SF Archbishop: Pelosi will be denied communion due to abortion stance

[jojoju1998]

Tthis really isn't right at all, you can't pick and choose who gets to be a member of their local Catholic church or not.  It looks terrible for these archbishops to do that... it's all politics anyway, very depressing.

The Catholic faith is a very good faith and there's a lot of things I do like about it.  It's on these social issues that I just do not agree with.  The "body issues"... sex, gender, reproduction, all of that... I would not want my church getting involved in it.

There are both pro-life and pro-choice everyday Catholics who give a lot to the church.

The Catholic Church's position on abortion is clear. You cannot be pro-choice and still claim to be a faithful Catholic.

Silence female! The Catholic church has made it clear your voices meaningless in the ministry to others.

LOL, I say this sort of stuff all the time dumping on Catholicism and citing as part of why I would never ever be a part of the church and you've attacked me for that.

Nah. You just take random swipes at the church because Catholic. You rarely actually bring up specifics of the Catholic Church's positions when you do.

But that's the root reason for those swipes. I've made it clear before I don't like the Catholic Church because it's not all liberal all the time.

What does that make me ? An anomaly ?

Yes although the church's terminology is "heretic".

What on earth are you talking about? The ideas that jojoju1998 is advancing in this thread are almost painfully orthodox and completely in line with the social magisterium of the Church. What basis is there for calling him a heretic other than your own image of the Catholic Church as entirely defined by its "pelvic issues" stances and various reactionary Midwestern bishops?

Abortion to me is a social justice issue. Many women probably don't make this decision out of their own free will. They either were raped, or they made a stupid mistake, and being pro life also means you help try to reduce rape, and all of that,

Low income women, the poor are more likely to get an  abortion, ( and this is true ), and if people don't realize that, when as the famously conservative Archbishop Charles Chaput once said, we will be damned to hell if we don't help the poor.

Being Pro Life is everything, abortion as the bow tie of course, but it includes everything. What are we for ? Cultivating a respect for life. Life. LIFE.  Migrants, the death penalty, Euthanasia, all of this comes into play.

And I will not be accused of being a heretic, by any christian here. I can literally pull out quotes from the catholic church, other christian churches, and even non christian groups,to support my points.

[jojoju1998]

Tthis really isn't right at all, you can't pick and choose who gets to be a member of their local Catholic church or not.  It looks terrible for these archbishops to do that... it's all politics anyway, very depressing.

The Catholic faith is a very good faith and there's a lot of things I do like about it.  It's on these social issues that I just do not agree with.  The "body issues"... sex, gender, reproduction, all of that... I would not want my church getting involved in it.

There are both pro-life and pro-choice everyday Catholics who give a lot to the church.

The Catholic Church's position on abortion is clear. You cannot be pro-choice and still claim to be a faithful Catholic.

Silence female! The Catholic church has made it clear your voices meaningless in the ministry to others.

LOL, I say this sort of stuff all the time dumping on Catholicism and citing as part of why I would never ever be a part of the church and you've attacked me for that.

Nah. You just take random swipes at the church because Catholic. You rarely actually bring up specifics of the Catholic Church's positions when you do.

But that's the root reason for those swipes. I've made it clear before I don't like the Catholic Church because it's not all liberal all the time.

What does that make me ? An anomaly ?

Yes although the church's terminology is "heretic".

What on earth are you talking about? The ideas that jojoju1998 is advancing in this thread are almost performatively orthodox and completely in line with the social magisterium of the Church. What basis is there for calling him a heretic other than your own image of the Catholic Church as entirely defined by its "pelvic issues" stances and various reactionary Midwestern bishops?

Well the way he asked the question implied that he was "all liberal all the time"

Here's a hot take.

Being Pro Life is very liberal. There I said it. Come at me folks.

[Hermit For Peace]

It's hard to argue with God, or God's representatives. But here's the thing, nobody knows God. Nobody can say God is proud of something you do, and condemning of something else you do, because who knows what God is. What we are born with is a conscience, and my feeling is that if you follow your own conscience and your own moral compass, who among us can tell you that God disagrees with you?

