Nancy “the Theologian” Pelosi scolds Archbp. Cordileone

Abortion Absolutist Democrat

I just saw this and I actually laughed out loud.

You may remember Nancy from her triumphant theological debut.  HERE and HERE

And remember her comment that abortion is “sacred ground”? HERE

Remember that she, as the darling of big-business-abortion Planned Parenthood (dedicated to killing off minorities for profit), accepted the Margaret Sanger Award? HERE

SFGate has it:

Nancy Pelosi urges S.F. archbishop to exit marriage march

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi took the lead this week in a high-profile lobbying effort to pressure San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone not to attend the controversial March for Marriage event, which she characterized as “venom masquerading as virtue.”

Pelosi, who is one of the country’s most powerful [pro-abortion absolutist] Catholic politicians, made a passionate appeal to the archbishop in a letter obtained by The Chronicle not to participate in the National Organization for Marriage’s June 19 march on the Supreme Court in Washington.

Cordileone, who is one of the featured speakers at the event, was a leader in the campaign for Proposition 8, the 2008 California anti-gay-marriage initiative.

“We share our love of the Catholic faith and our city of San Francisco,” Pelosi wrote to Cordileone, who, as head of the 560,000-member Archdiocese of San Francisco, has become the Catholic bishops’ point man against gay marriage. She urged him to abandon an event in which some of the participants show “disdain and hate towards LGBT persons.”  [If that’s what Pelosi says, you can be sure the event is exactly the opposite.]

Invoking the words of Pope Francis with regard to gays and lesbians, she wrote, “If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him?” [?!?…. and?]

The goal of the second annual March for Marriage is to draw thousands of supporters of what they call “traditional marriage” [you can almost hear the sneer…. “what they call…”] to walk from the U.S Capitol to the Supreme Court. Conservative former presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, as well as Cordileone, are being billed as the star speakers.


Is there some initiative out there in support of Archbp. Cordileone? I am itching to create an ACTION ITEM.

Can. 915 needs to be applied to this scandalous wreck of a Catholic.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in 1983 CIC can. 915, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Sin That Cries To Heaven and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. JARay says:

    I could not agree more. Canon 915 should indeed be applied to this wreck of a Catholic. The more public her disgrace, as a Catholic, the better.

    [She is responsible for her own disgrace. What I want is her public conversion, the more public, the better.]

  2. When the radical feminist leftist from SF has the nerve to turn the tables on her bishop and write HIM a letter of reprimand, then she needs to be publicly excommunicated and broadcasted on every MSM news outlet that she is a cancer, spreading her poison among the other members of the Body.

  3. Salvelinus says:

    Yikes. How many more times will this statement be used as a rubber stamp to undermine the faith and natural law? I’ve had to thoroughly explain it in context line by line.
    Ideally, pope Francis would come v it, knowing now the v damage its caused?
    There was even an Illinois senator that invoked it a as “pope Francis said my marriage equality support is the right vote to say yes….. ”

    I guess he ddn’t want to be considered a “more Catholic than the pope, neopalagion, reactionary, restorationist, promethian, Pharisee, rosary counting, radtrad, protestant, Fortress Catholicus, frozen chosen, etc).

    Poor Francis, PLEASE clear up your statement

    “Invoking the words of Pope Francis with regard to gays and lesbians, she wrote, “If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him?”

  4. Salvelinus says:


  5. pmullane says:

    “in a letter obtained by The Chronicle”

    I wonder how that happened?

  6. jflare says:

    Between work and school, I don’t have much free time or money, but let’s pretend I did…

    “Is there some initiative out there in support of Archbp. Cordileone?”

    How do we go about doing so and marketing the cause?

  7. Mike says:

    It seems to me that a reasonable measure of whether a media outlet is worth reading is whether, when a public figure reflexively scolds “Who am I to judge?” that outlet bothers to contrast the context into which the Pope’s remark is being lifted with that in which the Pope made it.

    Not to give the context compromises the reputation of both the public figure (if, unlike Pelosi, that figure’s reputation is not already badly compromised) and the media outlet.

    And before FAUXNEWS!!!!1!!1!@! bleaters get spun up, to judge the effects of a person’s remarks is not to damn the person. That’s what makes Fr. Z’s Canon 915 remark an act of charity and not of “hate.”

  8. incredulous says:

    Excalibur, I just finished Scott Peck’s “People of the Lie” followed by an old 3 hour Art Bell interview with Dr. Malachi Martin and immediately thought the same thing in response to Fr. Z’s call for canon 915. Scary…

  9. Pingback: Pelosi, the Bishops and Tekel | The American Catholic

  10. frater sejunctus parvulus says:

    At yesterday’s Eucharist I joined with the worshipping congregation in the recitation of the Athanasian Creed, avowing that the “catholic faith” centes in right doctrine and belief concerning the Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that unless someone embraces this faith whole and entire, “he shall without doubt perish everlastingly.”

    Mrs Pelosi does not give the impression of one who makes an ex corde profession of the Athanasian Creed.

