Nancy Pelosi, Devout Catholic
November 23, 2011
Matthew Hennessey
When an alcoholic finally gives up his booze, he no longer refers to himself as a drinker. When a nicotine addict quits puffing, she no longer calls herself a smoker. Yet for some reason, when a person who was raised Catholic stops going to Mass, ceases to accept the teaching authority of the Church, and publicly charges the institution and its hierarchy with both moral and criminal failures, that person is entirely free to continue calling him or herself a Catholic.
I’m looking at you Nancy Pelosi.
Most recently, in the context of her support for abortion rights, the California congresswoman and former House Speaker told the Washington Post, “I’m a devout Catholic, and I honor my faith and love it.” A strange and disconcerting statement from a woman who, with her very next breath, mocked what she called “this conscience thing” afflicting Catholic hospitals and health-care providers who refuse to perform abortions. As if the Church’s teaching on abortion, an act which Pope John Paul II called “a grave moral disorder,” was merely as consequential to the average Catholic as holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer or signing the kids up for CYO basketball. (Note to non-Catholics: It’s not.)
Years ago I got into the habit of jogging a few miles every other day around the reservoir in New York City’s Central Park. I was then a young husband, eager to get and stay fit. My equally young bride was, and still is, a great and committed runner, having trained for and completed two New York City marathons. I’m ashamed to say that in the intervening years, my every-other-day jogging habit became an every-other-week one. It’s probably been three years since I jogged at all.
Given my total abandonment of jogging, and my almost total abandonment of fitness of any kind, I’m trying to imagine just how loudly my wife would laugh if—say, in an interview with the Washington Post—I referred to myself as “a runner.” Such a claim would simply be unsupportable. The reporter would only have to look at me to know that I was lying.
So how come Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Pat Leahy, Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, the Kennedys, and the rest, are freely and repeatedly quoted in the press saying things such as, “I’m a devout Catholic,” or, “As a Catholic . . .”? No respectable newspaper would quote a source that couldn’t be verified and no cable network would feature commentary from someone who couldn’t provide at least a minimal credential to support claims of expertise on a topic. Yet the claims of faith from these cafeteria Catholics are never challenged or explored by the media. Though clearly falsifiable, they are simply reported as fact. This should be an urgent matter for the fact checking departments of the Washington Post and New York Times, if such departments still exist.
I happened to watch a YouTube video recently of Rick Santorum’s much discussed August appearance on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight. In it, the twice-married British tabloid editor and America’s Got Talent judge hectored the Catholic former Pennsylvania senator to admit that his (and by extension, his church’s) positions on same-sex marriage “are bordering on bigotry.” Santorum wouldn’t take the bait, countering that Morgan’s characterization of the Church’s position was itself bigoted. To which the host somewhat predictably replied, “Well, I’m a Catholic too, and I just think that unfortunately we’re in a different era now, we’re in a modern world.”
Santorum’s rejoinder—that truth isn’t truth if it changes from era to era—was a consistent and entirely reasonable response to Morgan’s relentless attempts to provoke and embarrass him. As a viewer (and, dare I say it, as a Catholic), what I would have preferred Santorum had said was, “You say you are a Catholic. Can you prove it?”
These pseudo-Catholics are having a laugh at the expense of all those who attend Mass, are committed to their faith, and respect the magisterium. For Nancy Pelosi to call herself a Catholic, while accusing actual Catholics of opposing abortion out of some desire merely to hurt women simply beggars belief. The onus should be on Nancy Pelosi and those like her to substantiate their claims of faith. To paraphrase the Marx brothers: Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?
You aren’t a vegetarian if you eat meat twice a week, and you aren’t a Catholic if you don’t go to Mass. If they’re going to call us bigots, we should call them what they are: out of communion.
Matthew Hennessey is a writer and editor who lives in New Canaan, CT. You can follow him on Twitter @MattHennessey.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
11.23.2011 | 5:57am
Greg says:
Good article Matt. It is an incredibly important issue for the Church and it would be good to see more Church leaders take a clearer public position on when a person can no longer validly identify as Catholic due to their views or their conduct. A major problem is the ongoing confusion on the primacy of (informed) conscience where too many consider that they can adopt any moral position and still identify as Catholic. A key priority of Church leaders should be on clarifying the boundaries of the Catholic faith.
11.23.2011 | 9:29am
Bibbit says:
I often struggle with thoughts such as those put forth in this article. On the one hand once you are baptized a Catholic, you are forever a Catholic. Maybe expanding to "practicing Catholic" is better? Still, I do agree with the basic premise here, if you don't practice the faith please don't refer to yourself as a member of it as though you are a member in good standing. Of course the bishops could help here. They at times are willing to call out organizations like Catholics for a Free Choice as not being Catholic, so why not politicians? Maybe if the bishops had more backbone they'd do so?
11.23.2011 | 9:45am
Michael PS says:
Lord Macaulay was right, when he observed “Man, in short, is so inconsistent a creature that it is impossible to reason from his belief to his conduct, or from one part of his belief to another… We know through what strange loopholes the human mind contrives to escape, when it wishes to avoid a disagreeable inference from an admitted proposition. We know how long the Jansenists contrived to believe the Pope infallible in matters of doctrine, and at the same time to believe doctrines which he pronounced to be heretical…”
“Catholics,” be their doctrine apparently traditional or apparently innovatory, be their champions honest or unscrupulous, are simply those who are in visible communion with the see of Rome. No doubt, in the long run, this means the people who are so orthodox that Rome (or the local ordinary) has seen no reason to excommunicate them. Any other definition would be difficult of application.
“Catholics,” be their doctrine apparently traditional or apparently innovatory, be their champions honest or unscrupulous, are simply those who are in visible communion with the see of Rome. No doubt, in the long run, this means the people who are so orthodox that Rome (or the local ordinary) has seen no reason to excommunicate them. Any other definition would be difficult of application.
11.23.2011 | 10:12am
Ed says:
In 1896, Pope Leo XIII issued "Satis Cognitum" and clearly and unambiguously declared:
"Those who acknowledge Christ must acknowledge Him
wholly and entirely. The Head and the Body are Christ
wholly and entirely. The Head is the only-begotten son
of God, the Body is His Church; the bridegroom and the
bride, two in one flesh. All who dissent from the Scriptures
concerning Christ, although they may be found in all
places in which the Church is found, are not in the Church;
and again, all those who agree with the Scriptures
concerning the Head, and do not communicate in the
unity of the Church, are not in the Church."
Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, at sec. 16 (June 29, 1896).
The late Ralph McInerny summarized it this way: "while anyone is, of course, free to be a Catholic or not, he is not free as a Catholic to reject what the Church teaches. To do so is to cease to be a Catholic." "What went wrong with Vatican II: the Catholic crisis explained", at 81.
Indeed, Canon Law provides that any Catholic who obstinately denies that abortion is always gravely immoral, commits the sin of heresy and incurs an automatic sentence of excommunication "latae sententiae". Elected officials who support abortion incur a "latae sententiae" excommunication.
Thus, for numerous reasons, Matt is correct that Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, Dodd, Leahy, Guiliani, Pataki and the Kennedys are not Catholic. They are excommunicates. (To be fair, I think Patricia Shriver died pro-life; and she considered her brother Ted a coward and heretic on the issue of abortion.)
There are, unfortunately, some problems. First, as Ralph McInerny eloquently pointed out, following Vatican II many dissident theologians determined they had equal authority within the Church to declare doctrine; they proclaimed themselves a sort of uber-Magisterium. Worse, they lied and said Vatican II itself elevated them to this position. The results were predictable--the Catholic faithful were confused about who spoke authoritatively on Church doctrine and teachings. In this regard, these dissenting theologians acted as antichrists. See Miceli, V., "The Antichrist".
Second, following Vatican II, the Bishops, at least in America, failed to lead and retreated into nothing short of cowardice. This spread like a malignant cancer to the clergy. In particular, the Catholic Bishops determined after Vatican II (and the nihilistic 1960s) that it would be better if the Church did not make people in the pews uncomfortable. Thus, Catholics have been spoon-fed massive servings of things like "social justice" and not being judgmental; but, it is rare to hear that not only is abortion murder, if you dissent from that truth you are not in communion with the Catholic Church and you may not receive the Sacraments.
Chesterton wrote "Doctrines had to be defined within strict limits, even in order that man might enjoy general human liberties. The Church had to be careful, if only that the world might be careless. * * * The orthodox Church never took the tame course or accepted the conventions; the orthodox Church was never respectable." "Orthodoxy", at 107. That no longer is the case. The Church in America has taken the tame course; its primary concern is not to make people uncomfortable. It long ago ceased to protect truth and instruct the faithful that deviation from its teachings risked nothing less than eternal separation from God.
There are, to be sure, exceptions. Bishop Tobin's public excommunication of Patrick Kennedy was a courageous act that should be an example to all bishops.
The Church needs again to preach the truth, even if that makes people uncomfortable.
"Those who acknowledge Christ must acknowledge Him
wholly and entirely. The Head and the Body are Christ
wholly and entirely. The Head is the only-begotten son
of God, the Body is His Church; the bridegroom and the
bride, two in one flesh. All who dissent from the Scriptures
concerning Christ, although they may be found in all
places in which the Church is found, are not in the Church;
and again, all those who agree with the Scriptures
concerning the Head, and do not communicate in the
unity of the Church, are not in the Church."
Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, at sec. 16 (June 29, 1896).
The late Ralph McInerny summarized it this way: "while anyone is, of course, free to be a Catholic or not, he is not free as a Catholic to reject what the Church teaches. To do so is to cease to be a Catholic." "What went wrong with Vatican II: the Catholic crisis explained", at 81.
Indeed, Canon Law provides that any Catholic who obstinately denies that abortion is always gravely immoral, commits the sin of heresy and incurs an automatic sentence of excommunication "latae sententiae". Elected officials who support abortion incur a "latae sententiae" excommunication.
Thus, for numerous reasons, Matt is correct that Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, Dodd, Leahy, Guiliani, Pataki and the Kennedys are not Catholic. They are excommunicates. (To be fair, I think Patricia Shriver died pro-life; and she considered her brother Ted a coward and heretic on the issue of abortion.)
There are, unfortunately, some problems. First, as Ralph McInerny eloquently pointed out, following Vatican II many dissident theologians determined they had equal authority within the Church to declare doctrine; they proclaimed themselves a sort of uber-Magisterium. Worse, they lied and said Vatican II itself elevated them to this position. The results were predictable--the Catholic faithful were confused about who spoke authoritatively on Church doctrine and teachings. In this regard, these dissenting theologians acted as antichrists. See Miceli, V., "The Antichrist".
Second, following Vatican II, the Bishops, at least in America, failed to lead and retreated into nothing short of cowardice. This spread like a malignant cancer to the clergy. In particular, the Catholic Bishops determined after Vatican II (and the nihilistic 1960s) that it would be better if the Church did not make people in the pews uncomfortable. Thus, Catholics have been spoon-fed massive servings of things like "social justice" and not being judgmental; but, it is rare to hear that not only is abortion murder, if you dissent from that truth you are not in communion with the Catholic Church and you may not receive the Sacraments.
Chesterton wrote "Doctrines had to be defined within strict limits, even in order that man might enjoy general human liberties. The Church had to be careful, if only that the world might be careless. * * * The orthodox Church never took the tame course or accepted the conventions; the orthodox Church was never respectable." "Orthodoxy", at 107. That no longer is the case. The Church in America has taken the tame course; its primary concern is not to make people uncomfortable. It long ago ceased to protect truth and instruct the faithful that deviation from its teachings risked nothing less than eternal separation from God.
There are, to be sure, exceptions. Bishop Tobin's public excommunication of Patrick Kennedy was a courageous act that should be an example to all bishops.
The Church needs again to preach the truth, even if that makes people uncomfortable.
11.23.2011 | 10:16am
Alan Wostenberg says:
Matt, one is a Catholic even if one don't assist at mass or believe what the Church teaches... a bad Catholic, possibly a damned Catholic, but still Catholic. By baptism we are incorporated into Christ's mystical body the Church. As there can be dead cells in a physical body, so there can be spiritually dead members in Christ's body the Church.
Wouldn't this view that X is no longer Catholic because of conduct and belief mean Baptism is not a sacrament?
Wouldn't this view that X is no longer Catholic because of conduct and belief mean Baptism is not a sacrament?
11.23.2011 | 10:19am
Gabriel says:
This is an interesting article, but the author doesn’t seem to be completely decided on what the conditions are under which a person can legitimately call themselves a Catholic. At some points he seems to give a triple condition, namely as being amongst those who “those who attend Mass, are committed to their faith, and respect the magisterium”. And at other points he seems happy with a single condition: “you aren’t a Catholic if you don’t go to Mass”, implying that if you do go to Mass, even if you disagree with the magisterium, for example, you can be counted as a Catholic. At the beginning of the piece the author implies an even stronger triple condition – saying that anyone who “stops going to Mass, ceases to accept the teaching authority of the Church, and publicly charges the institution and its hierarchy with both moral and criminal failures” can no longer legitimately be called a Catholic. That seems rather too strong. Why could a good Catholic not be able to criticise the institution and hierarchy of moral and criminal failures? Can the catholic hierarchy *never* commit a crime? Really? Is that true by definition, or is it a matter of induction?
Now, if the author is not even decided in himself as to how many conditions one must fulfil in order to be able to legitimately call oneself a Catholic – and what those conditions are – then perhaps it is not unreasonable for others to also have differing opinions on the matter. This may explain why “Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Pat Leahy, Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, the Kennedys” etc call themselves Catholic (if they do), despite not fulfilling all of the author’s conditions (if they don’t). One cannot just pluck from the air random conditions for legitimately counting as a Catholic – those conditions must be grounded in something. And as the author seems not to really know what conditions he is relying on, I wonder what he is grounding his various choices on in the first place – and whether they are inherently more legitimate than whatever the people he criticises may be using as their conditions.
Now, if the author is not even decided in himself as to how many conditions one must fulfil in order to be able to legitimately call oneself a Catholic – and what those conditions are – then perhaps it is not unreasonable for others to also have differing opinions on the matter. This may explain why “Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Pat Leahy, Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, the Kennedys” etc call themselves Catholic (if they do), despite not fulfilling all of the author’s conditions (if they don’t). One cannot just pluck from the air random conditions for legitimately counting as a Catholic – those conditions must be grounded in something. And as the author seems not to really know what conditions he is relying on, I wonder what he is grounding his various choices on in the first place – and whether they are inherently more legitimate than whatever the people he criticises may be using as their conditions.
11.23.2011 | 10:30am
The Moz says:
I suspect that the truth is much simpler: these people haven't got a clue what they believed yesterday much less what they believe about their membership in the universal Church. Whatever is most politically expedient is good enough. But in their defence that's simply what many of us voters want. We have been so taught to feel good about ourselves at all costs, at all times that we instinctively snuggle up to those who tell us we have nothing to feel ashamed about and that its those bad judgy people who are inventing these feelings and guilty conscienses to torture us. It's as though if everyone suddenly became a militant fundamentalist atheist, we wouldn't know right from wrong! Abortion is not strictly speaking a Catholic or even Christian issue at all; it only appears that way because everyone else is too afraid to speak up, to raise their head above the parapet as John Lennox puts it.
11.23.2011 | 11:06am
Jane says:
For those of us who humbly try to remain faithfully Catholic (not always successfully) we can only hope these pseudo-Catholic politicians maintain some shred of faith in their hearts that might lead to their salvation someday. My mother (a shrewd Massachusetts political observer) maintains hope in this regard - when Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with cancer, she saw it as an opportunity for him to have time to think about his coming death and personally seek reconciliation, where his three brothers who died from assassins' bullets or in war did not. But, I don't know if Ted Kennedy took this opportunity. With their generally titanic egos and entourages of flatterers, it is hard for politicians to feel the loneliness in their hearts.
11.23.2011 | 11:26am
Edward Alleyn says:
Three cheers. Bravo. If Nancy Pelosi is a Canon Law Catholic, she swims in the shallow end of the Church pool.
11.23.2011 | 11:29am
Roger Stenson says:
Some correction is in order. Automatic excommunication is self-inflicted. The individual excommunicates himself. In order to do so he must be aware that he is doing so. That is, he must know the act carries the penalty. The Church as God’s enunciator is much more understanding than Caesar; ignorance of the law is an excuse. Also, involvement in the crime of abortion must be direct. What constitutes “direct” is more complex than an ambiguous, albeit almost criminally stupid, attitude toward “terminating pregnancy”, and a source of disagreement among canon lawyers. The abortionist, a de facto murderer, is quite directly involved. An elegant case can be made that Nancy Pelosi is, too.
The girl, the woman? All sin must be volitional, and a significant element of coercion may be exculpating: The pregnant girl who is dragged into a Planned Parenthood slaughterhouse by the guy who got her pregnant and wants to get himself off the hook may be too distraught to be so responsible as to excommunicate herself.
Before 1983 or so, there were about 37 reasons for automatic excommunication. Streamlining, the Church reduced the number to seven, six of which are ecclesiastical in nature – defiling the Eucharist, violating the confessional seal. Only one non-ecclesiastical sin carries automatic excommunication: direct involvement in an abortion. That is how serious this ultimate, and brutal, rejection of God’s love is.
Could this apply to embryo-destructive stem cell (or other) research? Sure. Even though the Church is stuck in traffic on embryo adoption (sorry for my impatience), could this all apply to in vitro fertilization, due to its inseparably attendant flushing away the extras? Sure.
The girl, the woman? All sin must be volitional, and a significant element of coercion may be exculpating: The pregnant girl who is dragged into a Planned Parenthood slaughterhouse by the guy who got her pregnant and wants to get himself off the hook may be too distraught to be so responsible as to excommunicate herself.
Before 1983 or so, there were about 37 reasons for automatic excommunication. Streamlining, the Church reduced the number to seven, six of which are ecclesiastical in nature – defiling the Eucharist, violating the confessional seal. Only one non-ecclesiastical sin carries automatic excommunication: direct involvement in an abortion. That is how serious this ultimate, and brutal, rejection of God’s love is.
Could this apply to embryo-destructive stem cell (or other) research? Sure. Even though the Church is stuck in traffic on embryo adoption (sorry for my impatience), could this all apply to in vitro fertilization, due to its inseparably attendant flushing away the extras? Sure.
11.23.2011 | 11:29am
Doug Eddy says:
I too am a Catholic - a Presbyterian one. I'm not a Roman Catholic, but I AM Catholic, and while I agree one cannot call oneself something they do not demonstrate via behavior, thus I am not a professional baseball player, the titles can be confusing. If you are saying they are not Roman Catholics in the strictest sense of the term, you may have something there - or it may be they are at heart but current practices keep them from being part of the party line of the current leadership. I respectfully request terms such as "THE church" and "Catholic" be corrected to represent a particular segment of the church universal (catholic) so as to clarify the point. I know many Roman Catholics of deep faith who do not accept much of what is being presented from Rome. That does not destroy their claim - it shows their faith may be even deeper because they do not march step but search for Truth. Nice article, though. Thank you.
11.23.2011 | 12:17pm
Eric Scheidler says:
Whatever criticisms might be leveled at Mr Hennesey's sacramental theology, his point about the imagined "authority" with which these dubious Catholics speak about the faith is dead on. The mainstream media are willing to give the nonsensical ramblings of a Joe Biden or a Nancy Pelosi the same weight as the articulate pronouncements of a Francis George or a Charles Chaput. After all, they're all equally "Catholic," right?
11.23.2011 | 12:26pm
DS says:
Many public figures stray from church teaching and are hypocritical.
We tread on dangerous ground when our zeal for an orthodox faith and our love for Christ and his Church leads us to publicly judge the faith of anyone, including those perceived to be 'cafeteria' or 'pseudo'.
We all sin...even 'devout' and 'actual' Catholics.
It is up to the bishops to develop and enforce guidelines/discipline for Catholic politicians.
It is God alone who should look at Nancy Pelosi and judge her.
We tread on dangerous ground when our zeal for an orthodox faith and our love for Christ and his Church leads us to publicly judge the faith of anyone, including those perceived to be 'cafeteria' or 'pseudo'.
We all sin...even 'devout' and 'actual' Catholics.
It is up to the bishops to develop and enforce guidelines/discipline for Catholic politicians.
It is God alone who should look at Nancy Pelosi and judge her.
11.23.2011 | 12:39pm
Ferde Rombola says:
I have always believed, and still believe, only those who accept, without reservation, the teachings of the Catholic Church are Catholics. Nancy Pelosi and the others mentioned can call themselves ducks if they wish, but I've got to see some feathers before I'll take them seriously. The problem, as stated by Ed and others, is the heretic bishops, many of them homosexuals, who guided the Catholic laity away from orthodoxy following Vatican II into the confused and heretical state in which we find outselves. Their progeny, who guide the Church today, with very few exceptions, are too cowed to even begin to think of righting the ship. Unless and until the Catholic laity begins to shout loudly and demand a radical course correction, the problems will remain.
The Archbishop of San Francisco, I belive his name is Neiderauer, is responsible for Nancy Pelosi; the Archbishop of Baltimore is responsible for Joe Biden. The Archbishop of Washington, D.C., Donald Whurl, is responsible for all of them receiving the Sacrament in his diocese, even though he has cowardly washed hands of the matter. These are some of the individuals who need to hear from faithful Catholics. Guys like Archbiship Chaput need our encouragement and support.
Doug Eddy calls himself a capital 'C' Catholic and in the same breath, proudly boasts he's a Presbyterian. I interact with Protstants on the internet regularly and have found more and more of them are starting to call themselves Catholics. There's that pesky phrase in the Creed they profess and there's no getting around what it says, so they, as do all followers of John Calvin, who cut the mold, speak out of both sides of their mouths. There are thousands of denominations and sects in Protestantism. The Presbyterians have limited themselves to somewhere between fifty and a hundred. There's no way any of them can call themselves one of anything, much less the one, holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, of which there is one and only one.
Re-read Dominius Iesus, Mr. Eddy. That may help.
The Archbishop of San Francisco, I belive his name is Neiderauer, is responsible for Nancy Pelosi; the Archbishop of Baltimore is responsible for Joe Biden. The Archbishop of Washington, D.C., Donald Whurl, is responsible for all of them receiving the Sacrament in his diocese, even though he has cowardly washed hands of the matter. These are some of the individuals who need to hear from faithful Catholics. Guys like Archbiship Chaput need our encouragement and support.
Doug Eddy calls himself a capital 'C' Catholic and in the same breath, proudly boasts he's a Presbyterian. I interact with Protstants on the internet regularly and have found more and more of them are starting to call themselves Catholics. There's that pesky phrase in the Creed they profess and there's no getting around what it says, so they, as do all followers of John Calvin, who cut the mold, speak out of both sides of their mouths. There are thousands of denominations and sects in Protestantism. The Presbyterians have limited themselves to somewhere between fifty and a hundred. There's no way any of them can call themselves one of anything, much less the one, holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, of which there is one and only one.
Re-read Dominius Iesus, Mr. Eddy. That may help.
11.23.2011 | 12:53pm
Ed says:
Mr. Stenson's "streamlining" discussion of "latae sententiae" excommunication, perhaps unwittingly, obfuscates and confuses precisely who automatically is excommunicated according to Canon Law. Specifically, he seems to limit the sanction to Canon 1398 and excludes Canons 751 and 1364. Here are the relevant provisions.
Canon 1398: "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a "latae sententiae" excommunication."
Canon 751: "Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."
Canon 1364, sec. 1: "An apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a "latae sententiae" excommunication."
Also relevant is John Paul II's "Evangelium Vitae". "Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the Ordinary and universal Magisterium."
Thus, it is beyond serious dispute that any Catholic who obstinately denies that abortion always is gravely immoral is guilty of heresy under Canon Law 751. Moreover, it is equally undisputed that such a heretic incurs a "latae sententiae" excommunication pursuant to Canon Law 1364.
Doug Eddy is confused about the Catholic Church. He claims "I'm not a Roman Catholic". This is correct, if for no other reason that no one is a "Roman Catholic". The name of the Church is the "Catholic Church". The Nicene Creed (more accurately the Nicene-Constantinople Creed) refers to the "Catholic Church". The Catholic Church does not refer to herself as the "Roman Catholic Church". Nowhere is the sixteen documents of the Second Vatican Council is "Roman Catholic" found. According to the Catholic Church, when the adjective "Roman" is used it refers only to the Diocese of Rome. In fact, many English-speaking Bishops at the First Vatican Council (1870) ensured the phrase "Roman Catholic" would not appear in any of that Council's documents. Importantly, this has been the case since Apostolic times. For a good (and thorough) discussion of this, I recommend Kenneth Whitehead's "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic: The Early Church Was The Catholic Church". Mr. Eddy, who does not know a single "Roman Catholic", wants to expand the Catholic Church to include non-Catholic communions who do not believe abortion always is gravely immoral while simultaneously arguing that it is only the fictional "Roman Catholic Church" that considers it gravely immoral. Of course, the communions to which Mr. Eddy refers determined hundreds of years ago not to be part of the "Catholic Church", and not just because they embraced heresies. While they may regret that decision, as many Anglicans currently do, playing word games will not heal the breach caused by their volitional separation from the "Catholic Church".
Canon 1398: "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a "latae sententiae" excommunication."
Canon 751: "Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."
Canon 1364, sec. 1: "An apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a "latae sententiae" excommunication."
Also relevant is John Paul II's "Evangelium Vitae". "Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the Ordinary and universal Magisterium."
Thus, it is beyond serious dispute that any Catholic who obstinately denies that abortion always is gravely immoral is guilty of heresy under Canon Law 751. Moreover, it is equally undisputed that such a heretic incurs a "latae sententiae" excommunication pursuant to Canon Law 1364.
Doug Eddy is confused about the Catholic Church. He claims "I'm not a Roman Catholic". This is correct, if for no other reason that no one is a "Roman Catholic". The name of the Church is the "Catholic Church". The Nicene Creed (more accurately the Nicene-Constantinople Creed) refers to the "Catholic Church". The Catholic Church does not refer to herself as the "Roman Catholic Church". Nowhere is the sixteen documents of the Second Vatican Council is "Roman Catholic" found. According to the Catholic Church, when the adjective "Roman" is used it refers only to the Diocese of Rome. In fact, many English-speaking Bishops at the First Vatican Council (1870) ensured the phrase "Roman Catholic" would not appear in any of that Council's documents. Importantly, this has been the case since Apostolic times. For a good (and thorough) discussion of this, I recommend Kenneth Whitehead's "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic: The Early Church Was The Catholic Church". Mr. Eddy, who does not know a single "Roman Catholic", wants to expand the Catholic Church to include non-Catholic communions who do not believe abortion always is gravely immoral while simultaneously arguing that it is only the fictional "Roman Catholic Church" that considers it gravely immoral. Of course, the communions to which Mr. Eddy refers determined hundreds of years ago not to be part of the "Catholic Church", and not just because they embraced heresies. While they may regret that decision, as many Anglicans currently do, playing word games will not heal the breach caused by their volitional separation from the "Catholic Church".
11.23.2011 | 1:13pm
Ed says:
DS correctly notes "We all sin ... even 'devout' and 'actual' Catholics." Every member of the Catholic Church is a sinner. Peter was a horrible sinner. Paul was an inveterate sinner. I am the worst sinner I know.
But, the Church does not excommunicate sinners, and not because all the pews in all the world would be empty. The Church welcomes sinners because She is the way to the salvation that Christ promised.
It is a terrible error, however, to equate sin with heresy. The Arians were heretics because they denied the divinity of Jesus Christ, which was the primary tenet of Catholic Christology. Likewise, those who do not believe abortion always is gravely immoral are heretics because it is contrary to clear Church doctrine.
Ferde Rombola makes a good point that the Catholic laity seems to be more concerned about Church doctrine than most of the bishops. This is a sad commentary on the current state of things in the Church. It reinforces the view that all the Church's sinners must not remain silent in the face of the most pernicious heresy since the early Church.
But, the Church does not excommunicate sinners, and not because all the pews in all the world would be empty. The Church welcomes sinners because She is the way to the salvation that Christ promised.
It is a terrible error, however, to equate sin with heresy. The Arians were heretics because they denied the divinity of Jesus Christ, which was the primary tenet of Catholic Christology. Likewise, those who do not believe abortion always is gravely immoral are heretics because it is contrary to clear Church doctrine.
Ferde Rombola makes a good point that the Catholic laity seems to be more concerned about Church doctrine than most of the bishops. This is a sad commentary on the current state of things in the Church. It reinforces the view that all the Church's sinners must not remain silent in the face of the most pernicious heresy since the early Church.
11.23.2011 | 1:24pm
DS says:
It is the job of bishops alone to oversee the teaching of doctrine, deal with heresy and discipline errant politicians.
It is not the laity's job to decide whether bishops are "up to the task."
Jesus gave the laity a very simple job description: "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”
It is not the laity's job to decide whether bishops are "up to the task."
Jesus gave the laity a very simple job description: "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”
11.23.2011 | 1:43pm
Rudy says:
With regard to Pelosi et al., as our priest often asks us: If we were accused of being a Catholic, would there be sufficient evidence to convict us?
11.23.2011 | 2:36pm
Ed says:
DS, you may want to read Matthew 18:15-17. "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church."
Tell the Church. That is what the laity is obligated to do. If a Catholic Bishop refuses to discipline elected officials who support abortion, a Catholic's duty is to "tell the Church."
Let's look at a horrible example that proves remaining silent is itself heresy. It is the clergy sex abuse scandal, the result of the post-Vatican II heresy regarding the Church doctrines about homosexuality and priestly celibacy. Many bishops in America clearly failed to perform their duties. When the laity determined someone had to report the bishops for their complete and utter failure in this regard, they spoke out--to fulfill, as you say, their duty to love thy neighbor as thyself.
Tell the Church. That is what the laity is obligated to do. If a Catholic Bishop refuses to discipline elected officials who support abortion, a Catholic's duty is to "tell the Church."
Let's look at a horrible example that proves remaining silent is itself heresy. It is the clergy sex abuse scandal, the result of the post-Vatican II heresy regarding the Church doctrines about homosexuality and priestly celibacy. Many bishops in America clearly failed to perform their duties. When the laity determined someone had to report the bishops for their complete and utter failure in this regard, they spoke out--to fulfill, as you say, their duty to love thy neighbor as thyself.
11.23.2011 | 2:43pm
Gil Costello says:
I was talking with someone a while back who hated the Catholic Church, and at one point he said, "A mafia hit man can go into a confessional, be forgiven, and go out and kill another man and come back the same day and be forgiven again." And I responded, "Yes, as long as he is sincere in his regret and truly desires not to sin again." And perhaps that is a significant factor in the line attributed to James Joyce when asked what the Catholic Church is: “The Catholic Church is...here comes everybody," including Pelosi and company.
Yes, the Catholic Church is truly the Church of sinners, and that includes Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Pat Leahy, Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, the Kennedys, and the rest. The only difference, though, between them and the mafia hit man, is that they experience no need to repent. They are those whom Jesus was referring to from the Cross when he said, "Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do." And perhaps these are the persons Leonard Cohen refers to when he sings, "Repent, repent...I wonder what they meant?" In other words, they will not very likely (although hope abides) experience the freedom of forgiveness on earth (why Purgatory is the great hope for all us Catholics).
That's the strange thing: Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Pat Leahy, Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, the Kennedys, and the rest do not possess much of a chance at knowing real freedom in Our Lord, and thus, in that deep dark emptiness, that utter lack of meaning with substance, they become obsessed with trying to attain freedom in a politics that has lost sight of the dignity of the human person.
Yes, the Catholic Church is truly the Church of sinners, and that includes Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Pat Leahy, Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, the Kennedys, and the rest. The only difference, though, between them and the mafia hit man, is that they experience no need to repent. They are those whom Jesus was referring to from the Cross when he said, "Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do." And perhaps these are the persons Leonard Cohen refers to when he sings, "Repent, repent...I wonder what they meant?" In other words, they will not very likely (although hope abides) experience the freedom of forgiveness on earth (why Purgatory is the great hope for all us Catholics).
That's the strange thing: Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Pat Leahy, Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, the Kennedys, and the rest do not possess much of a chance at knowing real freedom in Our Lord, and thus, in that deep dark emptiness, that utter lack of meaning with substance, they become obsessed with trying to attain freedom in a politics that has lost sight of the dignity of the human person.
11.23.2011 | 3:01pm
Gil Costello says:
DS,
You write, "It is not the laity's job to decide whether bishops are 'up to the task.'
"Jesus gave the laity a very simple job description: 'You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.'
When bishops are errant in defying their vow of obedience to their Magisterium, as when they support abortion rights and gay marriage, then any Christian can make the judgment not of their person, but of their behavior, and correctly insist that for whatever reason, they are not up to the task of their Apostolic vow, and a vow takes on much more depth than a promise, as in a marriage vow.
Secondly, a command is not a job description: it is a call to commitment, and the command from Our Lord that you quote is for all Christians, including bishops. The fundamental task of the laity is (as is spoken by the priest at the end of every Mass) to "go out", i.e., go out and preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth (something bishops and priests could never accomplish on their own). This "work" is what Pope Paul VI called the Lay Apostolate.
You write, "It is not the laity's job to decide whether bishops are 'up to the task.'
"Jesus gave the laity a very simple job description: 'You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.'
When bishops are errant in defying their vow of obedience to their Magisterium, as when they support abortion rights and gay marriage, then any Christian can make the judgment not of their person, but of their behavior, and correctly insist that for whatever reason, they are not up to the task of their Apostolic vow, and a vow takes on much more depth than a promise, as in a marriage vow.
Secondly, a command is not a job description: it is a call to commitment, and the command from Our Lord that you quote is for all Christians, including bishops. The fundamental task of the laity is (as is spoken by the priest at the end of every Mass) to "go out", i.e., go out and preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth (something bishops and priests could never accomplish on their own). This "work" is what Pope Paul VI called the Lay Apostolate.
11.23.2011 | 3:14pm
Christine says:
Wouldn't this view that X is no longer Catholic because of conduct and belief mean Baptism is not a sacrament?
Well -- Christ taught very clearly that one who calls himself a follower of His must be faithful to the end. Of course Baptism is always a sacrament but there are some who treat it as almost magical. Catholics are expected to live out their Baptismal promises. That we all sin is beyond doubt, but ongoing, unrepented sin is another matter entirely.
I wouldn't call Pelosi so much a canonical Catholic as I would a cultural one, of which there are plenty.
Even as a Catholic I've never been comfortable with the idea that one is baptized a "Catholic", a "Lutheran", or whatever while acknowledging that baptism incorporates one into the Church. There is only one baptism and that is baptism into Christ. Even though there still remain serious theological differences among the various Christian communities which we cannot ignore a Christian baptized in another communion but with the traditional Trinitarian formula is not rebaptized when he/she becomes a Catholic.
The more Pelosi speaks "as a Catholic" the more she embarrases herself.
Well -- Christ taught very clearly that one who calls himself a follower of His must be faithful to the end. Of course Baptism is always a sacrament but there are some who treat it as almost magical. Catholics are expected to live out their Baptismal promises. That we all sin is beyond doubt, but ongoing, unrepented sin is another matter entirely.
I wouldn't call Pelosi so much a canonical Catholic as I would a cultural one, of which there are plenty.
Even as a Catholic I've never been comfortable with the idea that one is baptized a "Catholic", a "Lutheran", or whatever while acknowledging that baptism incorporates one into the Church. There is only one baptism and that is baptism into Christ. Even though there still remain serious theological differences among the various Christian communities which we cannot ignore a Christian baptized in another communion but with the traditional Trinitarian formula is not rebaptized when he/she becomes a Catholic.
The more Pelosi speaks "as a Catholic" the more she embarrases herself.
11.23.2011 | 3:34pm
AKO Login says:
@ Randy
"Rep. Pelosi is a devout opportunist."
I feel as though you may be right. Being Christian can be a political move that is often taken by politicians. Many do it just to get votes.
"Rep. Pelosi is a devout opportunist."
I feel as though you may be right. Being Christian can be a political move that is often taken by politicians. Many do it just to get votes.
11.23.2011 | 3:56pm
Don Roberto says:
Those in authority—priests, pundits, politicians—lead little ones astray when they advocate on hehalf of the devil. Not only do they excommunicate themselves; they damn themselves.
We must all focus on our own salvation, of course, and "judgmentalism" is often a distraction from this, but we must not forget our duty to the little ones. (Elijah killed 450 priests of Baal to defend them—not out of vengeance, but to do his duty.)
†
We must all focus on our own salvation, of course, and "judgmentalism" is often a distraction from this, but we must not forget our duty to the little ones. (Elijah killed 450 priests of Baal to defend them—not out of vengeance, but to do his duty.)
