Pelosi: my faith “compels me” to support same-sex marriage


House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that her Catholic faith “compels” her to “be against discrimination of any kind” and thus for same-sex marriage.

A reporter asked Pelosi: “Many of the people that are opposed to gay marriage cite their religion as the reason why they’re opposed. You’re a Catholic that supports gay marriage. Do you believe that religion and the idea that you can support gay marriage can be separated? And how do you grapple with the idea that you support gay marriage as a Catholic?”

Pelosi responded: “My religion has, compels me–and I love it for it–to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, and I consider this a form of discrimination. I think it’s unconstitutional on top of that. ”

Pelosi spoke glowingly of the comments President Barack Obama made Wednesday when he said he supported same-sex marriage.

“So I think that yesterday was a great day for America because the president in a very personal, as well as presidential way, made history, and hopefully this will bring people together on the issue,” Pelosi said.

She might want to brush up on her catechism.


  1. someone is hoping for a cabinet spot next time around.

  2. MD Catholic says:

    What “Catholic” religion is she speaking of? This would be hysterical if she wasn’t so pathetic!

  3. The patience of the Catholic episcopacy in relation to this woman’s persistent relentless unyielding witness to public scandal again and again and again and again….over many years and the gall she has to cite & self identify as a Catholic frequently, and thumb her nose while doin it……yes their patience and/or silence is so frustrating to me…..I really do not remotely understand it……in many ways, given her record, it is not even to be believed that nothing has even been whispered about publicly by this time from our bishops…when you think hard about it.

    St Thomas becket, st Michael & st George pray for us and our bishops

  4. Pitiable! It’s hard to take her seriously, which may explain the “patience” of the Catholic episcopacy. They treat her attempts at theology as laughable, which they are.

  5. Where is Pelosi’s Bishop.?..he needs to give back the pieces of silver he has taken. She needs to read the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic church.

    GOD help us all if the Catholic Bishops don’t start excommunicating these so called CINO’s Catholic in name only’s.

  6. You should have asked her to answer the question you just asked. Her mouth got in the way of her brain and as for her Catholicism………………well, she abandoned that LONG ago!

  7. Catholic Dad says:

    She would be laughable but for the damage she has caused.

    How much more will the Church take against political leaders who create scandal? At what point does the leadership begin to lose credibility by their inaction? A whole of us faithful are watching.

  8. Pelosi is little different from the myriad other Catholic politicians, monarchs, emperors, etc… over the centuries who have claimed the faith of the Church while disdaining her teachings. Anyone who is influenced by her ruminations on things Catholic has only themselves to blame for taking seriously someone who merits no serious consideration. I doubt her spiritual, theological or moral influence extends much beyond those already inclined toward her way of thinking.

  9. Catechism ! what a concept ! Ms. P. get a grip !

  10. Peregrinus says:

    My Catholic faith also impels me to accept same-sex marriage. Faith for me is sort of like a symphony, there are major themes that run through it, and minor ones as well. A morality built around concepts of purity would be a minor one; the issue of justice and equality would be a major theme. I think God speaks to us through our deepest desires, and for homosexuals, their deepest desires are pretty clear.
    Furthermore, a think a good case could be made on pragmatic grounds that it is less damaging to society to have same sex couples in stable relationships than hooking up in bars. Furthermore, I think the state has an interest in promoting such stability. So even if one doesn’t agree with the morality of same-sex marriage, it can still be seen as preferable to other expressions of same-sex desire.

    “Onan, however, knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he had intercourse with his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid giving offspring to his brother. What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too.” Gen 38:9-10

    “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman;o such a thing is an abomination.” Lev 18:22

    “A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel : for he that doeth these things is abominable before God.” Deut 22:5

  11. Oy vey, she’s at it again!

  12. She’s most likely part of the 57% that in a survey the Deacon posted about last week who think Jesus committed sin in His life. She is beyond cathechesis. I will continue to pray for her.

  13. “I think…I think…I think…” How many times did you say “I think” in there? Catholicism is not about what you think. You don’t get to make the theology. It has been handed down to you.

  14. She is a disgrace. Can a bishop please ecoriate her publically? To allow her statement to stand is to allow erroneous catechesis. She is consciously putting forth heresy.

  15. Typo correction: I meant excoriate.

  16. There are many of us who feel very compelled to see justice for all individuals, and an end of scape goating and discrimination. The church has been wrong on many occasions over the years. Any one who does not think so has not studied church history. In the end, we must all follow our own consciences. Unfortunately, there is too much truth in that headline for a post on this blog a couple of weeks ago, “I don’t have to think, I’m Catholic.” It is not at all surprising that as hierarchical as the church is – all the various levels of clergy and hierarchy, followed by the severe demarcations between clergy and laity, again with the vast chasm in church thinking between men and women, that the church sees no problem in isolating homosexuals and heterosexuals in its schema. Lip service is paid to the concept of “unity”. Trickle-down spirituality is not for a great many of us Catholics.

  17. “In the end, we must all follow our own consciences.” – You follow your conscience into sin?

  18. We need to offer our prayers for Ms. Pelosi. Her sin is trotted out to all the world every-time she speaks. Who of us could live with our sin posted in every newspaper and such.
    It is our response, our actions of mercy, compassion and prayer, that should and will out weigh the damage she speaks. She is in need, desperate need, of healing.

  19. Peregrinus says:

    Faith and reason go together. Faith is rational.

    “You don’t get to make theology”- theology is reflection on a person’s experience of God. So in a sense, we are all theologians. And theology is constantly evolving. It’s not just a matter of passively receiving eternal and unchanging truths.

  20. Peter I challange you to name even ONE Dogmatic Chruch Teaching that has ever been wrong or even changed. You won’t find any, for two reasons:

    1. All dogmatic teachings are simply the revelations/truths of Jesus Christ
    2. There aren’t any. Even despite a few heretical popes, the Church has always been protected by the Holy Spirit; no dogma has ever been changed.

    What you might be confused with are the Church’s sinful members (of which there have been many), like Nancy Peolosi, who creates scandal by doing the equivlant of selling indulgances against Church teachings.

    For the same reason you believe the CC is “sinful”, is the same reason Nancy Pelosi is so dangerously wrong; poorly catechiezed folks like you are scandalized, consequently, not given the light and understanding of the beautiful truths of Jesus Christ.

