Pelosi: Those bishops suing HHS don’t speak for the Catholic Church

posted at 10:41 am on June 8, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Today, a series of protests around the nation for religious freedom will take place, in part to support the 43 Catholic institutions and dioceses that have filed suit against the HHS contraception mandate as an unconstitutional incursion on the free expression of religion.  CNS News went to the most important and well-informed Catholic in American politics to get her reaction to the lawsuit, and to find out whether she supports it:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) said on Thursday that the 43 Catholic institutions—including the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., and the Archdiocese of New York–that are suing the Obama administration over its regulation mandating that all health-care plans must cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients are not speaking for the Catholic Church. asked Pelosi, who is Catholic, whether she supported her church in the lawsuits it has filed, which argue that the administration’s regulation violates the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.

“What about the 43 Catholic institutions [that] have now sued the administration over the regulation that requires them to provide contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacients in their health care plans?” asked. “They say that violates their religious freedom.  Do you support the Catholic Church in their lawsuits against the administration?”

“Well, I don’t think that’s the entire Catholic Church,” Pelosi responded. “Those people have a right to sue, but I don’t think they’re speaking ex cathedra for the Catholic Church.  And there are people in the Catholic Church, including some of the bishops, who have suggested that some of this may be premature,” Pelosi said.

For those who wonder what ex cathedra means, it refers to declarations from the Pope considered to be infallible.  They are exceedingly rare; the only one of which I’m aware since the formal declaration of the ex cathedra process established the doctrine in 1950 that Mary was bodily transported to heaven.  Popes do not issue ex cathedra declarations on issues pertaining to governance, not even of the church itself.  The doctrine that opposes abortion and contraception goes back to the earliest days of the church, and doesn’t require an ex cathedra declaration.  Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae in 1968 recapitulated that doctrine and brought the teaching into modern times, and bishops rely on it as instruction to themselves and the faithful.

The problem in this case is that Barack Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, and Nancy Pelosi are trying to dictate ex cathedra their definition of religious expression — in order to curtail it.  The Constitution doesn’t allow them to do that, and the bishops are making that point plain.

As most Catholics outside of Capitol Hill know and understand, the bishops speak for the Catholic Church, quite literally within their own dioceses, and in every other way when united as a group.  They do not need an ex cathedra declaration to make decisions on public policy (and as I noted above, most of them would go a lifetime without seeing one anyway).   Furthermore, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops unanimously oppose the HHS mandate and have called for opposition to it.  That is speaking with as much unanimity as one is likely to find within the Catholic Church, and while that doesn’t mean that every Catholic has to agree with it, it does mean that every Catholic should at least recognize that the bishops are indeed speaking for the Church in this matter.

Speaking of which, the Catholic bishops will be participating in today’s rallies, and in a “Fortnight for Freedom” protest that follows (via Asian Conservatives):

Under the leadership of national co-directors Eric Scheidler and Monica Miller, Stand Up For Religious Freedom has built a coalition that includes 96 Catholic and non-Catholic religious and civil rights organizations.

Stand Up For Religions Freedom’s first nationwide rally took place on the anniversary of Patrick Henry’s “Give Me Liberty of Give Me Death” speech. Its upcoming event coincides with the 223rd anniversary of James Madison’s introduction of the Bill of Rights to the first U.S. Congress.

The new wave of protests comes as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on the 2010 health care law, under which the contraception mandate was drafted and finalized. The mandate requires employers to purchase plans that include coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs, even if doing so goes against their beliefs.

Soon after the June 8 protests, U.S. Catholics will join with their bishops in a “Fortnight for Freedom” dedicated to religious liberty.

Some may choose to close their ears.  Others will hopefully have them opened.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Stayright on June 8, 2012

Please stop trolling. You really want to argue denominational differences and the finer points of theology? There are plenty of places where that’s more appropriate. Like this one: Otherwise, it would be appreciated if you stuck to the topic at hand, which is Ms. Pelosi’s meager understanding of her nominal faith and the nature of church/state relations under the US Constitution.

Libraritarian on June 8, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Don’t you think you are being a little high handed toward Stayright? We are free of opine on Hotair threads and I don’t recall Ed or Allah appointing moderators. Stayright can opine just like all of us can.

bluefox on June 8, 2012 at 5:17 PM

A ban on serving communion IS excommunication.