We praise and condemn ourselves based upon our inner moral compass and our conscience. To me, that's what rational thinking adults do. If I want an abortion, you can't tell me I can't have one. You don't know what's best for me. And you certainly don't know what God "thinks". If you don't believe in abortion then don't have one. Period. But don't try to rule my own conscience and my own moral compass because you have no right to interfere that deeply inside my soul.

Just go take care of yourself and get your nose out of my personal business.

What if your mother had wanted an abortion?

This sounds crass, but it comes down to that.  What if she chose to do that with you, and the process caused you pain before death?

It DOES get personal because it involves a human life. 

Two liberals from California, back to back, have posted here.  One can read their posts and conclude which poster would have more legitimate caring for THEM when THEY needed a human being to care.  Let the reader decide which poster has the greater level of compassion for humanity.

If my mother had an abortion I wouldn't know it. Babies born out of the womb don't remember things from their babyhood, let alone a clump of cells in a woman's body remembering things. There is no way you can possibly say that life begins at this point or at that point. You just can't because you don't know. Nobody knows. And believe me, I've done plenty of research on the subject.

And yes it does get personal, and emotional, and political, and whatnot because it does involve prospective life of a human being. But in my view people just can't throw religion into the mix and say God wants us to do so and so because they don't know. And saying they know is BS.

We all have a conscience and a moral compass, (at least most of us), and that is the only real tangible thing we have to guide us through life. 

[Hermit For Peace]

I would like to interject a comment here that we've all heard before, but I think some people conveniently forget. I would like to ask the pro-life people why they have the right to put a blanket rule over society that says women can't have abortions? (Or very strictly limited ones that they think might be important.)

What gives the pro lifers the right to tell all women and girls that they must submit to their rule?

Why can't they just rule over their own bodies and their own lives? Why should ALL women and girls submit to their whims and wishes? Just speak for yourself and go along your own way, and let women do what they feel is right for themselves and their own lives.

Anyone who believes that abortions are wrong, just don't have one. But don't tell me and other women we can't have one because it's really none of your business.

Why is it so hard to expect people to take more responsibility to avoid an unwanted pregnancy rather than treating abortion as birth control (which makes up 90% of abortion cases)? This goes for men and women. We all know how babies are created. If you don't want to become pregnant, then it is your responsibility to take all the steps necessary to prevent that from happening in the first place. Why should another human's inherent right to life be taken away because you didn't do your job to prevent creating them in the first place?

Abortion is not a right, never has been one, and never will be one.

Do you really believe that women like having abortions? Do you think it's like going on vacation? Birth control methods fail. Things happen that we humans can't always control. You are talking like humans are perfect and should always be in control of every situation they encounter. It ain't like that in real life. Join in, please.

If you truly believed what you are suggesting, then you'd have understood by now that abortion in the end isn't good for women, and you wouldn't go so far out of your way to suggest it should be easier for women to get them.

In what way do you mean that abortion is not good for women? How can you speak for all women? Is it a personal belief you are offering here? Or do you know this for a fact?

[jojoju1998]

Anyway, I don't think my position on this is " conservative " or " liberal " in anyway shape or form.

It's right and just.

All lives do matter. No pun intended.

[Former President tack50]

Does the Archbishop even have the power to do so? I won't pretend I am all that familiar with the Catholic Church's excommunication rules but to me it seems like an incredibly harsh penalty?

On that note, I wonder if the Pope could somehow counteract this

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

The same abortion stance she's had for like 50 years?

If the end of Roe is seen primarily as an evangelical win, perhaps the archbishop is worried his church will continue to lose members.

[Person Man]

The same abortion stance she's had for like 50 years?

If the end of Roe is seen primarily as an evangelical win, perhaps the archbishop is worried his church will continue to lose members.

You make it seem like this is the equivalent of Trump getting banned from Twitter after losing the election whether or not the riot occurred.

This thread… At least if I were aborted I wouldn’t have to read this thread.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

The same abortion stance she's had for like 50 years?

If the end of Roe is seen primarily as an evangelical win, perhaps the archbishop is worried his church will continue to lose members.

You make it seem like this is the equivalent of Trump getting banned from Twitter after losing the election whether or not the riot occurred.

I still believe that happened in large part because Republicans had just managed to fumble the Senate - it was a preemptive move to avoid regulation.

