal happiness. His sixth commandment was, is, and always shall be: “Thou shalt not kill.”
To enact laws, to proclaim a ‘right’ or a ‘freedom’ to kill, to require others to remotely participate all act against the sixth commandment. Killing a human being is a mortal sin. This life gives but a foreshadowed glance at eternity.
Jesus Christ will call Nancy to her reckoning whether she wills it or no. One prays that a spark of the Holy Spirit may inspire her intellect to glimpse the depravity underneath make-up and mask. A heart and soul at odds with God’s commandment count for more than make-up and a dress.
Always heartening reading your posts
Thank you to Gilberta for correcting my math! The FIFth commandment is “Thou Shalt Not Kill.”
Meiron, unless I’ve been misled, I believe it’s #5 you’re referring to.
Thank you, Gilberta. Good catch.👍
I have long suspected that abortion is the (I hate to use the word) “sacrament” of the liberals. I believe child sacrifice is what the devil demands to keep the liberals in power. Every single time the pro-life movement achieves any small amount of success, the liberals fight like those possessed to take that victory away from them. Child sacrifice must be protected at all costs!
Well, when a person hovers on either side of 80, she or he ought to consider that payment will soon be due. They have had their run, and Moloch will soon require payment for giving them a life of power, wealth, and prestige.
In 1998, Ginette Paris, PhD, who is a Jungian, published a book titled The Sacrament of Abortion that is a defense of, even homage to, abortion as a sort of pagan sacrifice.
Yes, a pagan sacrifice. Abortion is sometimes presented to young girls in trouble as a Rite of Initiation into “modernity.”
Of the same mentality as the late 1960s Red Guard Movement in China, which fully initiate a new generation activists into Communism, replicating the initiatory and costly Long March of 1934-35 into central China (of 100,000, less than ten percent survived), which galvanized the leadership role of Chairman Mao Zedong. Or, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge initiation of a Communist order in Cambodia in 1975-79 (two million victims, one fourth of the population). Or any smaller street-gang initiations in our cities.
And now, slow motion throughout the declining West (over 60 million in the United States since 1973). Spearheaded by Aztec Pelosi’s defense of late-term-abortions as “sacred ground” (June 2013). Once initiated with blood on one’s hands, there can be no “turning back”.
Wait, what? There CAN always be Redemption. Someone wrote a book about that, too.
Redemption even for the West as a whole, and for the whole world, and for the whole soul of each of us. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Mt 28:19).
A question for the successors of the Apostles: “synodality, yes, and what else”?
Thanks for that information, Carl. I am going to check into that.
Might be of interest: Carl Jung was a free mason and suffered as a child from abuse wherein his personality was split into multiples. The evidence cited for this is his posthumously published “Red book”. Red is the colour the Free Masons use to paint their Abuse Rooms under their lodges/temples according to the book by Alexandre Lebreton in French. The takeaway: “Psychology” was a Free Masonic psuedo-science founded to help the Rulers of the Novos Ordo study and learn how to more effectively abuse kids and keep their victims silent. A further piece of the Novos Ordo falls into place…? The book, is called “Franc-maçonnerie et schizophrénie.” ISBN: 9781913890049. It is not a source of feelgood joy in the beauty of creation, but an executive summary and tool for those trying to understand why the Sankt Gallen Mafia seek to destroy God’s Divinely Founded Institution well into their old age with no apparent fear of damnation… One has to conclude they are seriously sick. Why C9 Bergoglio? Nineth Inner circle?? A 5-Star Amazon rateed book has been published on one of Bergoglio’s remaining C6 Cardinals, with a foreword by Archbishop Vigano:
https://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Betrayals-against-corruption-Francis/dp/1735267104/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=sacred+betrayals&qid=1632601124&s=books&sr=1-1
Very sad to see an old person, not long for this earth, clinging to their evil ways despite knowing they will have to answer to God very soon. I would be terrified rethink the errors of my life (as I did when I had Covid this year) instead of arrogant and defiant.
sorry but covid went a long time ago. these so called “covid tests” cant even tell the difference between covid and the flu. now it’s all just fear mongering scare tactics by the governemnt. Hitler did it with gas chambers and now the government is doing it with masks. the masks are useless and are causing more suffering and deaths. the government knows this yet does nothing but making history repeat itself from the Spanish flu to the SARS epidemic. they knew then that masks did nothing but make more people suffer and die and unfortunately people are following like blind sheep to a cliff.