    And then, in declaring the murder of babies “sacred ground” and spitting venom at “what they call traditional marriage,” she anathematises God the Creator and the Decalogue whose contents He has transmitted not only in Sacred Scripture but also on the hearts of all born into this world.

    All of which makes this separated brother wonder how come Mrs Pelosi routinely trots up toward the altar to receive Holy Communion, whereby she commits sacrilege and exacerbates her guilt.

    If the good lady would only check out the first part of the Didache, a document written when apostles still walked the earth, she would discover that for many years she has been waging bitter war against what right-believing and -teaching Christendom has professed and practised from Pentecost onwards.

    May the Lord grant Archbishop Cordileone the courage to defy the demon-c0ntrolled “culture” of San Francisco by excluding Mrs Pelosi from the communion of the Roman Catholic Church–and may his brother bishops throughout this whole continent support him unanimously and do likewise.


  11. Midwest St. Michael says:

    “Who am I to judge?” Here we go again.

    Good grief, don’t those who say this realize that they *are* making a judgment? (And they say it*not* in the same context as Pope Francis)

    In the famous words of the Canadian band Rush: “If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice!” (from the song “Subdivisions”)


  12. Midwest St. Michael says:

    Apologies, the above line from Rush is from “Free Will” not “Subdivisions”.

    Mea Culpa.


  13. DisturbedMary says:

    Hans Urs Von Pelosi.

  14. wmeyer says:

    Not only does Pelosi think herself a competent theologian, but apparently a magisterium unto herself. She was apparently unconvinced by whatever her prior Archbishop had to say to her, and now she seeks to show his successor the errors of his ways. Such modesty.

  15. PAT says:

    Will the Archbishop of Washington, D.C., Cardinal Wuerl be attending the March for Marriage event there in his own backyard?

  16. Kyle says:

    As usual, lefty theologian wannabes fixate on the “who am I to judge” part of Pope Francis’ statement while ignoring the part indicating he was talking about someone with a desire and commitment to live according to God’s will ( “A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will . . . “). They do the same when talking about John 8:11, emphasizing the “Neither do I condemn you” part while ignoring Christ’s command that the woman should “go forth and sin no more“.

  17. Jack says:

    And this is how it starts.

    First, they “plead” with you not to speak the truth because it would cause “hurt”,
    Then they TELL you to stay home and not speak because your presence may cause disturbance,
    Then they FORCE you to stay at home without being able to speak,
    Finally they REMOVE you “to an undisclosed” location for the “public good.”

    Stand by.

    [That sounds about right.]

  18. LarryW2LJ says:

    Someone needs to tell Ms. Pelosi that the Catholic faith and the Bible are not a bag of Chex Mix. She just can’t pick out the little pieces she likes, only to ignore the rest.

  19. wmeyer says:

    And by the way, Fr. Z, that photo is not what I would have chosen to see over morning coffee!

  20. LeGrandDerangement says:

    I am truly curious how Rep. Pelosi manifests her self-expressed love” for the Catholic faith.

  21. frjim4321 says:

    In what will come as a surprise to no one here, I agree with Mrs. Pelosi on this.

    I have no problem with this prelate speaking in support of the Catholic Church’s current definition of marriage. After all, that’s his job. However it often does not go well when Catholic leaders get into bed with radical evangelical Protestant fundamentalists.

    The leadership of the FRC which is in large part driving this event have made ridiculously ignorant and bigoted remarks about gay persons. It’s sad that Cordelione has without reservation associated himself with the worst figures in popular American religious culture.

    The USCCB is working very diligently to further hasten its decline of moral authority.

  22. visigrad says:

    Bishop Cordelione is an amazing, courageous Shepherd. We can at the very least contact the diocesan offices by phone or email and voice our support and promise of prayer. Can we all offer a rosary on June 19th for his protection ? Those able, can go to Mass that day !!

  23. Cathy says:

    The lack of enforcement of Canon 915 has resulted in Catholic zombies. We rightly see horror in shows where dead people feed on the living. How is it, then, that there is so little horror in the sight of dead souls feeding on the Living God? When such are politicians and are given platforms and honors in Catholic Institutions with Bishops and Cardinals in attendance to laud and greet them, have the bishops no say in regards to their own directives regarding public platforms and honors to pro-abortion politicians? When a Catholic zombie takes the words of the Holy Father regarding individual persons and applies it to an entire group of people with an agenda that neither seeks the Lord, and acts in defiance of good will – uses these words to judge against her Archbishop, against God, against the Holy Church, and against the good will of the entire country, how is it that such soul remains clacking publicly that she is devout and in good standing and properly disposed to receive Our Lord?
    If the use of Canon 915 has been deemed by our bishops as not pastoral, how are we to discern the increasing madness-not conversion, of the soul whose actions cry out for its implementation?

  24. JSII says:

    Can someone please explain to me a legitimate reason, no sarcasm, as to why she has not been publicly Excommunicated? Has she been corrected? And is she in post baptismal denial of a revealed TRUTH that has to be believed with Catholic faith?

