‘c’atholic Pelosi with Sr. Simone trashes the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast and AG Barr

Yesterday at the National Catholic Prayer (virtual) Breakfast, Attorney General William Barr was honored with an award and he gave a brief speech, online.   The President also gave a video speech.

At The Right Scoop we see a video of the disaster who is pro-abortion Nancy Pelosi ridicule the NCPB and AG Barr.  She is talking to St. Simone of Nuns On The Bus, who promoted the pro-abortion Obamacare.

I join you in expressing dismay that that National Catholic Prayer Breakfast would be honoring someone who doesn’t, you know – what would Christ do? We always say that. There’s a big difference in between what Christ would do and what they’re honoring this morning.

I wonder if Pelosi – a living argument for term limits – has been so long separated from a page of any catechism, or from any decent sermon, that she has now, in her highly advanced years, actually forgotten what it is to be Catholic.

Is that possible?

As a youngster Nancy Pelosi probably get her catechism and, since she is really old now, it might have been pretty good catechism, decent formation in the Faith.   But the Faith, the fides quae, is like a language: use it or lose it.

An analogy.

People who grow up in their native country, speaking their native language, can transplant to a new place and, over time, start to forget their mother tongue.   They retain the accent, but when you speak to them in their first language, they will freeze up (except in some standard, common phrases), or even respond in a mix or in the tongue of their last decades of life rather than their first.

The interesting thing is that they can recover it… provided they have again some constant exposure.

I cannot draw hard conclusions about what Nancy Pelosi truly believes.  I can draw some conclusions about the despicable things she says and does even while claiming outwardly to be a devout Catholic.   She has retained an accent, but she doesn’t seem to have an active use of the content of her Faith.

Perhaps we could pray for Guardian Angel to prompt her to quit public role, to retire quietly, and to reflect on the state of her soul and the damage she has inflicted on our collective Catholic identity as Americans and Catholics.

AG Barr’s speech begins after 00:47.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in ACTION ITEM!, Liberals, Our Catholic Identity, The Coming Storm, The Drill and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. acardnal says:

    To paraphrase something Cardinal Robert Sarah said in 2016, God doesn’t tolerate sin. Forgiveness is conditional on one repenting of the sin.

  2. JustaSinner says:

    Give her some $15 a pint artisan ice cream to shut her up. Just think of the Retirement Home for Catholic Democrat Politicians tm, in the third level of Hell. No AC and hot as Hell, but imagine the amazing view to the Lakes of Fire!

  3. Bob says:

    Sometimes I wonder whether or not I am so wrong in my support of the President. Yes, he’s egotistical and a cad most times, rude, crude and insulting but then I look at what he has accomplished even during a constant barrage to oust him and I have no doubt in believing I am right.

    And if I need any more reminding that I have chosen correctly all I have to do is look at the Democrat Platform and see what it supports, what Pelosi thinks of Faithful Catholics, what Sr. Simone proposes is what Jesus would do, what the Democrats support in assisted suicide, euthanasia, forcing every one to pay for contraceptives then after they flub that up in the bedroom, force us to pay for their mistake by paying for their abortion…you get the gist. And now California making it easier for pedos to have sex with minors…while all this time having removed God from their platform.

    I’ll stick with a egotistic cad who is rude and crude in his way of talking about women yet it is JFK/Clinton who actually did more than talk about women and that was while they were in office already. More than once I’ve critically looked at what I am supporting and cannot imagine myself to support the Pelosi’s, Simones et al in this world.

  4. Bob says:

    One more thing. Every time I am criticized for supporting Trump because he doesn’t act or speak in a Catholic manner then I just say this: He is not Catholic, but in substance of his actions in the love of his country, pushing for peace in this world, and doing all he can for the life of the unborn and also just yesterday, ordering that children who survive a botched abortion have to be taken care of like any other person who needs medical assistance this is way more than any Catholic in government has done.

  5. teomatteo says:

    Back in 2008 Ms Pelosi was being interviewed on Meet The Press or Face the Nation one of those and- when pressed on catholic teaching- she told the audience that when human life begins “we just dont know”. Monday morn I called Ignatius Press (San Francisco) and ordered a Cathechism and told the operator to send it to Ms Pelosi’s office. I assumed she got it. I tried.

