Bishops have authority in their proper sphere, including things like who can and cannot receive the Eucharist. It does not follow that they always exercise that authority with wisdom. Dramatic examples can be found in the history regarding this principle, for example, the excommunication of Elizabeth I, who was condemned with all right and proper authority, yet whose condemnation had, shall we say?, rather spectacularly poor results for the English flock. Bishops can still make bad calls and lousy prudential judgments to this day, with all due authority.
Case in point:
Basic story: Champion of refusal to vaccinate who defied the Pope and did his part to help spread a plague that has killed a million Americans, ostensibly caring about “Eucharistic Coherence”, chooses to exercise that authority to punish Nancy Pelosi and make her an extremely public example of what happens to
Democrats when MAGAfied Catholics smell blood in the water and think they can impose authoritarian rule on 87% of the population “Eucharistically Incoherent” members of the flock. If I were in her place, I would, of course, refrain from receiving the Eucharist in obedience to my bishop when I was in his jurisdiction, and receive it if, say, I was in Rome or DC, where I have ecclesial permission to do so.
(Pope Francis is already on record saying: “I have never refused the Eucharist to anyone, to anyone. I don’t know if anyone in that condition came, but I never, never refused the Eucharist. As a priest, that is. Never.” He also says, “The problem is not the theological problem—that is simple—the problem it is the pastoral problem: how do we bishops deal with this principle pastorally? And if we look at the history of the Church we will see that every time the bishops have dealt with a problem not as pastors, they have taken a political stance on a political problem.… What must the pastor do? Be a pastor. Be a pastor and don’t go around condemning… But if he goes out of the pastoral dimension of the church, he immediately becomes a politician: You see this in all the accusations, in all the non-pastoral condemnations the church makes.”)
Unsurprisingly, Francis has already said to the American bishops that they should not deny Biden communion, and Biden’s position is essentially indistinguishable from Pelosi’s.
But Abp. Cordileone, diverging sharply from Francis, seems to be unable to curb his desire to punish somebody. So Pelosi is to be made an example of. He certainly is within the rights of his office to do it. But is it really going to help anything or is it just going to give a huge thrill to the “SOMEBODY MUST PAY!” zealots in the MAGA sect? What actual end is in view here? Certainly not “Eucharistic Coherence”.
What, precisely, is being demanded of Pelosi? That she believe and confess that punishing post-abortive and miscarrying women (as Louisiana Republicans want and as has been done in Indiana) is a good idea? That jailing or executing Jewish physicians whose religious tradition bids them prioritize women is a triumph of religious liberty? (Recall that lunatic MAGA priest James Altman (who was ousted by his bishop and now grifts the MAGA circuit moaning that he has been “cancelled”) suggested that the Jews in the Warsaw Uprising got what was coming to them Because Abortion.) That the OB/GYN/Pediatric staff of most of our over-burdened health care system should be jailed for murder?That 13% of Americans should have the power to chaotically create laws that will lead to societal upheaval far worse than the evil they claim to prevent while not actually reducing abortion rates but spiking maternal mortality rates 21%? That women who administer abortifacients to themselves should be jailed and/or executed for murder? That miscarrying women be tried for suspected homicide if they are found to have medicine that can be (but are not necessarily used exclusively for) abortions? What, exactly, is the goal here: performative piety or actually effectively saving lives of mothers and unborn children?
Given that Pelosi performs no abortions herself, what exactly is she guilty of (beyond thoughtcrime) that literally millions of other Catholics are not equally guilty of in thinking that criminalizing abortion is a bad, counter-productive idea and that the real way to reduce it is to attack demand? Having a reluctance to force people to be arrested for something only 13% of Americans want to arrest them for?
There is a difference between acting out of power and acting out of wisdom. A bishop who authorized setting up sprinkler systems to drive away the homeless seeking shelter (until public outcry made him back down) is about to discover that–again. The attempt to enforce laws that almost no American wants is not going to end well. When QANON-supporting, anti-vax, Francis-maligning Bishop Strickland is suddenly your biggest fan you should rethink what you are doing.