  25. Cathy says:

    frjim4321, the Church’s definition of marriage is not current, it is eternal. As Our Lord said to the Jews regarding the question of divorce, marriage was defined in the beginning. Divorce and remarriage given out of the hardness of hearts did not change this. In the eyes of the Lord, adultery! The hardness of hearts cannot change the definition of sodomy into marriage, it remains what it is, a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. If you do not, in all charity, justice and truth proclaim this to the poor souls in your flock, you have judged them unworthy of the fullness of truth. How then will you be judged by the Lord?

  26. joecct77 says:

    Nothing is done to (c)atholic politicians because Holy Mother Church is firmly attached to the federal teat for grant monies to expand Her “social outreach”. Rock the boat and the faucet gets tuned off.

    Bishops need to end their reliance on money from the state.

  27. visigrad says:

    Amen Joecct

  28. CatholicMD says:

    I suggest Fr Jim meditate on these words from the Holy Father this morning:

    “And who pays the price for the corruption of a prelate? The children pay, who cannot make the sign of the cross, who do not know the catechism, who are not cared-for. The sick who are not visited, the imprisoned, who receive no spiritual attention. The poor pay. Corruption is paid by the poor: the materially poor and the spiritually poor.”

    What does the catechism say about marriage? Is it the Church’s current “policy” or the teaching of Christ?

  29. acardnal says:

    Excerpts here from AB Cordileone’ s speech to bishops last week at USCCB meeting about marriage:

  30. Jim Dorchak says:

    I do not believe the bishop will do anything. It would not surprise me if he did not attend the pro marriage march in compliance to her orders. Just to be pastoral and all ………

  31. Jean Marie says:

    Honestly, I think the woman is possesssed and needs deliverance. God have mercy on her.

  32. Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick says:

    “Can. 915 needs to be applied to this scandalous wreck of a Catholic.”

    This might sound like a quibble, but it isn’t.

    Canon 915 cannot be “applied.” It can only be obeyed or disobeyed. It is not a penal canon, and Denial of Communion is not a penalty. This is important, because all bishops who are disobeying Canon 915 pretend that it IS a “penalty,” and that they have the authority to decide whether or not to “apply” it. They do not.

    Canon 915 is simply LAW.

    EVERY instance where Canon 915 is disobeyed is a mortal sin. (Yeah, objectively, yada yada yada…) Which means that the USCCB policy–that each bishop may “legitimately” decide whether to give Communion to Pelosioids–is that bishops may “legitimately” commit mortal sin.

    Think of that. The bishops’ conference of the U.S. has adopted, as official policy, that bishops may commit mortal sin.

    This is moral and intellectual putrefaction.

  33. Muv says:

    Fr. Z, you are made of sterner stuff than me. Whenever I read about this poor confused and dangerous woman I could weep.
    Action item? A Mexican Novena. It would work much like a Mexican Wave, only on a global scale and reach infinity. Prayers are needed for her urgent conversion, or excommunication. You name the time, the day and the prayer – something short that anyone can say wherever they are. We are all in different time zones, so the Antipodeans will start the whole thing off and West Coast Americans will be rounding it off in the knowledge that they are adding to prayers already said.

    “However it often does not go well when Catholic leaders get into bed with radical evangelical Protestant fundamentalists.”

    Archbp. Cordileone isn’t getting in bed with anybody. Celibacy rules. Protestants can be right about certain things, however much you might dislike them. Can’t you think of this sort of co-operation as putting dialogue into practice?

  34. Mike says:

    God save us from priests who encourage apostatized politicians to upbraid prelates for fidelity to the Magisterium of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

  35. KateD says:

    Formal excommunication would be the most charitable response from the Holy See.

    She is not getting any younger and because of her love of the Word Made Flesh, Jesus Christ (I find it peculiar she didn’t say His name in that first video), she should understand, in no uncertain terms, that He will say, ‘I do not know you’ when she arrives unless she makes some 180 degree turns in her faith life.

    As long as she continues to make these pronouncements on behalf of “catholics” without repercussions, it will continue to be assumed by catholics and non-catholics alike that her views are acceptable to Pope Francis, and the Vatican and therefore are not contrary to the teachings of the Church. Many more catholics will be led astray.

    This public ministry of Nancy Pelosi on behalf of the Catholic Church in America needs to be addressed by the Holy See immediately and publicly. The Holy See has already tried the polite approach when Pope Benedict spoke to her in private. It is now necessary to take the next appropriate action: Public and formal Excommunication. Every day the Holy See hesitates out a false sense of decorum/kindness/diplomacy/etc. towards this woman, more preborn babies are killed. If the Vatican will definitively act on the issue of Pelosi, every other pro-abort/anti traditional family values catholic politician will be put on notice. Will this cause division? yep. Will it cause the persecution of the Church in the USA from those polititians so hardened in their sin that they will not avert their path despite the clear correction from the Church? yep. Isn’t it better to endure persecution and stand firmly with Jesus Christ? Those in the position at the Vatican to do something, but continue to do nothing will have the blood of each of the 3,542 babies murdered in the USA everyday to answer for before the Almighty. 3,542 children every day! Let that number sink in…3,542…legally murdered every day…..because the powers that be do not appropriately discipline our polititians.

