Nancy Pelosi: ‘I am going to stick with fellow Catholics’ in Pres. Obama’s war on Catholics. Wherein Fr. Z rants.

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), catholic and openly an abortion absolutist, is from the Archdiocese of San Francisco, but she spends most of her time in Washington DC.  She has at least quasi-domicile in the Archdiocese of Washington DC.

She is Archbishop Niederauer’s and Card. Wuerl’s subject it seems, and yet – year after year – she, saying openly that she is “catholic”, runs her mouth off with deeply and stupidly wicked remarks such as what follows.

From Life Site News:

Pelosi: ‘I am going to stick with fellow Catholics’ in supporting Obama birth control mandate

February 6, 2012 ( – Even as the United States’ Catholic bishops have launched an all-out campaign against the Obama administration’s birth control mandate and urged their flocks to resistance, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has invoked the support of “fellow Catholics” to justify her position in favor of the mandate.

Pelosi was confronted at last Wednesday’s press briefing by a reporter from, who began by pointing out that the mandate, which requires all employers to cover all sterilizations and contraception, including drugs that can cause early abortions, forces Catholic individuals and institutions to act against Church teaching.

Irritated, Pelosi, a self-professed devout Catholic, [catholic] interrupted: “Is this a speech, or do we have a question in disguise as a speech?”

The reporter continued, citing a letter from the U.S. bishops, in which the bishops vowed not to comply with the law, and asked: “will you stand with your fellow Catholics in resisting this law or will you stick by the Administration?”

[Pelosi answered:] “First of all, I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the Administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it,” the minority leader responded. [I’m going to stick with my fellow Catholics?]


In an interview with the Washington Post this past November, she acknowledged that many Catholics object to being forced to fund abortions, noting that “they have this conscience thing.”

The former speaker has also said she has “some areas of disagreement” with the country’s bishops, and has claimed that Catholicism does not necessarily condemn abortion.

I call upon Archbishop Niederauer and Card. Wuerl openly to state that Rep. Pelosi should not present herself for Holy Communion in their respective dioceses.

Nancy Pelosi considers it consistent with what Catholics do to take a stand against the bishops in favor of a policy that would force Catholic institutions to violate the teachings of her Church.

Pelosi is a highly public figure. Few people are more visible.  She is committing the mortal sin of scandalizing the faithful in a matter which unquestionably grave matter.  There has been all manner of discussion concerning her and the issues of abortion, contraception, when life begins, etc.  She can’t plead ignorance of the Church’s teachings.  She continues to be openly, publicly, scandalous in these matters.

Now, she is taking an open stand against the American bishops – precisely claiming her catholic identity – in favor of a manifest attack on the Catholic Church by the most aggressively pro-abortion President we have ever seen.


Your Excellency?  Your Eminence?  How much longer does this have to go on?  What else does she have to do?

If I am wrong about this, I will accept correction.  I am not canonist, but – for the love of God – I can read.  I am not a bishop – thanks be to God – but you don’t have to be a bishop to figure this one out.

Please, somebody, explain to me how we square doing nothing about her scandal with can. 915 and the sacred duty bishops have to protect the flock?

Can. 915 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law authorized that ministers should withhold holy Communion from those who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin“. Can. 915 actually requires ministers to withhold Holy Communion in such cases on pain of dereliction of their sacred office (can. 128 and 1389).

This isn’t a matter of a private conversation of an unknown woman in her living room.

I cannot imagine how anyone can question that Pelosi’s actions, which are public and clear and defiant and wicked and scandalous when it comes to serious matters of life, qualify her as “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin”.

For the good of souls, Nancy Pelosi must be denied Holy Communion and the Catholic people should be informed that she is being denied Holy Communion.

“But Father! But Father!” some of you are saying.  “What about the… the… the… national repercussions?  *sputter* What about the media firestorm?”

Damn straight!

Let there be national repercussions and a media firestorm.

Pres. Obama and his administration have openly and aggressively attacked the Catholic Church by trying to force Catholic institutions to perform actions which are evil even by reason alone and natural law, and not just by Catholic doctrine.

Nancy Pelosi has publicly chosen sides against the Catholic Church’s teachings and against the bishops.

Let her choice be publicly confirmed by those same bishops.

Nancy Pelosi must not admitted to Holy Communion until she publicly changes her defiant stance and positions.


Here is the new Can. 915 swag you can get.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "But Father! But Father!", 1983 CIC can. 915, Dogs and Fleas, Emanations from Penumbras, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice, Wherein Fr. Z Rants and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Warren says:

    “Nancy Pelosi must not admitted to Holy Communion until she publicly changes her defiant stance and positions.”

    Amen, Fr. Z.

  2. Bryan Boyle says:

    Wow. Just wow.

    Guess she hasn’t seen the list or bothered to read the almost universal condemnation of the bishops of the USCCB. Or, she’s just reading from the script.

    Or, since she’s the godess of the parallel magisterium, she knows better. Maybe she ought to pull the fingers that are in her ears up to the second joint out just a tad. Let he who has ears, listen, right?

    I really think you can pray that someone’s heart is converted. But, when they are obstinate in their belief and creating public scandal to ensure their own aggrandisement…do you continue to cast the pearls of prayer before someone who wants to remain with the swine?

    I agree. If not now, when? And if not when, then just what authority does either of her semi-domicile bishops think they have? Actions speak louder than words. We’re hearing the right words…and next?


  3. JohnE says:

    “I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the Administration on this.”

    I think she meant to say “stick it to” rather than “stick with”. Or maybe she’s referring to the Catholics in Hell?

  4. Titus says:

    Madam Speaker, Madam Speaker! Follow-up question: could you please identify a few of the Catholics with whom you’re standing on this issue? Are any of them bishops?

  5. Dr. Eric says:

    Madame Speaker is sticking with the 90%, yes read that again ninety percent, of Catholics in the United States of America who use contraception.

    This battle was lost in 1968. We’re just now seeing the after effects. :’-(

  6. MarkA says:

    Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Thomas of Aquinas, Teresa of Ávila, Catherine of Siena, and Thérèse de Lisieux…
    And now …
    Nancy of San Francisco – our new “Doctor” of the church!

    What was the penalty for heresy during the days of the Inquisition ? ;)

  7. John 6:54 says:

    Amen, Amen, Amen
    Ditto, Ditto, Ditto

  8. heway says:

    Maybe there will be some good that will develop from this abomination! Hopefully all Catholics, including Bishops will get on the same page. Yesterday heard that Catholic University provides for contraception in its employees health plans. Washington, including the faculty of CU, is obviously severly contaminated by the liberal thinking and philosophy that pervades there. Keep signing those petitions, sacrifice and pray.

  9. momoften says:

    In 2009 the then Archbishop Weurl made a statement about not refusing communion to Nancy Pelosi…this is getting ridiculous. Not only should it be PUBLICLY stated, but I suspect she should
    be excommunicated for her support of attack on the Catholic Faith….and PUBLICLY at that.

  10. Mary Jane says:

    Excommunicate her.

    Perhaps we can gather together a list of “signatures”, and send them on to Archbishop Niederauer and Cardinal Wuerl.

  11. priests wife says:

    Dr Eric- is it really 90%? baptized Catholic or Sunday Mass-going Catholics? can you site a source- it seems like a stat made up to make faithful Catholics throw in the towel (you may be sadly correct- I’m just wondering about the source)

    I realize I live in a very little Catholic bubble- but NONE of my immediate family or friends have used ABC. I have friends with none, one, two up to twelve children- NONE using ABC.

