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

[Elizabeth502]

No I feel anyone who was baptized a Catholic, Nancy Pelosi included, should be allowed to call themselves that wherever they are if they choose to do so, since that is the Church’s answer…

Again, baptized Catholics get to call themselves Catholic, by identity.

Regardless, positions not in line with Catholic doctrine cannot be called genuinely Catholic positions. A position contrary to Catholic doctrine does not “become” Catholic because the person espousing the dissenting or radically contrary opinion was baptized.

It is the latter that you continually try to infer on this forum.

I can register as a member of the Communist party or the Socialist Workers’ Party, but if I advocate unrestrained capitalism, then there is nothing “Communistic” about my public statements, no matter how often I waive my I.D. card around. I have lost credibility as an authentic spokesperson for the teachings of that political party.

 

[CMatt25]

Again, baptized Catholics get to call themselves Catholic, by identity.

Regardless, positions not in line with Catholic doctrine cannot be called genuinely Catholic positions. A position contrary to Catholic doctrine does not “become” Catholic because the person espousing the dissenting or radically contrary opinion was baptized.

It is the latter that you continually try to infer on this forum.

No they don’t. And not at all. I infer the former.

 

[Nimzovik]

Precisely. A Catholic is as a Catholic* does*. If He/She does not practice fully the Faith, they are only fooling themselves.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

What no one has brought up is the fact that Pelosi is elected from San Francisco. So by being pro-gay marriage, she locks up the massive gay vote in the “gayest” city of the US, and by being Catholic, she locks up the Latino vote which is considerable in SF.
What I think is that her religion is the Democratic Party, and her proof of sanctity is her membership in the Congress.

 

[Nimzovik]

Too true.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It always disappoints me when people get derailed into questionable topics about Catholic identity and excommunication. Those topics are convenient excuses, both for those who want to use this discussion forum as a platform for dissent or direct challenge to Church teaching, and for those who want to focus on some public ecclesial-based discipline of a misinformed public official who is clearly a baptized Catholic and calls himself/herself one.

~The best defense against ignorance is truth.
~The best antidote to misinformation is accurate information.
~The most effective opposition to anyone misrepresenting an institutional position (church, political party, civic body, etc.) is for a member of that institution, in a position of authority, to correct inaccurate public statements, publicly.

Neither Nancy Pelosi nor Joe Biden are legitimate re-interpreters of Catholic moral doctrine, as neither has been appointed so by the Vatican. Thus, when a Catholic politician states that his or her “Catholic faith” “compels” him or her to oppose Catholic doctrine, then that official should be called on that inherent contradiction, publicly. Clearly such a person has a poor understanding of the faith, and/or is conveniently and deliberately manipulating doctrine illegitimately for political purpose. Representing that so-called “compulsion” as a legitimately Catholic interpretation is the falsehood that needs to be exposed and corrected, publicly, by someone with visible authority to do so.

I’m glad that U.S. clergy are beginning to become more media-savvy. They could enlarge that presence by having a CatholicPoliticiansWatch update on their website(s), and a CatholicJournalistsWatch as well (directed at people like Chris Matthews who weekly misrepresents Catholic positions, and in a parallel manner as some politicians do).

 

[Nimzovik]

It always disappoints me when people get derailed into questionable topics about Catholic identity and excommunication. Those topics are convenient excuses, both for those who want to use this discussion forum as a platform for dissent or direct challenge to Church teaching, and for those who want to focus on some public ecclesial-based discipline of a misinformed public official who is clearly a baptized Catholic and calls himself/herself one.

~The best defense against ignorance is truth.
~The best antidote to misinformation is accurate information.
~The most effective opposition to anyone misrepresenting an institutional position (church, political party, civic body, etc.) is for a member of that institution, in a position of authority, to correct inaccurate public statements, publicly.