The Republican base will continue to believe Twitter is politically represented by its low-level staffers who despite them, despite the fact that it prohibited links to DDoSSecrets after they revealed police abuse.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Tthis really isn't right at all, you can't pick and choose who gets to be a member of their local Catholic church or not.  It looks terrible for these archbishops to do that... it's all politics anyway, very depressing.

The Catholic faith is a very good faith and there's a lot of things I do like about it.  It's on these social issues that I just do not agree with.  The "body issues"... sex, gender, reproduction, all of that... I would not want my church getting involved in it.

There are both pro-life and pro-choice everyday Catholics who give a lot to the church.

The Catholic Church's position on abortion is clear. You cannot be pro-choice and still claim to be a faithful Catholic.

Silence female! The Catholic church has made it clear your voices meaningless in the ministry to others.

LOL, I say this sort of stuff all the time dumping on Catholicism and citing as part of why I would never ever be a part of the church and you've attacked me for that.

Nah. You just take random swipes at the church because Catholic. You rarely actually bring up specifics of the Catholic Church's positions when you do.

But that's the root reason for those swipes. I've made it clear before I don't like the Catholic Church because it's not all liberal all the time.

What does that make me ? An anomaly ?

Yes although the church's terminology is "heretic".

What on earth are you talking about? The ideas that jojoju1998 is advancing in this thread are almost painfully orthodox and completely in line with the social magisterium of the Church. What basis is there for calling him a heretic other than your own image of the Catholic Church as entirely defined by its "pelvic issues" stances and various reactionary Midwestern bishops?

Abortion to me is a social justice issue. Many women probably don't make this decision out of their own free will. They either were raped, or they made a stupid mistake, and being pro life also means you help try to reduce rape, and all of that,

Low income women, the poor are more likely to get an  abortion, ( and this is true ), and if people don't realize that, when as the famously conservative Archbishop Charles Chaput once said, we will be damned to hell if we don't help the poor.

Being Pro Life is everything, abortion as the bow tie of course, but it includes everything. What are we for ? Cultivating a respect for life. Life. LIFE.  Migrants, the death penalty, Euthanasia, all of this comes into play.

And I will not be accused of being a heretic, by any christian here. I can literally pull out quotes from the catholic church, other christian churches, and even non christian groups,to support my points.

The Council of Trent refers to me, and people like me, as "schismitics and heretics".  Vatican II upgraded us to "separated brethren".  But I digress here.

I have theological differences with Catholics.  I have even greater differences with Jews, Mormons, and Muslims.  None of that means that we cannot cooperate with others on a SECULAR plane and a SERVICE plane.  There are lots of religious folks with whom I may have irreconcilable THEOLOGICAL differences with whom I can easily join with to bring about political and secular change in our society.

[Person Man]

The same abortion stance she's had for like 50 years?

If the end of Roe is seen primarily as an evangelical win, perhaps the archbishop is worried his church will continue to lose members.

You make it seem like this is the equivalent of Trump getting banned from Twitter after losing the election whether or not the riot occurred.

I still believe that happened in large part because Republicans had just managed to fumble the Senate - it was a preemptive move to avoid regulation.

The Republican base will continue to believe Twitter is politically represented by its low-level staffers who despite them, despite the fact that it prohibited links to DDoSSecrets after they revealed police abuse.

This could be another circumstance where someone smells blood and just does what they have been trying to do after a while. If the Court invites the Church back into politics, then the Church will participate directly in politics. How far this goes remains to be seen whether liberal Catholics will have to changes churches or convert to Protestantism remains to be seen. Perhaps even the Church will be granted law enforcement resources and delegations by supportive local and state governments. For example, your neighborhood parish gets a Resource Deputy and two cop cars stationed there at all times. Maybe the lead prosecutor gets an office in the Dioceses' Cathedral (the church that is served by the local bishop?).

Another example of this could be where the large businesses start shutting down all of their union shops once a solidly conservative Trifecta is elected with enough wave insurance and judicial support to make it feel like its going to be easily reelected. Basically, something somewhat more than the 2004 election.

This actually happened when Reagan was elected.

[jojoju1998]

The same abortion stance she's had for like 50 years?