  12. AnAmericanMother says:

    Dr. Eric,
    That’s falling for Madame Nanci’s clumsy attempts at misdirection.
    The point is not whether individual Catholics use contraceptives, or even abort.
    This is not about whether we have some sinners in the Church (I am shocked, I tell you . . . shocked!).
    It’s about whether the government can force the Church as a whole to facilitate that which it declares to be sin.
    Whole different question! And I think you’ll find that a good number of those Catholics will see it differently also – it’s one thing to fall yourself, quite another for the Great Nanny State to force the Church to give you a push.

  13. jasoncpetty says:

    Please, somebody, explain to me how we square doing nothing about her scandal with can. 915 and the sacred duty bishops have to protect the flock?

    Nancy’s been around for a long time, on both coasts now, and she is extremely wealthy. The most likely option is that she (or someone she controls) knows something that hits close to the men in question. Otherwise, why the silence?

  14. Denis says:

    Pelosi should take her show on the road. I hear that “RealCatholic” is available. Voris is reprimanded but Pelosi is allowed to represent “Catholics”, with no reaction from her Bishop. What a wonderful message!

  15. Denis says:

    Dr. Eric,

    I agree that there is a lot of disobedience on contraception, but 90%? A good percentage of American Catholics are elderly–more than 10%, I’m guessing. Maybe 90% within a certain age range, and including those who don’t go to Mass regularly?

  16. PA mom says:

    I couldn’t agree more. An action like that would do a lot to pull some of the “I can be Catholic and Democrat” heads out of the sand. There either is authority in the Church or there is not, and any parent worth two cents knows that discipline must include dramatic acts at times. Discipline is especially effective at teaching when it immediately creates the natural consequences of the wrong choice. As she continues to behave as though she is not subject to the Church, then let her be visibly separated apart from it. Her own personal “naughty step” of sorts.

  17. Seamus says:

    Doesn’t Rep. Pelosi consider herself “pro-choice”? Then why isn’t she willing to give me the choice of working for an employer that will provide me with health insurance that doesn’t cover contraception?

  18. Jerry says:

    90% are presently using contraception? Or have ever used contraception (which would include condoms) at any point in their lives? I wonder if it also includes celibate women who use hormonal contraceptives to treat medical conditions?

  19. kat says:

    Did you see what she said when a bold reporter asked Pelosi “When was the Word made Flesh??:

    (You can see it on youtube in video version)
    “McGrath: So when was the word made flesh, was it at the annunciation when Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, as the Creed says, or was it at the Nativity when He was born of the Virgin Mary? And when did the Word get the right to life?

    Pelosi: Whenever it was, we bow our heads when we talk about it at church and that’s where I’d like to talk about that.
    Big thumbs up to the the reporter for asking such a bold question. And it was also a fair question. Pelosi did say we should base our policy on Jesus who was the Word becoming flesh. She said it publicly. It is more than appropriate to then ask Pelosi when exactly did that Word become flesh. For if Jesus was God in the flesh at conception (as Christians believe) then life begins at conception, but if Jesus wasn’t really Jesus until He was born then maybe it’s okay to push pro-choice policies.>”

    Yep, Ms Pelosi (and all the cino policiticans like her) can continue to get away with these things with no repercussions from her liturgical superior (bishop)…but…there really is no crisis in the Church today; and those who say and act as if there is…well…they are just plain wrong. Sigh…

  20. tcreek says:

    “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it”

    Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
    Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

    [Note: The following memorandum was sent by Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick and was made public in the first week of July 2004.]

    5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

    6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

  21. Thank you, Fr. Z. Publicly calling upon Archbishop Niederauer and Cardinal Wuerl in this way is a brave act. I suspect this will reach their ears if their eyes don’t find it first.

    One of the challenges here lies in the bishop’s overall approach to this mandate. As far as I can tell, not one bishop (much less the Conference) is approaching this matter primarily from the standpoint of Divine teaching and objective truth; rather, they are consistently acting as though this is almost exclusively a Constitutional issue.

    In essence the bishops are saying to the Administration, “OK, fine… go ahead and issue your objectively evil mandate, just make sure you give us Catholics the pass we deserve thanks to the Constitution.” All of the outrage is focused on our Constitutional rights and our “conscience.” Where is the outrage being expressed on behalf of Christ and objective moral truth?

    So… it seems to me that what you’re asking the bishops to do is to address Pelosi on a doctrinal level when in fact they have failed to address the entire issue at hand in those terms. In order for the bishops to be consistent, they would have to, what… rebuke Pelosi for failing to support them in their claim that our Constitutional right to religious freedom is being violated? And this is the problem; the bishops’ authority lies elsewhere, but they have failed to exercise it in favor of playing the role of a civil liberties lawyer.

    I’m afraid rebuking her as you suggest will first require a transformation among the bishops the likes of which I can only hope to live long enough to witness.

  22. HeatherPA says:

    Thank you, Father Z, o holy priest, for courageously being a public voice to ask for her ex-communication.
    She is leading many souls astray with her heresy, let alone her own soul!
    May God Bless you for your steadfast faith and perseverance~

  23. ddeavy says:

    Fr. Z,

    Bravo, Oh that you were a bishop. [No.] I am a practicing Catholic, well aware of my sinfulness, but this situation is beyond believe for the church and family. The Bishops are good at writing letters but not so good at taking concrete steps. Were is the call from the Bishops, or Pastors to nonviolent civil disobedience, public Mass and Prayer to God for his mercy. This is so frustrating. If the Bishop(s) would take some action, something as simple as the public excommunication which is tool of conversion for both the faithful and the person involved. It would at least be a small step to restoring some of their much need moral authority. The seeds of the evil occurring recently are a result of ingoring the churches teaching in HUMANAE VITAE. If this goes unchallenged the next attack will be the tax exemption status for the church.

    I have to omit I am not optimistic about the short term outlook for the church, in the long run she will prevail, but we may have to suffer a martyr existence in the near future.

  24. HyacinthClare says:

    Amen and amen, Father! And while you’re at it, Kathleen Sebelius, please?

  25. tm30 says:

    Believe it or not, there’s a much MUCH stronger case for publicly excommunicating Sebelius. She’s in open war with the Church by virtue of her immediate power. Pelosi is one voice among many in Congress (though it does not mitigate her guilt). Sebelius has no check on her power with a sympathetic President.

  26. flyfree432 says:

    I agree with ddeavy. I doubt we will see the bishops do more than their letter writing campaign as very few are much more than moderates, though I am pleasantly surprised that even liberal bishops took a stand against the mandate. I really see this all going one of two ways though – the church will either quietly close the institutions like Catholic hospitals that will not receive an exemption, like it did shutting down its Boston charities, or the law will be thrown out by the Supreme Court. I think it is more likely that the law will be thrown out by the supreme court since it is so blatantly a violation of the 1st amendment and they have already openly mocked and thrown Obamalamas administration out of the court once for their attacks on religious liberty.

  27. tcreek says:

    Every poll that I have seen indicates that around 90% of Catholic married couples have used contraception. And then there is this …

    Roughly 6-in-10 Catholics (58%) believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception.

  28. MarkA says:

    “I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the Administration on this.” – Nancy Pelosi, 2012

    “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.” – Our Lady of Fatima, 1917

    Anyone care to guess who will be remembered 95 years from now (and who will triumph:)?

  29. I am afraid I will have to moderate these comments. I fear that some people, behind anonymity, think they can say anything.

  30. Pingback: Nancy Pelosi: "I am going to stick with fellow Catholics" by supporting Obama in... - Christian Forums

  31. jenne says:

    I believe Sebelius has been told not to receive Communion in Kansas few years ago. Is this not still in force?
    And, Pelosi . . . . . More prayer, fasting. Our Bishops need this of us.

