Taking directives from Nancy Pelosi on conscience and consistency is like...

... taking advice from Charlie Sheen on marriage and monogamy. Watch the short clip posted by CNSNews.com, from an event held this past Monday at Texas A&M. Let's take a quick look at the statements made by Pelosi in the clip:

A decision about the size and timing of your family is really personal. And that's a matter of conscience for each person.

Pelosi believes, then, that the deeply personal decision about the "size and timing" of one's family is a matter of conscience, but the aborting of babies is a matter of necessity and "women's health", as indicated by her 100% NARAL rating and unremittingly and very public pro-abortion stances. Not to mention her wild and slanderous insistence, last October, that opposition to abortion provisions in Obamacare proves that pro-life Republicans are heartless, women-hating oafs: "Under this bill [that would have removed abortion from Obamacare coverage] when the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene if this bill is passed."

Here's the deal: Pelosi has made an entire career out of outlandish, ridiculous, false, and hideous statements because it works. And she gets away with it. Again and again and again.

So in her twisted, contraceptive-worshipping world, the Church's historical, logical, and principled stand against contraceptives (and abortion) is an affront to conscience, while the willful thwarting of procreation is a most sacred and deeply personal act, tantamount to Moses climbing up Mount Sinai, except in this case it is donning of a condom or the use of chemicals that facilitates the magical moment of sterile, self-centered pleasure.

Ninety-eight percent of women in childbearing age that are Catholic use contraception.

False. As even the Washington Post pointed out. But let's not allow facts to interfere with The Great Contraceptive Awakening! That simply won't do. It's also beside the point. To paraphrase Chesterton, the truth doesn't change because 20% believed a falsehood on Monday and now 80% believe a falsehood on Friday.

So, in practice the church has not enforced this and now they want the federal government and private insurance to enforce it. It just isn’t consistent to me.

Uh, perhaps because that might be the most asinine and perversely twisted sentence ever uttered by Pelosi, which is quite the (dubious) accomplishment, especially since she also recently said about the HHS mandate: "I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the Administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it..." The Church is just standing there, minding it's own business, and Big Brother N. Government comes along and says, "You need to pay for your employees to do This, That, and the Other Thing". When the Church refuses, B.B.N. Government says, "Do it, or face massive fines and other possible punishments." And Ms. Pelosi interprets this as the Church wanting the Government to enforce This, That, and the Other Thing.

Two questions: Why hasn't her bishop said anything? And why hasn't her high school revoked her diploma?

As Michael Warsaw, president of EWTN, wrote in The New York Times, the mandate is simply coercive:

Earlier this month, in response to widespread opposition to the mandate, the president announced an “accommodation” for some religious organizations — like, potentially, EWTN — that would shift the responsibility for the coverage from the employer to the employer’s insurance carrier. But this would do nothing to solve the problem. First, EWTN self-insures, so we are the insurer. Second, even if we had an outside insurer, we would still be in the untenable position of facilitating access to drugs that go against our beliefs. And if we refused to comply with the directive, we could be hit with annual fines starting at around $600,000.

The administration’s supporters say that by opposing the rule, religious employers like EWTN are guilty of trying to coerce our employees and impose our values on them. But we are simply choosing not to participate in the use of these drugs. Our 350 employees, many of whom are not Catholic, freely choose to work here and can purchase and use contraception if they want to. They are aware of the values we practice, and I hear regularly from Catholic and non-Catholic employees alike how much they love working for an organization that is defined by its Catholic beliefs — beliefs that we think result in a better workplace and more expansive benefits over all.

Instead, it is the government — which does not accept EWTN’s religious choice and can punish that choice by imposing fines — that is coercing us.

But, of course, Pelosi has mastered the wretched rhetoric that dominates this post-modern, rubberized funland, presenting herself as martyr and victim:

Whatever my personal beliefs or my personal upbringing are on this subject everyone has their own responsibility in terms of the size and the rest of their family. So, I think this should be removed from the debate, it’s inflammatory--misrepresentations are made...

Yes, they sure are. How do I know? Pelosi's lips are moving. Finally:

I want to say this—maybe overstating, I can't speak for everyone—but there's a sisterhood, there's a sisters under the skin understanding of this issue among women...

What is that? The Sisterhood of the Traveling Tramps? At least one feminist openly says, "Yes!" and admits what is really going on:

“When deeply-settled rights are most in danger, it’s not the time to euphemize, or retreat from assertions of sexual liberty and self-governance. It’s time to gun it instead,” she declared.

“So here’s the subject I advocate for, because no one dares to speak her name: It’s the 20-something unmarried heterosexual woman who wants to have sex, has sex, enjoys a good sex life with her boyfriend, and, in that sex life, uses birth control. Or, she accidentally gets pregnant.”

“I advocate for the slut who sleeps with lots of men, as well as the woman who sleeps with only one, ever. Promiscuously heterosexual, and happy about it? I’ve got your back.”