  21. ron chandonia says:

    I think it’s worth noting how successful the post-Vatican II Church has been at convincing Catholics to adopt an ethic of peace and justice. That’s why Nancy Pelosi’s words probably ring true to many of her fellow Catholics; in fact, it’s one of the biggest reasons the majority of American Catholics voted for President Obama in 2008.

    What we have failed to do is to show the connection between our Catholic positions on the life/social issues and our support for human dignity, human rights, and social justice. Not only is same-sex marriage an offense against traditional Catholic sexual morality; it is also an injustice, an offense against the right of every child to be born into (and reared in) a real family. Far from making our society more just and fair, it will only undermine an already eroding institution that is the cornerstone or “vital cell” of any society oriented toward the common good. We badly need some prophetic leaders to get that acorss to Catholics. Unfortunately, these days we seem to be short on prophets but long on scolds.

  22. We may all be theologians, but we’re not all good ones. This is precisely why the Lord gave us His Church and the teaching authority of the Church. Anyone can read the Bible or reflect on the mystery of God and come up with all sorts of interesting theologies. But, there is a difference between speculative theology and God’s revelation, and it’s the role of the Church’s magisterium to ascertain and communicate God’s revelation. Otherwise everything is up for grabs, and you get people saying things like “MY Catholic faith compels me to …” accept and embrace teachings that are contrary to God’s revelation. Well, maybe YOUR Catholic faith does compel you, but no one, including you, is saved by the Gospel of Peregrinus. We are saved by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as given to us by His Church, of which He is the Head.

    To Peter: “I give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matt. 16:19

    To all the apostles: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matt. 18:18

    “To me, the very least of all the holy ones, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the inscrutable riches of Christ, and to bring to light for all what is the plan of the mystery hidden from ages past in God who created all things, so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities in the heavens. This was according to the eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord…” Ephesians 3:8-11

    “I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon. But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” 1 Timothy 3:14-15

    “… consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.” 2 Peter 3:15-17

  23. Hi Ron, Thanks for making a POSITIVE case for traditional sexual morality. The second paragraph of your post above gets to the heart of it. Good work!

    Another helpful treatment is Dr. Anthony Esolen’s “Ten Arguments for Sanity,” originally published a few years ago by Touchstone magazine. Here’s a working link:

  24. Hi, Peregrinus–one major problem with your thesis is that there is no such thing as “my” Catholic faith or “your” Catholic faith. There is only *the* Catholic faith.

    That is vital to any discussion of the Church and same-sex “marriage.” And “the” Catholic faith is shaped not by what you and I decide is “major” and “minor” in terms of theme, but rather by what the Holy Spirit decides, relative to His guidance of the successors of the Apostles and their teaching authority.

    God bless you!

  25. Peter, it is insulting and a cop out to dismiss those who think differently from you as not thinking at all. It’s also arrogant, ie: “If only you guys would use your brains and think about it you would agree with me!” Neither does it facilitate discussion on serious issues, which this issue sorely needs. Instead, what happens is trading in insults (“You’re a heretic!” “Well, you’re a bigot!”) and attempts to score points rather than make them.
    Our unity is in Christ, and in a truly Catholic understanding of justice, not in modern or post-modern ideas of justice. True justice reflects the glory to God, not the demands of prevailing social preferences.

  26. Ron, I think this is a fine assessment of the situation. Catholics of my generation and the one immediately before were schooled in an ethic of peace and justice, but it was largely driven by a secular understanding of those ideas. Hence, peace became defined as the absence of war, and justice became defined as everybody getting what they think they have a right to.

  27. Where have you been? Don’t you know that misogyny is seen as a virtue in the Catholic Church, and our Church leadership has fits when it sees women with power or authority? They cringe when they see women on an equal footing with men. I am reminded of an occasion several years ago when our parish was celebrating an anniversary of its founding, including a mass presided by the cardinal. He sent word that he did not want any women communion ministers. Well, all of us sent word back that none of us would serve if the cardinal couldn’t tolerate women in the sanctuary, and we told the pastor that maybe we did not need the cardinal after all for the occasion. In the end, we not only had women serving as communion ministers, but as the Liturgy Director of the event, I made sure that we also had a woman as cross bearer leading the whole procession.
    I too was sad to see some of the ad hominem ( maybe it should be ad feminam) sexist attacks on Nancy Pelosi throughout the comments. I have seen her at mass several times over the years, and she is a full participant in the liturgy. Her dad was a great mayor of Baltimore, her hometown.

  28. Peregrinus says:

    77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. — Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855. (condemned)
    -Syllabus of Errors

    2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

  29. First, I pray for you and all “cafeteria” Catholics. Second, I urge you to read (or reread if you’ve already done so) the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Third, do some study on Blessed John Paull II’s Theology of the Body. You appear misguided, and I urge you to pray and dig deeper on the subject.

  30. We see Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Biden constantly referring to “their faith”, but I have to wonder if either of them are actually practical Catholics.

  31. For those of you who think that catechesis is the answer to everything, I was state winner of the Knights of Columbus ” Cate-Quiz” which involved memorizing the entire Baltimore Catechism verbatim, as a kid. However, I also studied church history for years in my university and was shocked into a different understanding of faith. I now see why people who may spend 12 or more years in Catholic institutions are often kept unexposed to church history by design. It ain’t a pretty picture. Canonizations,excommunications, burnings at the stake, and “dogmas” too often the result of various power plays rather than piety. And of course, none of this is ancient history.
    Faith is essential, but at times with a grain of salt.

  32. IntoTheWest says:

    This is at St. Vincent’s…?

  33. Peregrinus says:

    Cafeteria has such negative connotations; it’s really more of a buffet…

  34. Bill Kelly says:

    “There are six things that God hates, Seven that He abhors: A haughty look, A lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that weaves wicked plots, feet that hurry to do evil, a fake witness who lies with every breath and one who sows dissention among brother”

    Nancy Pelosi – shows everyone of these traits – please someone with courage in the Catholic Church call her on these things – she is a proven enemy of the Church.

  35. IntoTheWest says:

    Timmay, as far as I know, Nancy Pelosi regularly attended Mass when she was home in SF. I don’t recall seeing her receive communion. However, after a recent switch in pastors, I haven’t seen her at Mass when she’s been home, but perhaps she attends a later one these days, or switched to St. Dominic’s or St. Ignatius. Something may have been said. Our new pastor is quite orthodox and is doing a wonderful job revitalizing our parish.