  36. Kathleen10 says:

    KateD, I would like to put your words in bold print. Good thing I can’t. :)
    I can say “Amen!” to them, and I do.
    It is an ongoing scandal Pelosi is not excommunicated. It causes much confusion about Catholicism and why she goes unchecked is clearly a very serious question.
    @Muv, Fr. Z. is not being “stern”. We can lament about the state of Nancy Pelosi’s soul, but consider the potential millions of innocent victims of her lies and manipulations on behalf of our faith, on behalf of Jesus, whom she claims to represent with her pro-abortion stance. When considering the vast influence and power absolutely invested in this one very influential and powerful woman, one ought to consider who is the true victim and who is doing the victimizing? Yes, pray for her, surely, but she is not the victim. She is choosing evil and promoting it to millions, successfully. Now she wants to exert influence over a Catholic bishop! Only God can soften such a heart so hardened. Yes, God have mercy on her, but help us!
    @frjim. I have heard nothing “ridiculously hateful or bigoted” from the FRC, unless you consider telling people the truth about homosexuality hateful and bigoted. Truly people do not want to hear the truth, and want to see it glossed over, but the truth is there nonetheless. Your inclusion of the word “current” implies you expect change at some point. Well, anything can happen, I’ll give you that. At this point I really only count on Jesus Himself. I have had to abandon former sweet notions of a fixed and permanent bulwark called The Church to help me get to heaven, because people are clearly swayed by contemporary movements and even polls. That fixed point is moveable, as it turns out, but Jesus, never.

  37. techno_aesthete says:

    visigrad: “Can we all offer a rosary on June 19th for his protection ?”
    Thursday, June 19, 2014, is the Feast of Corpus Christi (traditionally). Perhaps a Mass or Masses can be offered for the protection of the people at the rally?

  38. RobS says:

    God has been at work on the heart of Melinda Gates, who has announced that she will no longer be throwing the family fortune at abortionists in the name of “charity.” He can work a miracle in Mrs. Pelosi’s heart as well.

  39. KateD says:

    P.S. ArchBp Salvatore Cordileone should respond with an offer she cannot refuse.

    Oh wait he already did:

    What a blessing he is to the people of San Francisco…someday they will understand what a great pastor he has been to them.

  40. I plan to attend the rally. I’m in DC, so no great sacrifice.

  41. Dimitri_Cavalli says:

    Let’s pray the archbishop stands firm. If he cancels his appearance, we’ll know what he’s made of.

  42. Bea says:

    I, too, laughed out loud at “Theologian Nancy” but sadness quickly set in, in response to my laughter, as I began to think of how she is putting her soul in such perilous danger.
    Can she not see the Truth?, yet she calls herself a “Catholic” who loves her “Faith” when she obviously does not know her Faith. Somebody, somewhere failed to impart to her what the Catholic Faith is about.
    I still have much to learn (who am I to judge?) but thankfully in my days my focus was taught to be aimed in True Values=Eternal Values.

  43. excalibur says:

    incredulous — Thanks.

    All I said was that it appears that Pelosi is either demented or demonic; just looking at her is scary. I then referenced the increase in possession that has lead the Church to increase the number of exorcists in both Italy and Spain (perhaps elsewhere as well). If the Church of today sees this rise in demonic possession, we as laity also need to recognize what is happening.

  44. Suburbanbanshee says:

    The Pelosi doesn’t know the Biblical context of the remark, either. It’s James 3:11-13 —

    “Detract not one another, my brethren. He that detracts his brother, or he that judges his brother, detracts the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one Lawgiver and Judge Who is able to destroy and to deliver. But who are you that you judge your neighbor?”

    However, James also says, “Do you not know that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God? Therefore, whoever will be a friend of this world becomes an enemy of God.”

    I don’t know what is up with Pelosi. She certainly doesn’t seem like a Catholic in any of her opinions or speeches, and yet she’s desperate to drag her childhood Catholicism into her speeches. Her soul must be awfully lonely and homesick.

  45. The Catechism is clear, the teaching of the Church is clear. We need strong leaders like the good Archbishop who will proclaim these truths clearly, so that the rest of us can be courageous in our response (1 Cor. 14:8).

    Also, I wish Fr. Jim would hang around and defend his posts, instead of dropping a controversial post and leaving. I don’t think there’s anything to fear from good, charitable arguments.

  46. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:
    I have no problem with this prelate speaking in support of the Catholic Church’s current definition of marriage. After all, that’s his job. However it often does not go well when Catholic leaders get into bed with radical evangelical Protestant fundamentalists.

    I’m surprised that you’re opposed to Ecumenism.

