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

[fix]

Civil union and marriage are two different things. You can support “civil union”, but absolutely NOT “marriage”. Marriage is only between a man and a woman, it is a Sacrament. Please think the difference and not be confused. Do not use the name of “charity” to violate God’s commandment. “Civil Union” is charity, make gay relationship “marriage” is sin. Huge difference.

No we cannot support civil unions. Marriages can be non sacramental and still be valid and good.

 

[fix]

The Church teaches a lot of things. One of them, one of the most basic, is that we are responsible for our own conscience. I have stated what I believe: Charity demands this.

Yes, She does teach many things. Taking one of those teachings out of context, as Pelosi has, is a serious disservice to the Truth.

 

[zz912]

Civil union and marriage are two different things. You can support “civil union”, but absolutely NOT “marriage”. Marriage is only between a man and a woman, it is a Sacrament. Please think the difference and not be confused. Do not use the name of “charity” to violate God’s commandment. “Civil Union” is charity, make gay relationship “marriage” is sin. Huge difference.

No, a Catholic can NOT support civil unions.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The Church teaches a lot of things. One of them, one of the most basic, is that we are responsible for our own conscience. I have stated what I believe: Charity demands this.

I actually don’t consider my relationship with God in Christ to be a “program.”

Pope John Paul ll in a talk to the Bishops in 1987:

It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church’s moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a “good Catholic,” and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere."

 

[irishpatrick]

I have asked this question many times of people who support so-called same sex marriage (and have yet to receive even one rational anwer).

If it is moral and just for us to redefine the institution of marriage to include same sex couples, then why is it not moral and just to redefine marriage to include any reasonable loving relationship (i.e. three men, three women, one man with two women, etc.)? So long as the people in those other arrangements are adults, they are of sound mind, and are truly commited to each other, who are we to say their desire for marriage is wrong, or immoral?

 

[stevegravy]

The salient point everyone is missing is that the “Catholic” church in Pelosi’s head is consistent with “her” reading and interpretation of scripture and theology of the “Catholic” church in “her” head.

Don’t confuse the “Catholic” church in Pelosi’s head with the real Catholic Church.

If you even try to figure out where Pelosi’s head is you will be guaranteed to melt your brain cells and watch them run out your ears.

Don’t let your brain cells melt and run out your ears.

Ignore Pelosi’s “Catholic” church in her head and seek the advice of the magisterium.

 

[vz71]

Charity demands civil union, IMO.

While I normally shy away from quotes from people that abandon their vows, this one applies very well.

“It is not Charity to confirm someone in their sin.” - Corapi

 

[vz71]

My understanding is that excommunication is used more as a tool to try and bring someone around then as a punishment.

But either case looks like it would be a pointless exercise.

I would settle for her Bishop very publicly correcting her error.

 

[Havard]

I have asked this question many times of people who support so-called same sex marriage (and have yet to receive even one rational anwer).

If it is moral and just for us to redefine the institution of marriage to include same sex couples, then why is it not moral and just to redefine marriage to include any reasonable loving relationship (i.e. three men, three women, one man with two women, etc.)? So long as the people in those other arrangements are adults, they are of sound mind, and are truly commited to each other, who are we to say their desire for marriage is wrong, or immoral?

I don’t support “gay marriage”, but can I answer anyway?

If the line is indeed that consenting adults who are mentally capable of making their own decisions should be permitted to do as the please so long as their actions and lifestyles do not violate the rights of others… well, then there I see no valid argument against polygamy, whatsoever.

 

[Brightest_Star]

I followed the links to the full article, where it says:

“The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible,” says the Catechism. “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”

I think this is the crux of her standpoint - as it is of mine. The homosexual act is a sin, yes. But we are all sinners - that’s what brings us together on our knees before Him. To accept and say ‘we are sinners, we are not worthy’.

Jesus Christ tried to show us that what was most needed in the world was love and forgiveness, and I think that if we try we are capable of that. If we were not capable of that, then God would not have sent His only Son to teach us.
The sins we each commit and live with are for God to judge, and God alone.

Discouraging sin is good, being an example of a better path is good, bringing people to Jesus is good. Shunning people and making them lesser humans because they are sinful is bad.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

What’s going to be different if she’s excommunicated beyond being told she is not to receive the Eucharist nor take on a parish role of any kind until reconciled? She’s still going to be a Catholic by virtue of her Baptism.

Why are you so hung up on this?

 

[Brightest_Star]

No we cannot support civil unions. Marriages can be non sacramental and still be valid and good.

How is that?
If it’s not a marriage under God, in a church, with a Priest - then it’s not recognized as a true marriage, right?

So the ‘civil union’ is equally not a real marriage. It’s a legal procedure. It’s a world thing.
Is ‘common law’ marriage recognized by the Church? I dont’ think so. But it’s recognized by the world. How is gay ‘marriage’ any different? It will never be done in a Church under God, so, honestly, I don’t believe it’s even valid as a marriage in God’s eyes.

When I was in 2nd grade I got ‘married’ to a boy who pushed me into the dirt. Does that count too?