    Niederauer has publicly chastised Pelosi’s references to her position on abortion and her Catholic faith, btw, so perhaps he’ll make a public statement regarding her latest comments.

  36. “theology is reflection on a person’s experience of God”

    Who told you that? Or did you make that up as well.

  37. If I were the Cardinal at that mass, I would have denounced your juvenile behavior and left the Church immediately. I would have then instructed the pastor to cancel the mass because of the lack of respect.
    Ms. Pelosi is a scandalous example of Catholicism as is Mr Biden.

  38. “2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.”

    That’s referring to people being free to chose their religion. It has nothing to do with Catholics deciding what part of Catholicism they agree with. If you consider yourself Roman Catholic then you have to consider homosexual acts as sin.

  39. IntoTheWest says:


    Ya know, at this point, she’s just become a caricature of her own self.

  40. She is not in communion with the Church as she obviously does not believe and profess all that the Holy Catholic Church, believes, teaches and proclaims to be revealed by God. How then would she be part of the body of Christ?

  41. If it were only limited to her sinning, then prayer might be enough. But her erroneous prosletizing (in effect that’s what she’s doing) leads others into sin. She must be rebuked by at Bishop level clergy.

  42. Midwestlady says:

    Nancy Pelosi is delusional.

  43. “Don’t you know that misogyny is seen as a virtue in the Catholic Church, and our Church leadership has fits when it sees women with power or authority? They cringe when they see women on an equal footing with men.”

    You consider yourself a Catholic and have the audacity to say that? I see. You’re not worth my time discussing Catholic issues.

  44. Well, Peter, I guess you proved my point about not facilitating serious discussion. This comment pretty much reveals that you are not at all interested in serious discussion about the matter. I’ll move on, as I have better things to do than waste my time attempting to have a meaningful discussion with an ideologue.

  45. Discrimination of any kind? Do you mean, I could practice law without attending law school or taking any state exams, or better yet, be a member of Congress without getting duly elected. Flying a plane, driving a car etc, etc. without any training or standards to meet?
    How did such a dunce make it to Washington?

  46. friscoeddie says:

    Manny.. the overwhelming Catholic vote is to allow SS CIVIL marriage. You can excoriate all you want but the Catholic majority will increase another 10 points by Nov. Stop excoriating it’s bad for digestion.

  47. She makes me laugh, consistently. Can’t discriminate against polygamists now Nancy can we? “Our” faith prohibits it.

  48. ron chandonia says:

    Deacon Greg just did thread on helpful and unhelpful comments. Anything political here is sure to generate plenty of the latter. In centuries long past, Christians fought one another over issues of Christology; today we have forgotten such issues, and instead we fight over partisan talking points.

  49. deacon john m. bresnahan says:

    The worst thing about Pelosi’s lies and ignorance is that it misleads other Catholics and other Christians about the teachings of the Bible and the Church. And, sadly, from the point of view of many life-long Democrats, she and Biden’s Gay cheerleading , are making the Democratic Party far less hospitable for those who embrace the Catholic family and marriage Tradition.

  50. Peregrinus, I largely agree with you. I admire your commitment to conscience and your independent disposition. Sure, the hyper-legalistic folks on this blog raise important points about church teachings, but I find them excessively Pharisaical.

  51. Art ND'76 says:

    When she talks about her faith in that matter, it becomes an issue of scandal to all who have either an uninformed or misinformed faith. Given what I know, which may well be incomplete, her bishop is not being responsible to either her, the diocese in his care, or the church at large by not forcefully, publicly correcting her. Several others have mentioned Canon 915 regarding her, and from what I can read of it, it seems to fit.

  52. IntoTheWest says:

    But Niederauer did put out a public condemnation of her comments re abortion a few years ago, so he may make a public statement about this, too.

    And, given what I know, she’s clearly not finding her home parish to be as quick to turn a blind eye over these matters as it was when Fr. Ring was pastor. But this is speculation on my part, only from what I’ve observed, so who really knows who has said what to whom. Those decisions are not made by individual parishioners, nor should they be.

    The Pelosi’s are powerful people in SF — were powerful people before Nancy entered the picture, actually — so it’s probably a delicate matter.

    I’m not big on showy public reprimands. I believe they tend to be more divisive than unifying, more antagonistic than pastoral. They create camps “for” and “against” individuals within the Church, and that’s not a good thing. And when they involve politicians, the Church can be seen as making a public declaration for or against a political person and/or party, which opens up a whole ‘nother can of worms.

  53. Well, there are Catholics and there are “Catholics.” But someone needs to set straight all these people who are preaching erroneous doctrine. Or do you want the Catholic Church to be as meaningless as some of the liberal Protestant denominations?

  54. naturgesetz says:

    It’s not hyper-legalistict uphold the order of nature.

    All the talk of “a isn’t as bad as b” doesn’t amount to the least justification for “a.”

    The state did not create marriage, and it can’t redefine it. The Church didn’t create marriage, and it can’t redefine it. Marriage is an institution that exists by nature to produce children and have their parents raise them. Theologically, we see that the spouses are called to love one another, but that is not a change to its male-female nature which is an intrinsic part of its nature.

    The very phrase “same sex marriage” is a lie.

  55. naturgesetz says:

    The Syllabus of Errors was not dogma. So, Peregrinus, you haven’t come up with a valid response to Klaire’s challenge to Peter.

    The rad trads love to throw the Syllabus of Errors in our face to try to dispute Vat II, but it’s as invalid for them as it is for you in this case.

  56. Ted Seeber says:

    Final Proof that Pelosi is not, and never will be, in Communion with Rome. No matter what she claims she’s “experienced”, her faith is NOT the Faith of Our Fathers.

  57. Catholic Dad says:

    I fully agree with you, but here is my concern: WHEN will the Church leadership take action? To do nothing more than rattle their sabers while political leaders create scandal and lead others astray is disheartening and demoralizing to the faithful. We’re out here on the front lines defending the faith. Where is the Church leadership? Where are the public denunciations? When will they be denied communion? When will tangible action be taken to call these politicians to account for their misuse, misstatement, and distortion of Church teaching?

  58. IntoTheWest says:

    How do you know she hasn’t been denied communion?