Libraritarian on June 8, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Not true. I am not a eucharistic minister — therefore, I cannot serve Communion. I am not permitted to do so without training of the sort Ed can speak at length about.

I can, however, receive Communion.

Excommunication in the Church is reserved for those holding clerical (priestly) functions who teach heresy. Such an act is extremely grave — it’s why Martin Luther was excommunicated.

As for non-clergy, well, we are all sinners, but we do not have any ecclesiastical weight behind our teachings concerning what is or is not Catholic dogma. That includes Nancy, and, sadly, myself as well.

unclesmrgol on June 8, 2012 at 4:04 PM

I should have been more precise in my language, but I was referring to the comment that certain politicians not be excommunicated, but not be served communion. To refuse someone communion is the key aspect of excommunication.

Libraritarian on June 8, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Don’t you think you are being a little high handed toward Stayright? We are free of opine on Hotair threads and I don’t recall Ed or Allah appointing moderators. Stayright can opine just like all of us can.

bluefox on June 8, 2012 at 5:17 PM

We can all certainly opine, and I’m opining that he’s well on his way to threadjacking, either deliberately or accidentally, by discussing theological issues that appear to have little relevance to the political discussion at hand. And it’s my opinion that if that’s the conversation he really wants to have, he’ll have a much more fruitful discussion in a place where they like to discuss those things as a matter of course, rather than in a place where the focus is more political. But that’s just my opinion which I, like you and Stayright, am certainly free to share here, within the Terms of Use.

Libraritarian on June 8, 2012 at 5:49 PM

“Well, I don’t think that’s the entire Catholic Church,” Pelosi responded. “Those people have a right to sue, but I don’t think they’re speaking ex cathedra for the Catholic Church.

LOL! I couldn’t be a reporter in the room. I would be thrown out from laughing too hard.

All of these Democratic Catholics are just fooling themselves. And Pelosi is one of the worst when it comes to that.

Theophile on June 8, 2012 at 5:52 PM

I am so sick of left wing politicians. (Especially Pelosi) claiming that they know more than the church. The Pope all of the American cardinals and all of the other Bishops as well have said this is a matter of faith. If it is not changed they have said they will be forced to close these institutions.

She does not even qualify as a cafeteria Catholic. For that you have to agree with at least some of the teachings of the Chruch. She claims to be Catholic only to keep the Latino vote. I know it is a sin to hate but she pushes me to the edge.

huskerthom on June 8, 2012 at 6:07 PM

bluefox on June 8, 2012 at 5:17 PM

We can all certainly opine, and I’m opining that he’s well on his way to threadjacking, either deliberately or accidentally, by discussing theological issues that appear to have little relevance to the political discussion at hand. And it’s my opinion that if that’s the conversation he really wants to have, he’ll have a much more fruitful discussion in a place where they like to discuss those things as a matter of course, rather than in a place where the focus is more political. But that’s just my opinion which I, like you and Stayright, am certainly free to share here, within the Terms of Use.

Libraritarian on June 8, 2012 at 5:49 PM

The title of this thread is “Pelosi: Those bishops suing HHS don’t speak for the Catholic Church.” This includes the Catholic Church, the Bishops and what they are doing about the Health Care Mandate among other subjects that Ed posted.

The only thing political about this thread is Pelosi’s remarks. They can’t be addressed without discussing the Catholic Church, etc. Which you yourself have done.

Whatever; I still think you were rude to Stayright.

bluefox on June 8, 2012 at 6:22 PM

How stupid can this woman be? If the three Catholic Bishops don’t speak for the Catholic church,then please tell us for whom they do speak! Do they speak for the Jews? Do they speak for the Mormons? Do they speak for the Muslims? How dare she infer that the Bishops don’t carry any influence in the Catholic church? Has any Lib reporter had the guts to ask her how often she attends Mass or how often she attends Catholic functions? My guess is that she attends Mass maybe once a year if she can get her lazy ass out of bed on a Sunday morning. Please Nancy, just keep your mouth shut and stop showing the world what a nincompoop you are!!

Jersey Dan on June 8, 2012 at 7:29 PM

This woman was a COSPONSOR to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed nearly unanimously in 1993, which is still in effect for Federal Laws.