  32. Anchorite says:

    Thank you for your post, Father.
    For many many years US Catholics (hierarchy & laity) have professed only nominal allegiance to Roman Faith, instead professing their unquestioned faith in the tribal affiliations (Irish, Italian, Mexican etc.) that were an integral part of the Democratic machine. The political aspirations of the generations of the Catholic immigrants paid off, but not without the sacrifice of their very identity as actual Catholics (with capital C). The Mass attendance is low, the catholic majority supports abortion, contraception, Obama, gay marriage… the list goes on. I doubt that the card-carrying Democrats, whether they are bishops or politicians, are able to actually be Catholics at this point. It’s their own Democratic “conscience thing” that prevents them from being “with Pope.”

  33. ddeavy says:

    flyfree 432 – I hope for the opposite from the Catholic institutions, I don’t want to see the Catholic institutions close, I want to see them fight for the truth lead by the bishops, after today’s Calf. court decision on Same Sex Marriage, I don’t think you can depend on the SCOTUS to help.

  34. Athanasius says:

    I don’t know, in the end it seems to me the Bishop’s protests are utterly worthless unless they will start threatening excommunication on Catholic policy makers, senators, etc. who were involved in the decision making process and support the said decision. Its for the Bishops to act like they mean what they say.

  35. persyn says:

    So, I think this begs a question (hypothetical, perhaps): If I was there when she was given Communion, should I not refrain, so as not to put myself in communion WITH her? I can see both sides. What is the right thing to do?

  36. Panterina says:

    With the constant cries for public excommunication and not admitting to Holy Communion, I wonder if the [apparent] silence/reticence of the Bishops has to do with these words that the Holy Father spoke on Jan 19 to the U.S. Bishops on the occasion of their ad limina visit:
    “In this regard, I would mention with appreciation your efforts to maintain contacts with Catholics involved in political life and to help them understand their personal responsibility to offer public witness to their faith, especially with regard to the great moral issues of our time: respect for God’s gift of life, the protection of human dignity and the promotion of authentic human rights.”
    Not once are excommunication and denial of the Holy Eucharist mentioned. I did like the Holy Father’s pastoral concern, but I wonder if this helps to explain why our Bishops are reluctant to take any of the drastic Canon Law measures mentioned by Father Z.


  38. amenamen says:

    Herod was “very much perplexed” by John the Baptist, yet he liked to listen to him. As I review the video of Mrs. Pelosi’s answer to the question, it is clear that she is “very much perplexed.” Her face and her whole body signal an interior disquiet and a loss of peace of mind. Watch the video, without listening to her words, and her mental agitation comes through loud and clear. “Irritated” does not begin to describe her reaction. She is terrified.

  39. ALL: I think it is necessary to exercise restraint when throwing around the word “excommunication”.

    Excommunication is a PENALTY. In order to impose a penalty there must be a CRIME which the Code of Canon Law says incurs excommunication.

    People can’t be excommunicated for just any reason, even if that person is doing something which is seriously wrong.

    So, we would need to identity what excommunicable CRIME Nancy Pelosi has committed.

  40. anilwang says:

    I actually think Mrs Pelosi is honest. There are really three world views involved:
    (1) (Catholic) – There is a deposit of faith and truth that is unchanging that has been revealed to us.
    (2) (Darwinian/Hegelian) – Our understanding of truth evolves and we know more than we used to and are slowly “progressing” towards a “better” society.
    (3) (Relativist/Nihilist) – Life has no intrinsic meaning and truth is unknowable, so no-one owns the truth and anything a person does is okay.

    People with world view (3) won’t mind you doing your own thing, but get outraged if you try to “impose your morality on them”.
    People with world view (2) see world view (1) as behind the times and in need of being updated and it’s their duty to bring people with world view (1) out of the middle ages for their “own good, and for the good of everyone else who are mislead”.

    Many Protestants try to mix (2) and (3) (i.e. the “Spirit” does new things in each age and anyone who doesn’t keep up will be blown away) but it ultimately ends up with world view (2).

    I peg Mrs Pelosi as solidly in the (2) camp, believing that Catholicism was “fine for sheep herders and fishermen” but we “know better now” so the Church needs to “move on keep up with the times”.

    People with world view (2) honestly see themselves as Catholics on the vanguard. They may be honest, but they are honestly wrong and unwitting agents in the culture of death and have been duped into promoting their own destruction.

    For compassion’s sake, they need to be told that they are outside the Church. That they have excommunicated themselves. That they can no longer recieve communion. Whatever other sanctions that are allowed must me placed on them, including making it binding on Catholics on penalty of excommunication that they cannot vote for her.

    She must be forced to chose to either embrace Catholicism (and save her soul) or denounce it (and hopefully return in the future as a Prodigal daughter), since if she is allowed to be comfortable, she will be a sheep being lead to her own slaughter on the altar of Moloch.

  41. Supertradmum says:

    I think we need to pray for her, just as Catholics had to pray for Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour and other “ladies” who wreaked havoc on the Church, sending men, women, priests etc. to their horrible deaths. Even St. Edmund Campion prayed for the butcher Elizabeth I. Speak the Truth, yes; rant, yes, but pray for her. Eternity is a very long time to be in a horrible place.

  42. TravelerWithChrist says:

    If it is true 90% of married partners have used contraceptives at some point, it is because we haven’t heard a sermon from our priests or bishops in the past 40 years explaining that as a Catholic, it is a MORTAL SIN to use contraception. We CANNOT use the old saying that “everybody else is doing it, why shouldn’t I”
    Oh that we need to hear it from the pulpit. We seek the truth and are given nothing more than “I’m going to talk about my last vacation, er I mean trip”. It’s no wonder so many families have contracepted. It’s no wonder that people are leaving the Catholic Faith.

    I pray for more good priests, manly men who will stand up for their bride, the Church, who will teach her, who want nothing but eternal life, who will defend her even to the death.

  43. wmeyer says:

    Fr. Z, I am not fit to judge who should be excommunicated. However, if we have public figures who have been excommunicated, I believe that the bishops would do us and the Church in America a service to make any such list public. We have seen too many years in which such folks continue in their dissidence, and appear to suffer no penalty. It is confusing and potentially misleading to those who may harbor doubt.

  44. The Astronomer says:

    Deserving of invective? Yes…for heresy and public scandal. I fear this is all a ploy for the President and his allies to ‘prove’ to their allies that they “stood up for them against right-wing hate mongers.” Orwellian??? Of course and par for the course with the White House.

    Pray for this unfortunate woman and those of her ilk….as Our Immaculate Mother revealed at Fatima, “Souls fall into Hell like snowflakes….”

  45. Peggy R says:

    Fr Z. Thank you for this call for action by bishops. Two notes. You might want to note that Bp. Loverde of the Arlington, VA, diocese should be called upon to take note regarding the pols who support this action as well since many pols live in NoVa in addition to DC & MD burbs where Wuerl is archbishop. Also, I had thought Wuerl was passed by for Cardinal hat. Good on him if he is indeed a cardinal now.

    Use that bully pulpit, bishops!

  46. Mdepie says:

    The excommunicable crime would be the aiding and abetting of abortion via votes and advocacy and support of this administration. Abortion itself is an “unspeakable crime” as per Vatican II. If fighting all limits on an unspeakable crime and in fact supporting a law ( Obama Care) which predictably is being used to force us to pay for this is not itself a crime than what would be? It seems to me if some 15 year old girl who may be pressured into an abortion ( sinful as that is) incurs an automatic excommunication for the act, the likes of Pelosi who uses her power to further the abortion license is even more guilty, [Guilty of something, for sure. But not of directly procuring an abortion.] and in fact more likely to have “full consent of the will” and thus moral culpability. If we excommunicate the one automatically why not the other? [What has to be determined is how proximate her cooperation is in direct procuring of abortions. You tell me? How proximate is it?]