Meanwhile, if you believe for one second that the “prolife” MAGA antichrist cult is going to respond to this with love for Pelosi and not an orgy of “BITCH GOT SERVED! KICK HER OUT! KICK HER OUT!” you simply have not been paying attention to this vindictive cult of spite. Nor will anybody believe the Eucharistic Coherence narrative when you never hear the Eucharistic Coherence crowd crying that
- white supremacist Catholics like Steve King,
- Nazi-supporting Catholics like Paul Gosar,
- malignant Replacement Theory champions like John Zmirak
- sadists like Greg Abbott (who calls for trying to starve brown infants at the border)
- zealous champions of the death penalty like Nebraska governor Pete Ricketts or
- defiantly pro-death Trump suckups like Bill Barr (who ordered a massacre on death row in flat rejection of the Church’s teaching)
need to face disciplines for giving gross scandal.
Nope. The last thing this is about is “Eucharistic Coherence” or “consistency”. It’s about uni-directional culture war spite as far as the MAGA cult is concerned. The unborn do not matter to the MAGA cult except as human shields for all the ways in which they make war on their sundry victims (and on any point of Church teaching) that gets in the way of the GOP crime syndicate and Cult of Death. The result will be a perfectly coherent backlash that points this obvious fact out. And if the MAGA cult’s history is any indicator, they will respond to the demand that they be held accountable for their actions, not by reflecting on their own incoherence (and implicit contempt for Pope Francis’ guidance) but by moaning about “persecution” and “cancellation”.
It’s going to be a huge disaster for them and will set back real prolife work decades. They are trying to achieve by force, fear, blood, and iron what can only be done by grace and through freedom. They are, as ever, wrong about everything.
Tomorrow, we will compare and contrast the lazy sadism the MAGA “prolife” advocates vs. what we could actually do if we were serious about helping cherish human life.
I am by no means an expert on canon law, so all this leaves me genuinely confused.
On theological bewilderment: I didn’t know this was allowed. In order to deny anyone communion, doesn’t the person have to be officially excommunicated? Am I wrong?
On purely practical reasoning: I just don’t understand how this is okay. Jesus fed Judas. Using the Eucharist as punishment / reward seems like a very bad precedent to me. Reading the epistles, I do very much see a good reason for examining my own conscience and deciding I am not worthy of partaking of communion. I see no reason for me (or even a bishop) to judge someone else. Am I wrong?
“In order to deny anyone communion, doesn’t the person have to be officially excommunicated? Am I wrong?”
No. Excommunication is a specific penalty which includes a prohibition on receiving Communion, but is not the exclusive reason it would be withheld (although the list of reasons is extremely short).
If you’d like to know more, the specific canon law to look up is Canon 915. You will find some commentary on the matter by searching for input from canonists such as Dr. Edward Peters, but I will note that his view on the matter differs from what Mark’s appears to be. At the same time, I have found that a significant portion of his commentary on Canon 915 is correcting people who think it should be more broadly applied that it is intended.
I will be praying for you, Mark, just as I am praying for–and calling all our parishioners to pray for–the return of Nancy Pelosi (a beloved daughter of God the Father with an immortal soul), Joe Biden (a beloved son of God the Father with an immortal soul) and you (a beloved Son of God the Father with an immortal soul)–in particular–to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the maternal care of Our Lady. Archbishop Cordileone did Nancy Pelosi the greatest act of charity by making clear the danger to her soul before it is too late for her to repent.
And you are correct…
If pro-life Catholics “pile on” and vilify, rather than praying for Nancy Pelosi (and Joe Biden), they (we) are guilty of wanting to abort her (their) soul(s). Conversely, those who “pile on” and vilify a good shepherd like Archbishop Cordileone, who has willingly exposed himself to vicious vitriol (such as in this article) for the sake of one of the lost sheep (Nancy Pelosi) for whom he is personally responsible, only reveal how far they have strayed from the Good Shepherd themselves, and allowed the poison of the Evil One to seep into their souls.
Mark, I will offer my Rosary today for your healing and would be grateful for your prayers for me as well.
I appreciate your prayers, Father. I trust you are no suggesting that I am vilifying the Archbishop by agreeing with Pope Francis and disagreeing with his prudential decision.
