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

[CMatt25]

They can’t? 2 years I’ve been here and I haven’t seen an instance of someone being told, “We don’t think you are what you say you are. Remove your religious affiliation at once!” It might be suggested but I’ve never seen it forced.

I have so I’m dropping it on the thread and letting you get back to the degree of Pelosi’s “Catholicity” of her statements.

 

[Dymphna82]

What a terrible thing to wish for. As far as gay marriage be recognized by the State I am totally for it. The Church does not ever have to perform same sex marriage and can deny communion to any one that is Catholic and living in sin. But we can not let the Church dictate to non-Catholics or non-believers on how they should live. America is a plural society and every person has the right to enter into a contract with anyone they want.
I have gay friends that are very dear to me and I support their right to be married if they wish. In the Church, not allowing gay marriage is fine. But outside of the Church other people have the right to live the way they see fit.

It’s not as if I asked for her to be flogged, deported and waterboarded.

Why can’t gays enter into a contract that is not called “marriage?” We are already seeing the consequences of Obama’s HHS mandate, forcing the Church to stop providing healthcare, if they want to avoid providing money for contraception and abortions. So…the health of many have to suffer to protect the unborn, because the Church is forced to make that decision, all or none. How do you know that gay marriage isn’t going to force the Church to marry gays?

This is 2012. Everyone “has gay friends” and family. That doesn’t make you anymore of an authority on the subject of what it’s like to know gays. They do have the right to live as they see fit but at what cost? Does the exclusion of the Church in someone’s daily life somehow make them less likely to go to Hell?

Regardless, if a politician wants to set aside their beliefs to pass laws that they think are fair, then a politician should make it clear that they’re not doing it because of their religious beliefs. She has done quite the opposite.

 

[CMatt25]

That has nothing to do with the Church’s position on same sex “marriage.” The Church’s moral theology, as I just addressed in a recent post, is an integrated theology regarding all of marriage for all of the human race. The question of the Sacrament is an entirely separate question. And since you have been raised as a Catholic and have admitted here publicly that you have not left the faith, that is something that you should be well aware of.

It’s not “particular” marriages which are individually jeopardized, so much as the entire institution of marriage, for a society and even a world, being jeopardized: Catholic marriages, civil traditional marriages, Jewish marriages, Protestant marriages…

Elizabeth, yes that is the Catholic Church’s moral theology and that of some others. And there are other Christians of a different theology whether you or others regard them as sound in their theology or not. I wouldn’t concern yourself with discussing me though.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

There is no difference if she identifies herself as a Catholic now which so many of you assure me you have no problem with based on Church teaching and her Baptism. Or if she were saying the same things here and yet as you say she couldn’t identify as such here. Yet the same teaching I would think would apply here. That’s why I said “not to me”. It should make no difference where she was. I know you would be worried about scandal if she were here but you’re claiming she’s causing scandal now. The contradiction makes no sense whatsoever. If she’s a Catholic now based on Church teaching and her Baptism, I would think she should certainly be one here too since it is the Catholic answer that she is.

I realize there is a contradiction, and that is what I was trying to point out, however, THE CONTRADICTION WAS YOURS, NOT MINE! Then you restate it three times afterward, attributing the idea to me, WHEN IT WAS YOUR CONTRADICTION! If you look carefully, again, at my post, I was quoting you, and trying to clarify what you were saying.

The problem with your contradiction is that you did exactly what HeMan stated you would do in post #440: you responded to his post by asserting her status as a Catholic, by rule of baptism, and completely ignored the second point, which you still continue to do. You claimed you grasp the difference, yet you continue to defend her after she committed a most heinous, grievous sin, which she did so publicly, not privately, which left nothing to judgement.

Yet Catholic Boy said, and I agree he might quite likely be correct,

I didn’t say it, YOU DID! Is there any wonder you agree? You claim the idea has contradictions, but then you repeat and agree with your idea anyway!

as Catholic Boy said,

I didn’t say it, YOU DID!

Catholic Boy for instance earlier in the thread said

I didn’t say it, YOU SAID IT!