If the end of Roe is seen primarily as an evangelical win, perhaps the archbishop is worried his church will continue to lose members.

You make it seem like this is the equivalent of Trump getting banned from Twitter after losing the election whether or not the riot occurred.

I still believe that happened in large part because Republicans had just managed to fumble the Senate - it was a preemptive move to avoid regulation.

The Republican base will continue to believe Twitter is politically represented by its low-level staffers who despite them, despite the fact that it prohibited links to DDoSSecrets after they revealed police abuse.

This could be another circumstance where someone smells blood and just does what they have been trying to do after a while. If the Court invites the Church back into politics, then the Church will participate directly in politics. How far this goes remains to be seen whether liberal Catholics will have to changes churches or convert to Protestantism remains to be seen. Perhaps even the Church will be granted law enforcement resources and delegations by supportive local and state governments. For example, your neighborhood parish gets a Resource Deputy and two cop cars stationed there at all times. Maybe the lead prosecutor gets an office in the Dioceses' Cathedral (the church that is served by the local bishop?).

Being Pro Life is a liberal cause.

There are some who see this as a hyper conservative idea. But for me,  Life is a fundamental human " liberal " right.  And Life. All lives matter... no pun intended.


The unborn, the elderly, the homeless, the immigrants, everyone on the margins of society. And if that somehow makes me " not a liberal ", then, I dont' know what is.

[Person Man]

The same abortion stance she's had for like 50 years?

If the end of Roe is seen primarily as an evangelical win, perhaps the archbishop is worried his church will continue to lose members.

You make it seem like this is the equivalent of Trump getting banned from Twitter after losing the election whether or not the riot occurred.

I still believe that happened in large part because Republicans had just managed to fumble the Senate - it was a preemptive move to avoid regulation.

The Republican base will continue to believe Twitter is politically represented by its low-level staffers who despite them, despite the fact that it prohibited links to DDoSSecrets after they revealed police abuse.

This could be another circumstance where someone smells blood and just does what they have been trying to do after a while. If the Court invites the Church back into politics, then the Church will participate directly in politics. How far this goes remains to be seen whether liberal Catholics will have to changes churches or convert to Protestantism remains to be seen. Perhaps even the Church will be granted law enforcement resources and delegations by supportive local and state governments. For example, your neighborhood parish gets a Resource Deputy and two cop cars stationed there at all times. Maybe the lead prosecutor gets an office in the Dioceses' Cathedral (the church that is served by the local bishop?).

Being Pro Life is a liberal cause.

There are some who see this as a hyper conservative idea. But for me,  Life is a fundamental human " liberal " right.  And Life. All lives matter... no pun intended.


The unborn, the elderly, the homeless, the immigrants, everyone on the margins of society. And if that somehow makes me " not a liberal ", then, I dont' know what is.

That's not what I'm talking about. What I am talking about is an institution making a calculated risk to gain power after sensing an opening to do so.

[jojoju1998]

The same abortion stance she's had for like 50 years?

If the end of Roe is seen primarily as an evangelical win, perhaps the archbishop is worried his church will continue to lose members.

You make it seem like this is the equivalent of Trump getting banned from Twitter after losing the election whether or not the riot occurred.

I still believe that happened in large part because Republicans had just managed to fumble the Senate - it was a preemptive move to avoid regulation.

The Republican base will continue to believe Twitter is politically represented by its low-level staffers who despite them, despite the fact that it prohibited links to DDoSSecrets after they revealed police abuse.

This could be another circumstance where someone smells blood and just does what they have been trying to do after a while. If the Court invites the Church back into politics, then the Church will participate directly in politics. How far this goes remains to be seen whether liberal Catholics will have to changes churches or convert to Protestantism remains to be seen. Perhaps even the Church will be granted law enforcement resources and delegations by supportive local and state governments. For example, your neighborhood parish gets a Resource Deputy and two cop cars stationed there at all times. Maybe the lead prosecutor gets an office in the Dioceses' Cathedral (the church that is served by the local bishop?).

Being Pro Life is a liberal cause.

There are some who see this as a hyper conservative idea. But for me,  Life is a fundamental human " liberal " right.  And Life. All lives matter... no pun intended.