Pope Francis a few days ago called a pro-life march in Italy, which, among other things, advocated for the legal protection of the unborn, a ”gift of God”.
Proud of Pope Francis, a man who clearly doesn’t waffle about when it comes to legislating against abortion. So different a man than the progressive savior portrayed in clickbaitmedia.progressive.org
Yes, I do, indeed, see your comments as vilifying the Archbishop, namely: “…thrilled by the scent of the upcoming overturning of Roe, seems to be unable to curb his desire to punish somebody to please the MAGA Cult.”
This is rash judgment of his motives (i.e. his desire)…and destructive to his reputation when he is simply being faithful to his duty as a bishop. The Archbishop judged Nancy Pelosi’s public behavior, which, as a shepherd, he is bound to do. And he did so to win her back to Christ, and to get fellow Catholics to pray sincerely for her return to the fold, which is the purpose of his act. He is not only within his rights as a bishop, he is bound to do so by his office under pain of the loss of his own salvation.
Your comment judged the Archbishop’s heart–which Jesus prohibits–as such judgment is reserved to God alone.
I bring this to your attention for your good and the good of your readers.
Okey doke. Fixed it. Have you gone back and corrected your videos declaring voting Democrat a mortal sin? Since you are all worried about judging people’s hearts.
Thanks for extending your dubious wisdom to the readers here. If I may be of help to those in need of online fatherhood: I recommend Father John Misty. ”Goodbye Mr. Blue” is a particularly nice song, in my opinion.
As far as I know, a bishop is perfectly within his rights to bar somebody from communion in his diocese (but only in his diocese). If Pelosi goes to DC (or any other diocese where she is not barred) she can receive communion. Given that Biden receives in DC, I assume she will be able to, as well. Literally no other bishop is attempting this and even the nine (out of 260) US bishop who “support” this move are not imitating Cordileone. He (and the nine) are outliers at the far right of the bell curve, not the norm. This will not move the Greatest Catholics of All Time, who assume they are the Pure Remnant sent by God to exile the bulk of the Church (including the Pope) to the fires of Gehenna. But it does mean that Normals in the Church are not flocking to Cordileone’s banner.
@ Mark Shea
Very few bishops seem to support it, but that doesn’t really matter. Their ”support” is merely an expression of their own stance in the matter. Likewise, there will most likely be no bishop or archbishop that criticizes Cordileone in this matter. Turf wars are not fought openly, if they occur at all. The only real – and minor – point of ecclesiastical interest for me in this matter, is whether the authority of an Archbishops extends to his bishops.
Anyway, people will have to learn to live with this stuff, especially when Roe gets overturned. One set of laws for abortion here, one set of laws in another place. Not allowed to take communion here, but free to walk up to the altar in another place.
It all leaves a lot to be desired, but neither the Church nor the USA is a monolith, and subsidiarity is a lovely thing.
I just finished that promised rosary. I would sure be grateful if you would pray one for me today too. God bless you.
Will do. We vitriolic poison-souled committers of mortal sin you certainly do not commit rash judgments about do our best. So: have you gone back and retracted the absurd claim that voting Dem is a mortal sin?
1. Go to your room, close the door and pray to the Father, who is unseen
2. Troll some people online while using Mary as a passive-aggressive cudgel.
What would a well formed conscience do?
God bless you, Mark. I will continue to pray for you.
And apparently continue to spit in the face of Jesus according to Matthew 6:5-8 as well.
“What, precisely, is being demanded of Please?”
That she conform her exercise of her public authority to the requirement of CCC 2273, which states that abortion must be prohibited by criminal law. The exact criminal laws are subject to prudential concerns and must conform to the rest of the Church’s teaching (capital punishment for abortion is therefore off-the-table). But she must work to make abortion illegal.
What do you think CCC 2273 requires? When it is pointed out to you that the Church teaches that abortion must be criminalized, you state that (1) the MAGA Cult wants to punish women savagely, and (2) criminalizing abortion would be ineffective and harmful. Neither statement actually engages with the Church’s teaching.