  47. Muv says:

    “@Muv, Fr. Z. is not being “stern””
    No, he isn’t, and that is not what I said. About time someone got stern with her, though. Not a bad idea at all.

    “We can lament about the state of Nancy Pelosi’s soul, but consider the potential millions of innocent victims of her lies and manipulations…”
    “Yes, pray for her, surely, but she is not the victim.”

    Where is it suggested that she should be considered a victim?

  48. robtbrown says:

    Salvelinus says:
    Yikes. How many more times will this statement be used as a rubber stamp to undermine the faith and natural law? I’ve had to thoroughly explain it in context line by line.

    It’s not really taken out of context. Rather, it begins with a conditional clause ” If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will . . . “.

    Well, what does that mean? Does it refer to someone with same sex tendencies, but who has never consented to them? Or does it mean someone who tries and fails? Or does it mean that homosexual acts aren’t relevant to seeking the Lord and having good will?

    It’s the kind of ambiguities we’ve heard for years. It doesn’t explicitly deny faith and morals, but it gives the enemies of the Church the impression that it does.

  49. Uxixu says:

    Aren’t all SSM advocates in violation of the Precept of the Church WRT Marriage, which is a mortal sin?

  50. rodin says:

    [She is responsible for her own disgrace. What I want is her public conversion, the more public, the better.]

    Yes, and to that end I have addressed a brief, daily prayer to the Almighty. I hope it counts since that woman really turns my stomach. There are some people I find it very difficult to even like much less love, but if God wants it I will try.

  51. Fr Jim refers to — in his words — “the Catholic Church’s current definition of marriage” (emphasis added), thereby suggesting the definition will change.

    I’d like to monetize this. I am prepared to stake a significant amount of money (for me) that there will be no change in the Church’s understanding of marriage as complementary — i.e., heterosexual.

    If the Fr. Jims of the world really believe that definition will change, then no doubt they would be delighted to generate some cash out of it. After all, it could go for charity, right?

    I’m prepared to put $10,000 on this proposition. More if desired.

    Just how to do it escapes me. Any advice?

  52. In other words, talk is cheap. (There’s another expression but it’s not polite.)

  53. Clinton says:

    Father Z. you ask if there is some sort of initiative out there in support of the good

    Thomas Peters of AmericanPapist and Catholic Vote (and son of Dr. Edward Peters)
    is taking donations over at the Catholic Vote blog. The monies collected will be used to
    pay for buses to take marchers to the upcoming March for Marriage. Thomas Peters also
    plans to send a letter to Congresswoman Pelosi to let her know what a response her
    comments have inspired, and how she’s unwittingly helped the March. I’m donating!

  54. Joe in Canada says:

    frjim4321: there may be times when we have to disassociate ourselves from obnoxious fellow-travellers, but there are other times when we can’t allow those who propose evil to “divide and conquer”. Mrs Pelosi may well have defamed some people with her letter.

    I heard a priest once talk (publicly) about how glorious it was to march in front of the American consulate in Toronto, protesting something or other, standing with the Marxists and the LGBT… and the anarchists. He praised this and referred to it as the “obscene promiscuity of the Holy Spirit”. I doubt of Archbishop Cordileone intends anything quite so ridiculous.

  55. aviva meriam says:

    My non Catholic friends don’t understand how the Episcopal Leadership can maintain any credibility if they allow a political hack (like Mrs Pelosi but you can swap out many other names unfortunately) can publicly challenge and undermine ESTABLISHED teaching.

    How many conversions don’t happen because Priests don’t speak truth clearly…..
    It is an act of charity to all (not only the ones to whom the comments are directed) when a Priest speaks clearly and directly (yet gently when appropriate) on matters of truth.

    What else does Mrs. Pelosi need to do to have Cannon Law sanctions applied?

  56. La mama de Sebastian says:

    Fr. Z, you asked “Is there some initiative out there in support of Archbp. Cordileone? I am itching to create an ACTION ITEM”. has a support campaign going.

  57. Charles E Flynn says:

    I tried to forward the CV action item to Father Z, but Verizon regards it as outgoing spam. Here is the text:

    Dear CV Friend,

    Nancy Pelosi has done it again.

    In news this morning, Pelosi is demanding that her Catholic bishop not attend the March for Marriage this Thursday in Washington, DC!

    In a letter to Archbishop Cordileone, Pelosi described the March for Marriage as “venom masquerading as virtue.”


    This is the same Nancy Pelosi who never wants her bishop to tell her anything.

    Thankfully, San Francisco’s Archbishop won’t be intimidated by powerful politicians like Nancy Pelosi. Archbishop Cordileone understands that marriage isn’t about hate or discrimination, or any of the phony claims made by Pelosi and her anti-marriage allies.

    The defense of marriage is about a simple idea: preserving the time-honored institution that has served healthy human cultures for millennia.

