Who’s behind the public policies that have led to millions dead from abortion?

When the killing of human beings becomes a pre-meditated methodical policy — put forward as a public good — massive slaughter results, and can be called a “holocaust.”

History puts a face on leaders who considered mass murder a political “good” — leaders like Adolph Hitler of Germany, Mehmet Talaat of Turkey, Pol Pot of Cambodia, Mao of China and Joseph Stalin of Russia.

But what about American leaders responsible for our own ongoing holocaust: abortion? History has yet to put a face to them, but those who value the sanctity of human life are obligated to ferret them out and hold them responsible.

This is the fourth in California Catholic Daily’s ongoing series, “Faces of the American Holocaust,” in which we put faces to those behind the mass murder of innocents in the U.S.



By R.J. Grace

Nancy Patricia Pelosi (née D’Alessandro) was born in Baltimore, Maryland, on March 26, 1940, the last child of six and the only daughter. She grew up in a Roman Catholic neighborhood and attended the Institute of Notre Dame, an all-girls Catholic high school, and Trinity College, a liberal arts Catholic college for women. Her parents were strict Catholics. In an interview with theNational Catholic Reporter, Pelosi said that her mother would have loved for her to become a nun — but she wasn’t interested. She would have rather become a priest: “I didn’t think I wanted to be a nun, but I thought I might want to be a priest because there seemed to be a little more power there, a little more discretion over what was going on in the parish.”

While working in Washington, D.C., she married a Georgetown graduate, California native Paul Frank Pelosi, whom she had met while in college. They eventually moved, along with their five children, first to New York, and then, in 1969, to San Francisco. She was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from California’s 5th (now 8th) congressional district on June 02, 1987 — a seat she has held since.

Currently Pelosi serves as the Democratic House Minority Leader. She has a 100% approval rating from the radical pro-abortion group NARAL, and is well known for her consistently antagonistic stance against the pro-life movement. While her pro-abortion activities have intensified over the past year or two, she has a long history of fighting to defeat pro-life measures and to advance abortion as a good thing.


In a Feb. 22 interview with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, Pelosi characterized opposition from religious leaders to the Obama Administration’s contraception mandate as nothing more than a group of men who oppose women’s healthcare interfering in a family’s “…important decisions [which should be made] together with their doctor, with their God.”

In a Feb. 20 speech at Texas A&M University, Pelosi made the convoluted claim that the Catholic Church has not enforced its teaching on birth control, but now wants the federal government and private insurance companies to enforce the teaching for it.

On Feb. 16, The Weekly Standard reported, in answer to a reporter’s question, “Should the Catholic Church… be required to pay for morning-after pills and birth control if they find them morally objectionable?” Pelosi replied, “Yes.”


In a Nov. 17, 2011 interview with The Washington Post, Pelosi dismissed the protection of the freedom of religion guaranteed by the first amendment by referring to objections by the Catholic Church to abortion as “this conscience thing.” She adamantly opposed a bill that allowed health providers to refuse to provide abortions on conscience grounds, claiming that the measure would allow Catholic healthcare providers to “let women die on the floor.”

In February of 2011, Pelosi began a campaign to rally the public against two bills before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee, H.R. 3 (No Tax Payer Funding for Abortion Act) and H.R. 358 (the Protect Life Act). She opposed the bills even though U.S. bishops expressed strong support for them.

Also in February of 2011, the House passed an amendment that prohibited the use of federal funds for Planned Parenthood. Pelosi voted against the amendment.


On April 29, 2010, Pelosi was a featured speaker at the 25th anniversary celebration of the pro- abortion political action committee Emily’s List. The purpose of Emily’s List is to elect “pro-choice” women candidates to political office.

In October of 2010, the House passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Pelosi voted against it.


Pelosi is the mother of five children and has five grandchildren, yet in a Jan. 25, 2009 interview on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopolus, she made the argument that contraception and abortion stimulates the economy by reducing the number of children who will need education, healthcare and other state and federal services.