  47. I agree 100%, Fr. Z.

    I think it would be worth bringing back the old formula for anathematization just for Pelosi and her ilk. What do you think? ;D Wouldn’t that be fun?? [No. It would not be “fun”. But it could be necessary, and therefore satisfying on another level.]

  48. wmeyer says:

    Wow! I am not a canonist, but as a member of the laity, trying to avoid sin, were I in Congress, I believe that I am bound by my faith, as follows:
    – not to bear false witness.
    – to know that abortion is “gravely contrary to the moral law”. (CCC 2271)
    – that formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. (CCC 2272)
    – that “inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation”. (CCC 2273)

    Now from my own position, to rationalize that I could support government funded abortions and not be participating in procurement of an abortion would seem pretty clearly to me to be wrong. Not wrong in legal terms, or in canonical terms, as those are outside the scope of my expertise. But wrong in terms of moral law, and wrong in the view of God, as I am instructed in the Catechism.

    Of course, I am not looking for a loophole, I am only interested in (hopefully) avoiding eternity in Hell.

  49. Rob Cartusciello says:

    That is an interesting use of the statistic. I know quite a few women who use oral contraceptive to regulate serious or otherwise debilitating medical conditions. I would venture to say at least of half of them use it for that purpose, including a number who are not sexually active.

    As regards whether truth lies in the majority, I believe St. Athanasius has something to say about that.

  50. tm30 says:

    If mere membership in the Freemasons is a crime (without considering individual proximity to their sinful actions), then what of a politician who personally advocates for and facilitates intrinsic evil? [That’s clever, and being a Mason is a bad thing. But it is a bad thing which has been pointed to explicitly in law.] Are they not proximate enough to the resulting abomination which they empower? [I don’t know. Are they? You have to be able to prove in law that they are. Moral theologians are not sure just how close, how proximate that it.]

    Don’t forget, Saul was only facilitating the capture of Christian Jews when they stoned St. Stephen. Did he not have blood on his hands? [Interesting, but not relevant to the issue of the law.]

  51. kab63 says:

    I am under the Archdiocese of San Francisco. The scandal of Nancy Pelosi is almost mild compared to the actions at Most Holy Redeemer. Please pray for us. I know that the Archbishop has tendered his retirement resignation and that he’s been ill. We are due a new Archbishop, and we need a doozy. May our Holy Father be inspired in his selection.

  52. Tom T says:

    This failure to address the issue of Democratic politicians who profess to be Catholic and do and say things that are in direct opposition to Church teaching has been going on for a long time. At least since the Kennedys invited Catholic professors and theologians to their compound in Mass.
    to find the best way to get Catholics to vote for pro-choice politicians without compromising their conscience. Promote the social justice agenda was their answer. Brilliant. Now after all these years and compromising abortion, the bishops want to close the barn door after the horses are out. I wouldn`t look to have any excersise of canon 915 anytime soon. After all Biden is an extraordinary
    minister in De. and Cuomo receives communion in the Cathederal in Albany. Not to mention the Gov. of Illinois and whole host of others. Lets be honest. Just as the country is divided between conservatives and liberals, so too the Church is divided along the same lines otherwise why would we discussing the articles in the rag National Catholic Reporter as often as we do? Obama is counting on that division. It is part of his Chicago sewer style politics to divide and conquer as he has already done between the young and the old, the rich and the poor, the Catholics on his health care bill, and even his own party. Pax

  53. momoften says:

    I find it odd that since 2009 Sebilius has been ordered not to present herself for Holy Communion in both her home state, and Washington DC, and Pelosi, not…..
    I agree that while these women are not directly involved in procuring abortions I wonder if by their actions they aren’t spreading heresy among other Catholics. Giving Catholics a type of indifference to what the Church commands. By no penalty at all(except in the case of Sebilius) are Bishops under pain of sin? When one thinks of all the responsibility the Bishops have(souls), and if they don’t do their job —the result is not only bad for Catholics, but the Bishop himself. I know we all need to buckle down, fast-and pray like crazy.
    job right, they may be under
    Obviously we need to pray

  54. momoften says:

    oops thought I proofed- if the Bishops don’t do their job right, the result is bad for Catholics they
    are shepherding as well as for themselves spiritually.

  55. ContraMundum says:

    You know, I’m beginning to think that Nancy Pelosi might not be fully orthodox!

  56. Tom T says:

    And then there is this from Nancy Pelosi on the 9th circuit court of appeals that shot down the proposition 8 banning same sex marriage and was handed down today on 2/7. Pelosi hails gay marriage ruling as a ‘milestone’. Another log on the fire that is burning underneath her. She joins Diane Finestein in looking forward to the day when gays will have the same rights as married couples. Pax.

  57. tealady24 says:

    You see the media never ask the right questions of these so-called catholics, and when they do ask something it’s timid and tepid and cowardly so as not to step on anyone’s sensibilities – except ours!
    This is ALL unconstitutional. What a sad commentary on 2012 America!

    You wanna package this up Father, and we will all sign it and send it to the emperor-in-chief in the WH!

  58. KAS says:

    I think what is needed here is a move by those who revere the laws of God AGAINST those who are currently serving in our government. We need to tell them clearly that as long as the violations of the rights given to all by God are being violated then we will NOT be voting for any incumbents. The only exceptions would be those incumbents who can demonstrate they have publicly fought against all violations of God given rights such as LIFE and Freedom of RELIGION and even suffered for it.

    ACTION! Pray first but not only! Get out there and begin working to help pro-life candidates get elected at all levels. Get out there and make it clear to those in office that we WILL NOT vote for them if God given rights are violated– we don’t care what their excuses are– fix it or else.

    The Bishops need to figure out what to do about pro-abortion politicians– their willful disregard for Catholic teaching and willful support for more and more culture of death tells ME rather plainly they do not serve God. I doubt the Bishops are blind to this either but for some reason they lack the spine to DO anything about it.

    I for one will use my vote to fight this by going against ANY incumbent whose voting record cannot demonstrate that he or she fought hard and against all odds for LIFE and the First Amendment statement of God given rights to freedom of religion.

  59. Joseph-Mary says:

    She and I are absolutely different kinds of Catholics!

    She don’t ‘stick’ with this one!

  60. RichR says:

    I was reading in the NC Register about the response Bp Brusketwitz got when he issued the decrees in his diocese in 1996 excommunicating members of certain groups. He said that he received 50,000 letters of support and 300 letters that were negative. He could hardly get into his house because of all the flowers and fruit baskets people had sent as gifts of thanksgiving for his bravery. [There it is!]

    The sheep are ready for the shepherds to make those hard decisions. Open the floodgates. We’ve got your back.

  61. SonofMonica says:

    I’m pretty sure that 90% of all Catholics have lied, cheated, stolen and/or coveted. What the hell difference does knowing that we’re sinners make? Liberals can’t understand holding a moral ideal that an individual might (and most certainly will) fail to live up to. They chalk it up to the “hypocrisy” of a group’s morals, refusing to admit that it’s just personal failure. Every time they see a conservative politician have an affair, for example, then it is wrong for conservatives as a group to promote marriage.

  62. Denis says:

    I think that it’s a mistake for Catholics to demand that Pelosi be excommunicated; on the unlikely scenario that the demand is actually satisfied, the Church would be flooded with calls for excommunication. There’s be certain…ahem…blog personalities calling for the excommunication of Santorum for insufficient opposition to “enhanced interrogation.”

    I do think that a strongly-worded public rebuke is called for, explaining that Pelosi is doing great damage by pretending to speak for “Catholics” and that she consistently misrepresents Catholic teaching. I have encountered “Catholics” who cite Pelosi as their authority on things Catholic. These were people, mind you, who weren’t even sure whether they were baptized. All the same, their views on Catholicism were shaped by Pelosi. Scary!

    Remember when she said that her policies were inspired by Jesus…and then she went on to add, in her stiff-faced manner “the Word made flesh…”? It was like something out of a horror movie. The USCCB needs to designate one Bishop as a full-time Pelosi-lie-detector and, more importantly, lie-corrector.

  63. Mdepie says:

    In terms of the proximate nature of the Pelosi et al to abortion, I think this is legalistic hair splitting really, and in fact is relevant only for “automatic excommunications” that occur from violating some provision of Cannon law. [Canon. Let’s do this right.] Of course Pelosi’s bishop can excommunicate her on his own authority, much like Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicated those in his diocese who were members of “Call to Action” for advocating women priests or who were members of the Hemlock society for advocating euthanasia. [They were members of a group.] He did this even though there is no provision in Canon law explicitly forbidding memebrship in say “Call to Action “. These excommunications were appealed to Rome and were as you know, upheld. [Yes, because they belonged to that group.] Frankly thats the kind of thing you do when you mean business. In terms of Pelosi’s and her ilk’s repeated, wicked advocacy of grave evil, someone should do this. [I am not a canonist, but I wonder if there is a distinction to be made about membership. Perhaps Dr. Peters will have time to chime in.]

    Still Father Z, hate to disagree with you since I am actually sort of a fan, and basically agree with your post about Pelosi, but the “lets be careful about excommunicating anyone” argument is weak, [What I actually said was, I think it is necessary to exercise restraint when throwing around the word “excommunication”. Again, excommunication is penalty for a crime. As such, it is governed by law. Perhaps someone can make a canonical case that she should be excommunicated ferendae sententiae.] Her Bishops can and should. If what she is doing does not get you excommunicated then we may as well get rid of the penalty. [Indeed. She sure has raised this to a higher pitch by placing herself against nearly all the bishop.]

  64. Son of Trypho says:

    Another example of a Catholic subordinating the Faith to their social democratic/progressive ideology.

    You musn’t forget that “social justice” trumps everything with these people.

    And the Church has been so slow in dealing with the problems because they are terrified of starting a schism with a significant chunk of US (and other country groups) Catholics breaking off and forming their own “Catholic” churches.

  65. Pingback: Since I criticized him below…. | Catholic and Enjoying It!

  66. RCDIANNE says:

    re: Nancy Pelosi – I would like to ask her the same question I asked a co-worker when we had a discussion about annulments. Why do you want to be part of an organization (or, in this case, Faith) that doesn’t believe the same things you believe?

    To Archbishop Niederauer – Respectfully and with eternal judgement aside, if Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, etc. can say anything / do anything / act any way they want, thumbing their nose at the Catholic Church with impunity then why shouldn’t we all? It’s up to the Church what a punishment should be (contrary to those who are asking for her head on a platter). However, she is no longer allowing the Church to give her a private correction. Her public sin requires public atonement.

    We need to pray for her and ALL public officials.

  67. Pingback: Which Catholics, Nancy??? | Mind, Body and Soul… Mostly the Mind

  68. StJude says:

    Father Z, I could not agree with you more.

  69. dans0622 says:

    It seems any canonical penalty would have to be imposed based on Can. 1369 (A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.) and/or Can. 1399 (In addition to the cases established here or in other laws, the external violation of a divine or canonical law can be punished by a just penalty only when the special gravity of the violation demands punishment and there is an urgent need to prevent or repair scandals.) To impose a penalty based on these canons could only come about after following proper procedure. I don’t think an excommunication or interdict is at all likely. Besides, if c. 915 was enforced, that would be (wrongly) taken by many to mean that the person is excommunicated.

  70. Traductora says:

    I just read a survey stating that nearly 6 out of 10 Catholics say Catholic institutions should be required to provide a health care plan that pays for contraception. Pretty depressing, but perhaps one of the reasons for the reticence of our bishops (whose failure to teach for the last 40 years is solely responsible for this situation).

    That said, I think if they actually provided some leadership now, it might not be too late. Public excommunication of these figures – with abundant chance for them to acknowledge their sin and repent and be reconciled – might make the Catholic population take the bishops more seriously. And then maybe the bishops could ratchet up their courage and remember that the bishop is the teacher of his diocese and he’s got to get out there and teach.

  71. Stu says:

    Ball is in your court, Bishops.

    Please get in the game on this one.


  72. jflare says:

    So, in essence, for Nancy Pelosi–or Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Joe Biden, John Kerry, or any other Catholic politician–to suffer the pain of formal excommunication, we’d need to demonstrate that by her (their) statements, votes, public advocacy, or other efforts, that she (they) has (have) violated a tenet of canon law with severe enough gravity to warrant a severe consequence. [That’s about it. Excommunication is a PENALTY for a CRIME. Demonstrate that the person committed an crime incurring excommunication and the excommunication can be imposed.]

    I will dare to be cruel enough to admit that I’m hoping that one of Their Excellencies might have begun consulting with a canonist to discern appropriate grounds. Thus far, all we have as a definite latae sententiae (spelling?) excommunication is..directly procuring abortion or directly aiding and abetting in said procurement. I suspect we don’t have those grounds. We CAN likely say that she’s inflicted great scandal on the Church with her actions and statements, but I suspect it’s quite debatable as to whether these truly reach the degree of grave matter required.

    I guess I’d best take it as a sign of Christ’s (almost insane) degree of mercy offered to me, you, AND Ms. Pelosi that there’s not an easy case to make.

    On the other hand, either of the bishops COULD make a public statement with regard to her failing to properly uphold Catholic teaching, couldn’t they? At least declare that she’s walking on extra thin ice?
    I find it tough to believe that our shepherds can’t say SOMETHING!

    [Regardless of whether or not she has done that incurs excommunication, can. 915 can still be applied and applied very publicly. That’s not nothing.]

  73. Ambrose Jnr says:

    My understanding is that Fr Z does not ask for Nancy Pelosi’s excommunication, but that Canon 915 be
    applied to let her know that she can no longer receive communion in catholic churches. I completely agree
    with Fr Z that this is the best step to take, since canonically there seems to be a very strong case for canon 915 to be

    I am delighted to hear that canon 915 has already been applied to Kathleen Sebelius in her 2 main dioceses.

    If my memory serves me right, the renowned canonist Peters clearly set out the difference between canon
    915 and excommunication previously.

  74. APX says:

    @Irenaeus G. Saintonge
    I think it would be worth bringing back the old formula for anathematization just for Pelosi and her ilk. What do you think? ;D Wouldn’t that be fun??

    I find your attitude towards punishing people disturbing. The purpose for punishing someone is to help correct their behaviour in a manner that is best suited for that person, taking into consideration the seriousness of their offence. It’s NOT for fun or for other self-serving purposes. You don’t throw the book at someone for the sake of throwing the book at them. You throw the book at them after other methods of correction have been futile, and for their benefit, you take whatever punitive actions are necessary to bring them into compliance.

