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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dymphna82
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem is you’ve been defending her statement in using the faith to support that which the faith explicitly is against. Why?
Because she’s a Catholic public political official and an American who apparently stated her political views and what she believes. If she’s wrong about the Catholic faith others can let it be known.
 
Because she’s a Catholic public political official and an American who apparently stated her political views and what she believes. If she’s wrong about the Catholic faith others can let it be known.
The problem is that 1. she is very public about her being Catholic, as witnessed by this statement, and 2. the Church has made it *very clear *that her position is wrong, and 3. she has bolstered some of her (other) opinons by twisting the thoughts of medieval or earlier theologians (to whom she would not listen to where they disagreed with her). IOW, it is not simply that she is mistaken on a point of doctrine, but that she *flaunts *her warped theology *while *publicly calling attention to the Church to which she claims to adhere!

What she is doing is, frankly, very *ugly. *And I would say that *even if *I agreed with her.
 
You assume and judge far too much about another’s person’s ignorance.
I assume nothing and judge only what I have evidence of. The Congresswoman leaves nothing to the imagination in the supposed rationale she gives for her position(s). Intelligence, and gratitude to God for that intelligence, compels me to conclude that anyone who makes a statement such as she made publicly is ignorant of Catholic moral doctrine regarding human sexuality – or seriously confused. I deduce strictly from her very words which I heard her utter more than once, and which were unmistakble. No other charitable conclusion is possible. (Uncharitable ones, yes; not appropriate to go there.)
 
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.
“was here”.

So the difference is in whether she was here or not, is that correct? .
 
I assume nothing and judge only what I have evidence of. The Congresswoman leaves nothing to the imagination in the supposed rationale she gives for her position(s). Intelligence, and gratitude to God for that intelligence, compels me to conclude that anyone who makes a statement such as she made publicly is ignorant of Catholic moral doctrine regarding human sexuality – or seriously confused. I deduce strictly from her very words which I heard her utter more than once, and which were unmistakble. No other charitable conclusion is possible. (Uncharitable ones, yes; not appropriate to go there.)
I’d rather charitably not assume another’s ignorance regardless of how intelligent I profess myself to be. Although I wouldn’t be going around touting my intelligence regardless of how intelligent I am. And instead I’ll just conclude perhaps Nancy Pelosi knows Catholic teaching on gay marriage and other teachings quite well. But disagrees with some of it and what she gets from her faith and what part of it compels her in this case is what she said about discrimination. And I’d pretty much leave it at that and leave it for God to know her heart and soul. But that’s me. Anyone else is free to conclude whatever they want. And then how we arrive at our conclusions about her and her degree of ignorance and how charitable we are in them can then be between us and God.
 
Ms. Pelosi can call herself whatever she wants. She is a Catholic by Baptism. But she is not free to redefine the Catholic Church’s actual teachings, and if she does, Catholics ought to correct her.
 
Ms. Pelosi can call herself whatever she wants. She is a Catholic by Baptism. But she is not free to redefine the Catholic Church’s actual teachings, and if she does, Catholics ought to correct her.
That’s what I’ve been saying all along. Or at least inform others about where she may be wrong. She and everyone else of like mind as her should be able if they choose to call themselves a Catholic based on Baptism which is according to Catholic Church teaching, in whatever arena they are in. And others can inform the public and that solves any worries about scandal. That’s about all there really is to it if you truly want to answer according to the Catholic Church. God bless everyone and peace.
 
Ms. Pelosi can call herself whatever she wants. She is a Catholic by Baptism. But she is not free to redefine the Catholic Church’s actual teachings, and if she does, Catholics ought to correct her.
That’s what I’ve been saying all along. Or at least inform others about where she may be wrong. 👍
We have all heard of Pelosi. When she says something, it gets written up in national news media and on tv.

So, I correct her. Does the Washington Post put it on the same location? Ha! They didn’t even come to the press conference! Neither did anyone else 😦 And I bet they wouldn’t show up at yours, either.

Pelosi, *because of her visibility, *should be *more *responsible about what she says about the Faith. Right now, she is giving pretty much everyone the idea that it doesn’t matter what you believe. What, then, would be the point in becoming Catholic? It doesn’t really matter… you can believe whatever you want, whether you are a Catholic or not.

The issue is that Pelosi is an American, but she is also Catholic. Since she puts the fact of her Catholicism, such as it is, out there, she has to be not only American but Catholic as well. If she didn’t go around proclaiming that she is Catholic all the time, no one would really care what she says, except in a political sense.