  6. jjbulano says:

    Many people pose the question — why aren’t these quasi-catholics excommunicated? I understand that excommunication is extreme and not the preferred course. But, why don’t the Bishops issue a public statement that these catholics should not present themselves for Communion? Even if they have confessed the sin of supporting and facilitating abortion, they continue to support it, pass laws to legalize it, and publicly flaunt that they are in opposition to Church Teachings — they are not contrite and because they continually commit the same grievous sin, a Priest could easily refuse them absolution in the confessional — and for that reason they wouldn’t be able to receive Communion. Making such a public statement would also go a long way toward setting the “Faithful” straight on exactly what the consequences are of voting for, promoting, supporting abortion — they wouldn’t be able to use the excuse that so-and-so is Catholic and they support abortion and still receive Communion.

  7. ChesterFrank says:

    The scary truth is that Pelosi, Biden, and AOC are running under the platform that they are the Catholics and their demoncraftic platform is the authentic Catholic platform. Fr Jim Martin and his cohort of happy priests do concur. I recall sitting in church before mass when someone behind me discussed their recent mass experience in Pelosi’s San Fran: “they are all gay , the priests and parishioners, they are all gay.” What does it mean to be Catholic anymore? In my world those of tradition are demonized, and Fr Jim’s group applauded.

  8. Bob says:


    Correct me if I’m wrong but I always thought that excommunication was NOT a punishment. I believe it as a mercy conveyed upon a sinner who by his sinful actions, especially public figures, perpetuates serious sin in public without any repentance leading to a scandal in the Church. I believe that Bishops should initiate this act of mercy(excommunication) upon the sinner in order to keep him or her from compounding their sin by receiving the sacraments in a sacrilegious manner. As I said…I could be wrong. I have been wrong in the past…go figure.

  9. Dan says:

    I most people who ask “what would Jesus do?” really mean “What action here would make me feel the best?” I think if they actually studied their faith they might be very surprised what Jesus would do.

  10. mlmc says:

    Fr Z- looks like Beans is trying to ease the opposition to Judge Barrett

  11. The Masked Chicken says:

    I looked up Prof. Faggioli’s relevant books he mentions in the Politico article. One is, The Rising Laity : Ecclesial Movements since Vatican II, and the other is, Catholicism and Citizenship : Political Cultures of the Church in the Twenty-First Century (there is a third, Sorting Out Catholicism : A Brief History of the New Ecclesial Movements, which may be relevant).

    Most of these book were written after I concluded my research on Charismatic history, theology, sociology, linguistics, psychology, and such areas, so I cannot comment on his books. They are of a too recent vintage.

    I did have a look at the current People of Praise website. It is a non-denominational pan-Pentecostal group. It will accept people from what it calls the “three streams” of Pentecostalism (Classical, neo-Protestant, Catholic) – although, just as a point of history, their classification scheme is not the norm, because their second and third stream (neo-Protestant and Catholic) are usually called, together, Second Wave Pentecostalism – the diffusion of Pentecostalism into the mainline churches.

    Be that as it may, it is a non-denominational group, started in Indiana in 1971 during the heyday of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal by Kevin Ranaghan and Paul DeCelles. There were several, so-called, Covenant Communities formed in the mid-West during this period, the most famous being in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

    What Faggioli is taking about in his article is, more properly, called the Discipleship Movement or Shepherding Movement. It originated in some Protestant Pentecostal groups in Florida in the early 1970’s as a way of “strengthening” the faith of what they considered weak members. The idea was similar to a vow of obedience (although a formal vow was not normal, as far as I know) in Catholic religious groups, but without any of the safeguards. A Counselor or “Shepherd” under whom one was covenantally pledged, would guide one towards making important decisions in one’s life and one was expected, all things being equal, to submit to their authority. Not having a hierarchical structure and clearly articulated moral and Canonical norms, there are instances in the literature of spiritual abuse occurring in these Protestant groups, leading even to suicide under the enormous conflict the directee sometimes felt between their own consciences and the direction of the shepherd.

    I cannot say to what extent these types of policies currently hold in the People of Praise group (they did, at one point). Their website describes their life thus:

    “Our community life is grounded in a lifelong promise of love and service to fellow community members. This covenant commitment, which establishes our relationships as members of the People of Praise community, is made freely and only after a period of discernment lasting several years. Our covenant is neither an oath nor a vow, but it is an important personal commitment. We teach that People of Praise members should always follow their consciences, as formed by the light of reason, and by the experience and the teachings of their churches.”