    I’m not saying that Pelosi isn’t in need of some sort of serious corrective intervention from her bishop and cardinal. I’m saying what should be done needs to be decided and done based on what will benefit her and in this case, everyone she is scandalizing. Someone definitely needs to step up to the plate already, but let’s not let authority go to our heads here. One must use reason, prudence, and sober thinking when making these decisions. You shouldn’t enjoy punishing someone. If one does, then they should humbly go to Confession and confess this and their other shortcomings and failures. None of us our innocent here, folks.

  75. Taylor says:

    Is it reasonable to allow a Catholic to remain in good standing in the seat of Government authority who fervently creates and encodse the appartus by which young children may legally and very easily – with Government encouragement – procure abortion, commit the sin, and become excommunicated but then allow the responsible and knowledeable perpetrators of this abortion apparatus to go undisciplined? I think not. It does not pass the logic test.

  76. HighMass says:

    Che Vergogna! Nancy Pelosi!!!!!!!!!!!!

  77. JoAnna says:

    Dr. Eric – that stat iabout 98% of Catholic women & contraception s VERY specious. I wrote about it here:

  78. Mdepie says:

    One last comment on this. I think forbidding the culprits here to receive the Eucharist is all well and good. Certainly this should be done. I think this will have less effect than people imagine, since it is not credible to me that individuals fighting very hard to support abortion any time, at any stage of pregnancy , for any reason, like Sebellius and Pelosi really think the Eucharist is anything but symbolic. ( Sebellius was a big supporter, indeed a protector of late term abortionist George Tiller. ) I doubt such a individual cares much about the Eucharist. Excommunication probably would not phase them either, but it might sober up some of those in the Church who are sympathetic to them, and in this way limit the scandal. It is a much more public penalty that forbidding them to receive the Eucharist. Most liberal Catholics will have no idea whether Pelosi et are even going to Mass. Excommunication will be public and thus a much more suitable remedy for the public scandal they are giving. The debate over whether there is a Canon law case to do so is simple to answer. In affirming the excommunication Bishop Bruskewitz imposed on Call to Action members and others, Cardinal Re of the CDF said The Bishop was acting within his legitimate authority and to quote “Thus to be a member of this association or to support it, is irreconcilable with a coherent living of the Catholic faith,” It seems pretty obvious if Bishop Bruskewitz had the right to excommunicate not only members of call to action, but those who support it, then it would be just as appropriate to excommunicate someone who supports something far more evil. I do not like or agree with anything “Call to Action” stood for, but they were merely a small group of dissidents who most Catholics could not identify. ( Do they even still exist? ) The damage done by this group of politicians who are using the immense power of the state to marginalize the Catholic Church, indeed to put pressure on it to endorse sin, their unbridled passion for legalized murder ( Indeed that is what Blessed John Paul called abortion in Evangelium Vitae,) makes these individuals much more dangerous to the Church. They are giving scandal on an massive scale, I am not a Canon Lawyer, but I think if this does not demand the gravest penalty the Church has to impose, then really nothing does.

  79. JMody says:


    You shouldn’t enjoy punishing someone. If one does, then they should humbly go to Confession and …

    I must humbly protest this idea. If you enjoy the discomfort of others, yes, that is an issue. But if you have a serial offender like Madame Speaker, and you have the RESPONSIBILITY to correct her, I offer that you SHOULD enjoy it when you get to be part of applying a justly earned penalty. You should be firm and confident and happy, because you are acting for justice.

    Be happy about fulfilling your duty.

    [In the first part of the Divine Comedy, the poet must recover the use of right reason which he has lost in sin. On his way down through the levels of the Inferno, he slowly comes to his senses. Part of that process involves less and less pity for the souls of the damned whom he encounters. Finally, when the process is complete, he can walk without pity on the faces of the damned, for he is able to understand God’s will and their responsibility in their just punishments. BUT! BUT! But! in this life there is no true justice or perfect charity. There is only one Just One who is Himself Love. True Justice will be in heaven. And St. Augustine, in his commentary on the 1st Letter of John reminds us that, of the three types of love, the most perfect kind of love and that which most resembles the sacrificial love of Christ on the Cross is finally being able to love your enemy. Enemy love is the perfection of our earthly love, but enemy love includes wanting for that person what is truly their own good.]

  80. Former Altar Boy says:

    Back before Vatican 2, back when sin existed and priests weren’t afraid to call it what is was from the pulpit, there was regular mention of the sin of “giving bad example.” Maybe not an excommunicable offense, but one with its own opprobrium. The shrill volume of pro-abortion “catholic” politicians, and the failure of the linguini-spined bishops who fail to call them on it, causes the weak and poorly-catechized (another fruit of Vat2) to fall away from the Church or choose not to join.

  81. Denis says:

    The problem with canon 915 is that it is usually left up to those giving Communion to enforce. I’m not sure–is it possible to command meaningfully that all Priests refrain from giving someone Communion, or does that happen only when someone is excommunicated?

    At any rate, none of these punishments make sense without an articulate, public explanation of Ms. Pelosi’s errors. Of course, she should first be approached privately by her Bishop. If she refuses to recant, then her Bishop should publicly denounce her errors. Not in a mean-spirited way but in a clear way, pointing out exactly where Ms. Pelosi has gone wrong. She is one of these liberal Catholics for whom everything is permitted as long as you have good intentions–meaning, as long as you somehow rationalize what you are doing by claiming that you are doing it ‘for the poor.’ Why not explain the error of such a world-view?

  82. CatholicCaliGirl says:

    Stand With Fellow Catholics eh?
    That’s the most ridiculous thing i’ve heard today! My Gosh, how can she call herself Catholic, and how on earth does the live with herself? This is insane. I thought we lived in a Country of free speech and Freedom. But now what i’m seeing is that we can have Free Speech, as long as we support the killing of Innocent Babies.
    Here in California, the gay rights movement is upset becuase they think that the Ban on gay ‘marriage’ is unconstitutional. so fine. First Outlaw abortion, because that is pretty darn Unconstitutional. In fact, it flies in the face of the constitution!
    OLO Guadalupe pray for us…
    Sacred Heart of Jesus pray for us…
    St. Joseph pray for us!!!

  83. Grace says:

    YES! Thank you, Fr Z, for saying this. I hope the bishops do the right thing now they’ve got in Church Militant mode.

  84. pookiesmom says:

    Of course, Nancy Pelosi IS sticking with her fellow Catholics on this one! Let’s see–more than 90% of Catholic couples contracept, the abortion rates for Catholics pretty much mirror the rest of society, most Catholic voters went for Obama in the last election–she has plenty of company!! The deafening silence on the part of our priests and bishops on Catholic doctrine concerning marriage, contraception and abortion over the last 50 years, coupled with the embracing by most Catholic laity of the culture of death, has now cost us our religious freedom. [Are they silent now? The circumstances are changing and the episcopate is changing in this country.]

  85. Pingback: Nancy Pelosi and the Eucharist: She Needs to be Taken Very Seriously | Defenders of the Catholic Faith | Hosted by Stephen K. Ray

  86. avecrux says:

    Nancy Pelosi holds a position of power whereby she was actively involved in ramming Obamacare down the US population’s throat Chicago style (remember the odd hours when they would hold their votes… remember how people like Stupak and Nelson were treated…). This mandate from HHS will, if it stands, put millions of Catholics in an occasion of sin. Pelosi is one of the architects/promoters/defenders of this policy – she has used her power in this attempt to directly compel the provision of that which is gravely evil by those utterly opposed to it. I think this aspect of compulsion is unique. She is actively supporting the very real persecution of the Faithful.

  87. Tom T says:


    Ms. Pelosi has already been approached privately, by none other than the Holy Father himself [Sorry… who approached whom?] when she took an all expenses paid trip, by the taxpayers, to the Vatican and met privately with the Pope [Perhaps the Secretariat of State] who refused to allow any pictures to be taken lest it give credence to her left wing liberal wrong headed ideas. Now if that did not work, I would suggest to you that there is no private meeting to correct and warn that will work. In other words the error has been explained. Pax [I am not sure we know what was said when they met. But it is true that the Holy See did not favor having pictures of that brief meeting, I believe at the end of a general audience. Keep in mind that Popes meet with all sorts of people, including Idi Amin Dada, Fidel Castro, etc.]

  88. dans0622 says:

    People have mentioned Bishop Bruskewitz and his excommunication decree. I think I have seen the actual decree and even though I didn’t see this reference, his action seemed to have been based on Can. 1374: “A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; however, a person who promotes or directs an association of this kind is to be punished with an interdict.” This, as far as I know, cannot apply to Pelosi.

  89. Tom T says:

    From CNS Feb 18 2009.
    Statement released by the Vatican regarding the meeting with the Speaker of the House , “Following the General Audience the Holy Father briefly greeted Nancy Peosi speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States together with her entourage.”

    Feb 18, 2009 from CNS
    Statement released by the Vatican regarding the meeting with the speaker of the House.

    “His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church`s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and woman of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.”

    As I said Fr. Z, she has been warned. Pax

  90. irishgirl says:

    I apologize for the comment I gave yesterday, Father Z. I didn’t mean to stir up any sort of hornet’s nest when I mentioned excommunication for Nancy Pelosi and her coterie of ‘catholic’ politicians.
    I’m just frustrated by the seeming inaction of the two Archbishops, in SF and DC.
    Why can’t they call her on the carpet? [That is exactly what I am talking about. If the question of excommunication is up in the air, the question of applying can. 915 is NOT. This is a pretty clear cut case of the need to apply can. 915. And that is not nothing! When your bishop says to the world that you should not present yourself for Communion and that priests/ministers should not give her Communion, that is a Big Deal.]

  91. jonh303 says:

    Fr. Z, what do you think about the idea of sending letters to bishops on the topic?…and requesting that other people do the same. I know the Church doesn’t operate like a republic…nor should it, but this made me so frustrated that I was going to send the following letter to Dolan, Weurl and Niederauer. I was going to make a request that people do the same on my blog. Do you think this is the right approach and could you offer any suggestions?


    Your Excellency,
    I read in the news today that after nearly all of the bishops in the country speaking out against the mandate, Nancy Pelosi has chosen to go directly against you and the bishops and is trying to take many Catholics with her, her “fellow Catholics”.
    At what point, if not now, is a public recognition from you or any bishop that she is obstinately persevering in grave sin useful or beneficial? (I think you have already made that clear implicitly in your original response). However, is excommunication if you want to call it that, a thing of the past? I think most Catholics are waiting for this public recognition (they are aware that this is how the Church taught) that these two women (including Mrs. Sebelius) are not in communion because of public scandal. I believe that they feel that the longer Pelosi is able to slap you all in the face by posing other Catholics against you (that is what she was attempting to do today), the more she is effectively degrading the authority of the Church among those who are unaware of the gravity of the situation.
    I know there are political implications; however I think that sometimes politics must take the backseat. It could be something to the effect of “You three weeks to learn how, not to ‘violate’ your conscience, but to understand why you are not the magisterium of the Catholic Church or your fellow Catholics.”
    It would be great if there could be some clarification on the issue. I don’t want to sound like I’m telling you all what to do, but it seems that Canon 915 might have just become important today. Please act on it if you deem it appropriate.
    Thank you for what you do and we appreciate your leadership.

    [It could be half the length. Avoid putting a link in a letter. Avoid the (). Excommunication and the application of can. 915 are NOT the same thing.]

  92. Supertradmum says:

    I also suggest that those on this blog who are Democrats and those who live in California write to Pelosi’s Bishop. The same for those here who live in Washington, DC. Although she is a national figure, the two Bishops there would respond more to letters from Catholics in their own dioceses. I am sure there are many on this blog who live, or at least work, in the California or Washington dioceses.

  93. Bea says:

    Please, somebody, explain to me how we square doing nothing about her scandal with can. 915 and the sacred duty bishops have to protect the flock?

    My only explanation is that “they” are Democrats first and Catholics last.
    “human respect” (respect from Democrats) and the funds in grants to be achieved has been their “sell-out” $$$ is the name of the game. 30 pieces of silver, anyone?

  94. Augustin57 says:

    If I were to make a case in Canon law for Nancy Pelosi’s excommunication, I would have to make it based on Canon 1364 §1: “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

    A good working defenition of heresy is the following: The obstinate, post-baptismal denial of a truth which must be believed with Catholic and Divine faith, or likewise, to hold an obstinate doubt about the same.

    I believe that the Church teaches, infallibly, that artificial birth control is sinful. This is a doctrine of the Church, yes? If Nancy obstinately denies this truth, a truth which is binding upon all the faithful, does she not incur excommunication latae sententiae, since she is a heretic for her rejection of the doctrine?

    Am I missing something here?

  95. ymader says:

    I haven’t read through all the comments but would like to make one of my own. What of Kathleen Sebelius? She is Catholic, is she not? of all people who should be banned from receiving Holy Communion it is her – followed closely by Nancy Pelosi and then Joseph Biden. We need to pray not only for their conversion but for our Bishops and priests that they have the supernatural courage to refuse to lay Our Lord on these tongues that spew things that are an affront to our Catholic beliefs. One must feel pity for these poor lost souls and pray for them but also we must have the courage to stand up for our beliefs, for fraternal correction is part of being who we are – just let’s not drop to their level.

  96. Shamrock says:

    The USCCB as well as all popular Catholic bloggers ( as in Father Z) need to point out over and over and over until those who have ears to hear have heard: This controversy is PRIMARILY about
    respect for the right to conscience clause of our Constitution. The contraceptive issue is in this case SECONDARY! This is the only approach to take to the threat the Obama Administration has made to the Catholic Church and all other religious bodies affected by the HHS mandate.( I prefer to call it an edict) To continue to answer to those who want to make this a contraceptive issue is to succumb to the fight they wish to have…namely, to stir up women voters against the Bishops and the priest. This is the fight that Nancy Peolosi and other “Obama Catholics” want to have. This is the modus operandi of the Obama Administration, conquer and divide. Do not fall for this! Let the matter of Nancy Pelosi’s reception of Holy Communion rest until another day. We will not win this crucial battle denying communion to the renegade Catholics by making that an issue at this time. Sure the Bishops could have done better instructing the laity ( I am 75 years old and
    have yet to ear a homily addressed to artificial contraception and the responsibility of the serious Catholic. )and handling “Catholics” like Pelosi…but that is NOT the current battle. Let’s all get
    on the same page, before we lose again . The battle should be directed towards the Obama Administration and all he has done during his time in office against the Catholic Church:
    (1) One of the first acts in Office was to rescind the Mexico City Policy, thus making tax funds availabe for abortions abroad.
    (2) Stopping funding to the USCCB’s organized efforts to halt human traficking ( the most
    successful organization on the planet dealing with this horrible atrocity!)
    (3) Removing the right for religious organizations to hire and/or fire employees based upon
    their adherence or non-adherence to the tenants of faith (struck down as un-constitutional
    by the Supreme Court
    (4) the latest: HHS mandate so narrowly defining religious institutions exempt from the right to conscience law that all Catholic hospitals, educational institutes, clinics, etc will be forced to buy insurance for employees covering contraceptive devices including abortifacients, steriliztions, etc,
    Where will it stop? First they came for the Catholics…who is next? should be what drives this
    egregious attempt at limiting constitutionally quaranteed rights.