I’m gone for a day, and look how foolish your remarks are. You attribute your nonsensical arguments to me!

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth, yes that is the Catholic Church’s moral theology and that of some others. And there are other Christians of a different theology whether you or others regard them as sound in their theology or not.

…which is precisely why those people with a different theology get to try their persuasive powers on the American public, as well. And they do every day in hundreds of media outlets. The Catholic Church, in making its own persuasive efforts, is not denying equal time for its opposers to make their case as well. One has nothing to do with the other. It is merely that those who oppose the Church’s teaching (those within and without the Church, I will add) are the ones who state that only the Catholic Church should be forbidden to contribute to the debate. Apparently it’s fine for atheists, for the Mormon Church, for the Jewish faith, etc. Just not OK for Catholics.

Right.

I wouldn’t concern yourself with discussing me though.

Except that it’s relevant because you keep bringing up the off-topic subject of Catholic identity, because it’s your pet topic. And it’s relevant because you just admitted that you know precisely what the Church teaching is on traditional marriage, so there’s no point in denying that you have a Catholic background, as clearly you do, and you have shared that on several threads recently.

 

[CMatt25]

I realize there is a contradiction, and that is what I was trying to point out, however, THE CONTRADICTION WAS YOURS, NOT MINE! Then you restate it three times afterward, attributing the idea to me, WHEN IT WAS YOUR CONTRADICTION! If you look carefully, again, at my post, I was quoting you, and trying to clarify what you were saying.

The problem with your contradiction is that you did exactly what HeMan stated you would do in post #440: you responded to his post by asserting her status as a Catholic, by rule of baptism, and completely ignored the second point, which you still continue to do. You claimed you grasp the difference, yet you continue to defend her after she committed a most heinous, grievous sin, which she did so publicly, not privately, which left nothing to judgement.

I didn’t say it, YOU DID! Is there any wonder you agree? You claim the idea has contradictions, but then you repeat and agree with your idea anyway!

I didn’t say it, YOU DID!

I didn’t say it, YOU SAID IT!

I’m gone for a day, and look how foolish your remarks are. You attribute your nonsensical arguments to me!

You quoted me with this: “not as confident that if … Nancy Pelosi was here…could identify as such”. That was the end of your quotation marks. So then when you went on and wrote that she couldn’t identify as such if she were here, I took that to mean those were your words and you were agreeing with me and thus me with you. I hope that helps you understand why I took it the way I did. But I’ve moved on from it unless people ask me something related and if I should see it.

 

[CMatt25]

…which is precisely why those people with a different theology get to try their persuasive powers on the American public, as well. And they do every day in hundreds of media outlets. The Catholic Church, in making its own persuasive efforts, is not denying equal time for its opposers to make their case as well. One has nothing to do with the other. It is merely that those who oppose the Church’s teaching (those within and without the Church, I will add) are the ones who state that only the Catholic Church should be forbidden to contribute to the debate. Apparently it’s fine for atheists, for the Mormon Church, for the Jewish faith, etc. Just not OK for Catholics.

Right.

Except that it’s relevant because you keep bringing up the off-topic subject of Catholic identity, because it’s your pet topic. And it’s relevant because you just admitted that you know precisely what the Church teaching is on traditional marriage, so there’s no point in denying that you have a Catholic background, as clearly you do, and you have shared that on several threads recently.

Elizabeth I don’t know why you roll your eyes. It’s fine with me if the Catholic Church tries to influence people. My background is neither here nor there though, nor pertinent to the discussion of gay marriage. As you don’t find the word, Catholic, in my profile. And I do not speak for the Catholic Church on it.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Elizabeth I don’t know why you roll your eyes. It’s fine with me if the Catholic Church tries to influence people. My background is neither here nor there though, nor pertinent to the discussion of gay marriage. As you don’t find the word, Catholic, in my profile. And I do not speak for the Catholic Church on it.

