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


I hope the good Bishop stands firm.


Just a reminder

Guidelines for Posting on Political Topics

Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s personal view on a political issue. If a member is disrespectful, he will generally be counseled first and suspended if he persists in disrespectful postings.

If the nature of an initial posting is blatantly disrespectful to any political view or public figure (e.g., “Obama is the anti-Christ”, “Democrats are “baby-killers” or “Republicans are war mongers and murderers of children”, suspension may be immediate and without prior counseling.

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the platforms, policies and approaches of all political parties and candidates. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.

Use of inflammatory language is contrary to civility and charity especially when directed at fellow members. Posts, especially those of a controversial topic, should strive for as much neutral terminology as possible so that clarity of the argument, no matter how impassioned, is not lost.

Guidelines for posters:
*]It is acceptable to question the platform or policy of another party, political figure or candidate
*]It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs or their spirituality. It doesn’t matter if they are Catholic or not.
*]It is never acceptable to make a joke at another member’s expense
*]It is never acceptable to engage in name calling or using derogatory terms towards a public figure (e.g., “obamanation”, “neoconservative”). Please call public figures by their last name or their full first and last names. The President can be referred to by his last name, first and last name, title (e.g., President xxx) or Mr. (e.g., Mr. Bush). Also calling people the anti-Christ, Nazi, another Hitler, Stalin, or other derogatory term is not allowed here.
*]It is never acceptable to associate a public figure with the devil.
*]Please do not call people liars or say they lie in the forum, nor link to articles that do so. Not only is this uncharitable, but we have found that calling one person a liar leads to others calling other people liars and the forum quickly degenerates into a shouting match of name calling.
*]If you wish to review the subject, please see Charity for specifics, or CAF rules for an overview, both of which are located in the Rules of the Road sub-forum.
]Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular party should be done cautiously
*]It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
*]It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
*]It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular party is false.
*]Expecting members of any party to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.
*]Please stay on the topic of the original post in the thread. Resist the tempation to change the subject to one you are more comfortable discussing.
*]Do not call other members names, including “brainwashed”, “ignorant”, etc.
*]Discuss the issues, not each other.
*]Avoid ad hominem posts. An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject. Ad hominem posts are normally considered off topic and attempts to hijack a thread. You will receive infractions for them.
[/LIST]*It is our observation that discussion of such past events rarely serves a useful purpose and inevitably opens a thread to posts that violate forum rules and/or the bounds of civil discourse. So, while such threads may be useful, they raise a red flag for the Moderation staff.


Supporting Catholic Teaching on marriages is “venom masquerading as virtue.” ?

Hopefully the Archbishop will be successful at enlightening many on actual Church Teaching on this subject, in the face of misrepresentations covering the front page news of the secular media.

All Catholics should be open to explaining Church Teaching and not be afraid of being labelled as haters.

There seems to be a concerted effort by people on the left to quash open discussion of controversial issues.

This is a prime example.


LGBT hypocrisy at its rawest. Ms. Pelosi may wield political power, but she wields no ecclesial authority. Her request is no more than any other lay person asking for a church leader to support them in their dissent from Church teaching. I am glad she at least read enough to be able to quote Pope Francis. I regret that she missed the Holy Father’s point and took it as permission for her to judge the actions of an Archbishop. But like I said, this is liberal hypocrisy at its rawest.


If Nancy Pelosi dosen’t want the Archbishop to show; that’s all the more reason why he should.


The problem is she cherry picks her quotes and then misrepresents them. Just as she did when she used St. Thomas Aquinas to support her position on abortion.

She certainly shows her misunderstanding of Catholic Teaching.


Well now Pelosi has provided a shot across the bow directly at the Archbishop. I’m very curious as to his reaction. Hopefully he will finally realize that she has willfully left the faith, and should warn his flock not to follow in her footsteps.


The comments linked to that article are horrific.


I think that Pelosi is being really misrepresented in these comments.

It doesn’t seem that she wants the archbishop to change his views or back down from his position on gay marriage. It seems that her big problem is that the archbishop is aligning himself with some pretty…unsavory groups to make his point. I highly doubt that if he were making his own public appearances, writing articles or books, doing a speaking tour etc. that she would have said anything. But his lending credence to NOM and FRC (neither of which support the Catholic church’s teaching on homosexuality btw) should be enough to concern anyone, especially fellow Catholics.



And I think she obviously doesn’t want him there for the moral credibility he has and for his courage and leadership of his flock and defense of the Catholic Church.




From this point of view, she is nothing but hypocritical considering with the immoral bunch of murderers and sexual deviant with which she aligns herself.

But his lending credence to NOM and FRC (neither of which support the Catholic church’s teaching on homosexuality btw) should be enough to concern anyone, especially fellow Catholics.

I am concerned by pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage politicians who call themselves Catholic. I looked up NOM and could find nothing opposed to Catholic teaching in their platform. The Catholic Church does not support marriage rights for homosexuals any more than it supports flying rights for pigs. Neither is possible, even if the pig thinks they really can fly.

I noted that the president of NOM is, in fact, a Roman Catholic. Maggie Gallagher does not seem to dissent from Catholic teaching in any way I can find, unlike Pelosi who supports gravely immoral evils. Maybe the Archbishop just wants to walk along side his faithful.


Your comment is very uncharitable towards NOM and FRC.