People like you are allowing her to have the best of both worlds. Wow, cool, she is a Catholic! that’s a good thing, she must be a good moral person. But, she is the type of Catholic that gets to believe and do whatever they want. Wow, cool, she supports women’s “rights” to pay someone to kill their unborn babies! So she appeals to two sets of people, she gets elected, and her husband’s business gets yet another big boost. How incredibly comfy.

But could Pelosi get elected if she didn’t speak out of both sides of her mouth? Could she get elected if she kept her faith, such as it is, private, instead of proclaiming it in the national media? Probably not.

And could she get elected if she held Catholic positions? If she stood up and said, my Faith “Compels” me to be against sodomitic attempts at marriage?

I don’t think so.

So you may think that someone who runs on being an anti-war person who then turns around and says my anti-war philosophy “compels” me to vote for this war is *perfectly ok, *but i bet a lot of voters would not. I sure hope the voters of California see through this double-dealer and replace her with someone honest.
 
People like you are allowing her to have the best of both worlds. Wow, cool, she is a Catholic! that’s a good thing, she must be a good moral person.
Actually people like me don’t think just being a Catholic is cool and it alone makes one a good moral person in all cases. And I actually think it’s cool and believe that non Catholics can be moral too.
 
Actually people like me don’t think just being a Catholic is cool and it alone makes one a good moral person in all cases. And I actually think it’s cool and believe that non Catholics can be moral too.
By people like you, I meant people who defend her. The people who will think that it’s good that she’s Catholic are another group of people, and the people who will think that it’s good that she supports immorality are yet another group of people. there may be somje overlap, but not necessarily.
 
Can she be excommunicated, please? Please, please, pretty please?
Excommunicated?!
If the church excommunicated every member who disagreed with a teaching or sinned…well, the congregation would be kinda sparse!
 
Originally Posted by CatholicBoy1957 View Post
“was here”.
But it appears that you wrote just that. You wrote, " not as confident that if … Nancy Pelosi was here…could identify as such". She couldn’t identify as such if she were here, but she’s not here, and she can clearly identify as such. So why the difference?
Originally Posted by CMatt25
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.
 
Because she’s a Catholic public political official and an American who apparently stated her political views and what she believes. If she’s wrong about the Catholic faith others can let it be known.
She did not say, “As a Catholic, I am against discrimination towards homosexuals, but as a politician, I support gay marriage.” We would still be disappointed in her if she said that but at least she wouldn’t be misrepresenting Catholicism.

I feel we need to stop arguing with you. It’s obvious you support her right to betray the church and nothing we can do can convince you otherwise.
 
Excommunicated?!
If the church excommunicated every member who disagreed with a teaching or sinned…well, the congregation would be kinda sparse!
Does the Church excommunicate, or does the person excommunicate themselves? Is it possible that Pelosi has excommunicated herself?
The congregation is indeed kind of sparse. Only about 20 percent of those who “self-identify” as Catholic, actually attend mass.
 
Not to me
If Nancy Pelosi was here, spouting her same views, we would spend a lot of time correcting her, as we’ve spent time correcting you. But if she was not a congressman, we would not call for her excommunication, because she wouldn’t have the power to betray the Church on a national level.
 
She did not say, “As a Catholic, I am against discrimination towards homosexuals, but as a politician, I support gay marriage.” We would still be disappointed in her if she said that but at least she wouldn’t be misrepresenting Catholicism.

I feel we need to stop arguing with you. It’s obvious you support her right to betray the church and nothing we can do can convince you otherwise.
Certainly, there are people here who have made their decision for God, or against God, and while it may seem senseless to argue with those who have made their decision, we have to be charitable towards those who have not, and so we continue to provide answers for those who are seeking truth in earnest, and not just in lip service.
 
She and everyone else of like mind as her should be able if they choose to call themselves a Catholic based on Baptism which is according to Catholic Church teaching, in whatever arena they are in.
They should be able to call themselves Catholic, but not use their Catholicism as an excuse to support gay marriage. If you support gay marriage, then you support your own beliefs more than God and the Church. You are saying you are more right than God himself.
 
and believe that non Catholics can be moral too.
Do you care about the souls of those people, who follow their own code of conducts and beliefs, that are against God? Do you care if they go to Heaven or Hell?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top