The unborn, the elderly, the homeless, the immigrants, everyone on the margins of society. And if that somehow makes me " not a liberal ", then, I dont' know what is.

That's not what I'm talking about. What I am talking about is an institution making a calculated risk to gain power after sensing an opening to do so.

1. As a catholic, I can say that there is no benefit from the catholic church gaining political power in the US.

The Catholic Church isn't in the business of dictating policy. It has certain moral/social beliefs ( that includes protecting life after birth as well ). But it leaves the legislating up to the civic leaders.

i don't get

The era of the state and church combined is over.

2. If Liberal catholics want to leave.... then... they're misunderstanding the Pro Life Ethos. So do Politically right wing catholics.

Being Pro Life is not banning a practice ( I find that to be counterproductive), it's about cultivating a respect for human life from the moment of conception to natural death. All lives matter. The unborn, the elderly, the immigrants, the poor, the disabled, the homeless veterans, all of them, everyone.

I can't speak for Archbishop Cordelione. BUT, most us bishops have not endorsed this move.

[Hermit For Peace]

Anyway, I don't think my position on this is " conservative " or " liberal " in anyway shape or form.

It's right and just.

All lives do matter. No pun intended.

The woman's or girl's life matters, too. And if she is not ready to carry a fetus to term for whatever reason, then isn't that also right and just that she make her own decision?

[jojoju1998]

Anyway, I don't think my position on this is " conservative " or " liberal " in anyway shape or form.

It's right and just.

All lives do matter. No pun intended.

The woman's or girl's life matters, too. And if she is not ready to carry a fetus to term for whatever reason, then isn't that also right and just that she make her own decision?

1. I do not support an abortion ban. I find it to be counterproductive.

2. Bodily autonomy is not an absolute right. We mandate vaccines ( rightfully so ), to uphold the common good. We in extreme cases impart the military draft as in the case of WW2. It's not an unalieanable right. No major religion, Christianity, Sikhism, HInduism, promotes the theory of bodily autonomy in the case of abortion.

[Hermit For Peace]

Anyway, I don't think my position on this is " conservative " or " liberal " in anyway shape or form.

It's right and just.

All lives do matter. No pun intended.

The woman's or girl's life matters, too. And if she is not ready to carry a fetus to term for whatever reason, then isn't that also right and just that she make her own decision?

1. I do not support an abortion ban. I find it to be counterproductive.

2. Bodily autonomy is not an absolute right. We mandate vaccines ( rightfully so ), to uphold the common good. We in extreme cases impart the military draft as in the case of WW2. It's not an unalieanable right. No major religion, Christianity, Sikhism, HInduism, promotes the theory of bodily autonomy in the case of abortion.

But are we following religion, or are we following what works in our society? See, religion is for some people to live by, but in a country like ours, there is no one religion. There are many. In politics, religion does not dominate. Should not even apply.

I continue to affirm that if religious folks think abortion is wrong, then they should not have one. But leave the rest of us out of your belief system. What religions believe regarding abortion is not relevant in political discourse.

[jojoju1998]

Anyway, I don't think my position on this is " conservative " or " liberal " in anyway shape or form.

It's right and just.

All lives do matter. No pun intended.

The woman's or girl's life matters, too. And if she is not ready to carry a fetus to term for whatever reason, then isn't that also right and just that she make her own decision?

1. I do not support an abortion ban. I find it to be counterproductive.

2. Bodily autonomy is not an absolute right. We mandate vaccines ( rightfully so ), to uphold the common good. We in extreme cases impart the military draft as in the case of WW2. It's not an unalieanable right. No major religion, Christianity, Sikhism, HInduism, promotes the theory of bodily autonomy in the case of abortion.

But are we following religion, or are we following what works in our society? See, religion is for some people to live by, but in a country like ours, there is no one religion. There are many. In politics, religion does not dominate. Should not even apply.

I continue to affirm that if religious folks think abortion is wrong, then they should not have one. But leave the rest of us out of your belief system. What religions believe regarding abortion is not relevant in political discourse.

The constitution doesn’t forbid civil society like religion and charities from participating in government. Unless you want French style Lacite where religion is forbidden in the political discourse.

This is why America is blessed to have a wide range of religions from Islam to Methodism.