  97. Pingback: “For the good of souls, Nancy Pelosi must be denied Holy Communion and the Catholic people should be informed that she is being denied Holy Communion.” | The Crescat

  98. Veritas says:

    While I am not competent to judge the situation of Pelosi, et al, based on canon law, I do however have a common-sense approach based on raising children.
    Actions have consequences. One of the first things you need to teach your children.
    Good behavior is rewarded, bad behavior is punished (severity depends on degree of act).
    For those transgressions which a Mother considers very serious, immediate smackdown is needed with appropriate punishment. The key word is immediate, in the sense that once the behavior is known, punishment is swift. (Justice delayed, justice denied.) What parent, after learning of the offending behavior, would deliberately wait hours, days, months or years to “correct” their child. What would be the point after all this time? In the meantime, without correction, the child continues this behavior and adds others to it. So, who is to blame for this? I realize that not all “corrected” children grow up to be outstanding Catholic citizens. Whose fault is that? With hearing comes responsibility. Once the truth is known, that person can either accept it or reject it but the consequences, both good and bad, apply.
    Our Bishops, over the last 40 years, have, for the most part, been like those parents who allow their children to run wild without correction. Now, it is late. Too late? I don’t know. The scandal alone has had devastating and demoralizing consequences for the faithful. For those who are parents, you know that when correcting a child, it is also a lesson for the other children. We haven’t had many “lessons” from the Bishops in regards to the un-Catholic behavior of “Catholic” politicians.

  99. Dr. Eric says:

    More than a few posters above were tearing their hair out about the statistic that I quoted at the top regarding the 90% of Catholics use ABC.

    Here is the post that The Crescat wrote when I asked her the question “why should Catholics oppose the HHS mandate when 60,000,000 American Catholics use contraception?” And the question is NOT “why should the 5,000,000 American Catholics who follow The Church’s teaching on contraception, abortion, and euthanasia care?” The question is why should the rest of the Catholics care? Free birth control means more Jersey Shore, more SUVs for our 2.1 kids, and less “feeders.” Juan Williams said the exact same thing a week after I asked The Crescat my question. His point was that Catholics already use ABC so the mandate should go through. The numbers are not on our side in this “democracy.”

    In the post she links to several of the studies that I sent to her:

    Now you can buy into the genetic fallacy and state that you don’t like where the stats come from. But, your argument would be flawed. I also personally know women who have left the Church when our dear pastor confronted them about their contraceptive use in the 80s in the confessional. We lost maybe even close to 10% of our parishioners. Those were the ones who actually confessed the sin, and they were the ones who actually went to confession. Are we going to bury our heads in the sand and sing “la dee dah” and remain clueless to the fact that the American Church is in apostasy de facto?

    As far as Pelosi is concerned, I think she should be burned at the stake along with all the other politicians who obstinately receive the Eucharist sacrilegiously. But, I’m not a member of the Roman Inquisition.

  100. Kathleen10 says:

    I’m with you Father Z, absolutely. Can I add something I’m not happy about, but which is fact?
    Finally the Bishops are protesting and speaking out, but they are LATE. For years we have endured a veritable vacuum of silence in our churches about the very issues that are coming to assail the church in ugly hordes! Waiting and waiting for Bishops and clergy to take up the banner and explain time and time again to the masses why we ought not support contraception, abortion, same-sex marriage, sterilization, and so on and so on…why is traditional marriage important anyway….why do children need a man and a woman as mother and father….what is the church’s teaching on homosexuality….what DIFFERENCE does any of this make?? People are by and large, ignorant of why or why not, and the church may be the only place they might hear some enlightening truth….but the Church has had laryngitis….She cannot speak!
    These topics have not been discussed. I can’t say “never”, because it surely has been discussed somewhere, but, never where I have been…and the increasingly “tolerant” and liberal atmosphere in which we all find ourselves is ever more aggressive about liberal beliefs….there is nothing to support the alternative “traditional” viewpoint! We attend Mass and hear stories, some teaching on the Gospel, but these topics, the hot topics, are virtually never discussed….
    and NOW the Bishops say there is an assault on religious freedom? They may find little support from the Church Militant, because the Church Militant has not been armored properly! The Church Militant is full of weaklings and wee, tiny little people, too timid to take a moral stand and loudly proclaim their convictions. We’re too busy being “positive” and “polite” to be courageous and bold! People have to be girded to be courageous and bold….we must see ourselves as the Church Militant…know why we must defend our faith….and we must hear all this again and again….not in passing….
    I know what would happen in our current cultural atmosphere if these subjects were addressed in our churches….I would expect, in our liberal state, word would get out, complaints may be made, groups may show up and protest, in short, assaults by demons, both temporal and other-worldly….it may get rough….But I have a feeling it’s going to get rougher for quite awhile anyway….we are likely in for all out cultural warfare….because it is looking as if we had better defend our position or disappear….and I hear an awful lot of people who are “Catholic” in some sense, but even the Catholics who should know better, don’t! People are ignorant on these topics…schooled by the social media…..which of course is radically liberal….

    And if we don’t vote out the current administration come November, it is only going to increase….they provide funds, cut off funds, and certainly provide bravado…..
    I support the Bishops, absolutely. I just can’t resist grumbling about finding the Bishops coming late to the party.
    Still, I welcome them with all my heart. Welcome to the fray. Now don’t give up, ever.

  101. Tom T says:

    Dr. Eric,
    With all due respect sir, your emphasis on the numbers and how many may or may not use contraceptives or follow Church teachings is really irrelevant as is the number of people who left the Church because they didn`t agree with teachings, dogma or doctrine. We all have choices and the Church isn`t, has not and probably never will change it`s core teachings to accomodate the many who don`t like them. And to quote Juan Williams, as far as I am concerned, is to quote Mickey Mouse from Disneyland. Juan Williams is about as factual and will indeed say anything that furthers his liberal bias and support of Obama. He has made
    statements that were not only not true but irrelevant to the conversation. My only point is to the surprise and shock of many including the liberal media, the Church is not a democracy. They kind of thought it was when they made valiant efforts and to their pompous surprise and amazement, were unable to influence the election of Pope Benedict XVI. Many have already stated, including myself, the real reasons why we are in this position today, and in my view, it
    does not really change the core values and beliefs of the Church and all the disobedience in the world is not going to change anything either. In the end, we all have choices, God after all gave us free will and if the Church is to be a smaller Church, then so be it. Sad, however the people responsible for it, will some day have to answer to God, and so will we. Pax

  102. Tom T says:

    Dr. Eric,

    I would also like to add that as far as our constitutional first amendment rights are concerned, again the numbers are irrelevant. Our freedoms are or are supposed to be protected by the constitution and no single branch of the U.S. Government can change that without going through the congressional process. Forcing Catholic or any institutions to violate their religious beliefs by an Executive administration mandate is most definately, in my view, a violation of our rights to freedom of religion regardless of what the numbers are of people who don`t care. Pax.

  103. Pingback: Giving credit where due « A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

  104. discipulus says:

    The SSPX bishops were excommunicated once and Pelosi still is NOT? Unbelievable.

  105. ssoldie says:

    Have read all the comments…………Thank you Tom T and may God bless you. To you disipulus………How very true: quite unbelievable .
    Maybe what we need is another Council of Trent, so to speak, as I believe we have an even greater crisis in the Church today, then was the protestant revolution in the 15th century.

Comments are closed.