Remind me again, were you commenting about the problems with campaigning for a candidate when we all learned the Rev. Wright was dissing Hillary Clinton and lauding Obama from the pulpit?

But the Catholic church does not own morality which seems to shift in time and culture; collides with other powerful schools of thought (science) and social movements (feminism), and is often hypocritical in terms of where the light of morality is pointed and the degree of negative thought awarded it. Many practicing Catholics I suspect simply turn a blind ear/eye away from those teaching that seem to have little application to modern life.

I assume Nancy Pelosi thought she was speaking as a modern woman, forgetting for a moment where she had compartmentalized the part of her that is Catholic. Whoops…..!

To cite another example, the Catholic Church is also as firmly against any form of artificial contraception as it is abortion. At least they're supposed to be, because that edict was contained in Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical. I mention this example primarily because I believe that is the document Pelosi was referring to in this exchange:

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There's very clear distinctions. This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her God. And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who've decided…

REP. PELOSI: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions. That's why we have this fight in Congress over contraception. My Republican colleagues do not support contraception. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must–it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think. But that is not the case. So we have to take–you know, we have to handle this as respectfully–this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been–and I'm not saying Rick Warren did, because I don't think he did, but others will try to.

Pelosi was incorrect when she stated that the church's view that life begins at conception began 50 years or so ago. However, Paul VI's encyclical did reinforce the opinion, among others. And Pelosi is correct that St. Augustine (a Catholic saint, mind you), along with other moral philosophers over time, had different opinions. She is also correct that Paul VI's encyclical also proclaimed opposition to all forms of contraception as part of the church's official doctrine. And yet, as is the case with invitro fertilization, I have never heard of any church official warn that they will deny the Eucharist to any public official who advocates in favor of contraception. But if they were seriously concerned about being consistent across the board, they should. And that is essentially the point of view Mr. Kmiec was expressing in the HotAir post you linked to. I agree with him. If that makes me (and him) a heretic in the eyes of the Catholic church, so be it. But I think it's fair to ask that the Catholic church apply their principles and rules evenly, and consider the big picture in its entirety, before they start casting stones.

continuum: here are some statements that pretty forcefully object to the Iraq War:
http://www.usccb.org/bishops/iraq.shtml
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?I…

As for the different reactions of the Church on other issues of social teachings, Ed Morrissey did a good piece on that when Pelosi first opened this can of worms and these criticisms first started:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/07/more-on-t…

And regardless of the point that you were trying to make, I commented on what you actually wrote- which was that the pope has refused to take a stance on in vitro. Apparently what you are now saying is that the US bishops aren't uniformly accepting the ban on in vitro- but whether or not the bishops follow Rome's authority is a separate issue from whether or not the Vatican is logically consistent in its moral teachings, no?

As for caring about the babies who result from unwanted pregnancies, my personal experience is different from yours, apparently- my parish is intensely involved with activities to do just that, having started and supported a crisis pregnancy center. If you think that those activities are important (I agree that there is such a moral responsibility) then perhaps you could discuss that with your pastor. Obviously a guarantee, as you mention, isn't possible- any more than it's possible to feed, clothe, or provide shelter for every needy person in society, but we are called on to do our best.

That hypocracy is carried forth in CONTINUUMS comments which I fully agree with. It was embarrassing to me to see the pope hobnob with Pres. Bush, laughing and cajoling each other. Where does the catholic church stand vis-a-vis Israel-Palestine, child molestation, war, torture, rendition, habeas corpus, etc, etc.

Maybe the Democratic party should call on the Pope to ask for church support in these matters.

In that discussion, she should discuss why the American Catholic bishops have failed to forcefully condemn the tortures committed by the Bush Administration.

Pelosi should ask why the American Catholic bishops have failed to forcefully to condemn the unjust and illegal war in Iraq. Why are they silent regarding the other Catholics in the Bush administration who instigated and still support this travesty?

She should also question the Archbishops why they ignore the growing destruction of the American middle class by the Bush Administration's economic policies. The American Catholic bishops should also be confronted with their lack of concern regarding the destruction of the American Constitution and the subversion of our civil rights.

In addition, Pelosi should ask the Archbishop what he did specifically to stop the abuse of Catholic youths by criminal priests. What did the Archbishop do to bring his other bishops to justice when they enabled perverted priests to abuse children.

Lastly, Pelosi should demand that the Archbishop publicly ask the entire Catholic congregation for forgiveness. That should be the conversation held with the Archbishop.

The American Catholic bishops have long ago lost the moral high ground.

I might add that though it affects the lesser of us on occasion, the hierarchy goes after the prominent among us. And that, to me, is not Christian. That's secular BS.

As far as I know, the only issue still up for debate is whether to consider the 'adoption' of frozen embryos as morally acceptable. I think on the pro side, if embryos have been created than there's an obligation to try to protect that life and bring it to fruition, but I think the con side of the argument is that the Church doesn't want to encourage the practice at all. It's hard to find a consistent line in that, really.

Here's a reference for you on the Pope's statements:
http://www.catholic.org/international/internati…

With all due respect, this attitude really pisses me off. In fact, I used to be a deacon in my church, but no more — and for this very reason. I could not stay silent on it, even though that is all it would have taken. And that alone is instructive. It's also sad, because it shows how narrowly the lines have been drawn. It's a long story, but let me see if I can percolate it down to its essence.

It seems to me that the abortion issue is the least of the most. In other words, it is my opinion that ALL human life needs to be considered, not just the portion that happens before birth. I appreciate that my pastor makes attempts in that regard, attempts which I applaud and join. And I would never, ever counsel any woman (or much more preferably, any couple) to have an abortion. But by the same token I cannot, in good conscience, reject anyone who makes a different decision. The fact is, the church itself will not make a commitment, unconditional or otherwise, to the child they insist should be born if conceived. That's one thing. And it's a biggie. The other is that the church's insistence on the notion that life begins at conception is itself fairly thin on tradition. But more than that, it is inconsistent: there is no similar edicts against those who visit an invitro fertilization clinic and elect not to implant every single embryo so derived from being introduced into the mother's womb. The disconnect is remarkably obvious. And one that I cannot, in good conscience, accept. And I don't care what the freakin' pope says. If he can't close the circle in every way, shape, and form, I find it presumptuous of him to require his flock to concentrate on that least of such a large most.