🙏
I beelieve it is obvious. The natural inclination would to be worried about your soul at this late a stage. Apparently we do not have a Catholic here we either are dealing with angent of the evil one or she incorrectly beleives in predestination. She is not Catholic. Neither is the group of “Catholics” supporting her position.
Né a. Pelosi, you are NOT a Catholicin case you think otherwise!
Won’t she be surprised when she has her immediate judgement before Jesus! Will she give Him the same response as the Archbishop? Time for the Church to take a DEFINITIVE stand deny Holy Communion to her and all the phony catholic pro-aborts. But that won’t happen since the USCCB is so divided amongst itself.
Excellent comment, Monsignor, excellent comment! What is the USCCB for if not to support and defend the doctrines of the Church? The USCCB is a worthless organization for the defense of Church doctrine. Worthless!
…sorry. IMHO whether the USCCB is divided or not is immaterial. It is bought and paid for by the DNC and has been reduced to performing as the Ministry of Social Justice for the same.
This individual is chaos and lies. Simply demonic. She makes herself a sacrilege.
Why does the Church continue to allow those professing to be Catholic, who clearly defy the moral teachings of the Church, to remain in good standing with the Church? This continues to send a message to the world that we really don’t believe what we teach because we fail to defend it, and that the Church is whatever you want it to be.
Agree with you, Todd, about the Church’s duty to deal properly with quisling Catholics like Pelosi. Unfortunately we have the opposite tact taken by Pope Francis, who says that abortion is murder but at the same time offers effusive praise to politicians who actively promote it, like the President of Ireland.
Pelosi is truly flirting with the area of the afterlife where an ice cream cone won’t keep.
Ma Pelosi will have a Special boat waiting for her at the River Styx. Charon and his 1st Mate Blackmun on the tiller.Will smilingly pipe her aboard for the trip across.
When I read Pelosi’s comments of this sort, I wonder what she will say standing before God on Judgement Day. It’s not Pro-Choice she advocates but Pro-Death. We Pro-Lifers should start calling it what it is! Pro-Choice is having the child and raising it, or having it and giving it up for adoption. But that’s too “inconvenient” for people like Pelosi. How did a very straightforward concept get so convoluted? How did we, as a society come to be where we are on this issue? It seems so clear to me the right thing for a women and man to do in such a situation. The right thing when one is talking “life”. Holy Mother, pray for us.
God wills all of us to choose the good; however, He does not force us to do so. Nancy Pelosi is correct. God has given all of us free will to choose the good or the evil. What she is missing is that the choice for evil has dire consequences in eternity. Abortion is the worst evil this country has ever legalized. In writing that sentence, I started to think about our laws, which all, with one exception, protect life. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness should never come at the expense of the life of another. Pelosi jeopardizes her eternal life in supporting the murders of the unborn.
This pathetic woman needs our prayers.
Ours is not to judge her – that will be soon enough.
Ours is not to judge her – (sic)
Our is to judge her behavior, just as Christ exhorted.
“And why even of yourselves, do you not judge that which is just?” Jesus Christ, Luke 12:57
I repeat – Ours is not to judge her – that will be soon enough. She needs our prayers.
Just now the US House passed its bill to enshrine the right to abortion in law. The Senate must pass the bill; Joe Manchin is said to be a pro-life Catholic….
All this does not bode well for this nation in the sight of God. No longer is it a majority of justices on the Supreme Court. Now the majority party in Congress has perfectly soiled their souls and stained our nation’s ground with the blood of holy innocents.
If it’s ‘none of our business’ in regard to others then the truth of life is merely a subjective construct and not an objective truth even in the Catholic Church. Is it not applicable to everyone and not just Catholics?
To construct, fund, and promote abortion is ‘making it your business’.