Good grief, CMatt. 106 posts from you on this thread, many of which about some gripe you hold about identifying as Catholic when one is not practicing or believing as a Catholic on important teachings. You made yourself the topic. The explanation has been made multiple times by a number of well intentioned members here already.

!!!

 

[CMatt25]

It’s not “particular” marriages which are individually jeopardized, so much as the entire institution of marriage, for a society and even a world, being jeopardized: Catholic marriages, civil traditional marriages, Jewish marriages, Protestant marriages…

The institution of marriage is not in jeopardy either. It is only in jeopardy if people allow it to be in jeopardy in their own minds. Catholics will still have their marriages and marriage laws. Civil traditionalists will theirs. Jews theirs. Protestants theirs. Religions will still have their marriages as they define a marriage to be under their particular faith. Surely a religious marriage means more than just how the state defines a word. Heterosexuals will still be able to have a civil ceremony if that is their choosing. The only thing that will change is gays will also have theirs. Heterosexual marriage, religious or civil, nor society or the world are going to come screaching to a halt. The places allowing gay marriage now have not. I truly see nothing to fear.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

or the world are going to come screaching to a halt.

You do realize that statement is completely in opposition to Catholic teaching, don’t you? Let’s see how well you were catechized, and see if you can point out what the Church teaches on that.

I truly see nothing to fear.

28“It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.

 

[St_Francis]

The institution of marriage is not in jeopardy either. It is only in jeopardy if people allow it to be in jeopardy in their own minds. Catholics will still have their marriages and marriage laws. Civil traditionalists will theirs. Jews theirs. Protestants theirs. Religions will still have their marriages as they define a marriage to be under their particular faith. Surely a religious marriage means more than just how the state defines a word. Heterosexuals will still be able to have a civil ceremony if that is their choosing. The only thing that will change is gays will also have theirs. Heterosexual marriage, religious or civil, nor society or the world are going to come screaching to a halt. The places allowing gay marriage now have not. I truly see nothing to fear.

We live in this society, and, in nothing else, we pay taxes and contribute to other benefits which married people receive *because they are providing the future on our society. *

Homosexuals can not, ipso facto, provide any future for society. Therefore, why sould they receive the benefits which are given to those who do?

Moreover, those of us who have children do not wish to have those children given the idea that homosexual behavior is "just another lifestyle,’ that whether one chooses a person of the opposite sex or the same sex is like choosing a flavor of ice cream.

While many say that homosexual tendencies are inborn and immutable, and that may be true, it seems that there are many people in general who have tendencies which could go either way. To present to *those *people the idea that either way is ok is to mislead them into a sinful and dangerous lifestyle.

And to present to those whose tendencies are thoroughly one-sided towards theor own sex as perfectly acceptable is also wrong. Society should be helping these people to live virtuous lives, just as society should be helping all people live virtuous lives, by tossing out the stupid idea that the problem with sexual activity is that one might be “caught” with pregnancy or stds, but that other than that, well, anything goes!

And society should do that, if nothing else, because that would be best for society and for the future of our society. Married people raising children is the best for the children. Single mothers, divorced parents, all show *worse *outcomes for the children *in general. *(IOW< this is not to say that single or divorced parents cannot raise children successfully, but that it is *harder.) *

I think that we can look at the destroyed lives since the sexual revolution, the acceptance of abc, no-fault divorce, and rise in illegitimacy and see that what we are doing now is not working, on a practical level, in our society. Why would we want to go further down that road? We should be reversing as fast as we can!

 

[colmywaykurtz]

We live in this society, and, in nothing else, we pay taxes and contribute to other benefits which married people receive *because they are providing the future on our society. *

Homosexuals can not, ipso facto, provide any future for society. Therefore, why sould they receive the benefits which are given to those who do?

I think this is going a bit far, St Francis. They may not be providing any “future for society” in the demographic, human sense, but a lot of them (perhaps most of them) work providing goods/services and pay taxes. They ARE providing for the future of society in a material, economic sense. The tax money they pay is as “fungible” and useful as that paid by any heterosexual. Money’s money.