If you think the Church is wrong to teach that abortion must be criminalized, you would be doing your readers a service by explicitly saying so. If you don’t wish to oppose the Church’s teaching, it would be a useful exercise to show that you are trying to harmonize this teaching with your concerns about over-punishment and counterproductive laws.
“”As you have not publically repudiated your position on abortion, and continue to refer to your Catholic faith in justifying your position and to receive Holy Communion …”
If she would *only* stop referring to her Catholic faith when she discusses these matters, that might have been enough to sway the Archbishop. I’m not the only one who has stressed a few times that trying to usurp a Bishop’s authority in matters of moral teaching, is probably the true ‘unforgivable sin’ here. This goes for Biden as well.
I will discuss CCC 2273 tomorrow. Meanwhile, I will be intrigued to see how the MAGA cult, eager to punish, squares the old “love them both” rhetoric they used to stand for with the new MAGA, “Make ’em PAY!” zeal that is quickly asserting itself as they scent the chance to start inflicting punishments on post-abortive women.
Its not just post-abortive women; its women in general they want, and will, inflict punishments on. For starters, think how dangerous it will be now for any woman to share news of her pregnancy? Or to let it be known that she does not want to have any (more) children?
This is basically the modern-day version of the witch hunts. No one is safe.
I would like to say that it would not be wrong to deny communion to people who deny Catholic moral teaching… as long as it is not for political reasons.
Father Souza of the Register says that Pelosi defends and praises Cardinal Zen, even welcomed him to the Capitol in 2020, and criticizes the agreement 2018 Vatican’s with China.
I don’t understand, how does she praid a prelate who is idolized by his critics?
Mark, in the past you posted this:
Where you remarked:
“Meanwhile, Archbishop Burke, who literally wrote the book on Canon 915, has been elevated to the No. 5 guy in the Church. Expect some changes on the whole Episcopal Spine Alert front. I’d love to see the day when Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi sashay up to the front of the line with that smug look on their faces and are given a polite blessing and asked to return to their seats.”
Here you were excited to see the prospect of Pelosi being denied communion. Yet here you are complaining about it.
Now, there were 12 years in between those two posts, and people can change their minds on things. So I’m not accusing you of any inconsistency here. But what exactly prompted you to change your mind here? Pelosi hasn’t moderated her stance on abortion as far as I can tell in the meantime.
A reasonable question. The answer is 10 years of watching the Right use the unborn as human shields for cruelty and the realization that punishing the vulnerable for caving to the predations of the strong does not solve the problem of abortion. Instead of attacking supply, we need to attack demand. Dem policies tend to do that. GOP policies tend to prey on the poor and brown and do nothing about abortion while jacking up maternal mortality rates. I care about what works, not about performative piety.
So, when asked why you no longer want to see Biden and Pelosi denied Communion, you answer that it’s because you don’t like how the Right uses the abortion issue. That sounds like a non-sequitur; a political answer to a religious matter. The behavior of conservatives has nothing to do with whether or not unrepentant pro-abortion politicians should receive the Blessed Sacrament.
Perhaps Abp. Cordileone is concerned for Ms Pelosi’s well-being. I’m sure you know that St. Paul says “whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.” He even goes so far as to say that such a person “eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying” (I Corinthians 11:27, 29-30).
This is why the Church says that unrepentant sinners should not receive the Eucharist, and sometimes even bans them from receiving. It is actually an act of mercy. By denying her Communion, the bishop is trying to prevent her from eating and drinking judgment on herself. How are those who think she should be allowed to go on receiving Communion while strongly advocating in favor of grievous sin showing concern for her well-being? There’s much more to this issue than politics.
As for the Holy Father, just because you personally prefer his approach doesn’t make it the right approach. Popes are only infallible under certain very strict circumstances, and this is not one of them. If, as you said, “Bishops can still make bad calls and lousy prudential judgments,” that is also true of the Bishop of Rome when he’s not speaking ex cathedra. I’m not saying that to put down Pope Francis. He’s the true successor to St. Peter and I denounce his detractors. All I’m saying is he’s not perfect and capable of mistakes. Though I refuse to condemn him even if he is mistaken about this; that’s between him and God. I still respect him as my spiritual father.