On Feb. 8, 2009, Pelosi had a meeting with San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer to discuss her pro-abortion politics. The archbishop requested the meeting following a firestorm of criticism of Pelosi, who, describing herself as “an ardent, practicing Catholic,” told an audience of millions on a nationally televised Aug. 24, 2008 news program that Church teaching on when human life begins is unclear.

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly confirmed that the meeting took place, but noted that Pelosi was not changing her pro-abortion stance as a result.


The August 2008 interview that led to the request from Pelosi’s archbishop for a private meeting was with Tom Brokaw on Meet The Press. At that time she made the claim that the doctors of the Church had been unable to determine that life begins at conception.

The same year, on Aug. 3, in an interview with Brian Lamb at CSPAN’s “Q&A” program, Pelosi was asked if her Church was giving her any difficulties about receiving communion, given that she had such a history of promoting abortion and contraception. “Not really”, she replied. “It depends on the bishop in a certain region.”


Pelosi voted against the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006, which was meant to require abortion providers who perform an abortion of a 20-week or older child to tell the mother how old the child is and obtain her signature.


In June of 2003, the House passed the Partial Born Abortion Ban Act, which contained an exception in cases where it was necessary to save the life of the mother. Pelosi voted against it, but it never reached the Senate for a vote.


In September of 2002, the House passed the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002, which was to prohibit the federal government and any state or local government receiving federal funds, to discriminate against any healthcare agency that refused to administer any abortion inducing drugs or procedures. Pelosi voted against the bill.


Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:38 AM By Abeca Christian
It’s about time! This article is excellent! Especially the part that brings up Adolf Hitler. Why are we repeating history but in a new form. Hitler was a lesson to all but still we are permitting to repeat history but in another form. Pelosi is not the only one that reminds us of Hitler, there are many just like her and even worst. Obama is their leader.

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:46 AM By Abeca Christian
I wouldn’t be surprised if Pelosi’s parents are the total opposite. There is that possibility. It must be painful to have done everything right to raise a good child but then to find out that they have gone bad in their adult life. Some prodigal son’s never return and repent. Perhaps they were never a prodigal son? Then what would we call them? What would be the opposite of the prodigal son? But in this case it is a daughter.

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 3:34 AM By Sara
The only thing missing from the article is that Pelosi continues to call herself a “Catholic”. She needs to be called a “Heretic” in the media. Her public scandal and sacrilege, and her public actions lead many on the path to Hell. Those who vote for Pelosi are partners in her crimes and will have to answer to God.

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 4:44 AM By irene
St. Paul wrote: “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear”. Until all of our Shepherds in the Church stand together in defending the faith, by courageously speaking up against heresy (spread by members like Nancy Pelosi), their sheep will remain scattered.

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 4:52 AM By Juergensen
What about the bishops who for 40 years have abetted the political leaders who legislate and fund abortion? Their collective silence on abortion and collective refusal to enforce canon 915, allowing abortionist politicians to receive and profanate the Holy Eucharist, has brought aid and comfort to abettors of the abortion holocaust such as Pelosi. When do we get to see the faces of those bishops?

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 6:07 AM By respectlife
Pelosi is the result of a failed Catholic educational system. I pray that she will have a conversion to true Catholic teachings. Unfortunately so many Catholics today do not put prolife candidates at the top of their list when voting. We then end up with politicians who have no soul or morale values in leading this country. Birthright is not just one choice among many when voting. It is the measure of a mans soul. When that is missing in our leadership we end up with bad laws resulting in an evil society and end up losing our freedom of religion. May God have mercy on us.

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 6:32 AM By Sandra dillon
Her day of judgement is coming and she will be throwing herself in Hell to burn for eternity. In the meantime, the Holocaust will continue because her supporters continue to support her evil–they too will follow her into the fire. Those Bishops that had their chance to change her heart and save her have failed.

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 6:55 AM By Lina
I’m sure her parents are very proud.