There is no ‘constitutional’ right to abortion but only, once again, judicial fiat and Pelosi knows it. To hide behind the vicious euphemism of ‘reproductive healthcare’ and claim ‘reason’ is the height of pride in the service of infernal, willful ignorance.
And the final straw is to pretend her ‘differences’ with Cordileone has to do with ‘family size’ and not the deliberate destruction of a human life.
Will that arrogance serve her standing before God?
Will it, Archbishop Cordileone?
@SpeakerPelosi is now an elderly woman. I hope she realises that power and notoriety will not save her soul. Pray she starts to do the right thing. We are all running out of time.
Yes he gave you free will and you chose to violate it by saying it is OK to kill a human being. Would love to be there when you explain to God when you die and justify your stand. Good Luck
Speaker Pelosi is of that breed that is perhaps best characterized as “autonomous.” The autonomous spirit does not need to consult anyone else or any institution in order to arrive at how the truth of things stands.
For this person the Church, Christ’s Body, is not in any sense an extension of Christ. It is merely an entity, which sometimes seems an obstacle, that nevertheless can be dismissed or ignored out of hand. The autonomous spirit is always free and is always right.
The corollary is that anyone who disagrees with this person is invariably wrong. This includes priests, bishops, archbishops, the Pope, as well as other lay Catholics who try humbly first to know and then to follow, that is, practice, what Holy Mother Church in Her wisdom teaches. That very idea would likely be novel to Speaker Pelosi, and if she even considered it seriously for three seconds would probably find it both silly and objectionable.
Is Speaker Pelosi beyond help or hope? Is hers a case of “invincible ignorance? I cannot say one way or the other. But we all can say, “Pray for us sinners, now and at the our of our death.” In that regard, she is one of us.
Speaker Pelosi is NOT beyond help or hope. She is nearing that point when she will answer for the damage she has done in her life, and she needs our prayers so that she will be granted the grace of contrition BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.
Pelosi’s five children were a blessing, and it is commendable that she views her cooperation in creation as such. Yet, to paraphrase Obama, “She did not build that.” Neither does any woman have a right by natural law and Divine Authority to misuse her body to co create life outside of Holy Matrimony. Shame on Pelosi and those in worldly power to distort what should be a joyous privilege to gift back one’s body and welcome God in procreation.
As for free will–it comes with a cost when abused and squandered for evil. Pelosi’s intellect is warped; her conscience in darkness; and her exercise of will ruled by passion and unbridled temporal power. She has made herself a god.
Glad for the day of fasting and prayer and will be hoping for illumination of souls!
“…It is none of our business how other people choose the size & timing of their families.”
Hmh.
So then, by that logic, why is everyone so upset over the death of Gabby Petito? It’s none of our business if a man wants to limit the size of his family.
Steve K. above – I agree that, unfortunately, for every one who hears Abp. Cordileone, ten, twenty or a hundred will hear Speaker Pelosi. The MSM certainly won’t hear Cordileone except as the spokesman for the supposedly unenlightened, conservative American bishops. Nevertheless, I have hope that Cordileone’s thoughtful, clear and patient teaching will resonate with some of his readers, Catholic or not.
Day of wrath, that dreadful day, shall heaven and earth in ashes lay, as David and the Sybil say.
What horror must invade the mind when the approaching Judge shall find and sift the deeds of all mankind!
The mighty trumpet’s wondrous tone shall rend each tomb’s sepulchral stone and summon all before the Throne.
Now death and nature with surprise behold the trembling sinners rise to meet the Judge’s searching eyes.
Then shall with universal dread the Book of Consciences be read to judge the lives of all the dead.
For now before the Judge severe all hidden things must plain appear; no crime can pass unpunished here.
Oh, what shall I, so guilty, plead? And who for me will intercede when even Saints shall comfort need?
The judgment of those who vote in favor of abortion, most particularly the Catholics, will be horrible beyond anything we can imagine this side of eternity. Pray, pray for them. Blindness beyond comprehension.