†
11.23.2011 | 5:16pm
Resh Galuta says:
It would be convenient if there were a well-delineated criterion for who may and may not call himself and be called by others a "Catholic." It would make it easier to be consistent. For example, whomever we feel ourselves too holy to acknowledge as a fellow-Catholic, we certainly shouldn't allow the bishops to include in the count when they lobby for special privileges for the Church, which they claim includes one quarter of the population. "Real Catholics" are about as numerous as Scientologists and their religious convictions should be treated about the same.
11.23.2011 | 6:48pm
Don Roberto says:
You believe morality is what the majority believe it to be, Resh? The majority killed Christ. The majority are neo-pagan idolaters.
†
†
11.23.2011 | 7:14pm
Ferde Rombola says:
Christine is correct when she observes that one is not baptized a Catholic, but as a Christian, a follower of Christ. Christian baptisms performed in other recognized Christian faiths are recognized and accepted as valid by the Catholic Church.
That said, it is axiomatic that one who is baptized in the Catholic Church is not automatically a Catholic for life. People who are baptized Catholics and, as adults, become athiest, are not Catholics.
That said, it is axiomatic that one who is baptized in the Catholic Church is not automatically a Catholic for life. People who are baptized Catholics and, as adults, become athiest, are not Catholics.
11.23.2011 | 7:18pm
Gil Costello says:
"we must not forget our duty to the little ones"
This is how I see it, the bottom line for me, for in no other age has there been rampant child sacrifice like we are witnessing in our age, unopposed by so many bishops and priests. Pelosi & Company and many bishops and priests have been tricked by Satan on two counts: first, many have come to believe Satan’s story that he doesn't exist (even brilliant and pious Christian writers like Renee Girard have been convinced of this), and second, if the heretical Christian political elite and clerical hierarchy do in fact believe in demons, Satan convinces them that they are holy enough and smart enough not to be duped by them.
This is how I see it, the bottom line for me, for in no other age has there been rampant child sacrifice like we are witnessing in our age, unopposed by so many bishops and priests. Pelosi & Company and many bishops and priests have been tricked by Satan on two counts: first, many have come to believe Satan’s story that he doesn't exist (even brilliant and pious Christian writers like Renee Girard have been convinced of this), and second, if the heretical Christian political elite and clerical hierarchy do in fact believe in demons, Satan convinces them that they are holy enough and smart enough not to be duped by them.
11.23.2011 | 8:31pm
Maxim says:
So, whose fault is this? After all, these people were raised as Catholics, and no doubt have some nostalgic affinity for the faith of their childhood; so, they will continue to claim they are "devout" Catholics, and the public will credit this claim, so long as the Catholic Church refuses to publicly denounce them. Institutions define themselves by excluding those who no longer share the goals of the community; any institution which refuses to do this looses its shape pretty quickly. If the Catholic Church really wishes to communicate publicly that support for abortion and "liberated" sexuality are not among the options for the "devout" Catholic, it may do so by publicly expressing the truth that Pelosi and her ilk are not Catholic; if it refuses to engage in this elementary act of self-definition, then both those inside and outside the institution have to be excused for being somewhat confused about what a Catholic is. Communication by Excommunication is what is required here, I think.
11.24.2011 | 4:08am
Michael PS says:
So those who held the 40 Propositions of Rosmini stopped being Catholics in 1887, when they were condemned by Pope Leo XIII, but automatically became Catholics again on 1 July 2001, when the condemnation was lifted?
Members of Action Française stopped being Catholics, when the movement was condemned by Pius XI in 1926, but became Catholics again, when the condemnation was lifted by Pius XII in 1939?
Henri de Lubac stopped being a Catholic, when his licence to teach was withdrawn and became a Catholic again, when he was created a Cardinal?
We obviously have to keep our editions of Dentzinger up-to-date, to decide who is and who is not "Catholic"
Members of Action Française stopped being Catholics, when the movement was condemned by Pius XI in 1926, but became Catholics again, when the condemnation was lifted by Pius XII in 1939?
Henri de Lubac stopped being a Catholic, when his licence to teach was withdrawn and became a Catholic again, when he was created a Cardinal?
We obviously have to keep our editions of Dentzinger up-to-date, to decide who is and who is not "Catholic"
11.24.2011 | 7:37am
Sue Sims says:
Mr Eddy: you may resent our classification of ourselves as 'Catholics', but I'm afraid that words mean what they mean, not what you would like them to mean, or what etymologically they once meant. If you're in a strange town and ask a taxi-driver to take you to 'the Catholic church', I doubt very much that you'd end up at a Presbyterian establishment - or, indeed, an Episcopalian, Baptist, Lutheran or Methodist one. Sorry and all that...
11.24.2011 | 10:03am
bill bannon says:
Actually since section 62 of Evangelium Vitae condemned abortion infallibly in a shortened version of the IC wording and via the polling all the world's Bishops as though present in a Council, it follows that Pilosi and many others could be prosecuted in a Vatican ecclesiastical court as a heretic. But John Paul II once had to lecture that Vatican court body on its backlog and slowness.....(translation: Insufficient budget for more judges). One can blame local Bishops until Elijah appears again but after local Bishop permissiveness perdures for say 7 years on a given pro abortion pol, then it's the Pope's fault for not commanding that Bishop; but no paid Catholic figure can say that without fearing career slowdown or reversal.
So eternally we will have "blame the Bishop but protect the Pope" syndrome and it is at the heart of the problem. As long as we have accountability immunity for Popes, we will have (while Popes write NT books) the Pilosi's... who now due to sect.62 of EV can be prosecuted for heresy on abortion and by the way euthanasia whichnalso received infallible condemnation in EV ( see L. Welch/ Theological Studies/ 2003/ #64).
So eternally we will have "blame the Bishop but protect the Pope" syndrome and it is at the heart of the problem. As long as we have accountability immunity for Popes, we will have (while Popes write NT books) the Pilosi's... who now due to sect.62 of EV can be prosecuted for heresy on abortion and by the way euthanasia whichnalso received infallible condemnation in EV ( see L. Welch/ Theological Studies/ 2003/ #64).
11.25.2011 | 2:18am
Micha Elyi says:
@Benjamin Baxter: Here's a better solution.
Call Nancy Pelosi a Canon OUTLAW Catholic.
@Alan Wostenberg: A proper trinitarian baptism
makes one able to be a Christian. I notice
Doug Eddy's comment and wonder if Ms. Pelosi
is actually a liberal PCUSA presbyterian.