 

[CMatt25]

Well, most Catholics are aware of the church’s stance on homosexuality, I think. Most Catholics aren’t aware that being Catholic is a permanent thing. There are just so many that say, “I used to be Catholic but I’m an Atheist/Satanist/Buddhist/insertreligionhere,” that it seems natural that Pelosi isn’t one. It seems natural that she’s just using Catholicism for her own agenda, rather than the fact that she is a Catholic(who is also using it for her agenda).



It’s not so much judgment, but a lack of awareness, and also of not wanting to associate with her.

Well true. Based on my personal experience I wonder too if most Catholics aren’t aware that according to the answer given by the Church, that Pelosi can ID Catholic if she doesn’t on her own choose to ID “Atheist, Satanist, Buddhist/insert religion here”. You don’t want to associate with her? Jesus associated with all kinds of people.

 

[Trader]

Isn’t the real issue here that Pelosi is misrepresenting the Catholic Faith? She might be a conscientious dissident, but there is no way she doesn’t know that the teachings of the Church are directly opposed to what she says they are. She wasn’t born yesterday.

It’s not that she supports homosexuality or that she does it for political or personal reasons. We all know she has been a promoter of homosexuality for a long time. And we know she represents a district that is so besotted with sexual immorality that she could not say otherwise and remain in office. But we know those things, and they are not the point. It’s the deceit that is so offensive, and the fact that she knows full well she might actually persuade some otherwise innocent person that her misrepresentation is the truth. And, believing she is an intelligent woman, that she intends it.

That’s what’s so foul about this. What was it that Jesus said: “It would be better that he tie a millstone around his neck and cast himself into the sea than he corrupt one of these, my little ones.”

Yes, this is the real issue here. Charity demands that people hear the truth. That is exactly what Archbishop Chaput had in mind when he called out Speaker Pelosi by name during the Democratic convention in Denver in 2008 when she publicly misrepresented Catholic teaching on abortion. That admonition has not had the desired effect, at least so far. Whether or when her own archbishop in San Francisco will publicly act is something up to him. He has to consider the possible good yet another warning will do for Mrs Pelosi and the possible harm that can result from making her appear as a martyr to conscience.

Mrs Pelosi is very fortunate that I am not a high official with the power to have heretics burned at the stake. I lack the patience of most of our bishops.

 

[irishpatrick]

I don’t support “gay marriage”, but can I answer anyway?

If the line is indeed that consenting adults who are mentally capable of making their own decisions should be permitted to do as the please so long as their actions and lifestyles do not violate the rights of others… well, then there I see no valid argument against polygamy, whatsoever.

That is my point–if they love each other, and do no direct harm to others, why not let them marry? If we think it is okay for two men to marry, why not three?

 

[CMatt25]

Denying Nancy Pelosi and other pro abortion and pro gay ‘marriage’ politicians Communion, preserves the Sacrament from being profaned.

“Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest, his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.” – then Cardinal Ratzinger, Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion.

If Nancy Pelosi is denied Communion, but someone with a less known face but with her same political views is not, how does that preserve the Sacrament?

 

[fix]

How is that?
If it’s not a marriage under God, in a church, with a Priest - then it’s not recognized as a true marriage, right?

Sorry, no not correct.

If a Catholic marries a pagan they do not have a sacramental marriage, but it is valid. There are many examples of marriages that do not follow the Catholic form that are valid and recognized by the Church.

So the ‘civil union’ is equally not a real marriage. It’s a legal procedure. It’s a world thing.

It mimics real marriage and the Church has said it cannot be supported.

Is ‘common law’ marriage recognized by the Church? I dont’ think so. But it’s recognized by the world. How is gay ‘marriage’ any different? It will never be done in a Church under God, so, honestly, I don’t believe it’s even valid as a marriage in God’s eyes.

When I was in 2nd grade I got ‘married’ to a boy who pushed me into the dirt. Does that count too?

Marriage is not some thing you make up on your own.

 

[CMatt25]

Her bishop obviously does not think that her pronouncements are a cause for scandal.

I may disagree but so what.

Correct and I would think most would recognize the former Speaker and current Minority leader of the House if she approaches the altar now to receive. Especially in DC or San Fran area parishes.

 

[Havard]

Well true. Based on my personal experience I wonder too if most Catholics aren’t aware that according to the answer given by the Church, that Pelosi can ID Catholic if she doesn’t on her own choose to ID “Atheist, Satanist, Buddhist/insert religion here”. You don’t want to associate with her? Jesus associated with all kinds of people.

If we’re talking about that kind of association, I would love to spend time with her and talk about these issues! And I would love it if she spend more time talking with Archbishop Niederauer, too!

 

[CMatt25]

There are few things that repel in quite the same way as the member of the crowd who wanted to stone the woman taken in adultery - whether that particular passage is canonical or not! When the Roman Catholic Church begins to view itself as Christian first and “Catholic” second, it may begin to see that everyone is entitled to a view and that we are all ‘in sin’ and in danger of casting the first stone. What does Christianity teach about seeing a fellow Christian in error “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother”. Not pretty please excommunicate “… thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward”. (King James version). Personally I find all things homosexual to be abhorrent; does this mean I am right and another person with the opposite view wrong? The Pharisaical view expressed by Dymphna 82 is as opposed to the teachings of Christ as any other sin.

Good post