  59. Oregon Catholic says:

    I’m afraid you don’t know much about homosexual culture if you think all the anonymous hook-ups are just poor souls looking for someone to love and settle down with. They are totally free to do that now. Many homosexuals are looking for that, but there is a significant part of the culture which is decidedly anti-heterosexual norms and they are little more than rutting animals defined solely by their sexual appetites. Most straight people who are sympathetic to the gay agenda would be horrified and repulsed beyond sympathy if they could observe a radical gay lifestyle of cruising and sexual behavior – sometimes by their nice co-worker who presents a false picture at work. That’s not to say that there aren’t heterosexuals that fit that description as well but not as a culture in the same way as gays are.

    As for Pelosi, she has handed Dolan the perfect opportunity to evangelize on the true Catholic morality. He can basically expose her as the liar and hypocrite she is – in kindness but truth – so that no one will mistake her as Catholic.

  60. Peter proves once again that the greatest enemies of the Church are disgruntled Catholics, former Catholics and those who want to reshape the Church according to their notions of what the Church should be. We don’t need enemies from the outside we have plenty within.

  61. It is amazing, she really is a dullard, a pea brain. Her IQ can’t be above 90.

  62. Oregon Catholic says:

    Amen, Manny. Her take on what Catholicism means can’t be allowed to stand uncorrected.

  63. Catholic Dad says:

    I have a hard time believing that this would remain purely private. If you or anyone else can point to an instance where such a high profile American politician has received more than a public admonition or the mere suggestion of communion being refused, I would welcome the news.

  64. Oregon Catholic says:

    It’s very sad that our Church has become as polarized as politics today.

  65. Deacon Greg Kandra says:

    How do any of us know if Nancy Pelosi is even presenting herself for communion?

    She may not be — which, at least, would be to her credit.


  66. IntoTheWest says:

    True. And she wasn’t, even when Ring was pastor, and he was happy enough to overlook her wackadoo nonsense.

    But I just love it when everyone demands all these big public refusals of communion as if they’re on the communion line with her. Like the only thing that will satisfy them is if the bishop shows up with a camera crew and pull a “you shall not pass!” move between Pelosi and the chalice. /rolleyes

  67. naturgesetz says:

    To amplifiy a bit, here’s a link to an article by Daniel Radcliffe, O.P. If memory serves, he is or was Master General of the Dominicans, and never regarded as an ultra-conservative. In the article he says, “The Catholic Church does not oppose gay marriage. It considers it to be impossible. If it were possible, then we would have to support it since the Church tells that we must oppose all discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The issue is not gay rights but a wonderful truth of our humanity which is that we are animals: rational animals according to the Medievals, spiritual animals open to sharing the life of God,” and goes on to develop the point.

    People used to illustrate the supremacy of the British Parliament by saying, “Parliament can do anything except make a man a woman.” It and Congress likewise can’t make a same sex relationship a marriage.

  68. Catholic Dad says:

    To the extent there is a protocol (which there is) and warnings previously issued about the denial of communion (which has happened) then it is fair to assume it is more than a hollow threat. Your point is valid, that if these persons do not attempt to receive communion, then we have a non-issue.

    To IntoTheWest’s point, you can engage in juvenile attacks and eye rolls all you want. Nobody is asking for a public spectacle, and I don’t give a flip whether I’m in the same communion line with them or not. It is apparently important enough to Church leadership to rattle the saber in public and warn about the withholding of communion. When is it appropriate, then, to do more than that and actually follow through? That is a legitimate question.

  69. naturgesetz says:

    Sorry, forgot to paste in the link. Here it is.

  70. IntoTheWest says:

    Except that you don’t know if they’ve “followed through” or not. Neither you or I know what private conversations have been had. Pelosi and Biden have both gotten quite a bit of public blowback from several American bishops and many prominent Catholics re their statements and positions involving Catholic teaching. Yet some people are never happy. You yourself wonder out loud “where are the public denunciations?” They’re there. So just how public does it have to be to satisfy you? It seems to me that some Catholics won’t be satisfied until they get the Catholic version of a perp walk.

  71. Catholic Dad says:

    There are a multitude of reasons for wanting to know there has been follow through that have nothing to do with seeing a “perp walk.” You appear to be unable or unwilling to understand this, preferring instead to take pleasure in projecting a nonexistent intent upon “some Catholics.”

  72. Art ND'76 says:

    Public condemnations are good and necessary, but they don’t reach the level of Canon 915. I have been aware of the political power of the Pelosi family in SF for a few years now. I also don’t know if that contributed to how “delicately” her statements have been treated.

    As for big, showy public reprimands – I also don’t favor them, especially for those who have not said anything in public. The whole point with Pelosi saying what she does is that unless you spend some time searching for it, you don’t even know that a correction from her bishop was issued. But her statement of “faith” is instant front page national news, while to find out about a statement from her bishop you have to initiate a search after the appropriate number of days or weeks (months) have elapsed. I think a preponderance of people will never bother, and happily continue to have their knowledge of their faith distorted until it is beyond recognition. If not by a “showy public reprimand”, then how does the church respond effectively to a creeping, Orwellian political re-definition of the very words we use to convey the faith?

  73. naturgesetz says:

    Actually, as quoted above, NP does not say that her faith compels her to support same-sex “marriage.” She cleverly says, ““My religion has, compels me–and I love it for it–to be against discrimination of any kind in our country,” and she has that almost right. The Catholic faith compels her to be against unjust discrimination. Then she correctly puts the onus on herself for her conclusion by adding, “and I consider this a form of discrimination.” (Emphasis added.) So while perhaps trying to suggest that the Catholic Faith supports her position, she actually admits that it’s her personal conclusion.

  74. Peregrinus says:

    Not necessarily. In the middle ages there were riots in the streets of Paris by students who attended the university of Paris. They were rioting over the question of whether the universe is eternal, among other other things. Obviously I’m no fan of riots but it would be nice to imagine today’s catholic school students getting that worked up over a philosophical stance.

    Vigorous discussion is often a sign of health.

    We can only disagree with one another so passionately because we have so much in common.

  75. Your “wonder” is not a fair comment. I can attest that I have seen VP Biden at mass several times in Delaware and in Washington , DC over many years. He was also known during his several termss in the Senate for returning home for dinner by train almost every night. I heard Speaker Pelosi in a beautiful interview on TV the night before she became Speaker, saying how her mother impressed upon their family the importance of striving to be holy. She really made some moving remarks.

  76. Peregrinus says:

    Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

    Of course I really believe that it is “our” faith that promotes same-sex marriage.

    As the maxim has it: “Morality is based on reality.” And our understanding of the reality of homosexuality has changed remarkably over the past century. As our understanding of reality changes, so too must our morality (I expect all Catholics can agree with this general principle, even if they disagree passionately with the conclusions I draw from it).

    “but rather by what the Holy Spirit decides”- I would say that the Holy Spirit works (or can work…) in all of us and guide all of us, not just the Bishops, which is what I assume “the successors of the Apostles and their teaching authority” reference.

    The Holy Spirit has at times worked in the laity, has it not, to help guide the bishops?

    Its not as if there is a magical conduit from Spirit to bishop, no?

    Certainly a bishop or a group of bishops can make a mistake about belief, even for a long time?

  77. The Holy Eucharist used to be such a wonderful sacrament until the ultra right decided it is really a weapon.

  78. Peregrinus says:

    @ Naturgesetz:

    “Marriage is an institution that exists by nature to produce children and have their parents raise them.”

    -This is true as present day description of marriage, but this is a full description of modern marraige.

    Traditional marriage (say, before the 1800s) existed to do both those things, but just as importantly to pass on property.

    Marriage is about money. One of the reasons the Church did not start treating marriage as a sacrament until the 800s.

  79. Peregrinus says:

    “That’s not to say that there aren’t heterosexuals that fit that description as well but not as a culture in the same way as gays are.”

    I’d say every college campus in the United States has a culture of heterosexual hookups that is every bit as permissive and destructive as that which you ascribe to homosexuals.

    And I admit I lack expertise in homosexual culture.

  80. I started following Nancy Pelosi in the news during my days at UC Berkeley. She has always been a champion of the dignity of labor, urging a just minimum wage, she has sought to improve the lives of children and those without health insurance, and she has championed equality among all the diverse elements of the USA. At that time, I first started reading National Catholic Reporter, while my former girl friend was a reader of The Wanderer. We excommunicated each other, but recently crossed paths at a reunion.
    With 7 billion people now on this earth, and a diversity of thought and expression, I wonder why our Catholic culture is that such a narrow expression of belief is even tolerable without wishing fire, brimstone, and damnation upon those who deviate an iota from our 900 page catechism and multi volume canon law. In my mind, this books constitute a far more complex, artificial “spirituality” in which the institution is over valued, sacrificing the substance of the Two Great Commandments of Our Lord. I see Nancy Pelosi as a true leader, an incredible example , of attempting to live the Two Great Commandments. If one is not living these Two Great Commandments, all the niceties of liturgies and catechisms are really for naught.

  81. Peregrinus says:

    “and it’s the role of the Church’s magisterium to ascertain and communicate God’s revelation. Otherwise everything is up for grabs, and you get people saying things like “MY Catholic faith compels me to …” accept and embrace teachings that are contrary to God’s revelation.”

    I think it’s everyone’s job to ascertain and communicate God’s revelation, no?
    “But the laity likewise share in the priestly, prophetic, and royal office of Christ”

    Also, the Church’s opposition to gay marriage isn’t rooted in revelation, it’s rooted in natural law. If it were rooted in revelation than one could really only expect it to be accepted believers, whereas the Church teaches that people of every faith (regardless of revelation) can acknowledge the nature of marriage.

    At any rate it’s not just our faith, which emphasizes justice, but also “natural” reason that I think leads one to accept gay marriage.

    @ Manny: Well insofar as theology reflects on faith, as opposed to what is available to everyone (natural law).

    Obviously a person’s experience of God is always mediated, by the Church of course, but also by their own life’s experience.

  82. Peregrinus says:

    This is a great opportunity for you to educate me!

    What counts as dogma?

  83. Peregrinus says:

    I think it might be more fruitful question her wisdom, rather than her IQ. IQ is a pretty limited measure of intelligence in some ways.

    I’m sure she’d score at least average on an IQ test, though she might not score well on a test about specific knowledge related to the catechism let’s say.

  84. Oregon Catholic says:

    God’s institution of marriage and the command to be fruitful and multiply is front and center in Genesis 1:28 and follows immediately after He creates man and woman. I think it’s early appearance is quite significant, no? So we have both revelation AND natural law. And BTW, in case you think Jesus might have done away with this quaint OT notion, He quoted Genesis to the Pharisees on the topic of marriage and man and woman in Mark 4 and Matthew 19.

    Please tell us how you can create your personal Catholic theology of SSM out of that.

  85. naturgesetz:
    Exactly how I read her comments.

    People tend to interpret things in such a way that will confirm their own preconceived judgments and opinions. Look how readily some people believed that satire about Satan giving a commencement speech at a “Catholic” university. (Critical thinking? Thinking outside the box? Nah!)

  86. Oregon Catholic says:

    No matter how you parse it, she’s still making her Catholicism a matter of her own private interpretation and that’s the problem and the scandal.

  87. Hi, Peregrinus:

    From what “mouth” (so to speak) does “‘our’ faith” promote same-sex marriage?

    I can better respond to your other thoughts if we can pin this down.

    Thanks and God bless!

  88. friscoeddie says:

    Nancy Pelosi is an Italian Catholic grandmother who gets 80% of the vote in her/my district. We were fellow parishioners at St Edwards Parish until the AD closed the parish. They sold it for a pittance and is now the site of 20, million dollar condos and a high end commercial store. {Dumb AD move] These un Christian negative comments from those of you who probably live in some rust belt are going nowhere. A/B Niederauer is retiring and if the new A/B takes your advice and negativity and goes after Pelosi he had better have a back up plan to go live in Rome on the dole. .

  89. Peregrinus, I like the symphony analogy. Makes a lot of sense. Thanks for that!

  90. Oregon Catholic says:

    Because moral relativism is not a part of Catholic morality. And it is only in the last 50 years that there has come about such a diversity of opinion in our society on basic morality – this is a very new phenomenon and it too will pass away long before the Church’s teaching does. You need to have a longer view of right and wrong than your own lifetime.

  91. Good thing God doesn’t have to be the final judge of human souls anymore, Bill. You’ve taken over that job, evidently. (Why not pray for someone whom you believe is on the wrong path — instead of telling us that this person is one of the worst sinners on the planet, which is essentially what you have done.)

  92. Joan, I’m assuming that when you resort to calling names, you are either lacking an argument or you are just burning with intense anger. (I used to harbor such anger toward Bush 43 and probably would have made a similar comment about his IQ. In the end I had to pray for his well-being and for a conversion of my own heart. Still didn’t like the wars he started and the profits his friends reaped from those wars, but God did soften my heart toward him as a human being and a child of God.)

  93. IntoTheWest says:

    Okay, Catholic Dad, what reasons are there for you or any completely unrelated party to know there’s been follow through (and to your satisfaction, I suppose, since what follow-through there apparently is doesn’t meet your standards)?

    The American Bishops have been very outspoken about Pelosi’s previous comments. I am sure they’ll be just as outspoken about this one. Her own Bishop has been outspoken. He has met with Pelosi. There seems to have been a dialogue between Pelosi and her new pastor (although no one knows for sure — the only thing I can speak about is the change in her behavior since his arrival).

    What more do you want if not public show of humiliation?

  94. Deacon Steve says:

    How does her support of abortion follow the two great commandments? It does not because an innocent child is destroyed in the process. She is not a great leader, she uses her own bully tactics, just like the President to try to get her way, and anyone that doesn’t see it her way is the one that is wrong. Her attempts to use her faith to support her public statements on things that the Church which she claims to be part of, teaches are morally wrong is a joke. The Church is very clear on its teaching on two major issues that she flaunts her opposition to, how exactly is that being a great example?

  95. pagansister says:

    Quoting Deut;22:5, Peregrinus, about women not wearing a man’s clothing because it is an abomination to the Lord. Does that mean I have to let my hair grow from it’s short cut and stop wearing jeans and slacks? The clothing men and women wore in the time of Jesus were very much alike and Jesus had long hair—at least that is what seems to be in the images that are drawn about him. That particular rule seems to be very strange.

  96. pagansister says:

    Ms. Pelosi speaks her mind—and that certainly seems to upset some folks. I’d rather she be honest with her feelings than to lie to please people.

  97. Oregon Catholic says:

    I’d rather she be honest and admit that her views on SSM and abortion violate Catholic teaching, instead of trying to pass herself off as a faithful Catholic.

  98. Peregrinus says:

    If you are following your conscience (and have taken reasonable effort to form it) it isn’t sin.

  99. Peregrinus says:

    It shows Church teaching changing.

  100. Peregrinus says:

    First, we need to read the Bible in context.

    Until the late 19th century, there was no concept of a homosexual, i.e. someone born with same sex desires. The term that was used was sodomy, which was in principle something that everyone could be tempted by (note in the Purgatorio how many people are in line for that particular sin, including one of Dante’s former teachers).

    As the understanding of human sexuality developed, the category of homosexual became recognized as something that a person cannot change (which of course the bishops understand and accept).

    So now there is a new situation which did not exist when Genesis 1 was written; a new understanding of human sexuality. This is not something the biblical authors could have imagined in their historical context.

    Since there is a new historical reality, there needs to be a new moral framework to take into account this new reality.

    Now let’s take a look at Genesis 1:28
    “God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that crawl on the earth.”

    I’m not seeing marriage established there.

    I see God bless human beings.

    I see God tell human beings to reproduce. I don’t see God telling human beings to reproduce within the context of marriage.

    Mark 4:
    I see no reference to marriage, although there are some references to seeds. Perhaps I missed the verse?

    Matthew 19:
    Again, in the context of first century Judaism there was no concept of homosexuality as an inborn attraction. It is not surprising that Jesus does not say anything about homosexuality in this passage.

    Jesus was addressing a particular audience, the Pharisees about a particular question.

    If anything, this passage should be taken as an argument against homosexual persons who are married being allowed to divorce.

    In this story Jesus combines Genesis 1 (Male and female he created them) as an explanation for Genesis 2 (therefore they become one flesh), but in Genesis 2 the reason they become one flesh is that they were one flesh originally (Eve taken from Adam’s side) whereas in Genesis 1 humans are created male and female from the start. Jesus is therefore quoting from text somewhat creatively in order to address his particular audience in this circumstance.

  101. The Bible:
    “Before faith came, we were held in custody under law, confined for the faith that was to be revealed.
    Consequently, the law was our disciplinarian 16 for Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
    But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a disciplinarian.
    For through faith you are all children of God in Christ Jesus.
    For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
    There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
    And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendant, heirs according to the promise.” (Gal 3:23-29)

    This is a challenge to rethink gender relationships in light of salvation. Paul would not have approved of homosexual sex, because in Paul’s day homosexual sex was something tied into inherently violent, exploitative, and unjust conditions. Either a boy was forced into sex as a prostitute, or a male slave was raped by his master. Those were the main ways of experiencing gay sex in 1st century Roman society.

    Obviously that’s very different from today. By understanding the history of the period, we can understand why the position evolved, and recognize that since those conditions have changed, the norms should change as well.

    “History is the great teacher of life”-Blessed John XIII

    The importance of our deepest desires as revealing God’s will for us (this is very important in Ignatian spirituality- although of course it’s tricky to figure out what are deep desires and which desires are not at the core of who we are) I think this is very Augustinian, since St. Augustine was very much concerned with desire as well.

    The big question of course, is what contributes most to human flourishing?

    I think that gay marriage contributes to the human flourishing of homosexuals, and does not subtract from the human flourishing of heterosexuals.

  102. Yes. You must wear your hair long, wear only dresses, and not talk in Church.

    Jesus gets a pass ’cause he’s God.

    Strange in what sense? In that you don’t want to follow it today?

    Or strange in that you are truly unable to understand why someone would pass such a rule? Obviously people need boundaries in order to feel any sort of security.

    Read Purity and Danger by Mary Douglass if you have greater curiosity.

  103. Dear Deacon Greg,
    I have a nephew who has left the Catholic Church and is in a fundamentalist Christian seminary–the kind of seminary that teaches that Catholics are not Christian… He maintains that Scripture predicts that “people” will be forbidden to marry in the “end times”(Is that true?) and his interpretation of that is that the Bible foretold the Pope forbidding priests to marry…
    I know at least 3 baptised-and-raised-in-the-Catholic-Church-men who married, had children, divorced, and now live in gay partnerships (that appear to be more stable than their valid, consumated marriages) What I want to know is: Does the Catholic Church forbid those, who “possibly” have a homosexual orientation, from marrying? I read the catechism link and while I’m liking the parts about avoiding discrimination (and essentially bullying), I think there are not enough specifics offered there…
    Don’t you think this would be a wonderful time for the 2nd coming?

  104. Peregrinus,
    First: “I think it’s everyone’s job to ascertain and communicate God’s revelation, no?” In a word, no. Though you may certainly ascertain God’s revelation to you regarding how to apply God’s revelation to your life, God’s revelation given to us for the sake of our salvation is given to us via the Church, which is the instrument of God’s revelation, as the Gospels and Paul make clear. Even that revelation understood as given to us for our own personal edification ought properly to be explored under the guidance of the Church’s role as instrument of God’s revelation, lest we risk going our own way, as 2 Peter warns.
    Second: the Church’s opposition to homosexual intimacy is a matter of both revelation and natural law, in that it is condemned in the Scriptures and is contrary to natural law. I don’t see how natural reason leads to an acceptance of gay marriage.
    Third: your inadequate interpretation of Scripture in your 6:43pm post is an example of what 2 Peter warns against, and why God gave us the Church as the instrument of His revelation, so we can avoid the temptation to apply our preconceived notions to God’s Word.
    Where do you get the idea that a homosexual inclination is something with which some are born? There is no evidence in the sciences for this. I wasn’t aware that the bishops accepted this notion or the idea that such an inclination cannot be changed. Even if some are born with the inclincation, and even if it cannot be changed, that doesn’t argue for the morality of acting on it.

  105. Her faith “compels her to be against discrimination”? But she’s ok with infanticide? She’s ok with aborting a baby, and the baby having no say in the matter? That’s not discrimination? She’s ok with making the rest of her fellow Catholics, and her Church, pay to support the people who perform abortions?

  106. Hi, Peregrinus:

    Hmmm….you mentioned 1) Scripture, 2) Tradition, but you seem to have overlooked 3) Magisterium.

    Could you please cite something you think is in support of same-sex “marriage” from the Magisterium?

    You see, this is important to me because it is the Magisterium that is the conduit and keeper of both Scripture and Tradition. Scripture and Tradition are only as strong as the authority of the Magisterium….

    God bless you!

  107. 1. The Church includes both clergy and also the laity (the Church would look pretty silly without them”, so I would include all of us under the term “Church”. It is everyone’s responsibility in the Church to work out the meaning of God’s revelation, not just the clergy. If that were not the case there would be no lay theologians.

    2. Natual law is first and foremost human beings using their reason to figure out what’s right and wrong. As I am doing…

    3. The condemnation in Leviticus includes the death penalty. Are we to include that as well in Church teaching? Paul’s condemnation of it comes out of his historical context.

    3. A strict reading of the text does not yield the term marriage. This much we can agree on, no?

    From there, can we say we have to read into the text, therefore, the current teaching on marriage?

    4. Homosexual inclination is innate:
    There is the consistent evidence of the psychological sciences.

    “Church teaching acknowledges a distinction between a homosexual “tendency,” which proves to be “transitory,” and “homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct”(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, 1975, no. 8).

    It is possible to argue, as the bishops currently do, that just because you have an innate inclination, it doesn’t argue for the morality of acting on it.

    So just because I am left-handed does not mean that it is morally permissible to use my left hand.

    I think the question to be asked is: What leads to human flourishing?

    And I think the answer is that gay marriage does, at least as much as straight marriage.

  108. Magisterium is the teaching office of the bishops.

    Office means duty.

    Magisterium is a duty to teach, not a magic guarantee that anything you teach will be perfect.

    The Magisterium is not the ultimate source of our teaching.

    1. The bishops acknowledge homosexuality is innate (at least for many), and that there is nothing sinful about being gay.

    2. Psychology acknowledges (and I think the bishops would agree with this, but let me know your opinion) that being gay doesn’t make anyone any more likely to be crazy or emotionally unhealthy than any other person, and I think we can all see it doesn’t make a gay person more likely to be physically unhealthy either.

    3. It is natural for a gay person to have same sex desires.

    4. Grace builds on nature.

    Is it possible that a new understanding of human beings, as including a minority for whom sexuality is very different, to have no impact on how we understand what their happiness looks like?

  109. pagansister says:

    Ray, she is “OK” with women having the right to have control over their own bodies. No one tells a man he can’t do as he wishes with his body. The law in this land fortunately gives her that human right. Absolutely no one says she HAS to terminate a pregnancy, and I wish women wouldn’t do so, but some do. She is supporting the law of the land.

  110. pagansister says:

    Well, I guess Jesus can get a pass, because he ‘s God, Peregrinus. I wear what I want, since I don’t follow rules set for women 2000 years ago. I think I actually own perhaps 2 dresses. No, I really don’t find it strange for someone to write rules telling folks what to do regarding clothing and gender. Kind of like a power thing. Ridiculous but not strange.

  111. Oregon Catholic says:

    Peregrinus, did you even read what Jesus said in Mark and Matthew? He was speaking on divorce, hence marriage, and used Genesis as His authority. It IS about the first marriage.

  112. “It is everyone’s responsibility to work out the meaning of God’s revelation, not just the clergy.”
    Obviously, I’ve not made myself clear, and I apologize for that. There is a distinct and important difference between the work of theologians and the work of the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church, which resides in the pope and those bishops in union with him. It certainly is the essential work of theologians to consider, reflect, and speculate on the meaning of God’s revelation and how it applies to our lives, as it is for all believers, frankly. However, it is the office of the Magisterium, and only the Magisterium, to definitively declare what is God’s revelation on matters of faith and morals, ie: that revelation given to us for the sake of our salvation. The Magisterium has definitively declared that homosexual orientation, even if innate, and though morally neutral in itself, represents a disordered inclination. Homosexual acts, thereby, are intrinsically gravely immoral. Homosexual “marriage” is contrary to God’s design for human sexuality and marital union and, by way of both divine revelation (ie: Scripture and Tradition) and natural law, impossible by definition.

    We don’t include the death penalty for homosexuals in Catholic teaching precisely because the Church, as the final authority on interpreting Scripture and communicating God’s revelation, has rejected such and insists that no Catholic may claim Leviticus to justify the death penalty for homosexuals as consistent with Catholic teaching. But, by your theory of Catholic revelation, any individual Catholic could claim executing homosexuals as consistent with Catholic faith. After all, if you, as an individual Catholic, presume to interpret Scripture with authority (whether Leviticus or Paul or Genesis), so that homosexual “marriage” is consistent with Catholic faith or, at least, with “your” Catholic faith, then someone else can do the same and insist that executing homosexuals is consistent with Catholic faith or, at least, with “his” or “her” Catholic faith. This is the problem that Christ forsaw, no doubt, when He gave to Peter and the apostles (the first Magisterium; see Acts 15) the authority to “bind and loose” and created the Church as the instrument of God’s revelation in Christ.