The RFRA will be the means for the courts to overturn this mandate for Catholics/other religious people (not just institutions)

cptacek on June 8, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Pelosi: Those bishops suing HHS don’t speak for the Catholic Church

…..and Pelosi, YOU don’t speak for Catholics.

I wish pray that Pope Benedict will get off his butt and excommunicate this insane skank ASAP.

CatchAll on June 8, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Coming late to this thread, so somebody else may have already caught this, but at the end, around 0:50 when she was being pressed for more clarification, she made the statement, “I do my religion Sunday at church and I try to go other days of the week”

So basically, Nancy is saying she is a Sunday Christian, and that she only practices her faith when in church. Not exactly what the Lord intended for His people. Church is an oasis from which to refresh one’s self with the Word and encouragement from fellow believers in order to go back into the secular world and both live and practice our faith. It is not a stronghold and fortress in which to practice one’s faith once or a couple times a week then leave the edifice forgetting all that one has learned and live as an unbeliever the rest of the week.

We don’t always live up to that standard, but that is why we go to church, in order to be strengthened and built up to do so to the best of our ability.

AZfederalist on June 8, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Catholics need to own up to this liberal interpretation of doctrine and not call people like Pelosi fakes.

rockmom on June 8, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Sorry, you are confusing Catholicism with other denominations -there can be no so thing as a “liberal interpretaton” of the faith that is legitimate. The fundamentals of the faith has already been formed and interpreted.(lay people, nor any single bishop for that matter, define the faith)

She refuses to accept it, but still wants to wear the “appearance of being Catholic.”

Don L on June 9, 2012 at 6:13 AM

Catholics need to own up to this liberal interpretation of doctrine and not call people like Pelosi fakes.

rockmom on June 8, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Don’t know much about Catholicism apparently. The only thing that I do not understand is why she has not been excommunicated. Support of abortion is incompatible with Catholicism. There is no other “interpretation”.

pgrossjr on June 9, 2012 at 9:02 AM

ex cathedra? infallibility on the church?

*grasps for air*



too easy…

nathor on June 9, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Lord please bring light into the darkness of my sister Nancy’s mind. Show her, please, where she is in error. Let her repent, turn around, and give glory to You. Send Your angel, the one that You gave as her guard at her conception, who always sees Your face, to show her that time is short and that You love her, even when she is in error and Your forgiveness is present as long as she draws breath. Lord, You love her and died for her, please bring her back to You.

talking_mouse on June 8, 2012 at 11:05 AM


inviolet on June 9, 2012 at 12:11 PM

The fact that the bishops can’t speak “ex cathedra” or that Pelosi should be excommunicated are irrelevant. All Americans, including Roman Catholics, have the constitutional right to religious freedom. If this goes to the Supreme Court then Obama(nation) will lose another court battle.

bindare on June 9, 2012 at 5:44 PM

I think Pelosi has been in Congress 25 years too long.

bindare on June 9, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Ask any 10 people around the world what the Catholic Church teaches about these things. Whether they are Catholic or not, most know that the Church formally teaches that artificial birth control, abortion inducing drugs and sterilization are wrong.

Pelosi is a disgrace. God help her.

Elisa on June 10, 2012 at 1:39 AM

I stand on the TRUTH of God’s word alone, not on the pronouncements of a succession of purple and scarlett clad Roman pontiffs.

From Revelation 17:
4 The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. 5 The name written on her forehead was a mystery:
babylon the great, the mother of prostitutes, and of the abominations of the earth.


Stayright on June 8, 2012 at 12:06 PM

In case anyone reading here is misled, the real reason Cardinals and Bishops wear scarlet and violet is in the Book of Exodus, not in the Book of Revelation. Rather than it being an “abomination” or for grandeur, it is for reverence towards God.

In Exodus Chapters 25-28 God gives explicit instructions on how they should construct the Ark of the Covenant, the dwelling, the altar and the priestly vestments. All considered sacred. The Old Testament vestments were a lot more expensive than the Cardinals and Bishops today. But they were the same colors. Scarlet and violet. So much of the Church is based on Jewish customs and traditions. Even ancient ones from the Bible.

Why would God command these things? Why would He tell them to adorn things and priest with gold, precious gems and fine linens?

Maybe God knew that beauty calls to human minds reverence and inspiration. I don’t know why God commanded it. But He did. And if it was alright with God then, it should be alright today.