Neither Nancy Pelosi nor Joe Biden are legitimate re-interpreters of Catholic moral doctrine, as neither has been appointed so by the Vatican. Thus, when a Catholic politician states that his or her “Catholic faith” “compels” him or her to oppose Catholic doctrine, then that official should be called on that inherent contradiction, publicly. Clearly such a person has a poor understanding of the faith, and/or is conveniently and deliberately manipulating doctrine illegitimately for political purpose. Representing that so-called “compulsion” as a legitimately Catholic interpretation is the falsehood that needs to be exposed and corrected, publicly, by someone with visible authority to do so.

I’m glad that U.S. clergy are beginning to become more media-savvy. They could enlarge that presence by having a CatholicPoliticiansWatch update on their website(s), and a CatholicJournalistsWatch as well (directed at people like Chris Matthews who weekly misrepresents Catholic positions, and in a parallel manner as some politicians do).

Bold Lettering mine.

Great idea!

 

[jenkiedad]

Neither Nancy Pelosi nor Joe Biden are legitimate re-interpreters of Catholic moral doctrine, as neither has been appointed so by the Vatican. Thus, when a Catholic politician states that his or her “Catholic faith” “compels” him or her to oppose Catholic doctrine, then that official should be called on that inherent contradiction, publicly. Clearly such a person has a poor understanding of the faith, and/or is conveniently and deliberately manipulating doctrine illegitimately for political purpose. Representing that so-called “compulsion” as a legitimately Catholic interpretation is the falsehood that needs to be exposed and corrected, publicly, by someone with visible authority to do so.

AMEN!!!

I’m glad that U.S. clergy are beginning to become more media-savvy.

Yes, they are “beginning”, but it is still at a snails pace!

 

[He_Man]

No I feel anyone who was baptized a Catholic, Nancy Pelosi included, should be allowed to call themselves that wherever they are if they choose to do so, since that is the Church’s answer. To say otherwise is not the Catholic answer. Some here seem to agree.

You also feel it is okay to continue to ignore what everyone posts. Why do you insist on being so disingenuous?

We have said she is catholic by Baptism, and is identified as such.

What is not okay is to use the Catholic Faith (another way of saying the teachings of the Catholic Church) to justify endorsing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what that Faith teaches. That’s called lying.

Why can’t you grasp the difference?

I suspect you respond by asserting her status as a Catholic, by rule of Baptism, yet again, and ignore the second point, which is what everyone making…

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

HeMan, some people on the forum are doing exactly what Pelosi is doing, they take part of the truth, and ignore the rest of the truth, placing something else in it’s place. Perhaps this is just their choice. We all, ultimately, have a choice.

 

[He_Man]

HeMan, some people on the forum are doing exactly what Pelosi is doing, they take part of the truth, and ignore the rest of the truth, placing something else in it’s place. Perhaps this is just their choice. We all, ultimately, have a choice.

Yeah, I said as much in this or another topic recently. She gets defended because some posters agree with her position, end of story. The weak defense used is irrelevant, since it is the position they support, not the rationale used to defend it.

 

[JackHandy]

The actions of these types of people used to drive me crazy to. In the last few months, I have been urged by the Holy Spirit to become Catholic. I am in the process of doing just that.

Along with this conversion, I have come to realize that the Holy Trinity is the chief object of offense when any given sin is committed. It is not our position to be offended as the body of Christ, as difficult as this can be.

The aforementioned folks are members of the body of Christ by virtue of their being Catholic. By the fruit they bear (their public attitudes and actions), they are very sick and hurting members. I say that the best thing we can do is pray for them and leave everything else up to God to convert them. Of course, as well we obliged to oppose their “lunacy”.

God Bless to all

Jack Handy

 

[jay29]

Pelosi is a protestant who hasn’t left the Church yet. She doesn’t know her faith and her bishop fails to act. It’s a disgrace all around.

 

[CMatt25]

The best defense against ignorance is truth.
~The best antidote to misinformation is accurate information.
~The most effective opposition to anyone misrepresenting an institutional position (church, political party, civic body, etc.) is for a member of that institution, in a position of authority, to correct inaccurate public statements, publicly.