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 7:13 AM By MacDonald
Check today’s news in Scotland, where Catholic midwives are being FORCED to supervise late-term abortions. The Archbishop of Glasgow was horrified, and said the decision was “in stark contrast to recent decisions in the United States courts, which have applied the American First Amendment to protect the conscience rights of pharmacists who refused to dispense the morning-after pill.”

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 7:32 AM By JLS
Her childhood wishes have become even more than she had hoped. Instead of her becoming a priest, she has become a pope.

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 7:45 AM By Camille
If one of the above Pelosi quotes is accurately represented it sounds as though Pelosi places a doctor in the role of God. She echoes the old radical Feminist cry of no man allowed to make decisions regarding my own body. In this position one’s doctor/God would also be female.Unfortunately this cry is again rearing its head amongst many of the female state legislators today as they move to dismiss doctors as unimportant in the lives of today’s women.

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 7:56 AM By Canisius
Every time I see this woman botoxed face, I go to you tube and play the excommunication scene from the motion picture, Becket

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 8:10 AM By InformedAndFree
What more does she need to do or what more does she need to say for the bishop in Washington DC to speak out against her?

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 8:25 AM By Bud 
Pelosi is obviously a sick woman raised as an only female in a large family. She is still proving that she is a man. Her extreme views of the “women’s movement” to join the rest of them just like her is very obvious to me. She is no better than any other corrupt politician with some sheep that follow her. She certainly doesn’t hesitate to take advantage of every perk and knows how to spend the money on herself and even that son of hers! Compare her to the other democrat female influencial lib senators and reps from California and it just becomes more obvious. I notice their answer to all of this abuse of having babies rather than killing them at will should result in their own “sterilization” as soon as that gets mandated by another Kathleen Sibelius and her follower Obama.

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 9:02 AM By Sarah
In many countries, such as China, Hitler’s Germany, the U.S.S.R. and others have ordered some women to have abortions. for various reasons. We are only a short step away from that in the U.S. When in the Senate, Obama voted against giving life-saving medical care to babies who survived a botched abortion. If re-elected do you think he might require abortions under some circumstances?

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 9:09 AM By Laurette Elsberry
When will she be getting an award from Notre Dame?

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 9:16 AM By Patrick
Too bad Adolf didn’t have Peoli as his minister of propaganda.

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 9:52 AM By JOHN
Keep in mind that Pelosi is a Henry Waxman candidate who has her position because of him.

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 10:29 AM By charles
Nancy dear, it is time to go.

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 10:31 AM By Anne T.
No! the witch in the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis comes to mind. She was lovely of face but cold, hard and calculating and in the end very, very evil. I wonder if there is any hope for this woman. Pray!

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 10:45 AM By Anne T.
Children, beware, of a woman who offers you Turkish Delight candy. From what I have heard some have messed with that series of books (the Chronicles of Narnia), too, and taken out the Christian elements in it. Make sure you buy the series from a Christian book store or that it is the original series.

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 10:47 AM By OneoftheSheep
Uness a complete confession and a sincere repentance of these actions accompany Pelosi to the Last Judgment, she may be in for a very different and less comfortable existence than the worldly power and success have afforded her in America as she renounced her baptismal vows to persecute her own church.

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 11:25 AM By JLS
Judas Iscariot was excommunicated rather dramatically; but alas I guess even a verbal pronouncement by bishops these days is too much for their sensitive selves.