Did MLK use his authority as a pastor to push for civil rights ? Yeah.

I’m not arguing for a theocracy. I’m arguing for a wide range of opinions to be shared from all stripes.

[Person Man]

The same abortion stance she's had for like 50 years?

If the end of Roe is seen primarily as an evangelical win, perhaps the archbishop is worried his church will continue to lose members.

You make it seem like this is the equivalent of Trump getting banned from Twitter after losing the election whether or not the riot occurred.

I still believe that happened in large part because Republicans had just managed to fumble the Senate - it was a preemptive move to avoid regulation.

The Republican base will continue to believe Twitter is politically represented by its low-level staffers who despite them, despite the fact that it prohibited links to DDoSSecrets after they revealed police abuse.

This could be another circumstance where someone smells blood and just does what they have been trying to do after a while. If the Court invites the Church back into politics, then the Church will participate directly in politics. How far this goes remains to be seen whether liberal Catholics will have to changes churches or convert to Protestantism remains to be seen. Perhaps even the Church will be granted law enforcement resources and delegations by supportive local and state governments. For example, your neighborhood parish gets a Resource Deputy and two cop cars stationed there at all times. Maybe the lead prosecutor gets an office in the Dioceses' Cathedral (the church that is served by the local bishop?).

Being Pro Life is a liberal cause.

There are some who see this as a hyper conservative idea. But for me,  Life is a fundamental human " liberal " right.  And Life. All lives matter... no pun intended.


The unborn, the elderly, the homeless, the immigrants, everyone on the margins of society. And if that somehow makes me " not a liberal ", then, I dont' know what is.

That's not what I'm talking about. What I am talking about is an institution making a calculated risk to gain power after sensing an opening to do so.

1. As a catholic, I can say that there is no benefit from the catholic church gaining political power in the US.

The Catholic Church isn't in the business of dictating policy. It has certain moral/social beliefs ( that includes protecting life after birth as well ). But it leaves the legislating up to the civic leaders.

i don't get

The era of the state and church combined is over.

2. If Liberal catholics want to leave.... then... they're misunderstanding the Pro Life Ethos. So do Politically right wing catholics.

Being Pro Life is not banning a practice ( I find that to be counterproductive), it's about cultivating a respect for human life from the moment of conception to natural death. All lives matter. The unborn, the elderly, the immigrants, the poor, the disabled, the homeless veterans, all of them, everyone.

I can't speak for Archbishop Cordelione. BUT, most us bishops have not endorsed this move.

That’s not what the pro-life politicians want. I think it’s an amazing idea to potentially one day have zero abortions but how do we do it? Giving people hope or prison? That’s the real debate.

[Badger]

Anyway, I don't think my position on this is " conservative " or " liberal " in anyway shape or form.

It's right and just.

All lives do matter. No pun intended.

The woman's or girl's life matters, too. And if she is not ready to carry a fetus to term for whatever reason, then isn't that also right and just that she make her own decision?

1. I do not support an abortion ban. I find it to be counterproductive.

2. Bodily autonomy is not an absolute right. We mandate vaccines ( rightfully so ), to uphold the common good. We in extreme cases impart the military draft as in the case of WW2. It's not an unalieanable right. No major religion, Christianity, Sikhism, HInduism, promotes the theory of bodily autonomy in the case of abortion.

But are we following religion, or are we following what works in our society? See, religion is for some people to live by, but in a country like ours, there is no one religion. There are many. In politics, religion does not dominate. Should not even apply.

I continue to affirm that if religious folks think abortion is wrong, then they should not have one. But leave the rest of us out of your belief system. What religions believe regarding abortion is not relevant in political discourse.

The constitution doesn’t forbid civil society like religion and charities from participating in government. Unless you want French style Lacite where religion is forbidden in the political discourse.

This is why America is blessed to have a wide range of religions from Islam to Methodism.


Did MLK use his authority as a pastor to push for civil rights ? Yeah.

I’m not arguing for a theocracy. I’m arguing for a wide range of opinions to be shared from all stripes.

The difference between m l k using his moral Authority to campaign for civil rights in today's religious right is that the former never thought for any theological Viewpoint of his to be enshrined in law. Seriously, what religious tenets of the Baptist Church did King seek to enshrine in law?