    So we came up with a simple idea…

    Let’s send Nancy Pelosi a message: Let’s tell Nancy Pelosi that her letter motivated us to cover the costs of several bus loads of marchers. Then we will send a letter to Pelosi telling her what her letter to Archbishop Cordileone inspired!

    Can you chip in $5 or $10 to help CV sponsor buses this week for the March for Marriage?

    Just $5 from a big group of CV members will help us sponsor several buses full of marchers.

    Please tell all your friends to chip in too. The more the merrier!


  58. Sonshine135 says:

    Isn’t the act of not enforcing Canon Law and allowing someone to persist in grave sin in and of itself a grave sin? Why are Cardinals and Bishops always afraid to confront these people, but just fine and dandy with the offense against the all powerful and almighty God of the Universe? Talk about a complete and utter lack of faith. These politicians like San Fran Nan must be more powerful than God for these sad clergy. Where is Padre Pio when you need him?

  59. frater says:

    Here is a link to a picture of Nancy when she was a high school student at the Institute of Notre Dame, a school run by the School Sisters of Notre Dame.

  60. frjim,

    Pelosi has no business bossing her bishop around. Just because she thinks she is powerful, doesn’t give put her on equal footing with those in authority over her. HE is the shepherd and she has no rank, other than a member of the flock, a layperson. The bishop guides his flock to safety, not Pelosi. HE is her authority and, although she may think she is important, she has no authority over the bishop and shouldn’t attempt to exert any.

  61. Howardy2k says:

    frjim4321 ,

    Do you know how hurtful it is for a Catholic to hear a priest speaking against the Church? Or do you just don’t care?

    “America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance — it is not. It is suffering from tolerance. Tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded.”
    ? Fulton J. Sheen

  62. BillyHW says:

    Another victory for the pastoral approach.

  63. Gail F says:

    The letter has not been published anywhere. +Cordileone’s response was to a number of people, so it might have been a group letter she signed rather than a letter from her. As we can’t see it, we don’t know.
    Frjim4321 wrote something that many people think — that it’s not good for Catholic bishops to team up with “rabid” (not his word) Protestants on issues, in case we are marginalized with them. And that opinion is not without merit. But when they are the only people who also stick up for truth, our choices are few. WE ARE ALREADY MARGINALIZED.
    Here’s the deal: the USCCB is all over the map, issuing statements it doesn’t seem to mean and endorsing weird things it does seem to mean (“climate covenants”). The Catholic Church is under attack right now, no less an attack because it is being carried out by Catholics like Pelosi and Sebelius. The bishops work the courts (the HHS mandate) but seem to do little else. Case in point: the “Fortnight for Freedom.” Has anyone even heard about it this year? It starts Saturday. The first year, lay people carried out protests all over the country but by and large the Church did not back them up. The logical conclusion is that they do not care. Last year, hardly anyone did anything. This year, it’s a bulletin notice.
    Marriage is under attack throughout the West. If our bishops do not speak out about that, people will assume that we don’t really care — especially with loudmouths like Nancy Pelosi speaking for Catholics. I would like to see the bishops speak much louder, and as a group, and all the time. But no, they are off doing who knows what. Maybe they’ve decided that the West is already on its way down to defeat and the CAtholic Church must salvage what it can. That would be a rather Catholic thing to do. But they could let the rest of us in on it, if so.

  64. robtbrown says:

    Nancy Pelosi is unusual as a political figure. Politicians commonly exaggerate, tell half truths, or even at times blatantly lie–all in the service of deceiving an argument.

    Pelosi, however, will tell a complete lie, knowing that she is deceiving no one. She knows she’s lying. Her audience knows she’s lying. And she knows her audience knows she’s lying. She doesn’t care.

    I am comforted by the fact that one day, like all of us, she will be close to death and have to turn to God for forgiveness. She will have to decide then whether she will cast her lot with the God of Truth or the god of lies.

  65. robtbrown says:

    should be: all in the service of deception

  66. cwillia1 says:

    I would like to second aviva meriam’s post. In my experience the weakness of the bishops with respect to dissenting politicians is a barrier to conversion for some people.

  67. cl00bie says:

    Doesn’t “Cordileone” mean “lion’s heart” in Italian?

  68. benedetta says:

    Agree with cwillia1 and aviva meriam. I know a good number personally, and believe from what I know that there are also many others, who have left the Church because of such scandal. What they understand, whether rightly or wrongly, is that such Catholics’ actions have some tacit approval of their Bishops, or that when a Bishop is silent in the face of certain things that it means that they encourage or support. They conclude at minimum a hypocrisy, and further real damage that they find untenable and inconsistent with the institution of the Church. I will say that these are often quite exemplary, faith-filled, and encouraging Christians, and their loss among us pains me.

  69. frjim4321 says:

    Re my “current” comment.

    The teaching on marriage indeed evolves as we see a much more enlightened theology of marriage in HV to CC.

    For example the “two meanings” of marriage was indeed a development from the older notion of procreation as the sole purpose of marriage.

    Re: ecumenism, has anyone here ever known a fundamentalist who was truly ecumenical?