    Faggioli is quite wrong about their covenant being “secret”. Here it is (at least in 1986):

    “We covenant ourselves to live our lives together in Christ the Lord, by the power of his spirit … We agree to become a basic Christian community, to find within our fellowship the essential core of our life in the Spirit; in worship and the sacraments, spiritual and moral guidance, service and apostolic activity … We accept the order of this community which the Lord is establishing with all the ministry gifts of the Holy Spirit, especially with the foundational ministry gifts of apostles, pastors, prophets, teachers, and evangelists. We agree to obey the direction of the Holy Spirit manifested in and through these ministries in full harmony with the Church … We recognize in the covenant a unique relationship one to another and between the individual and the community. We accept the responsibility for mutual care, concern, and ministry among ourselves. We will serve each other and the community as a whole in all needs: spiritual, material, financial … We agree that the weekly meeting of the community is primary among our commitments and not to be absent except for a serious reason.”

    The term, “Church,” was “Catholic Church” in the original document, but was replaced by a more generic term once Protestants entered the group. The potential to water down Catholicism and its teachings, because of this, is very real.

    Faggioli is, also, wrong in that, at least as far as I know, no explicit Canonically-recognized vow is involved. In theory, one could make a private vow, since the People of Praise is recognized as a lay association of the faithful, but it seems unlikely, given the pan-denominational status of the group, that a vow would be understood the same by all of the members. Vows are specifically covered under Canon Law for Catholics; there is no equivalent for Protestants. It seems likely that members make the equivalent of a promise, which does not bind under pain of sin, the way a vow might (indeed, to whom would a Protestant go to be forgiven?). It is tremendous spiritual and psychological pressures that often elevate the promise beyond what it really is, for some members (at least in some of the other discipling groups of which I am aware).

    An historical look at the community is given by one of the early members who left (his views, obviously, representing his disappointment with the group):


    Is Faggioli correct? Could there be a conflict between Barrett’s covenant commitment and a judgment she might have to make on the bench? These are dangerous territories to offer an opinion in. I do not know Judge Barrett; neither does Faggioli. I do not know her flexibility in religious matters. It would be rash to come to any conclusions without extensive first-hand knowledge of the person. I will offer my opinion that the group could, conceivably, act as an echo chamber, reinforcing certain viewpoints. Judge Barrett might do well to make the acquaintance of a few solid Catholic theologians and bishops, if she hasn’t already done so, in order to get external opinions on Catholic religious matters away from the covenant community. That seems prudent, given her possible important position of SCOTUS, should she be appointed.

    Faggioli does raise some points to think about, but he does not have enough first-hand knowledge, it seems, of either the People of Praise Community, in general, or of Judge Barrett, in particular, to do more than raise some points for Judge Barrett to consider. Perhaps, she already has. I don’t know. That would seem to be a matter between her and her confessor.

    The Chicken

  12. Honestly, I think about the rejoicing in heaven of saints and angels at her sudden moment of realization that her soul is at risk, her conversion, her tears of sorrow, her determination to make public amends and then do penance until she dies.

    Should could wind up being an inspiring saint instead of a pathetic tool.

  13. Pingback: FRIDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  14. JonPatrick says:

    Seems to me that the same criterion being used to question Judge Barrett’s membership in People of Praise could also apply to those who for example are Freemasons and I’m sure we have or had many of those on the Supreme Court without anyone questioning their membership or allegiances

  15. Semper Gumby says:

    Nancy Pelosi rambled: “…who doesn’t, you know – what would Christ do? We always say that.”

    He wouldn’t throw a temper tantrum at the SOTU and rip up the President’s speech in front of the solid citizens sitting in the gallery who were praised in that speech. He wouldn’t sneak into a hair salon and then demand an apology from the salon owner once video was made public. He wouldn’t call federal agents bringing relief to Portland citizens “Stormtroopers” or divert money to the political campaigns of anti-Semites.

    This Death-mongering hypocrite should retire and spend whatever time she has left making amends.

  16. Semper Gumby says:

    Not far into AG Barr’s remarks he mentions St. John Paul II and his call for a renewal of Catholic and civil spirit.

    That recalls a recent observation regarding the end of the Papal States made by George Weigel:

    “… [I] suggested that the loss of the Papal States had been the best thing to happen to the papacy in an often-brutal 19th century. It had liberated the pope to be a powerful voice of moral witness and persuasion in the world, unencumbered by the sometimes shabby compromises inherent in governing a state and playing European power politics. That moral power had been demonstrated in many ways…not least by John Paul II’s pivotal role in the collapse of European communism: a role he certainly could not have played as the autocratic ruler of a large swath of central Italy. ”

    Good point.


  17. Semper Gumby says:

    At the Prayer Breakfast Bp. Barron of WOF also spoke for about 15 minutes. He began with fine points about Thomas Jefferson, Fr. Junipero Serra, recent attacks on “iconic figures” such as St. Damien of Molokai and “God created all men equal.”

    Though, Bp. Barron’s “wider perspective” would have benefited by a brief mention of: the Founding Father’s effort to avoid the mistakes of ancient Rome; the writings of St. Aquinas and St. Bellarmine; and that the U.S. is not a democracy but a constitutional Republic.

    Toward the end of his remarks Bp. Barron quotes Alexis de Tocqueville’s warning that without a “moral and spiritual vision” America would devolve into factionalism and the tyranny of the majority. Fair, though it is important to add to that analysis the tyranny of the minority.

    In closing, Bp. Barron, after stressing the necessity of public evangelization, strayed prominently into the WOF agenda. Fr. Serra is now lauded as presenting “the first principled argument against capital punishment.” And, of course, Bp. Barron stated the “best thing to do now is follow the promptings of Vatican II.”

    Instead, how about the Gospel first and Vatican II, well, second.

  18. Semper Gumby says:

    Insightful remarks from Attorney General Barr:

    “In American public discourse, perhaps no concept is more misunderstood than the notion of “separation of church and state.” Militant secularists have long seized on that slogan as a facile justification for attempting to drive religion from the public square and to exclude religious people from bringing a religious perspective to bear on conversations about the common good.

    “Yet as events like this one remind us, separation of church and state does not mean, and never did mean, separation of religion and civics.”

    “The consequences of this hollowing out of religion have been predictably dire. Over the past 50 years, we have seen striking increases in urban violence, drug abuse, and broken families. Problems like these have fed the rise of an ever more powerful central government, one that increasingly saps individual initiative, coopts civil society, crowds out religious institutions, and ultimately reduces citizens to wards of the State.

    “As patriotic Americans and people of faith, we cannot be complacent about these trends- nor should we give in to despair. More recently, thanks in part to organizations like this one, we have seen some small but significant steps toward the restoration of religion to its rightful place in American public life.”

  19. Semper Gumby says:

    In his remarks at the Prayer Breakfast Pres. Trump announced he will sign the Born Alive Executive Order, and quoted St. John Paul II:

    “Let the Good News of Christ radiate from your hearts, and the peace He alone gives remain forever in your souls.”

  20. Semper Gumby says:

    Fr. Richard John Neuhaus at the 2007 National Catholic Prayer Breakfast (h/t LifeSite News):

    “Remember this: the greatest moral, political, cultural contest of our time is…the contest between the culture of Life and the culture of Death.”

    “God has put us here in America, and He has put us here not to be like everybody else. He has put us here not to be American Catholics but Catholic Americans and in this moment of history – to exemplify that most boldly, courageously, persuasively, persistently, in contending for the culture of life.”

  21. Semper Gumby says:

    On the United States as a Republic:

    The Constitution, Article IV, Section 4:

    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

    Federalist 10:

    Hence it is, that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths.

    The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic, are first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

    Alexander Hamilton:

    We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments.

    John Adams:

    Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty.

    See also Federalist 51 “checks and balances” and the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

  22. Semper Gumby says:

    The short answer as to why the Founders created a Republic and not a theocracy is that they were well aware of the problems of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. That said, see Michael Novak’s “On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding.”

    Speaking of Faith and Reason, today at First Things George Weigel published an article about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: “Truman’s Terrible Choice 75 Years Ago.” Weigel writes: “It was a terrible choice, what Secretary of War Henry Stimson called “our least abhorrent choice.” Given the available options, it was the correct choice.”

    The article is quite reasonable, though the often vociferous comments on social media- from decrying “consequentialism” to sanctimonious ad hominem attacks- makes one appreciate that the U.S. is not a theocracy. Though, a commenter protests, reasonably, that there is no argument from St. Aquinas to justify the decision to use the atomic bomb.

    If that is the case, that could imply that there is an argument from Aquinas to support a ground invasion, continued air campaign, or blockade and starvation- all of which would have been far bloodier and taken far longer. That’s a dilemma. It can also imply there is no argument from Aquinas directly relevant to that particular situation in 1945. Regardless, Weigel made a reasonable and informed contribution to the discussion.

    Faith and Reason.

Comments are closed.