[Saint Milei]

Why is this 6 pages? There isn't an issue here

[GP270watch]

https://www.andersonadvocates.com/press-event/survivors-and-advocates-blast-archbishop-for-his-refusal-to-disclose-dozens-of-predator-priests-2/

Noted for his staunch conservatism, obstinacy in the face of survivors’ pleas for acknowledgment and accountability, and general clericalism, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone has firmly resisted publicly releasing an official list of clergy known to be credibly accused of child sexual abuse.

 It never fails.

[Person Man]

https://www.andersonadvocates.com/press-event/survivors-and-advocates-blast-archbishop-for-his-refusal-to-disclose-dozens-of-predator-priests-2/

Noted for his staunch conservatism, obstinacy in the face of survivors’ pleas for acknowledgment and accountability, and general clericalism, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone has firmly resisted publicly releasing an official list of clergy known to be credibly accused of child sexual abuse.

 It never fails.

There are so many jokes that I want to say about the synchronization of events but they are very inappropriate.

[Mr. Illini]

Conscience is at the center of an individual’s decision to take communion. It seems to me that leaders are entering murky waters when they decide to begin denying the sacrament to individuals, which is why the majority of bishops do not favor this.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's hard to argue with God, or God's representatives. But here's the thing, nobody knows God. Nobody can say God is proud of something you do, and condemning of something else you do, because who knows what God is. What we are born with is a conscience, and my feeling is that if you follow your own conscience and your own moral compass, who among us can tell you that God disagrees with you?

We praise and condemn ourselves based upon our inner moral compass and our conscience. To me, that's what rational thinking adults do. If I want an abortion, you can't tell me I can't have one. You don't know what's best for me. And you certainly don't know what God "thinks". If you don't believe in abortion then don't have one. Period. But don't try to rule my own conscience and my own moral compass because you have no right to interfere that deeply inside my soul.

Just go take care of yourself and get your nose out of my personal business.

What if your mother had wanted an abortion?

This sounds crass, but it comes down to that.  What if she chose to do that with you, and the process caused you pain before death?

It DOES get personal because it involves a human life.  

Two liberals from California, back to back, have posted here.  One can read their posts and conclude which poster would have more legitimate caring for THEM when THEY needed a human being to care.  Let the reader decide which poster has the greater level of compassion for humanity.

If my mother had an abortion I wouldn't know it. Babies born out of the womb don't remember things from their babyhood, let alone a clump of cells in a woman's body remembering things. There is no way you can possibly say that life begins at this point or at that point. You just can't because you don't know. Nobody knows. And believe me, I've done plenty of research on the subject.

And yes it does get personal, and emotional, and political, and whatnot because it does involve prospective life of a human being. But in my view people just can't throw religion into the mix and say God wants us to do so and so because they don't know. And saying they know is BS.

We all have a conscience and a moral compass, (at least most of us), and that is the only real tangible thing we have to guide us through life.  

Babies can remember sounds/voices they heard before they were born.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7697227/

In conclusion, our preliminary results indicate that newborns show distinct reactions to the maternal voice already at birth (two and five weeks) even on a physiological level and identifiable with ECG and EEG. Furthermore, it appears that basic memory traces are formed in utero and shape the newborn’s autonomic and neuronal reactions to speech and voice stimuli, namely, in such a way that newborns familiarized to nursery rhymes prenatally show distinctly different reactions than newborns being naïve in this respect. This again emphasizes the importance of the prenatal environment and calls into attention that already at these times the brain is tuned or “programmed” for the postnatal environment predicted and most likely experienced.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030513080440.htm

Dr. Barbara Kisilevsky, a Queen's University professor of nursing along with a team of psychologists at Queen's and obstetricians in Hangzhou, China, found that fetuses are capable of learning in the womb and can remember and recognize their mother's voice before they are even born. Their research findings are published in the current issue of the international journal Psychological Science.

While previous research on infant development has demonstrated that newborns prefer to listen to their own mother's voice to that of a female stranger and will even change their behaviour to elicit their mother's voice, Dr. Kisilevsky's research proves that this "preference/recognition" begins before birth.