I realize that those in the 13% of the population who imagine themselves the Center of All of Time and Space think that they sit in judgment of the Holy Father and the 246 other bishop who are not going along with this obviously terrible idea. They’ve been so wrong about so much so many time for so long that only they do not distrust their absolutely awful judgment and feel free to tell the rest of us that the Holy Father is wrong and they are right. But still, I kinda think the Holy Father is the one who is not visible-from-space nuts here.
Really hope you don’t lead with “the malleability of Truth over time argument”.
Mr Shea, I am not the “Center of All of Time and Space” nor do I think that I can sit in judgment of the Holy Father. I explicitly said that I *refuse* to condemn him even if he is mistaken; he’s not perfect and that’s okay because I’m not perfect either. Christ will judge us both on the Last Day and I hope He has mercy on the Holy Father even as I hope He has mercy on me.
It is also possible that the Pope is not mistaken. Maybe his experience is just different than that of Abp. Corleone. The latter is dealing with a public figure in a position of power, who is publicly opposed the Church’s moral teaching on a grave matter, who has adamantly refusing to repent (despite his calls for her to do so) and who still insists, before the whole world, that she’s a good Catholic who should be able to receive the Blessed Sacrament even though she champions feticide.
Perhaps Pope Francis has not faced such an inveterate sinner and so didn’t have to refuse Communion as a last resort. Maybe they’re actually both right, it’s just two different cases.
Of course, you feel free to tell the rest of us that Abp. Corleone is wrong. You originally accused him of being “unable to curb his desire to punish somebody to please the MAGA Cult.” That’s looking at this matter through the prism of politics; if the Archbishop isn’t doing what you think he should, it must be because of politics. It couldn’t possibly be out of concern for her soul and for the scandal she’s causing by claiming to be a faithful Catholic while supporting a heinous sin which the Church completely condemns.
I am unclear why you think I am referring to you since I don’t know you.
It was because I suggested that maybe the pope could be mistaken about not withholding Communion from sinners, and you replied by going off on people who think the Holy Father is wrong in this matter (in your post May 24, 2022 at 7:11 am). I took that to mean that you were saying that I was part of the “13% of the population who imagine themselves the Center of All of Time and Space think that they sit in judgment of the Holy Father.” If you were not directing that at me then I apologize, but it did come across that way. You’re right about the pope’s detractors, but I am not one of them.
“What, precisely, is being demanded of Pelosi? That she believe and confess that punishing post-abortive and miscarrying women is a good idea?”
If you could pause for a moment in the search for links documenting wrongs committed in the name of the Republican party, and search instead for further information about Archbishop Cordileone’s statement, you will find the question answered:
Frankly, I have not looked forward to this happening, even though I have tended to the opinion that it should. I share your deep concern with how the action will be portrayed and perceived. However, I am just as concerned about how the status quo is already being portrayed and perceived. Surveys by Pew and other organizations have documented clearly how widespread dissent from Church teaching on this matter is, and public figures play a definite role in promoting that dissent. So while I have felt, for example, Archbishop Gregory of Washington DC should not be personally criticized for stating that he does not believe Canon 915 should be applied to members of his diocese, nor do I care to direct any flak at Pope Francis for sharing in a pointed manner that he has never denied anyone Communion, my tentative opinion has been that the balance of scandals, for lack of a better term, suggests it should be done in certain cases.
“Meanwhile, if you believe for one second that the ‘prolife’ MAGA antichrist cult is going to respond to this with love for Pelosi and not an orgy of ‘***** GOT SERVED! KICK HER OUT! KICK HER OUT!’ you simply have not been paying attention to this vindictive cult of spite. “
That is indeed one of my own concerns. This should be a pastoral matter focused on both ensuring Ms. Pelosi is truly aware of the gravity of promoting abortion, and clarifying to other Catholics the same, but those who place politics above religion at both ends of the spectrum are going do everything they can to treat the decision as political and spiteful.