Are you saying that they should be cut off from entitlements and benefits (both governmental and private sector) that others are entitled to, simply on the basis of being homosexual? That’s what it sounds like. Is that not the case?

 

[Fiasco]

As far as gay marriage be recognized by the State I am totally for it. The Church does not ever have to perform same sex marriage and can deny communion to any one that is Catholic and living in sin.

Have you ever heard of** the thin edge of the wedge?** i cant believe that you havent noticed how the rights of us Catholics to say and do what the Church teaches have been eroded over the past 40 years.throughout the DEMOCRATIC West: eg “gay” adoption, “hate crime”!!! Its been a steady step-by-step enemy advance. Appeasement benefits the enemy only. To call yourself a Catholic, and then to say youre totally for so-called “gay” “marriage” is straining your standing with God. Sounds like something JF Kennedy might have said.

But we can not let the Church dictate to non-Catholics or non-believers on how they should live. America is a plural society and every person has the right to enter into a contract with anyone they want.

The slide of Western society into the spiritual sewer is of concern to some of us!!!

I have gay friends that are very dear to me and I support their right to be married if they wish. In the Church, not allowing gay marriage is fine. But outside of the Church other people have the right to live the way they see fit.

As immediately above.

That might be what Nancy Pelosi is saying too. I myself am not a Catholic here

When you started here you identified yourself as one. Correct me if im wrong. It might pay you, and it would certainly pay N Pelosi and co to remember the words: **"Outside the Church there is no salvation."** In other words, if a person whos been brought up a Catholic, and who knows what She teaches re Faith and Morals, gives the Church the flick (or mocks Her infallible teachings) because he personally decides that he knows better than the almost 2,000-years-old-Holy-Spirit-guided Church does**…BEWARE!!!**

To repeat: When we face God, our thoughts, words and deeds are whatll matter. A name tag on its own is empty. And the (legal) argument re N Pelosis Church membershop is also ultimately empty. The scandal shes caused isnt, though.

nor do I speak for the Catholic Church but I agree with you. Nothing about gay marriage or the state changing the legal civil definition of marriage affects Catholic Sacramental religious marriage whatsoever. No Catholic marriage would be in jeopardy because 2 gays get recognized by the state as being married under civil law. The Catholic Church would continue not to perform such ceremonies.

Like Keith W, you must have great faith in the good intentions of politicians and courts.
Most of us here don`t share your…er…optimism.

Elizabeth I don’t know why you roll your eyes. It’s fine with me if the Catholic Church tries to influence people. My background is neither here nor there though

Your salvation is though, and it`s up to us others to remind you of it. That puts the proverbial ball in your court. For your sake, it had to be said.

The institution of marriage is not in jeopardy either. It is only in jeopardy if people allow it to be in jeopardy in their own minds.

And in the minds of anti-God politicians and judges!

I truly see nothing to fear.

As above. i find it impossible to believe that you`re so naive.** Give us a break!!!**

You do realize that statement is completely in opposition to Catholic teaching, don’t you? Let’s see how well you were catechized, and see if you can point out what the Church teaches on that.

A couple of folks here should remember that God isn`t fooled by “doublespeak”, legal loopholes, politically-correct language or any other deceptive wording.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

I think this is going a bit far, St Francis. They may not be providing any “future for society” in the demographic, human sense, but a lot of them (perhaps most of them) work providing goods/services and pay taxes. They ARE providing for the future of society in a material, economic sense. The tax money they pay is as “fungible” and useful as that paid by any heterosexual. Money’s money.

Are you saying that they should be cut off from entitlements and benefits (both governmental and private sector) that others are entitled to, simply on the basis of being homosexual? That’s what it sounds like. Is that not the case?

I think society has been digging itself into this ditch for a long time, what with it’s degenerating attitudes about the family, and gender roles. 50 years ago, the idea of “Gay marriage” would have been unthinkable, but society has degenerated sufficiently to make it possible now.