And could you point out where the Church’s teaching conflicts with their beliefs?


If you read the letter, she acknowledges that she and the archbishop have different views. But she asks him to not align himself with groups that don’t respect the dignity of homosexuals as human. If he wants to deflect that request as you have done by pointing to the people she associates with, that’s his prerogative. But I hold clergy to a higher standard than I hold politicians, and I would hope that the Archbishop does as well.

Do you really think that it reflects well on the Catholic church to have their clergy associating with the Pat Robertson types who blame things like school shootings on gays?


If there are going to be people speaking at this event who believe such things, I think that makes it even more urgent for the bishop to attend and speak the truth. Rediculous statements like that discredit the pro-family movement and do more harm than good.


That sex must be procreative is an essential and non-negotiable aspect of the Catholic understanding of sexuality. To say that it is the only essential and non-negotiable aspect of the Catholic understanding of sexuality would be to suggest that rape, for example, is morally permissible, which it is most certainly not.

Let us not, then, in haste to support procreative marriages, make the mistake of suggesting that the entirety of the Catholic understanding of individuals with same sex attraction is summed up in the phrase, “thou shalt not marry”, lest we deny other essential and non-negotiable aspects of Catholic teaching such as the fact that each and every human being is, by the very fact that they are a human being, entitled to be treated with dignity and respect.

Paradoxically, it is as if Ms. Pelosi is actually cognizant of these distinctions and is being derided for that awareness. I have no love lost for Ms. Pelosi, but I hardly understand what that has to do with whether or not she can make a compelling point. If some of the accusations are true (and I do not know if they are), then perhaps she has.


I am sure the Archbishop understands begging the question. I can not find no lack of respect for human dignity in this group, except when one defines lack of respect as not supporting the immoral acts.

Do you really think that it reflects well on the Catholic church to have their clergy associating with the Pat Robertson types who blame things like school shootings on gays?

Pat Robertson is not associated with this group. Can you give any specifics as to why these people should be avoided, other than their stated person of defense of marriage? I am not inclined to accept the word of Nancy Pelosi when it comes to moral issues, especially since she speaks in generalities.


I have read the letter and what she does not acknowledge is the fact that her views and what she stands for is completely against Church teaching and what the Archbishop standing up for is.

What Ms. Pelosi and others do not understand or reject is that the homosexual act and homosexual relations is what is detrimental to the human dignity in which God created people with. There is no dignity in living an immoral life. Whether it be a homosexual life style or any sexual activity outside of the sacrament of Matrimony, immorality demeans human dignity.

As clergy I recognize that he is in fact held to a higher standard, as he and I should be. To whom is given more, more is expected. Sound familiar? This is precisely why he is doing what he is doing. It is also why Rep. Pelosi must accept the responsibility of her office. She is given much more that Joe Public and must teach and defend truth; even though it means she loses the next election.

I have seen no alignment with Pat Robertson; on the contrary, I have seen much in opposition to many of his outlandish statements.


I did not say that Pat Robertson was affiliated with these groups. I said that the claim that gay marriage is the cause of school shootings is a Robertson-esque claim. (Ken Blackwell made that claim).

It seems that nuances are being lost here. It is in fact possible to be against gay marriage and not support this group based on past behavior, rhetoric, lies, damaging “studies” that have been shown to be manipulated to paint the opposition in a negative light, photo manipulation, and my personal favorite-trying to incite racial tension between blacks and whites, and Latin American immigrants and native born citizens.

I don’t know why I’m being railed for this. I’m not bashing Catholics, I’m saying that the Archbishop in theory represents and stands for teachings that are well above and beyond what NOM, the FRC, and their ilk teach. Look, here’s the fundamental difference between Catholicism and these groups:

From the Catechism:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

From a NOM spokesman:

Participation in same-sex intercourse is partly its own payback for turning away from the one true God, since Paul regards such behavior as itself unclean, a dishonoring of one’s own body, and a self-shaming act of obscene indecency. At the same time, it is evidence of God’s future judgment, since the participants have no excuse for not knowing that those who do such things are worthy of death.

See the difference? A lot of people on the pro-gay rights side, myself included, have a lot more respect and compassion for the former point of view and rhetoric than the second. If the Archbishop really wants to help his cause and his church, he’ll find a way to spread his message with love, rather than with a group that funded a death penalty bill for gays overseas.

The Catholic church is big, powerful, and well respected. They are in a position to lift the anti-gay rights movement up, make it more respectful, engage in meaningful dialogue, and help bridge the gap between the two camps while staying faithful to and publicly advocating for Christian principles. The Catholic Church does not need NOM or the FRC. Those organizations will be gone before I’m dead, the Catholic Church will not.


Which is why Archbishop Corleone should go to the rally, i.e., to infuse a just and Christian understanding of the issues so as to provide meaningful dialogue, moreover, if NOM is as prejudiced as some are purporting it to be, why invite Catholic hierarchy to speak and/or join the rally, i.e., there must be some rational components involved in the movement/organization?

Moreover, there are kooks in every organization/rally, as such, let the voices of those who are rational and can provide meaningful dialogue, the right to speak up.

p.s. I don’t know if you read the commentary attached to the article but it was nothing short of bigoted and intolerant towards the Catholic Church and anyone who holds a traditional view of marriage, i.e., the hate being spewed by these people is far worse than anything being propagated by proponents of traditional marriage.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit