Pelosi Says Her Catholic Faith ‘Compels’ Her To Support Gay Marriage

[tgrath]

We are all sinners but to create public scandal for the Church and use the so called “Catholic” status to run political agenda and to confuse and mislead the public who are not familiar with true Catholic teaching, is not only bad but malicious.

Religious groups may lose their tax exempt status by making political statements, yet this politician ( and even more conservative ones) try to politicize their religous affiliations.

 

[ellipsis2]

In California when the issue of marriage was put on their ballot, the citizens (her constituents) supported traditional marriage - between a man and a woman. As is the case for every state where this issue has been put on the ballot.

I think it’s also important to remember that it is not only the Catholic faith that believes in marriage between a man and woman. There are many religions that practice the same belief.

While, I agree that our politicians shouldn’t force their beliefs onto another, they can’t have it both ways either. Pelosi speaks of Catholic teachings that are misguided/false when it serves her agenda. We are all disciples of Christ, and as such must speak out when lies are spoken and he is being offended. Our Lord suffered the most painful death imaginable for us. It’s the least we can do.

We could probably balance the budget with all the money that was put into that particular issue in California. Generally, when the rights of the minority are put to the vote, the majority wins. It’s the nature of the beast. Most of the laws that deal with issues of the minority need to be legistated for that very reason. We all know how the slavery vote would have gone. Voting rights, too, for that matter.

 

[rlg94086]

We could probably balance the budget with all the money that was put into that particular issue in California. Generally, when the rights of the minority are put to the vote, the majority wins. It’s the nature of the beast. Most of the laws that deal with issues of the minority need to be legistated for that very reason. We all know how the slavery vote would have gone. Voting rights, too, for that matter.

So, if NAMBLA were fighting for the right of men to marry boys, you would be trumpeting for their cause because they are a minority group? How about polygamists? They are a minority group.

 

[fix]

We could probably balance the budget with all the money that was put into that particular issue in California. Generally, when the rights of the minority are put to the vote, the majority wins. It’s the nature of the beast.

A big part of the problem is calling everything one desires a “right”.

Most of the laws that deal with issues of the minority need to be legistated for that very reason. We all know how the slavery vote would have gone. Voting rights, too, for that matter.

So, are you claiming she should support what her voters want or what is morally correct?

 

[ellipsis2]

So, if NAMBLA were fighting for the right of men to marry boys, you would be trumpeting for theranch ir cause because they are a minority group? How about polygamists? They are a minority group.

Those issues are breaking the law. The legislature legislates and if need be the judicial branch judges. Get back to me when pedophelia and polygamy no longer break the law.

 

[CMatt25]

But we can objectively say that her actions do not coincide with the teachings of the Catholic Church. We cannot judge her knowledge or heart.

A lot of you keep saying it. So I guess yes you can. And that should solve your worries about her causing great “scandal”. Just keep reminding the public that Nancy Pelosi is not a bishop and does not speak for the Catholic Church in her role as a public oficial. Not that I know anyone who thinks she is or does.

 

[ellipsis2]

Shame on me for jumping in and not reading the article. I just checked it out at Fox Nation reporting a story from “Weasel Zippers” who “scours the bowels of the internet”
It certainly sounds like that’s where THIS story belongs. BTW those comments are really something to see…and so many Catholics posting.

 

[CMatt25]

Is it Nancy Pelosi’s job to represent her constituents or her bishops/faith? I wonder about this especially in her capacity as Speaker. If one thinks she should be the out front spokesperson for Catholicism, would one the same about Mitt Romney stricly adhering to his beliefs if he becomes president?

In her job as a public official it is not to be a spokesperson for the bishops. Didn’t JFK address this? Why are we still talking about it over a half century later is beyond me. Good point about Mitt. I don’t think many Catholics would want him to be out front promoting his faith as a government official.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

A lot of you keep saying it. So I guess yes you can.

We are allowed to judge a professed Christian’s words and actions.

“Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matt 7:17-20)

“It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.” (Matt 15:11)

 

[CMatt25]

So, I wonder for the Catholics on this board who support an issue that the Chuch opposes:

What will happen to the Church, should “same sex marriage” become the law of the land?

I’m not a Catholic on this board but do you mind if I answer? My answer would be nothing. The Catholic Church will survive. You won’t be forced to perform SS marriage ceremonies. But if another religious faith body chooses to, they will be allowed to perform what would be a legal marriage. It basically will be civil marriage and only religious if a particular religion adopts SS marriage into their beliefs. As I know for instance the United Church of Christ has and the Unitarian Universalists and there may be others or that are in the discerning process on homosexuality issues in the 21st century. The Catholic Church from all indications isn’t going to do that. Her religious and sacramental marriages between 2 heterosexuals shall remain intact. It’s really much ado about nothing to me when there are so many other things Jesus spoke more about. It’s not even an issue that strirs my soul. I wouldn’t even be talking about it if I wasn’t encountering so much passion about it from those who make it such an issue.

 

[He_Man]

In her job as a public official it is not to be a spokesperson for the bishops. Didn’t JFK address this? Why are we still talking about it over a half century later is beyond me. Good point about Mitt. I don’t think many Catholics would want him to be out front promoting his faith as a government official.

Odd that you claim she doesn’t represent the Church when her words were “her Catholic faith compelled her…”

She invoked her religion, and does so often. The fault lies 100% with her. Not only is she wrong on the matter (which you will debate of course), she invokes the Church as the impetus for her beliefs (not debatable as clearly wrong.)

 

[He_Man]

I’m not a Catholic on this board but do you mind if I answer? My answer would be nothing. The Catholic Church will survive. You won’t be forced to perform SS marriage ceremonies. But if another religious faith body chooses to, they will be allowed to perform what would be a legal marriage. It basically will be civil marriage and only religious if a particular religion adopts SS marriage into their beliefs. The Catholic Church from all indications isn’t going to do that. Her religious and sacramental marriages between 2 heterosexuals shall remain intact. It’s really much ado about nothing to me when there are so many other things Jesus spoke more about. It’s not even an issue that strirs my soul. I wouldn’t even be talking about it if I wasn’t encountering so much passion about it from those who make it such an issue.

The passion begins with those attemtping to change the status quo. If the issue was not made a “big deal” by those seeking to change the historical tradition and belief held by most people, the Church would not have to counter that passion.

Rememeber, those in your corner raised the issue. Do not blame opponents for their passion, when it was proponents like yourself who made it an usse in the first place.

 

[scipio337]

I’m not a Catholic on this board but do you mind if I answer? My answer would be nothing. The Catholic Church will survive. You won’t be forced to perform SS marriage ceremonies. But if another religious faith body chooses to, they will be allowed to perform what would be a legal marriage. It basically will be civil marriage and only religious if a particular religion adopts SS marriage into their beliefs. The Catholic Church from all indications isn’t going to do that. Her religious and sacramental marriages between 2 heterosexuals shall remain intact. It’s really much ado about nothing to me when there are so many other things Jesus spoke more about. It’s not even an issue that strirs my soul. I wouldn’t even be talking about it if I wasn’t encountering so much passion about it from those who make it such an issue.

Did you read the link I provided? The Supreme Court upheld an IRS decision to strip Bob Jones University of its 503c status because it had an interracial dating ban.

If Bob Jones was punished for its dating ban, why not the Catholic Church for discriminating against a protected minority?

 

[CMatt25]

Odd that you claim she doesn’t represent the Church when her words were “her Catholic faith compelled her…”

She invoked her religion, and does so often. The fault lies 100% with her. Not only is she wrong on the matter (which you will debate of course), she invokes the Church as the impetus for her beliefs (not debatable as clearly wrong.)

There’s nothing odd about it at all. She was speaking as a public official and while doing so said she believes her Catholic faith tells her to be against discrimination and she also said she believes to oppose SS marriage is unconstitutional. If you don’t believe she’s right on the faith part, then it’s your job to inform others whom you seem to think believe she is a spokesperson for the Catholic Church that she isn’t. You’re doing a great job!

 

[qui_est_ce]

I’m not a Catholic on this board but do you mind if I answer? My answer would be nothing. The Catholic Church will survive. **You won’t be forced to perform SS marriage ceremonies. **

I absolutely don’t believe that.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

A lot of you keep saying it. So I guess yes you can. And that should solve your worries about her causing great “scandal”. Just keep reminding the public that Nancy Pelosi is not a bishop and does not speak for the Catholic Church in her role as a public oficial. Not that I know anyone who thinks she is or does.

But then she can’t calim she’s a Catholic in good standing (Yes, Matt we know she was baptized Catholic) if she is doing something that’s objectively worng and has been warned about it. That’s the key here and why people are getting porked off with her. Even though she is not in the clergy she can still do quite a bit of damage (aka scandal) since she is a influential public figure.

If I were her Bishop, I would formally announce that she’s excommunicated and make it publically known she does not speak for the Church.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

In her job as a public official it is not to be a spokesperson for the bishops. Didn’t JFK address this? Why are we still talking about it over a half century later is beyond me. Good point about Mitt. I don’t think many Catholics would want him to be out front promoting his faith as a government official.

First, Did you not read her statement? She invokes her “Catholic religion”

Secondly, it is very naive to think that Religion, or lack thereof, doesn’t influence politicans. This is Morality 101, and you cover this in the first week of class.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

There’s nothing odd about it at all. She was speaking as a public official and while doing so said she believes her Catholic faith tells her to be against discrimination and she also said she believes to oppose SS marriage is unconstitutional. If you don’t believe she’s right on the faith part, then it’s your job to inform others whom you seem to think believe she is a spokesperson for the Catholic Church that she isn’t. You’re doing a great job!

She is a public figure with a prestegious postion. How many Catholics will be mis-informed by her making this statement?

 

[rlg94086]

Those issues are breaking the law. The legislature legislates and if need be the judicial branch judges. Get back to me when pedophelia and polygamy no longer break the law.

Not a very well thought out argument on your part. Homosexuality used to break the law. By your logic, that should never have been changed.

 

[CMatt25]

Did you read the link I provided? The Supreme Court upheld an IRS decision to strip Bob Jones University of its 503c status because it had an interracial dating ban.

If Bob Jones was punished for its dating ban, why not the Catholic Church for discriminating against a protected minority?

I thank God interracial marriage is no longer outlawed.

But as far as your concerns about the Catholic Church being forced to marry gays or be punished, no one I know of has remotely proposed such a thing. Not even President Obama, Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi. And please don’t bring up the health care mandate or a multitude of non related issues. That gets quite old. Marriage and health care and polygamy and slavery etc are all separate matters.