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 11:42 AM By Paul
It’s all about power and control with Pelosi, coupled with a near rabid form of ultra militant feminism. It is her sin of pride and lust for power that most identifies her with someone like Hitler – another fallen away Catholic. Yet, curiously, for among all it’s evil crimes – abortion on demand was illegal in Nazi Germany, where the concept of the concept of the “pure Aryan race” was apotheosized. the Nazis were so intent on raising the per capita birth rate that they awarded mothers with gold crosses for having families with more than seven children, along with other incentives. They also encouraged early marriages and extra marital affairs if they resulted in pregnancy. Many of the Nazi leaders had mistresses and supported illegitimate children. Their “Lebensborn” homes for unwed mothers became infamous, but at least the children were not murdered. They did pursue an extra-legal policy of Euthanasia for the incurably sick and the insane, which Hitler was forced to rescind after overwhelming protests from Roman Catholic bishops and the German public – including a famous German war hero, Werner Morlders It is only a matter of time before Pelosi becomes a public advocate for Euthanisia on demand. Holland has already legalized it, setting a precedent In fact, Pelosi shares more in common with mass murderer Josef Stalin, another apostate and atheist. The Soviet Union was the first modern nation to legalize abortion. Moreover, thousands of homeless children in the USSR were left to fend for themselves and countless numbers perished from starvation, exposure and violence done to them by predators Pelorus secondary concerns, or rather, her lamme excuse, is that abortions & Euthanasia, will save the State money – the same excuse advanced by the Nazis and Communists. Pelosi may hypocritically “claim” to be Catholic but in fact let it be known that our Church teaches that “all who have a part in procuring an abortion are automatically excommunicated.”

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 11:53 AM By Catherine
Sacred Scripture teaches us and also warns us about the faces of the American Holocaust. Proverbs 6:17, haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood.

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 12:00 PM By Bob
Of course all of this isn’t enough for the Archbishop of Washington D.C., Cardinal Wuerl. He has already said that he wouldn’t deny communion to her because it would be like using it as a weapon against her. As for excommunicating her, “there’s a question whether this canon (915) was ever intended to be used.” So much for leadership, so much for letting the politicians run amok, so much for the Church…

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 12:03 PM By Richard Sonnenshein
A friend gave me a prayer card with a prayer to be recited for the conversion of President Obama to pro-life. I nearly gag when I say it, but true Christianity’s test is how we respond to the most (morally) unattractive of human beings. Having been given the blessings of a Catholic upbringing, Congresswoman Pelosi’s spiritual condition must be even more dangerous than the president’s and needs our prayers even more urgently. If you can’t help gag while you’re praying, try a silent prayer…

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 12:37 PM By Doc Mugwump
Poor Nancy! At the end of each of our lives we “see” what we have done (and what we have not done). Nancy will not escape at that moment; not matter how much politically correct spin she puts on it now – she will not escape the fact of her cooperation and promotion of murder of the most innocent and helpless people: the unborn child. God help you at that time. Her arrogance grows with each Press Conference sound bite. We must and will pray for you; but not as “fellow Catholics” – you have excommunicated yourself a LONG time ago. Sadly your spiritual fathers (yes, those priests whom you resent and mock) have not reprimanded you properly and refused you communion.

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 1:45 PM By Juergensen
As long as the bishops tolerate abortionist “Catholic” politicians like Pelosi flying around the country peddling abortion, spouting heresies, and all the while receiving the Holy Eucharist, it is next to impossible to take the bishops’ aghast at Obama’s contraception mandate seriously. After all, if butchering babies in the womb is not a big deal, why is contraception such a big deal? Something is terribly wrong with this picture.

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 1:51 PM By RR
Canisisus: I appreciate your humor so much! Botox-LOL!

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:35 PM By Dana
Laurette Elsberry , funny! Remind Fr. Jenkins of his omission. If this woman were not so corrupt and hungry for power,she could easily be a stand-up comic making fun of all her facelifts and conspicuous consumption. Instead, she’s a Jezebel stereotype,women that have existed throughout history and they have all ended up badly due to their excessive greed and blatant abuse of power.

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 3:11 PM By k
JLS, Judas Iscariot was excommunicated?

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 3:31 PM By JLS
Well, k, what would you call what happened to him, if not excommunicated … not an official Canon 915, but latae sententiae?