Exodus said that the altar, the Ark, the priest vestments were sacred and should be “set apart” for that reason. Our Churches, tabernacles and priests today also deal with the sacred, the Eucharist, Christ Himself.

Excerpts from Exodus Chapter 28 on the priestly robes and vestments:

“For the glorious adornment of your brother Aaron you shall have sacred vestments made.

Therefore, to the various expert workmen whom I have endowed with skill, you shall give instructions to make such vestments for Aaron as will set him apart for his sacred service as my priest. These are the vestments they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a brocaded tunic, a miter and a sash. In making these sacred vestments which your brother Aaron and his sons are to wear in serving as my priests, they shall use gold, violet, purple and scarlet yarn and fine linen. . . . Get two onyx stones and engrave on them the names of the sons of Israel:. . . Make filigree rosettes of gold, as well as two chains of pure gold, twisted like cords, and fasten the cordlike chains to the filigree rosettes.

The breastpiece. . . On it you shall mount four rows of precious stones: in the first row, a carnelian, a topaz and an emerald; in the second row, a garnet, a sapphire and a beryl;
in the third row, a jacinth, an agate and an amethyst; in the fourth row, a chrysolite, an onyx and a jasper. These stones are to be mounted in gold filigree work, . . . Violet ribbons shall bind the rings. . . The robe of the ephod you shall make entirely of violet material. . . . All around the hem at the bottom you shall make pomegranates, woven of violet, purple and scarlet yarn and fine linen twined, with gold bells between them. . . You shall also make a plate of pure gold and engrave on it, as on a seal engraving, ‘Sacred to the LORD.’. . . The tunic of fine linen shall be brocaded. The miter shall be made of fine linen. . . Likewise, for the glorious adornment of Aaron’s sons you shall have tunics and sashes and turbans made. With these you shall clothe your brother Aaron and his sons. Anoint and ordain them, consecrating them as my priests. . . . Aaron and his sons shall wear them whenever they go into the meeting tent or approach the altar to minister in the sanctuary, lest they incur guilt and die. This shall be a perpetual ordinance for him and for his descendants.”

Note: The Church teaches that as Christians we are baptized priest, prophet and king, like Our Lord Jesus Christ. As St. Peter said in 1 Peter 2:9 “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own.”

St. Peter was quoting Exodus 19:5-6 where it says, “you will be my treasured possession among all peoples, though all the earth is mine. You will be to me a kingdom of priests, a holy nation. That is what you must tell the Israelites.”

Even thought God made the Israelites a holy nation of priests in Chapter 19, it didn’t stop God from creating for Himself a ministerial priesthood in Chapters 25-28 for Aaron and his sons. The priesthood of all believers does not preclude a ministerial priesthood. God ordained both in the Old Testament for His Chosen people and later in His New Testament Church.

Elisa on June 10, 2012 at 1:44 AM

I cited Aquinas merely because he’s so revered, yet he did not believe what recent popes have declared must be believed. I find that interesting.

Perhaps you aren’t aware of all those popes who did not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, including Leo I, Gelasius I, Gregory I, Innocent III, Innocent V, John XXII (or Benedict XII)
and Clement VI. I’m sure there were more. Those men infallibly disbelieved something that wasn’t infallibly asserted until centuries later.

Stayright on June 8, 2012 at 12:33 PM

I don’t want anyone reading the above post to be misled and believe anything in it to be true.

St. Thomas Acquinas NEVER denied the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception that was later defined by the Church after his death.

This is the actual doctrine:
“The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”

While he was alive they were still debating how to reconcile 2 truths that had always been taught by the Church. One, that no sin ever touched Our Lady’s soul and two, that the Blessed Mother still needed a Savior. So she could not have been sanctified by the grace of Jesus Christ BEFORE her conception.

The Holy Spirit did not enlighten the Church until later that she was not preserved free from sin BEFORE she was conceived (In St. Thomas’s day they believed ensoulment happened at animation of the baby in the womb, which was a few months after conception. So he doesn’t say conception, but animation.) Nor was she preserved free from sin AFTER her conception. What no one, including St. Thomas, thought of back then was that it happened AT THE MOMENT OF HER CONCEPTION. This reconciled the 2 truths.