I don’t think it’s a matter of cutting them off from government entitlements, it just should not be permitted in the first place, for the good of the order of society.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Why do you insist on continuing to bring this up, CMatt? With whom are you arguing? The issue is dead. Again, as has been said repeatedly, the issue both on this thread and in general, is not what (a) Nancy Pelosi’s technical religious identity is, (b) what your religious identity is, (c) what your debaters’ religious identity is, or are. It doesn’t matter if Nancy Pelosi has waived her baptismal certificate constantly during every un-Catholic statement she has made.

And I did not bring that up in the post of mine, above, which you just quoted. It’s your attempt to derail the thread into a recalcitrant discussion of who is technically defined as Catholic by the Church, even while everyone else has left the subject. Therefore, your quoting me just now is non-responsive to the quote you cited. Drop it. My post had zero to do with Catholic identities on Catholic websites.

We get it that it’s your agenda, and your way of avoiding the essential topic of just what is a Catholic position versus what is not a Catholic position – instead of the straw man of “who is Catholic” and “who is not Catholic.”

Yes!Amen!

 

[St_Francis]

I think this is going a bit far, St Francis. They may not be providing any “future for society” in the demographic, human sense, but a lot of them (perhaps most of them) work providing goods/services and pay taxes. They ARE providing for the future of society in a material, economic sense. The tax money they pay is as “fungible” and useful as that paid by any heterosexual. Money’s money.

Are you saying that they should be cut off from entitlements and benefits (both governmental and private sector) that others are entitled to, simply on the basis of being homosexual? That’s what it sounds like. Is that not the case?

I am sorry I wasn’t clear. I wrote: Homosexuals can not, ipso facto, provide any future for society. Therefore, why sould they receive the benefits which are given to those who do?

By which I meant that families receive certain benefits from the government and from society (family rates on things, etc.) *because families are providing the future of our society. *

Homosexual “marriage” will open up *family *benefits for those who *cannot *provide children by the very nature of their relationship. Why should Mr X get a tax benefit for his non-working partner simply because they are “married”? There is no reason for them to be able to get this benefit, because the only ones who get anything out of this relationship is themselves. Society gainst nothing.

Other, non-familial benefits which accrue somply by virtue of being a member of this society is another issue. I in no way meant to imply that *those *benefits be removed from them, just that we *not *grant them *familial *benefits.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

This thread is wandering, please return to the topic of the original post.

 

[Fiasco]

A version of this might be appropriate for less-than-faithful politicians:
te-deum.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/famous-georgetown-alumnus-announces.html

Apologies if this piece of news has already been flogged to death.

 

[heaintheavy]

I didn’t ask for every member to be excommunicated, just her. But I really do think the Church should make an example of more people. If I was Pope, I’d excommunicate any person that has ever signed a petition in support of abortion or gay marriage. It’s a good thing I’m born to be Dymphna, and not Pope.

But where does one draw the line?
If the church excommunicated a Catholic who signed a petition supporting abortion and gay marriage…what about others, unlike Pelosi, who are not in the public eye?
There are Catholics who have had abortions, for example.
There are gay Catholics who have had sex with someone of the same gender and continue to do so.
I assume these actions would be considered by the church to be of the same ilk–perhaps worse–than signing a petition. Should these people be “reported on” by friends and family and then excommunicated?

(I assume any priests who have confessed to sexual scandal, if there are any, are ex-communicated? Is that a given…?)

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

But where does one draw the line?
If the church excommunicated a Catholic who signed a petition supporting abortion and gay marriage…what about others, unlike Pelosi, who are not in the public eye?
There are Catholics who have had abortions, for example.
There are gay Catholics who have had sex with someone of the same gender and continue to do so.
I assume these actions would be considered by the church to be of the same ilk–perhaps worse–than signing a petition. Should these people be “reported on” by friends and family and then excommunicated?

(I assume any priests who has confessed to sexual scandal, if there are any, are ex-communicated? That would be a given…)

They don’t need to be “reported on” to be excommunicated. They are excommunicated “latae sententiae”.

That applies, of course, to sins which are an excommunicable offense. Gay sex is not necessarily so.