“Given that Pelosi performs no abortions herself, what exactly is she guilty of (beyond thoughtcrime) that literally millions of other Catholics are not equally guilty of in thinking that criminalizing abortion is a bad”
Far beyond simply saying she doesn’t believe summarily criminalizing abortion would be an effective solution, the issue is formal cooperation with abortion by publicly and obstinately promoting it as good, including by her actions as a legislator. The catechism addresses this briefly in #1868. The encyclical Evangelium Vitae had significantly more to say about the obligations and limitations of legislators specifically. I don’t remember right now the best place to find authoritative commentary on the principles of cooperation with the sins of another and when that cooperation itself is sinful, but I do recall finding it frequently when I studied the writings of the CDF and the Pontifical Academy for Life to confirm the vaccinations for COVID are morally licit to take and even circumstantially morally positive despite the role of aborted fetal tissue in their development.
>but those who place politics above religion at both ends of the spectrum are going do everything they can to treat the decision as political and spiteful.
Really? Then the Bishop would have been well-advised to have this conversation in private with Pelosi, instead of ensuring that received as much publicity as possible. That is, if the intent was to save Pelosi’s soul. He could have communicated this in private, and if she still showed up for communion in his diocese, then, and only then, went public about it.
But no. This was not about her soul. This was all about the “public scandal’, and using the Church to serve right wing politics.
For the edification of everyone here, I want to remind everyone that Cordileone is the guy who installed sprinklers to keep the homeless from sleeping in the cathedral’s doorways, and when it became news, tried to bluff out of it, claiming that it was for safety. Read for yourself all the excuses and how they held up to reality
He is also the guy who was arrested for DUI and spend the night in county jail, when he was the auxiliary bishop of Oakland, on the path to become bishop of SF
You can also read about Cordileone’s theory of vaccines, which is relatively recent news. Google it out.
What is the bigger scandal to the faith? This Bishop, who is an authority in the Church, or a politician, who has no authority or role in the Church?
We report, you decide. 😉
The vast general public has already made their call on this knows who is causing the scandal on the Church
“Really? Then the Bishop would have been well-advised to have this conversation in private with Pelosi,”
As stated in the link, and as instructed by the Vatican, he did. Since she ignored the counsel and continued to publicly promote abortion, that was not sufficient. Canon 915 has an inherently public aspect.
“For the edification of everyone here…”
Those three points, while disappointing to me, do not change Canon law, nor the reasons it was written the way it was. The prudence or lack of it of withholding Communion from Speaker Pelosi is not founded on personal character.
“What is the bigger scandal to the faith? This Bishop, who is an authority in the Church, or a politician, who has no authority or role in the Church?”
I again refer to the surveys documenting the large proportion of Catholics who have adopted Speaker Pelosi’s position. While I agree with Mark that there are major social issues involved, as well, there is no reason to expect Catholics to learn and assent to the moral truths by ignoring it when prominent members openly contradict them.
>Since she ignored the counsel and continued to publicly promote abortion
Neatly side-stepping my question. Did she show up for communion in defiance?
>Those three points, while disappointing to me, do not change Canon law
What is the scandal to the Church? A bishop who commits felonies/have crackpot vaccine theories/implement unChristian policies or a politician who acts like a politician?
And since when do politicians change Canon law?
>the large proportion of Catholics who have adopted Speaker Pelosi’s position
The question is this. Is Pelosi the cause, or Pelosi the effect, of people’s choices? You ascribe to Pelosi powers far more than she has on the faithful.
And suppose I grant that is the case..then what does it say about the bishops, the leaders of the Church? The bishops have zero credibility among such a large proportion of the faithful?
A large proportion of Catholics are pro-choice not because of Pelosi, but because of the Church and its leaders. The Church has zero credibility, because it made the deal with Mammon.
Alternatively, let me take your thesis at face value, that letting Pelosi ‘get away with it’ as you say, emboldens more people to take her position.
Do you think that sanctioning Pelosi will increase or decrease the proportion of people who adopt the pro-choice position?
This is how I approach the matter : Cordileone lacks good judgement. I could get petty and talk about local problems that prove my point but I don’t want to get down in the weeds. I’m biting my tongue. But Vigano. The elephant in the room. Come on. We sat through those letters (that the pastors were forced to read) in which Cordileone supported Vigano. Vigano.