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 6:56 PM By Abeca Christian
I know that it is customary to blame the church for not Catechizing it’s faithful well, and I could appreciate why it is that being the case in most cases but there is also that possibility that she knows the faith yet still chooses to reject it’s teachings. I continue to understand why we say those things but I also understand that people still can and will choose to disobey and dishonor the faith. There are names to those sins.

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 10:10 PM By k
JLS, first of all, there was no church to excommunicate Him. Second, he took communion with the apostles at the Last Supper and there was not another communion before he died.

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 10:54 PM By Abeca Christian
Not everyone chooses heaven. Our Prayers do not go vein for they will go towards others who do not reject the graces and blessings.

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 11:24 PM By Pax Christi
There’s one more thing to add to this arrogant woman’s naughty list: her failure to vet the most pro-abortion president ever in light of today’s news conference where Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County announced that his investigative team, after seven months of research, has found “probable cause” that the president’s birth and Selective Service records are forgeries.

Posted Thursday, March 01, 2012 11:37 PM By Bakersfield Crusader
Imagine that … a “priest” who advocates sacrificing the unborn on the altar of Moloch. Just what is twirling around in the inside of her head?

Posted Friday, March 02, 2012 4:02 AM By Juergensen
k: The Last Supper scriptures clearly portray Judas Iscariot’s betrayal in the future tense, that is, he had not betrayed Jesus yet. The betrayal occurred AFTER the Last Supper.

Posted Friday, March 02, 2012 10:38 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Jon Juergensen: If your claim is that Judas’s betrayal is a betrayal that is exclusively in the future; if your claim is that Judas had not already, in his heart, betrayed his Lord at the Last Supper, then your view would have to be deemed contrary to the teaching of the Church’s common doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas. In the course of refuting Hilary, St. Thomas writes: “… Hilary, in commenting on Matthew 26:17, held that Christ did not give His body and blood to Judas. And this would have been quite proper, if the malice of Judas be considered. But since Christ was to serve as a pattern of justice, it was not in keeping with His teaching authority to sever Judas, a hidden sinner, from Communion with the others without an accuser and evident proof, lest Christ’s prelates might have the example of doing the like, and lest Judas himself being exasperated might take occasion of sinning. Therefore, it remains to be said that Judas received our Lord body and blood with the other disciples, as Dionysius says (Ecc. Hier. iii), and Augustine (Tra. lxii in Joan.).” Notice that St. Thomas emphasizes the fact that Christ’s intent was to establish a “pattern of justice” as an “example” for latter-day prelates to follow. ~ Jon Juergensen, the universal consensus among exegetes is that all Twelve Apostles were communicants, Judas having left in a hurry for cause, to wit, he realized that his counter-Christic intention — the betrayal that was already in his heart — was known by Christ cardiognostically. ~ In this same connection, the distinguished canonist Edward Peters invites us to ponder the fact that “It is well-established in moral and canonical literature that a minister cannot withold Communion from an occult sinner, even where the minister knows of the sin and knows the impenitence… That’s why Canon 915 operates only in the face of manifest grave sin, not simply personal sin.”

Posted Monday, March 05, 2012 5:54 PM By MacDonald
@ John F. Maguire — your research into what Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote about WHY Jesus would give even Judas Iscariot Holy Communion is very interesting. If I were distributing the Eucharist at Mass and was approached by a sinner (e.g., someone I knew was committing adultery), would it be my place to say, “begone!” Thanks, Mr. Maguire, for your thought-provoking research into this very difficult subject…

Posted Monday, March 05, 2012 9:11 PM By k
MacDonald, I have never heard of any diocese where extraordinary ministers are authorized to refuse communion.

Posted Tuesday, March 06, 2012 1:48 AM By MAC
Maguire: Canon 915 QUOTE: ” Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.” -UNQUOTE. This says it all without your personal interpretation. A Priest or Bishop must speak to the person first, and then refuse him/her Holy Communion – this insures that the person is indeed in the State of Mortal Sin and also serves to educate him/her. If the grave sinful behavior persists, then Holy Communion must be denied – this is Justice. Some Bishops do not give enough consideration to the damage done by SCANDAL – ie if my Bishop allows this, it must not really be a serious sin. Each Bishop and Priest will be held responsible for his lack of pastoral care not only for losing the Soul of the sinner but also for the Souls of those scandalized. If they do not correct and teach as required to save all Souls, then they become participants in the sin.