    We can’t get them to join our ministerial asdociation. And many are blatantly anti-Catholic.

    I don’t think it gets us anywhere to officially deny equal protection to a class of people.

    Probably some typos here, reading glasses temporarily misplaced.

  70. benedetta says:

    Frjim4321 do you have a citation to support your premise/assertion that “procreation the sole purpose of marriage”? Be that as it may, that is not the correct teaching of the Church. And I will argue that it was not ever the sum and substance of the teaching. Further, what is the logic for then diminishing the vocation to biological parenthood in order to elevate sterile types of sexual practices? If you examine Jesus’ statements on marriage and childhood I do not believe your argument has force.

  71. benedetta says:

    I will also add that in addition to the difficulty many have in the process of conversion in comprehending why certain elitist and empowered Catholics are permitted to do certain actions and call it Catholic and teach others to do the same, there are great numbers, huge in fact, from the last decades who were Catholic and have left because of the scandal of the way in which the hierarchy seems to look the other way, ignore, sometimes even justify, certain horrible actions. I am not proposing any solution, and I respect and pray for our Bishops as I recognize that it is an incredibly difficult work. But the truth is that there are huge numbers who have left the Church because of this. I believe they matter, and that we need them back, and that their loss to the Body of Christ is a terrible wound which adds to what has already occurred.

  72. mrshopey says:

    Saying marriage is between a man and a woman is not denying anyone equal protection. Not everyone is entitled to a marriage license.

  73. benedetta says:

    I would also challenge frjim4321 to make any of his points without stereotyping, accusing, blaming or scapegoating those whom he collectively deems “fundamentalists”. Surely it must be possible to make a concise argument without demonizing groups of people?

    Pelosi too in accusing those with whom she disagrees of being so many scapegoating things does of course wind up animating hate. It is real and it is happening right now that there are those orchestrating violent acts towards Christians, without the deference of inquiry as to their authentic and real political views, whatever those may be. To use frjim4321’s phrase, whenever in history elitist leaders use such tactics “things do not turn out well” for our shared humanity.

  74. Lutgardis says:

    frjim4321, where was it agreed that it is a good thing to recognize people as a class based on their sexual proclivities?

    The worth of that classification needs to be established first before getting upset about officially denying equal protection and rights.

  75. jflare says:

    “Re: ecumenism, has anyone here ever known a fundamentalist who was truly ecumenical?”
    “We can’t get them to join our ministerial asdociation. And many are blatantly anti-Catholic.”

    Um, Fr Jim, I can’t remember any Protestant I have ever spoken who didn’t ultimately cast nasty aspersions against Catholic faith or the hierarchy of the Church. Ever has it been so, really since the Era of Reformations.
    That Protestants would utter some bitterly anti-Catholic commentary…not a real surprise.

    …. Yet Vatican II called upon all of us to collaborate with them wherever and whenever possible.

    “I don’t think it gets us anywhere to officially deny equal protection to a class of people.”

    I have generally understood that legal constructs have long existed that allowed gay persons to designate their partner as the appropriate person. We can genuinely agree that such constructs are more difficult to address than are normal marriage constructs, but it seems to me that such difficulties are quite legitimate. If gay persons wish to be “married” merely because they have fewer legal hassles to address by doing so, I might point out that law is intended to serve the typical needs of the overall populace, not cater to the needs of a whiny few.

    I have much the same objection to most Affirmative Action laws, precisely on grounds that such seem to be to directly contradict the idea of equal justice before the law.

    Homosexual activists don’t want to be a “special” class in this sense. They wish, instead, to be recognized as being the same as others.
    We’re not obligated to require society to bow to their intentions.

  76. Fr.Jim,

    You’re mistakenly seeing the gay marriage thing as a thing of civil rights. It isn’t. Remember, Obama was for traditional marriage until he felt the political winds would shift in his favor. That’s why he sent Biden to fake a “gaffe” about gay marriage as a windsock for Obama to swoop in for his “glorious hollywood landing.” It was only about politics, raising campaign cash from hollywood, and garnishing power for the democrat party. The devil was using this gluttons for power as his tools to attack the family.

    It’s not about civil rights, it’s about our society and how our society views the family. This is why our American Bishop Robert Morlino, head of the Catholic diocese of Madison, Wisc., said the judge had “shaken one of the most precious and essential building blocks of our civilization,” and that when this “first ‘domino’ of civilization’” – man-woman marriage – is toppled, then “all subsequent ‘dominos’” of civilization fall.

    The bishop also said that in felling this first domino, “everything that is good, true, and beautiful, which is rooted in the natural family, is seriously threatened.”

  77. Fr. Jim,

    Another thing, when you say “officially deny equal protection to a class of people”, you’re talking as if we are denying gays a ride on the bus, police protection, or voting rights. You’re choosing to describe a situation that isn’t true.

    You’re using a typical ploy from the left: assign a false description of your opposition that is so universally disagreeable that you garnish the most “likes” and then declare yourself the winner. This is the typical straw man argument used by the left.