You assume and judge far too much about another’s person’s ignorance.

But others giving information is what I have been saying all along.

 

[CMatt25]

You also feel it is okay to continue to ignore what everyone posts. Why do you insist on being so disingenuous?

We have said she is catholic by Baptism, and is identified as such.

What is not okay is to use the Catholic Faith (another way of saying the teachings of the Catholic Church) to justify endorsing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what that Faith teaches. That’s called lying.

Why can’t you grasp the difference?

I suspect you respond by asserting her status as a Catholic, by rule of Baptism, yet again, and ignore the second point, which is what everyone making…

I grasp the difference. I’m just not as confident that if lets say for instance Nancy Pelosi was here espousing her same gay marriage and pro choice political views and saying her faith has led her to be opposed to the discrimination of gays and thus for gay marriage, that she for certain could identify as such. Yet you’re saying she can identify based on Baptism. I agree with you though that being able to do so is the Church’s answer. And many of you would inform the public where she differs with you just as you do now.

 

[He_Man]

I grasp the difference. I’m just not as confident that if lets say for instance Nancy Pelosi was here espousing her same gay marriage and pro choice political views and saying her faith has led her to be opposed to the discrimination of gays and thus for gay marriage, that she for certain could identify as such. Yet you’re saying she can identify based on Baptism. I agree with you though that being able to do so is the Church’s answer. And many of you would inform the public where she differs with you just as you do now.

The problem is you’ve been defending her statement in using the faith to support that which the faith explicitly is against. Why?

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

I grasp the difference. I’m just not as confident that if lets say for instance Nancy Pelosi was here espousing her same gay marriage and pro choice political views and saying her faith has led her to be opposed to the discrimination of gays and thus for gay marriage, that she for certain could identify as such. Yet you’re saying she can identify based on Baptism. I agree with you though that being able to do so is the Church’s answer. And many of you would inform the public where she differs with you just as you do now.

She should be able to “self-identify” as Catholic based on being pro-Gay, and not based on someone spilling water on her head, is that it? If so, then if an unbaptized pagan says they are pro-Gay, they could also say they are Catholic?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

The actions of these types of people used to drive me crazy to. In the last few months, I have been urged by the Holy Spirit to become Catholic. I am in the process of doing just that.

Along with this conversion, I have come to realize that the Holy Trinity is the chief object of offense when any given sin is committed. It is not our position to be offended as the body of Christ, as difficult as this can be.

The aforementioned folks are members of the body of Christ by virtue of their being Catholic. By the fruit they bear (their public attitudes and actions), they are very sick and hurting members. I say that the best thing we can do is pray for them and leave everything else up to God to convert them. Of course, as well we obliged to oppose their “lunacy”.

God Bless to all

Jack Handy

Welcome Home!!!

:dancing::extrahappy::bounce:

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I grasp the difference. I’m just not as confident that if lets say for instance Nancy Pelosi was here espousing her same gay marriage and pro choice political views and saying her faith has led her to be opposed to the discrimination of gays and thus for gay marriage, that she for certain could identify as such. Yet you’re saying she can identify based on Baptism. I agree with you though that being able to do so is the Church’s answer. And many of you would inform the public where she differs with you just as you do now.

You can be against discrimination of gays (i.e. you cannot deny them a job, or be abusive towards them because they are gay), and be against gay marriage. What gay people (or even heterosexual people) do behind closed doors, I do not want to be rubbed in my face.

Gay people are free to marry… Someone of the opposite sex.

It’s an awful big jump to go from discrimination to marriage.

 

[CMatt25]

She should be able to “self-identify” as Catholic based on being pro-Gay, and not based on someone spilling water on her head, is that it? If so, then if an unbaptized pagan says they are pro-Gay, they could also say they are Catholic?

No. From all indications she was baptized in a Catholic church.