But St. Thomas never said sin touched her soul or that she was preserved free from sin before her conception. St. Thomas instinctively knew that the Blessed Mother was preserved free from original sin in the womb, sometime after animation/ensoulment and before birth. His timing was off because he never thought of at the moment of animation/ensoulment. So he thought she must of “incurred the stain of original sin” so that she needed Jesus’ salvation, as all men do. But the great Saint and Doctor of the Church knew she was “sanctified in the womb” and that she was “perfectly by Divine Providence preserving her sensitive soul, in a singular manner.”

The same is true of those previous Popes mentioned. None denied a doctrine that was still a mystery during their lives. The definition and clarification was still developing and it was formally defined centuries later. Just like Acquinas, they believed Mary to be sinless and she still needed a Savior. Both truths were reconciled centuries later, as mentioned above. If you read any quotes from those Popes (in context) you will see they never said that Mary could not have been “preserved free from original sin AT THE MOMENT OF HER CONCEPTION” because it had not occurred to any man at that point in time. The Holy Spirit revealed the reconciliation of the 2 truths of the early Church after the deaths of those holy Popes.


Excerpts from St. Thomas Acquinas’s Summa Theologica:

Question 27
From Article 1

On the contrary, The Church celebrates the feast of our Lady’s Nativity. Now the Church does not celebrate feasts except of those who are holy. Therefore even in her birth the Blessed Virgin was holy. Therefore she was sanctified in the womb.

I answer that, Nothing is handed down in the canonical Scriptures concerning the sanctification of the Blessed Mary as to her being sanctified in the womb; indeed, they do not even mention her birth. But as Augustine, in his tractate on the Assumption of the Virgin, argues with reason, since her body was assumed into heaven, and yet Scripture does not relate this; so it may be reasonably argued that she was sanctified in the womb. For it is reasonable to believe that she, who brought forth “the Only-Begotten of the Father full of grace and truth,” received greater privileges of grace than all others: hence we read (Luke 1:28) that the angel addressed her in the words: “Hail full of grace!”

Moreover, it is to be observed that it was granted, by way of privilege, to others, to be sanctified in the womb; for instance, to Jeremias, to whom it was said (Jeremiah 1:5): “Before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee”; and again, to John the Baptist, of whom it is written (Luke 1:15): “He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb.” It is therefore with reason that we believe the Blessed Virgin to have been sanctified before her birth from the womb.

From Article 2:

I answer that, The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be understood as having taken place before animation, for two reasons. First, because the sanctification of which we are speaking, is nothing but the cleansing from original sin: for sanctification is a “perfect cleansing,” as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. xii). Now sin cannot be taken away except by grace, the subject of which is the rational creature alone. Therefore before the infusion of the rational soul, the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified.

Secondly, because, since the rational creature alone can be the subject of sin; before the infusion of the rational soul, the offspring conceived is not liable to sin. And thus, in whatever manner the Blessed Virgin would have been sanctified before animation, she could never have incurred the stain of original sin: and thus she would not have needed redemption and salvation which is by Christ, of whom it is written (Matthew 1:21): “He shall save His people from their sins.” But this is unfitting, through implying that Christ is not the “Saviour of all men,” as He is called (1 Timothy 4:10). It remains, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified after animation.

From Article 3:

Therefore it seems better to say that by the sanctification in the womb, the Virgin was not freed from the fomes in its essence, but that it remained fettered: not indeed by an act of her reason, as in holy men, since she had not the use of reason from the very first moment of her existence in her mother’s womb, for this was the singular privilege of Christ: but by reason of the abundant grace bestowed on her in her sanctification, and still more perfectly by Divine Providence preserving her sensitive soul, in a singular manner, from any inordinate movement. Afterwards, however, at the conception of Christ’s flesh, in which for the first time immunity from sin was to be conspicuous, it is to be believed that entire freedom from the fomes redounded from the Child to the Mother. This indeed is signified (Ezekiel 43:2): “Behold the glory of the God of Israel came in by the way of the east,” i.e. by the Blessed Virgin, “and the earth,” i.e. her flesh, “shone with His,” i.e. Christ’s, “majesty.”