    Just because you are left-handed does not mean it is morally permissible for you to use your left hand FOR ANY PURPOSE YOU DESIRE. Christian morality, as with Christian faith, is a matter of revelation. The font of God’s revelation is Scripture and Tradition (natural law being a tool given us by God as a help in discerning the proper meaning of His revelation, see: Romans 2:12-16), and the instrument by which He communicates His revelation is the Church. So, while you may use your left hand for benign purposes, and are encouraged to use your left hand for noble and righteous purposes, you may not use your left hand for ignoble or immoral purposes. You can imagine the same applies to any human body part. I’ll leave it to you to explore the possibilities.

    I think your question “what leads to human flourishing?” is the right question. St. Irenaus of Lyon said, “The glory of God is man, fully human, fully alive.” Nevertheless, the desires of individuals, or the proclivities of societies and cultures, are not the proper place for those of Catholic faith to seek the ultimate answer to what leads to human flourishing. Rather, that answer comes from Christ, Who is the wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24), and the instrument of God’s revelation in Christ is the Church.

  113. “No one tells a man he can’t d as he wishes with his body.”

    Um, that’s not true. I can’t use my body to hurt another person. This is why the crux of abortion is the identity of the one in the womb. If the one in the womb is not a person, than abortion is a relatively safe and easy medical procedure. If the one in the womb is a person, than abortion is the wilful taking of an innocent human life. I can’t use my body to wilfully take innocent human life, why should a woman be able to do so? The whole basis of the “pro-choice” position is the fiction that the one in the womb is not a person and, therefore, of no legal, spiritual, or philosophical concern. Modern biology is showing that position to be a farce.

  114. pagansister says:

    BobRN: Certainly won’t get into when “life” begins, as that could go on and on. However, if a person starts at conception, there are a lot of tax laws etc to be changed. I say again, a woman has the right to control her reproduction, and hopefully she will do so with contraception so there is no need to have to decide to continue a pregnancy if that birth control fails. However, no woman should be required to carry to term. In my mind that termination should happen VERY early in a pregnancy—like a month or 2 into it. Preferably a woman won’t terminate.

  115. pagansister says:

    Oh yes, BobRN, it is illegal for some man (or woman) to hurt someone else on purpose, so I guess there are laws telling you what to do with your body. However, I doubt (unless modern science turns you guys into incubators) that you will have a growth (not talking tumors here or bad things) inside you for a possible 9 months :o)

  116. Time out pagansist – ONce again you come here, seeking to interject your opinion on a CATHOLIC MATTER. She said her CATHOLIC FAITH compels her… Therefore she should be equally compelled by the CATHOLIC definition of life, and when life begins. You don’t need to remind anyone you have a different view of life. Pagans are well documented through out history for having practiced human sacrafice. We are well aware life is not sacred to you.

  117. As for the “law of the land” the original law of the land, that being our Declaration of Independence, defined three unalienable rights, endowed to us by our Creator (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Hapiness). They are not granted to us by our President, Congress, our any Court or judge. Therefore they can not be taken away by any of them. I know that sticks in the craw of atheists, but that is the law. Those are the principles our country was founded on. So don’t use the law as an excuse for taking the life of another individual.

  118. Actually, there is research being done on the possibility of men carrying children, but that’s another topic.

    The question of when life begins ought not take long at all. Biology, philosophy, and religion all agree that human life begins at conception. The problem is that the SCOTUS elected to distinguish legal “personhood” from human life. A human life, legally, is not necessarily a person. Hence the efforst of some legislatures of late attempting to apply the legal status of personhood to those in the womb. So, there are laws that allow a woman and her abortionist to kill someone else on purpose. Those laws are a direct result of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.

    I’ve never understood, if abortion is morally good or at least neutral, why it should matter when it takes place. In Virginia, in fact, as long as the child is connected to the mother via the umbilical cord, the child has no rights whatsoever. This was made horrifically clear in a case a couple of years ago when a mother killed her child ex utero, but still attached via the umbilical cord. There were no laws with which to charge her because, by Virginia statute, she committed no crime. We also have justices on the SCOTUS contemplating the legality of allowing a child ex utero with severed umbilical cord to be left to die. These are the children of botched or failed abortions. Even our current president couldn’t bring himself to support a proposed law requiring that such children warrented medical attention. Finally, there has long been a discussion in academia in this country and others about the morality of killing children who are not wanted by their parents, even days or weeks after birth. The recent paper by a couple of Australian philosophers brought the matter to the fore. It was condemend, of course, for now, but for how much longer? The “logic” of abortion is clear: if human life does not equal legal personhood, then anyone can be legally defined as a non-person. Oh, but that would never happen here!

  119. How much does Nancy Pelosi *really* know about the Catholic faith about which she so proudly proclaims?

    A priest in our parish once told a group of us that in vetting godparents, to make sure they had at least *some* knowledge of the faith, he would ask if they could name all four evangelists – that is how bad it has become.

    Could Nancy Pelosi pass this test?

  120. pagansister says:

    Like I said, BobRN, I would prefer that no woman found it necessary (in her mind) to terminate—but some women do and have for centuries. Even if it once again became against the law, and personally I hope it doesn’t, women will still have them—it’s just that more will die in the process because it will once again have to go underground.

  121. pagansister says:

    Hi! Ray!
    Think you tried to get me to stop commenting a few posts back. I will continue to comment as long as the good Deacon allows, as that is not your decision. All I have to say about your last rude comments? You are wrong. Simple as that.

  122. dolleybird says:

    Nancy Pelosi’s faith compels her to be against same-sex marriage and against abortion. Her bishop has refused to give her communion because of her defiant anti-Catholic beliefs. In one poll she was rated as the #2 dumbest member of Congress. I think the rating was too low.

  123. Billy Bean says:

    How will the American Catholic Church ever withstand the wringer she is about to go through? Reading the comments of so many who seem to give more weight to Enlightenment philosophy than to the teaching of the magisterium of the Church, I would not be surprised if an American Catholic schism is imminent.


  1. [...] Marriage Pelosi Demonstrates, Yet Again, that Her FaithMay 11, 2012 By Mark Shea Leave a Comment…is not the Catholic Faith.Sorry, Nancy, but the Catholic faith is not esoteric. It is not “whatever I feel deeply in my [...]

Leave a Comment