I’ve always had to remind myself to be charitable in my thoughts about Pelosi and Biden. I used to be part of the “DENY them communion!” mob. Yes, I’m disappointed in them. They should have been less cowardly in their defense of their Catholic beliefs. They should have been taking every opportunity as Catholics to defend the fact that human souls are sacred. BUT–I recognize that they are tightrope walkers. They have the rabid mob on the left too. Maybe they are playing that long game, and hoping that the Bishops and the pastors and the priests are doing their jobs. Frankly, as a relatively impoverished Grand multipara in his Archdiocese, (I don’t believe in the “loaf of bread that comes with every infant anymore), and I *don’t* see Cordileone and his cronies advocating for the rights of families not to be held hostage by the hedge fund/wall street mobsters. Nope. I followed the Catholic rules, and I couldn’t even catch a break for keeping my kids in Catholic schools. There’s that, and then there is the fact that the pro-life pillars of the Catholic Church in my area are: pro-death penalty, are disgusted by the homeless problem, applauded the gulf wars and never babysit for kids at our local homeless shelter for families with young children. They love MAGA and never spoke out against what was happening to brown children at the border. They decided to safely fixate on “queers” in the Church and abortion instead.
So what’s a pro-life Catholic who just signed on the dotted line for a student loan for her sixth kid to do?–I’ve stopped listening to the stuffed shirt, angry “defenders of morality” and gilded-mitre-wearing CEOs who have no skin in the pro-life struggle. Good luck with that.
One last thing. I’ve had about 15 miscarriages. When you lose a child you do a lot of agonized soul searching and praying.
My babies are with God. They are with Jesus. He fought the good fight for them. He had skin in the game. I trust him.
Good for you. Thanks for posting.
And God bless you and your babies.
Its ironic that Pelosi is getting this kind of flak for flexing her pro-choice stance in conjunction with her Catholicism, when at the same time, she’s actively supporting the only pro-life Democrat in the House over her primary challenger, who is pro-choice:
Here’s a quick rundown of the race:
“Will Establishment Dems Suffer Another DEVASTATING BLOW In TX Primary? | Breaking Points”
After seeing the politics of this play out for some time, my take on it is that the Democratic Party establishment and leadership was rather indifferent towards abortion, thinking it a settled matter. They were happy to fundraise off of it though, and I think they would’ve likely continued to do so, had the upcoming SC decision been a scaling back of Roe, rather than a complete overturn. The current events as they stand may force their hand though.
Pelosi isn’t exactly a hardliner in her party, is she? I actually have quite a lot of admiration for her. I think she just met an archbishop that was welcoming a fight.
We’ll have to see, but even now it looks like the initial ”they are taking our rights away, the handmaid’s tale is upon us” hysteria has subsided a bit. The GOP wasn’t all that keen on making it an issue in the first place.
You’ll all learn to live with a state-by-state legislation.
Nancy Pelosi never said abortion was a tragic necessity, a necessary evil, or the lesser of two evils. She has defended it unconditionally. And she is not a poor oppressed victim of a reactionary hierarchy. She is from a prominent politically active Baltimore family. Her father was a Congressman and Mayor of Baltimore and her late brother was Mayor of Baltimore. She went to an elite all-girls school where, she claims, the nuns formed her progressive way of thinking. That school closed a few years ago due to declining enrollment.
Maybe Nancy Pelosi hates abortion –sheds tears over it –prays a rosary about it every now and then–but hates jokers who pretend they are pro-life (so they can sit in the driver’s seat) more? (Trump’s smirk just popped into my mind)–Aren’t we as Catholics supposed to give her the benefit of the doubt? She was raised to not flinch in the mud slinging of testosterone dominated politics.
She obviously saw through the Republicans long before most of us.
Would you give the keys to your home to some guy with a Ted Cruz vibe –if he was promising to set up a trust fund for your sleeping daughter?
The fact that she won’t cede power to a bunch of slimy dudes who smugly proclaim to be pro-life shouldn’t surprise us.
I don’t know if anyone commenting read the recent editorial from the San Francisco Examiner about this situation, but it included the line “It is Nancy Pelosi, not Archbishop Cordelione, who reflects the true spirit of Christian care in the city of St. Francis”. Do you agree?