Posted Tuesday, March 06, 2012 2:14 AM By MIKE
Maguire, you make a good point only in that – many US Bishops have done a terrible job in teaching Catholics to read the CCC, so all Catholics in their Diocese can form a good conscience. WHEN are all BISHOPS and Priests going to start doing their job? “Through the harmonious and complementary efforts of all the ranks of the People of God, may this Catechism be known and shared by everyone, so that the unity in faith whose supreme model and origin is found in the Unity of the Trinity may be strengthened and extended to the ends of the earth.” – Pope John Paul II (pg xv)

Posted Tuesday, March 06, 2012 2:23 AM By MIKE
Maguire, here is another one from the CCC relating directly to this article – CCC: ” 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of GRAVE depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under NO circumstances can they be approved.” So you are admitting that many Bishops are doing a lousy job teaching ? ? ?

Posted Tuesday, March 06, 2012 7:02 AM By Juergensen
Maguire: If your claim is that Judas had already betrayed Jesus as of the Last Supper, then your view would have to be deemed contrary to the teaching of the Gospels, as well as contrary to the teaching of the Church, as the Church has never taught what you propose (Aquinas, who was never a Pope, did not speak for the Church, any more than any other individual speaks for the Church). Your view being not of the mind of the Church, perhaps this is why you do not cite any Church document supporting your view. I, on the other hand, will cite Church documents for you: the Gospels. They clearly have Jesus Himself identifying Judas’ betrayal as a future event, AFTER the Last Supper: “Truly, I say to you, one of you WILL BETRAY ME…. He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me, WILL BETRAY ME” (Matt. 26:20-23); “Truly, I say to you, one of you WILL BETRAY ME, one who is eating with me” (Mark 14:18); “‘The hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table.’ … And they began to question one another, which of them it was THAT WOULD DO THIS” (Luke 22:21-23). Clearly – according to Jesus anyway – Judas’ betrayal had not occurred as of the Last Supper, but rather would occur in the future, after the Last Supper. As such, you will need to find a source more compelling than the Gospels to support your anti-canonical view that abortionist politicians, those who vote for abortionist politicians, and other mortal sinners are to be allowed to receive and profanate the Holy Eucharist (Cf. Can. 915).

Posted Tuesday, March 06, 2012 5:20 PM By John F. Maguire
Sins can be committed in thought, word, and deed. Judas resolved within his heart’s inmost thoughts to betray Christ, and in so doing, he did so so before the deed, that is, before the overt deed itself. As a general matter, we already know that the deliberate intent to commit a sin, covert though it may be, is already a sin. So: No more in connection with Judas than in connection with the bishops’ use of the word intent in the field of voter ethics, can the meaning and import of intent be blinked away. ~ Mr. Juergensen, I am also sorry to see that you underestimate the commentarial authority of the Church’s Common Doctor, St. Thomas. In response, let me provide a partial list of those theologians whose position on Judas as both (a) occult sinner and (b) communicant at the Last Supper chimes with the considered interpretation of St. Thomas. These theologians include: Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret, Euthymius, Ferus, Toletus, Baronius, Moldanus, Cornelius a Lapide, among others. This list, I submit, instantiates the Catholic Church’s common tradition on this question.

Posted Tuesday, March 06, 2012 5:30 PM By Abeca Christian
LET US NOT FORGET THAT SODOMY IS A grave SIN and it cries out to heaven’s for vengeance!