From Article 5:

I answer that, In every genus, the nearer a thing is to the principle, the greater the part which it has in the effect of that principle, whence Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv) that angels, being nearer to God, have a greater share than men, in the effects of the Divine goodness. Now Christ is the principle of grace, authoritatively as to His Godhead, instrumentally as to His humanity: whence (John 1:17) it is written: “Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” But the Blessed Virgin Mary was nearest to Christ in His humanity: because He received His human nature from her. Therefore it was due to her to receive a greater fulness of grace than others.

Elisa on June 10, 2012 at 1:57 AM

Can you say, “MoonBat”.

mmcnamer1 on June 10, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Elisa on June 10, 2012 at 1:44 AM


unclesmrgol on June 10, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Elisa on June 10, 2012 at 1:57 AM

St. Augustine, on the matter of abortion, had earlier concluded that even should the soul evolve in the womb, it would exist in whole for any aborted child.

Hence in the first place arises a question about abortive conceptions, which have indeed been born in the mother’s womb, but not so born that they could be born again. For if we shall decide that these are to rise again, we cannot object to any conclusion that may be drawn in regard to those which are fully formed. Now who is there that is not rather disposed to think that unformed abortions perish, like seeds that have never fructified? But who will dare to deny, though he may not dare to affirm, that at the resurrection every defect in the form shall be supplied, and that thus the perfection which time would have brought shall not be wanting, any more than the blemishes which time did bring shall be present: so that the nature shall neither want anything suitable and in harmony with it that length of days would have added, nor be debased by the presence of anything of an opposite kind that length of days has added; but that what is not yet complete shall be completed, just as what has been injured shall be renewed.

The Church itself, after examining the conundrums of ensoulment surrounding Mary by God, abandoned the position that ensoulment happened at any point after conception, for sanctification requires a soul.

unclesmrgol on June 10, 2012 at 3:06 PM

unclesmrgol on June 10, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Excellent, right back atcha. lol

Thanks and God bless you and your family and all here.

Elisa on June 11, 2012 at 12:33 AM

There are three issues being beaten upon in the comments, but only one issue which properly belongs under discussion at the moment. For the purpose of maintaining sanity among the readers, they should be kept free of distractions.

This is a First Amendment attack upon freedom of religion. Whether by making a law which would attempt to directly compel behavior in opposition to one’s faith, or by making a law which attempts to constraint a third-party agent to induce a behavior in opposition to one’s faith, the HHS mandate seeks to undermine religious freedom by forcing behaviors which violate the conscience of members of one or more faiths.

How little does it matter if I agree with the foundations of that faith? The Founders would be appalled at the sniping in this thread. Each of us is well within our Rights to declare our particular beliefs, but that is precisely NOT the point at this juncture. If we are not willing to agree to fight for the freedom of conscience of all people, then we abdicate our ability to defend our own.

We must agree that the Constitution stands as written, that the Federal government has no authority to govern religious conscience, and must be ceded no such power.

There is only one fight which must be fought on these grounds; squabbling about what Luther, Aquinas, or anyone else would approve or disapprove has no merit here. Whether a President and a Congress can step outside of the governmental constraints of the Constitution, and strip away the very liberty it was written to guarantee, that is the only argument with merit in this space.

Freelancer on June 11, 2012 at 10:30 AM

My wife and I discussed again that we were of a single mind in our desire to convert to Catholicism. Each on our own came to this choice, before we talked about it. Wether great minds work alike,.. or a couple who are deeply in love can be of such a similar mind.. we have decided to do this.

I’ve been reading down this thread, and have seen just how much we have to learn about the Church. One thing I bring to the table, that doesn’t depend on a deep grounding in Catholic doctrine.

You do not leave your faith at the Church door after Sunday, and retrieve it for a few hours the next week only to abandon it again before leaving to walk in the secular world again.

She’s a false Christian.

She seems to think she can claim to be a Catholic while abandoning it’s teachings in the world outside the Sunday Church, in some simple minded view that she must not, allow her faith to color her views in the public arena.

How about this one Nancy?

When you say that Republicans are waging war against women to cover up your war on religious freedom, aren’t you violating this Commandment?

NINE: ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.’

A politician can often break these Commandments. A bad politician and a lousy human being can do it so often, it comes at you in a blur.. I can’t say how the Pope should handle High level politicians who sell out their faith… just that I know she should not claim to be one with the Church without the Church denouncing her for playing this game.

mark81150 on June 11, 2012 at 1:38 PM