  78. Elizium23 says:

    cloobie: Guess what “Pelosi” means in Italian?

  79. Elizium23 says:

    Thanks be to God for frjim4321. May God bless him abundantly and shower him with infinite mercy.

    frjim4321 is everyone’s opportunity to practice charity.

  80. wmeyer says:

    frjim, when you apply “officially deny equal protection to a class of people” to homosexuals who willfully practice a gravely disordered act, and attempt to equate that to discrimination against blacks, or Jews, or any other naturally existing class of people whose status is not based on will, you cheapen the notion of a protected class. Should we not also then be open to protections for the set of all men in green hats? Or perhaps all women who do not like high heels?

    Same sex attraction may not be a voluntary characteristic. Acting on it certainly is.

  81. benedetta says:

    Notice the reductionist falsehood that folks like Frjim4321 keep putting out there. One hears this old canard quite often these days. It has to be called out. Telling married couples in sacramental marriage that their marriage is merely based upon an “older notion” of procreation is akin to someone telling a Roman Catholic priest that all his commitment is about is throwing a meal out on a table once per week.

  82. Uxixu says:

    I hope Fr Jim is just playing Devil’s Advocate but sometimes based on his posts, I fear for those who might be using him as a confessor.

  83. Phil_NL says:


    While there’s always the risk of seeing the splinter and not the big trunk in one’s own eye, I’d say that’s a bit too much in the direction of Fr Jim. I consider it a sign that I must be ill if I agree with FrJim on anything that touches even remotely on the political, but he’s a priest, and he absolves those who confess to him, just as much as the next priest. There’s nothing more to it, plain and simple.

    I do have a feeling I wouldn’t be able to listen to his homilies week in, week out, but in charity one might assume that he leaves his politics out of those as well.

    That leaves his comments, but I’ve long been convinced that he simply doesn’t know any better. Probably the same conclusion he reached on quite a few of us. We can and should debate that, but it doesn’t mean we need to attack his ministry.

  84. benedetta says:

    It happens that here it is Frjim4321 who is giving voice to the canard, but, agree, my sense is that he has been supplied some information that in light of the big picture is quite limited. I think that this has happened on a wide scale. In some cases as well I think people have been intimidated, without them always knowing it, why/how, into trumpeting certain cliches or slogans. The one stated on this thread and repeatedly by Frjim4321 here in other threads is found fairly broadly in internet comboxes. The problem is it is so reductionist and cliched that upon examination it is meaningless, but the sentiment or emotional whammy is to belittle sacramental marriage. It’s loading the language disguised as something rooted in history and therefore reasonable-sounding. Notice Frjim4321 rarely if ever supports his sloganeering with data. I am not saying he is a bad person for this but to debate the content of his statement. He always signs off with some excuse for not following up in comments, which as others have pointed out is a trollish sort of behavior, and, on the merits of the statement itself, ends up a backfire.

  85. frjim4321 says:

    “frjim4321, where was it agreed that it is a good thing to recognize people as a class based on their sexual proclivities?” ….. L

    The more I look at it the more I see sexual orientation as a feature of personality. Not u like race/gender/eye color.

    It’s how a person is “wired.”

  86. frjim4321 says:

    = unlike

  87. benedetta says:

    Oh, look who popped up just now! LOL…

    So, still waiting on Frjim4321’s support for his sweeping reductionist generalization.

  88. benedetta says:

    Would that frjim4321 and friends be equally so committed on this issue on vocal advocacy for prolife. What a much more welcoming place this world would then be, for all!

  89. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:
    The more I look at it the more I see sexual orientation as a feature of personality. Not u like race/gender/eye color.

    It’s how a person is “wired.”

    I agree that it’s how a person is wired, but it’s not necessarily just a matter of genes. The NBA Collins bros are identical twins (same DNA), but only one is homosexual.

    The teaching on marriage indeed evolves as we see a much more enlightened theology of marriage in HV to CC.

    For example the “two meanings” of marriage was indeed a development from the older notion of procreation as the sole purpose of marriage.

    St Augustine, who died in 430, provided the basis for marriage theology in de bono coniugali. The three goods are fides, proles, et sacramentum (fidelity, children, and permanence). The two meanings you mention, which are interdependent, are contained with Augustine’s three goods (nb: coniugali, which means union, covers both the physical and psychological aspects). Thus the word “procreation” is not used to described reproduction by animals.

    It is true, however, that for various reasons the situation you mention was a tendency in the Counter Reformation, especially toward the end. It was an effect of the CR separation of the spiritual life from moral life. One of the reasons for Veritatis Splendor was to repair the rift.

  90. benedetta says:

    There just isn’t any moral coherence in Pelosi’s, or the Democratic Party’s failure to accept that all children regardless of the financial or ethnic or cultural circumstances they may be conceived into are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that a true humanitarian or humanist in our times would seek after equal protection for all of these children regardless of their personality traits or native access to financial resources.

Comments are closed.