Where Nancy Pelosi refers to reproductive healthcare, she is close to getting to the point, although she misses the mark. Georgetown University’s Institute for Reproductive Health, in cooperation with Cycle Technologies, has provided the research and tools for naturally preventing pregnancy. Thus, there is neither need, nor justification, for an abortion. It is, rather, a problem of educating clerics and politicians concerning these effective choices. There is the TwoDay Method of birth control, and the Standard Days Method — CycleBeads approach. These are featured at the Cycle Technology section on Youtube. Rather than debate ethics — which won’t change a politician’s mind — I suggest that Catholics focus on learning about these natural birth control methods, and then teaching as many people as possible regarding how to use them. These are effective, and totally destroy any woman’s justification for carelessly getting pregnant and feeling the need for an abortion. We are not here to condemn. We are here to bring to people the light of the Gospel, and to save endangered souls from a deep state of purgatory.
David,
You are very correct. Many of these cases are a metter of temperance on the part of both men and women. They are a matter of peer pressure, a matter of mistaken imporession of the needs to pleae, of the crime of eithanasia of the imperfect.
The problem here evidently is the messengers. Opponenets of choice loudly proclaimed control of a womans body, right to choose and now the Speaker of the House is proclaiming family size. It sounds like they are gewtting desperaate and are reaching for thin excuses.
Pelosi is a Catholic in name only. But then, so is the Pope. So she has his full support. That is where we are. I know 10 theologians who will tell you this is impossible. But they are wrong. It is delusional to believe otherwise.
Nancy Pelosi and company somehow manage to link the killing of late-term fetuses with “love-making.” I don’t see it that way. So, what is “right” Nancy?
Talk talk talk!! That is all one hears from the archdiocese of San Francisco. When is this man going to grow a spine and excommunicate the Speaker?
Ragging on pathetic Pelosi is an utter waste of time. Accusing our bishops of negligence is not much better. They know if they speak out forcefully and actually ACT for once, they will be slapped down by Pope Francis. She knows it as well. Bad news but true.
There is NO way that this woman can be so ignorant that she actually believes what she is saying on this subject – it has been pointed out to her innumerable times.
Why hasn’t this ghoul been ex-communicated?
An indisputable fact: abortion has been with womankind since antiquity, and probably also since prehistoric times of hominids, Neantherthals, and Cro-Magnons. The Latin Church has never managed, most likely never will be able, to end the female practice of aborting, for it is, above all, an act subject not only to economic factors but also to those of the unique experience, that of any pregnant woman, her wants, needs, culture, and intimate personal understanding, her sense of morality tested, and her cordial state of being in counterpoint with her existential crisis, in brief, her personal life at a momentous decision. If a woman decides to abort, condemning her decision, attempting to prohibit her from aborting, marshalling the law to do so would be on her an imposition, particularly in our post-Christian, secular age, and in a country such as the US where there is no religious consensus, therefore no enforceable law on any matter of religion beyond allowing citizens to practice their faith so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. One thing for sure, Roman Catholicism, coming down with doctrinal taboos misses the point and probably ends up being more impersonal, more distant, more irrelevant, more alien, indeed, more an intrusive, domineering hateful entity than it already is to many a woman, whatever her confessional persuasion, or lack thereof, pondering abortion or having in one incurred.
All possible compassionate succor and material aid to any woman who considers abortion, or aborts, the Church and State should offer and leave it at that, hands off, respecting the individual’s base freedom to live her life as she discovers or wills it to be, so long as she respects the rights of others. If any pope, prelate, priest, monk, nun, or politician be willing and able to die in the place of any woman who aborts, then maybe said individual -pope, prelate, priest, monk, nun, or politician- may have the right to dictate her life, indeed, to live It. Otherwise, when abortion is at play as a concrete possibility for a woman, it is not the time to marshall Christian ideological rhetoric and butt in, seeking to moderate behaviour, and poach the woman’s soul in distress.
MOIRAO, the point you are missing is, a life, a HUMAN life is being taken by another person for their comfort. If it truly was a “woman’s own body” then no one would be debating the issue.
Speaker Pelosi is the type of Catholic who interprets God’s laws to suit her way of believing, wanting others to follow her. For her, not to take the foolish chance of losing her soul, she should go to confession and speak to the priest who represents Jesus Christ to be assured her sins are not mortal. All Catholics should do the same when in doubt about following God’s commandments.