Call Nancy Pelosi a Canon OUTLAW Catholic.
@Alan Wostenberg: A proper trinitarian baptism
makes one able to be a Christian. I notice
Doug Eddy's comment and wonder if Ms. Pelosi
is actually a liberal PCUSA presbyterian.
11.25.2011 | 4:39am
Michael PS says:
Any attempt to determine who is or is not a Catholic by their tenets is, effectively, to undermine the notion of the visible church, as consisting of those in communion with the local bishop.
The bishop has jurisdiction (from "jus dicere," to say what the law is) and, if hew is mistaken as to the facts or errs as to the law, only his superior in the hierarchy can reverse him.
For example, there are those who consider Hans Küng to be a heretic and the Holy See has withdrawn his licence to teach theology; nevertheless, neither the Holy See nor his local ordinary, the bishop of Rottenburg, has seen fit to suspend him a divinis. It would be fanciful to suggest that a man, whatever his theological opinions, whose priestly faculties have not been withdrawn is "not a Catholic."
The bishop has jurisdiction (from "jus dicere," to say what the law is) and, if hew is mistaken as to the facts or errs as to the law, only his superior in the hierarchy can reverse him.
For example, there are those who consider Hans Küng to be a heretic and the Holy See has withdrawn his licence to teach theology; nevertheless, neither the Holy See nor his local ordinary, the bishop of Rottenburg, has seen fit to suspend him a divinis. It would be fanciful to suggest that a man, whatever his theological opinions, whose priestly faculties have not been withdrawn is "not a Catholic."
11.25.2011 | 5:36am
Warren says:
It's one thing to to fall and repent and be reconciled; it is another thing entirely to fall and flaunt one's sin as virtue and avoid listening to the counsel of the teachers of the Faith, i.e., the bishops. Pelosi, Sebelius, et al, show no public remorse for their sins, which is where their sins are being committed, i.e., in public, and are most definitely visible and corrosive. They have abandoned the Catholic Faith and follow their own personal magisterium. In that regard, they are heretics. If they want the veneer of religion, they should become Episcopalians - goodness knows, that community needs all every member they can get.
It's time their respective bishops call it like it is: these Catholic politicians who have abandoned the Faith in practice should be barred from Holy Communion. Their souls are at risk enough. Need they be further condemned by receiving Communion unworthily? Bishops - issue decrees that your fallen brothers and sisters have excommunicated themselves. May the medicine of mercy be applied now, lest they fall further into sin (if that's even possible, given the gravity of their sins).
It's time their respective bishops call it like it is: these Catholic politicians who have abandoned the Faith in practice should be barred from Holy Communion. Their souls are at risk enough. Need they be further condemned by receiving Communion unworthily? Bishops - issue decrees that your fallen brothers and sisters have excommunicated themselves. May the medicine of mercy be applied now, lest they fall further into sin (if that's even possible, given the gravity of their sins).
11.25.2011 | 2:57pm
Bob LeBlanc says:
There is a quite a bit of discussion over whether Nancy Pelosi should be called Catholic. It seems to me that the significant problem is that she (and media accomplices) will say that she is "devout". That's like saying a man who cheats on his wife is a devout husband. While it's true that he still is a husband, it's a lie to say he is devout.
11.25.2011 | 11:15pm
lome says:
Those public servants who support abortion;Your names are not unknown to the Eternal Father!
11.27.2011 | 3:16pm
Norm says:
@randy et. al. similiter
The roster of Democratic politicians given at the top who claim to be Catholics (enen DEVOUT Catholics) are indeed opportunists and nothing more. It is entirely possible to take their claims much too seriously. However, it is very interesting that the claims are made at all and that they always emanate from the same party and claim the same religious turf. None of these folks would claim to be Congregationalists. No Republicans feel moved to declare themselves Catholics. Fact is, Catholics are viewed as taking their faith both seriously and intellectually. Hence there is political opportunity to be found in having the likes of Pelosi deny the Church's teaching. And having the MSM trumpet the news.
The roster of Democratic politicians given at the top who claim to be Catholics (enen DEVOUT Catholics) are indeed opportunists and nothing more. It is entirely possible to take their claims much too seriously. However, it is very interesting that the claims are made at all and that they always emanate from the same party and claim the same religious turf. None of these folks would claim to be Congregationalists. No Republicans feel moved to declare themselves Catholics. Fact is, Catholics are viewed as taking their faith both seriously and intellectually. Hence there is political opportunity to be found in having the likes of Pelosi deny the Church's teaching. And having the MSM trumpet the news.
11.28.2011 | 9:20pm
Maxim says:
I'm not at all surprised that Pelosi doesn't understand the "conscience thing", as her ethical stance seems to be "If it's in the way, kill it!". No one should expect anyone with such a low level of moral understanding to know anything about conscience, and certainly not about Theology. Nancy Pelosi thinks she's a Catholic because she is incapable of understanding what a Catholic is. How can such an ethical ignoramus be permitted to shape national policy?
12.7.2011 | 10:56am
Christine says:
I too am a Catholic - a Presbyterian one. With all due respect sir, no you are not. You can certainly claim to be [c]atholic but until you are fully incorporated into the [C]atholic Church you are not [C]atholic nor is the Catholic Church defined by "Roman Catholics of deep faith who do not accept much of what is being presented from Rome."
12.21.2011 | 9:14am
Luke Tia says:
Dear Mr. Hennessey,
Peace be with you.
This article says that Nancy Pelosi does not go to Mass ("...when a person who was raised Catholic stops going to Mass...I’m looking at you Nancy Pelosi").
However, this article from The Tablet (http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/15516), says that Congresswomen Pelosi "attends Mass daily."
Quite a difference.
Where did you get your information from? I am going to e-mail her office to get the final answer.
God bless,
Luke Tia
Gainesville, FL
Peace be with you.
This article says that Nancy Pelosi does not go to Mass ("...when a person who was raised Catholic stops going to Mass...I’m looking at you Nancy Pelosi").
However, this article from The Tablet (http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/15516), says that Congresswomen Pelosi "attends Mass daily."
Quite a difference.
Where did you get your information from? I am going to e-mail her office to get the final answer.
God bless,
Luke Tia
Gainesville, FL
Our solution is to call them Canon Law Catholics. That at least is factual.