Posted Wednesday, March 07, 2012 12:19 AM By Kenneth M. Fisher
John, 9:52 AM, Having known and debated Mr. Waxman many times, I am not the least bit surprised to, thanks to you, find out that she is a protege of his. The Congressman who personally asked me to represent him in the California Young Democrats, the late Congressman Clyde Doyle, was the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. What does that tell you about Mr. Waxman? God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Wednesday, March 07, 2012 10:27 AM By John F. Maguire
Thank you for your thoughtful post, MacDonald. Your citing the problem of adultery is squarely on point, since the primary issue here is neither homosexuality as such nor the practice of homosexual or heterosexual sodomy. I would venture that at the correct level of discourse, which we should always strive to attain, the primary issue here is the receipt of Communion by an “occult sinner” whatever the sin might be, the first example of which occult sin is Judas’s sin of intentionally-resolved interior betrayal of Christ at the Last Supper, which interior betrayal is why Christ the Sovereign Priest’s reponse to the question of Judas’s access to his first Communion affords the Church a “pattern” of response to the occult-sinner question in general. ~ So yes, living-in-adultery precludes access to Communion, but then: not if the living-together does not include sexual intercourse. This point, we know, is particularly neuralgic when it comes to the situation of divorced and remarried Catholics. Is the priest to inquire, right there at the top of the Communion line, or better, right there at the next person-to-the-right on the Communion kneeler, whether that aspirant-communicant, although known to be in a new relationship (say, as remarried) nonetheless falls within the abstinence exception? I would surmise not. I would think that this situation is 916 situation. But is it not also a situation defined overall and in the first place by the present status of divorced and remarried Catholics in the Church? In this connection, Pope Benedict has urged theologians to revisit the problems posed by the divorced-remarried status so better to identify the distinctions necessary to clarify the divorced-remarried status in all its variants. No one doubts that this ongoing inquiry is one of high pastoral import.

Posted Wednesday, March 07, 2012 12:06 PM By John F. Maguire
Since it is agreed that Christ prophecied Judas’s betrayal as accomplished deed, the question remains whether Judas, at the Last Supper, was also an occult sinner who had already resolved to betray Christ’s friendship, and so, although he had already thereby sinned interiorly, nonethless he thereupon proceeded to betray Christ’s friendship sacramentally, that is, BEFORE the event of his overt betrayal. Here is Joseph Ratzinger’s commentary. Writing under his personal signature, our reigning pontiff comments: “John gives a new depth to the psalm verse with which Jesus spoke prophetically of what lay ahead, since instead of the expression given in the Greek Bible for ‘eating’, he choses the verb TR?GEIN, the word used by Jesus in the great ‘bread of life’ discourse for ‘eating’ his flesh and blood, that is, receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist (Jn 6:54-58). So the psalm verse casts a prophetic light over the Church of the evangelist’s own day, in which the Eucharist was celebrated, and indeed over the Church of all times: Judas’s betrayal was not the last breach of fidelity Jesus would suffer. ‘Even my bosom friend, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heal against me’ (Ps. 41;9). The breach of friendship extends into the sacramental community of the Church, where people continue to ‘take his bread’ and betray him.” Judas, we are given to understand, was but the first follower of Jesus to betray Jesus’ friendship sacramentally. Source: Joseph Ratzinger, _Jesus of Nazareth: Part Two: Holy Week: From the Entrance to Jerusalem to the Resurrection_ (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011).

Posted Wednesday, March 07, 2012 12:34 PM By Juergensen
Mr. Maguire, I am sorry to see you continue to present as a Church teaching that which is not a Church teaching, and for which you cannot cite a single Church document. Again, I commend for your consideration the Gospels (RSV-CE): “Truly, I say to you, one of you WILL BETRAY ME…. He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me, WILL BETRAY ME” (Matt. 26:20-23); “Truly, I say to you, one of you WILL BETRAY ME, one who is eating with me” (Mark 14:18); “‘The hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table.’ … And they began to question one another, which of them it was THAT WOULD DO THIS” (Luke 22:21-23).