And Pelosi has hers. Meanwhile, Pelosi continues to stab the Church in the back. And the front. With impunity.

• The bishops are standing up to the President. But what of Pelosi? (Feb. 8, 2012)

Comments

[Charles E Flynn]

Here is some food for thought:

Bishops have denied communion before, by Tim Townsend.

[Peter l]

I am stealing this piece.I am arguing on another blog and this is the way i see it to.I will probably be called a bigoted Catholic again but that means i won lol.

Lets hope Pelosi gets in on the act,by going on her "Winning" tour,just like that other pillar of all that is good and moral,the one and only Charlie Sheen.

[Arnobius of Sicca]

One thing I think we need to be careful of is questioning the commitment of bishops because they haven't excommunicated a person. Otherwise we might find others dredging up the so-called "Silence" of Pope Pius XII and Hitler.

No doubt Pelosi is a Quisling who places her soul at risk, and that by itself is a good reason to impose sanctions on her.

However, we do need to avoid thinking "Either A or B." We also need to pray for Pelosi's conversion and that her bishop be given wisdom in this matter.

[Carl E. Olson]

One thing I think we need to be careful of is questioning the commitment of bishops because they haven't excommunicated a person.

I agree that we need to be careful, and to give the benefit of doubt. Absolutely. But when I ask, "Why hasn't her bishop said anything?", it's not so much an accusatory question as an honest bit of wondering. I'm thrilled the bishops have all stood up against the mandate. But this is, I think, just the beginning. And addressing Pelosi publicly will be, in my estimation, necessary at some point.

[Gail Finke]

That feminist is close to what no one is daring to say, even her. It comes down to this: YOU MUST APPROVE. It is not enough to say, as the Church pretty much did: "You want to have sex with a lot of men? We don't approve, but go at it. Buy all the birth control devices you want, or sterilize yourself. As long as you're not killing babies, we won't even make a fuss. Don't say we didn't warn you that it wouldn't work out well. And if you decide you're sorry later, we'll help you out." No, we must all say: "You want to have sex with a lot of men? GOOD FOR YOU! That's great and we support you 100%. No wait -- we support you %110, because we will pay for you to do it!" Now, why is it that this is so vital to the Democrats? Why is that more important than pretty much any other legislative issue? Surely, if we want to talk about sensible "accommodations," we already HAD them. Do what you want and pay for it yourself, or find an employer that covers that with co-pays; that seems to me to be a pretty reasonable accommodation to me. No one is forced to pay for things that their religion teaches are wrong, and there is an affordable and universally available option for everyone who has no moral or religious problem with them. But you would never know that from the rhetoric that I hear every day from people on Facebook.

[Ed Peters]

Right, Carl.

[Arnobius of Sicca]

I agree Mr Olson and I hope my comment did not come across as accusing you. It was more of a general comment based on some I was reminded of defending Pope Pius XII from the charges of being pro-Nazi.

If the comment did come across as accusatory, then of course I apologize.

[Robert Miller]

I don't recall that Hitler ever proclaimed, during the course of his political career, that he was a Catholic. Nor did any of his leading Catholic-baptized henchmen -- except Papen, of course. And Papen was a little bit like Kmiec -- a frivolous dabbler who thought (and led many of his politically like-minded Catholics to think) that he could control "his" man.
Hitler never claimed he could be a "good Catholic" and a murderer at the same time.
Furthermore, a closer look at the Nazi regime will reveal, I think, that it required even less "remote participation" in murder than the current US regime does. First, the German law (while it was modified to change the definition of who was entitled to the rights of a "German") was never interpreted to allow the murder of anyone as a matter of right. Second, the Nazi death camps were remarkably "private enterprises" -- much like abortion clinics -- only, in Nazi Germany, they were protected, out of sight (if not beyond the reasonable imagination, of most German citizens), under the cover of military command, not public law. Third, the German bishops did step up to the occasion of which they were able to take public cognizance: German laws allowing the taking of the lives of the "unfit" -- a program of state-sponsored murder of which most Germans were inescapably aware.
But, even in this third case, who were the German bishops to excommunicate? Did Hitler go to Mass and try to receive Communion? Did he ever claim he was a Catholic who, no matter what his personal views and upbringing, felt he had an obligation to support a murderous public agenda because the German public had a right to rid itself of undesirables?
No. Of course not. But then too, neither did he, the signer of the 1933 Concordat (never mind how many times he violated its letter and spirit), ever revoke it -- or take the final formal step to change German public law to rescind the framework in which the Catholic Church operated. That, perhaps, was for after a victorious war.
In the US, in contrast, we have avowed "Catholics" who are changing the public law (e.g., Pelosi, Sebelius, Cuomo, etc.)to accommodate murder and the subversion of marriage. And they uphold a regime whose public laws sanction "private" murder as a matter of right.
Actually, I would single out Sebelius, rather than Pelosi, for the priority ecclesial j'accuse.