Posted Wednesday, March 07, 2012 12:41 PM By BETH
Maguire, although Jesus knew and said Judas would betray Him, Jesus in His Mercy waited until the deed was done. This has nothing to do with Canon 915. No Bishop is expected to be a mind reader – of sins that will be committed in the future. Bishops have the responsibility to teach all of us, especially known sinners and then not allow them to commit sacrilege and scandal, if they remain obstinate in their serious sin. Scandalous sins should be corrected forthwith to avoid the further loss of other Souls. It is very SCANDALOUS to allow anyone known by the public to be in serious sin – receive the Body and Blood of our Lord. There are no good excuses.

Posted Wednesday, March 07, 2012 1:24 PM By Juergensen
Our reigning pontiff affirms that the betrayal of Jesus by Judas had not occurred as of the Last Supper, but rather was a future event. Discussing Chapter 13 of the Gospel of John, in which Jesus and the Apostles recline at the Last Supper and discuss who it is who would betray Jesus, the Holy Father writes of the “PROPHESY of the betrayal” (Ratzinger, J., “Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection,” p. 66, Ignatius Press 2011). Our reigning pontiff, of course, is correct in his adept assessment of the betrayal narrative as a “prophesy” as of the time of the Last Supper, and this adept assessment is confirmed by the Gospel of John itself, which states plainly that Satan did not enter Judas until after the Last Supper: “So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. THEN AFTER THE MORSEL, SATAN ENTERED INTO HIM” (John 13:27). In his excellent book our reigning pontiff indeed takes note of this passage (“Jesus of Nazareth,” supra, at p. 68).

Posted Wednesday, March 07, 2012 3:25 PM By John F. Maguire
“THEN AFTER THE MORSEL, SATAN ENTERED INTO HIM” (John 13:27). Mr. Juergensen, this dire entrance had already been prepared for disobedientially by Judas himself, that is, on account of the Iscariot’s already extant interior resolve to betray Christ. At this juncture, as the commentarial tradition makes clear, Judas was already an occult sinner. Likewise, when Pope Benedict points out that Judas’s “breach of friendship extends to the sacramental community of the Church, where people CONTINUE to take his bread and ‘betray him,'” the understanding is that Judas was the FIRST occult sinner to have breached the friendship of Christ SACRAMENTALLY.

Posted Wednesday, March 07, 2012 5:17 PM By John F. Maguire
Worthy of note is the meaning of the word MORSEL in our present context. Before we get to John 13:27, we should be clear on the meaning MORSEL bears in verses 25-26, which verses read: “He [Simon Peter] therefore, leaning on the breast of Jesus, saith to him: Lord, who is it [who betrayeth you]? Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall reach dipped bread. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.” (1) DIPPED BREAD means the bread that Jesus has dipped. (2) “Note that Judas was present at the celebration of the paschal lamb, and also of the Eucharist; and received the latter together with the other Apostles, as S. Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyril, and others show. Indeed, some have thought that this BREAD which he had DIPPED was the Eucharist, but erroneously; for Christ did not consecrate bread which He had dipped, but dry bread, and likewise pure wine and unmixed (with bread). Therefore Christ, after holy communion, took from the table a piece or morsel of the bread that remained, dipped it into some little dainty sauce that remained on the table (for it is not fitting that dry bread should be given to the guest by the host at a banquet), and gave it to Judas, so that by this sign he might indicate him to John as the betrayer” (Cornelius a Lapide, _The Great Commentary: The Holy Gospel of Saint John_(2008), p. 535-536). In agreement then with Benedict XVI that Judas was the first to breach Christ’s friendship sacramentally, Lapide makes it clear that the dipped bread, that is, the “morsel” used by Christ to signify Judas is not the Eucharist. Rather: “Judas was present at the celebration of the paschal lamb, and also of the Eucharist; and received the latter together with the other Apostles…” (Lapide). Judas’s receipt of the signifying MORSEL came AFTER Judas’s paschal communion, that is, AFTER his unworthy receipt of the Eucharist.