Can she just stop being Catholic??? PLEASE….!

Well… She probably stopped being catholic à loooooong time ago. She still pretends being one in order to persuade people to think that it’s ok to be catholic ans pro-abortion/same-sex marriage, and so on…

The underlying issue with Ms. Pelosi and most of our leaders in Washington, Catholic or otherwise, is that they have become slaves to the insatiable lust power to the point that they no longer see anything for what it truly is, and will say and do anything to possess that power.  The quote from St Augustine speaks to the affirmative in this, and is spot on.  That said, the only response to this can be love, and through love, prayer for the conversion of hearts and minds to God and His love, which conquers all.  Otherwise, it’s all too easy to fall subject to the evil one and sin in our thoughts, words and deeds, and ultimately would prove futile. Indeed, we need Ms. Pelosi (and others) to BE Catholic, to BE true Christians, to know God’s love and to evangelize it in Truth.

Oh!  When will we hear: “If anyone says that——-, let them be Anathema!”

How I long to hear it said.

Ms. Pelosi’s religion is that of the LGTB in her home district - San Francisco.  Getting re-elected, in her mind, is God’s will.  But where is her Bishop?  Is his religion the same as hers?  If the Bishop doesn’t speak up, then she thinks what she says is Catholic.  How sad that our Faith is being prostituted by people who say they are Catholic.

It is amazing that many “catholic” (small ‘c’) politicians find the need to speak out on matters of faith and morals and demonstrate that they have no idea of what the Church teaches.  When will her Bishop in California and Cardinal Donald Wuerl in Washington, DC contact her about her misinformed views and teach her the difference between discrimination and sin?  There is a spiritual battle going on here and these men need to step up to the front line rather than cowering in a foxhole.  Afterall, isn’t a shepherd supposed to lead?

Where are the Bishops?
Interesting question.  Maybe it should be when will there be a public proclamation by the Bishop.  It wouldn’t surprise me at all to learn the Bishops on the left and right coast have requested to speak with her, or have privately addressed her.  I’m fairly certain a public admonishment would be way down on the list of options.

Apparently Nancy Pelosi is insane or just an evil witch.

These people should be excomunicated OFFICIALLY!!! for the whole world to see.

Probably worthwhile to also write something useful on how Catholics can defend this tired line that were discriminating against SSA. We are often thought of as discriminating because we believe SSA to be a sin and this is hard to talk about to secular people who utilise terms like intolerance and discrimination.

If this woman is a Christian - as she claims to be - then I would like to remind her that her Saviour, Jesus, did say in response to a question on marriage that it was for this reason that God made us Male and Female. However, marriage is not abour religion; it is a human phenomenon. It happens only when two people from the two genders built into us commit themselves to each other. There is a merger which does not exist in any other relationship. Marriage is unique and brings stability and continuity to society. Let us not, for the sake of society, let people like her and her real Master, Obama, corrupt marriage and thereby destroy society.

I am saddened by her comments and feel compelled to pray for her conversion.  Our Lord forgave the people that crucified him; so I ask us all to pray for her conversion.  I know Our Lord is using this situation for a reason.  Rosemary

From what I understand, excommunication is more complicated than most people think.  However, I would imagine Pelosi has misrepresented the Church often enough to warrant if not excommunication, than something similar. I suggest each of us write our bishops and also the USCCB today and tell them there needs to be more CLEAR, VOCAL, AND PUBLIC opposition to Pelosi, Sebelius, Biden, and other Catholics-in-name-only who misrepresent the Church publicly, and it needs to be done as soon as possible.  Contacting the USCCB and my bishop is on my ‘to do’ today list.  I urge others to do the same.

When I listen to Pelosi speak on Catholicism I am reminded of Fr. Daniel Ortega, SJ who in the 1980s was the foreign minister of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. He was guilty of practicing Liberation Theology. John Paul II told himyou can be a priest or a politican but not both. And subsequently His Holiness had then Cardinal Ratzinger now Benedict XVI ferret out priests who supported Liberation Theology. Pelosi is a heretic clear and simple. Still love her and pray for her. Ask the Virgin to help her as well as Michael the Archangel. Say several chaplets of the Divine Mercy and donate to candidates who can defeat her and her ideas. I call this the urbi et orbi approach… seek heavens help but we are on the ground…. onward Christian soldiers!

Pelosi does not discriminate against people because of their sin but Pelosi lets them go to hell for their sin. If that is not dicrimination, well hell it is.

Where Is the Bishop of DC.? An innocent priest was recent suspended for refusing the Eucharist to a Buddhist. Pelosi needs public suspension from the church as well in the form of excommunication, Her Bishop in California needs to step up also. Where is the next St. Paul?

Basically, Pelosi publicly denied the rational, immortal soul of the human being in herself and in human beings participating in any sin, thus redefining the human being to be the beast of burden for the state. A true democracy requires only the TRUTH to be spoken in any public forum by any and all persons. The Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth, so help me God, everything else is perjury in a court of law. The Constitution forbids perjury, and Pelosi having taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and then lying in public, for a public offical, is perjury.

I suspect that, like many Catholics, she is letting her conscience guide her, and she is sincere in her belief! I read that most Catholics do not accept the teaching of the Church when it comes to contraception use or Gay Marriage, and most no longer go to Confession or even Mass!
Clearly the Church is in a crisis!  For all the changes that the Church has been through, it still appears backward to present thinking.  When it comes to current thought, the Church appears to be fighting a losing battle!  Constant disruptions in the Church, as well as the sins of some clergy, have brought about widespread indifference to the Church!

“But where is her Bishop?”
.
Her Bishop, George Niederauer, supported Prop 8 to ban gay marriage in California, but opposed a measure when he was in Utah that would have banned civil unions as well. His predecessor, William Levada, held a similar position.

Jesus said: love your neighbor as you love yourself.  Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

A Letter To The Bishops:
Good Catholics are begging for guidance.  They seek the kind of guidance they used to get with a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur in our books.  We
are smart enough to discern much, but not all.  Do you not hear us crying
out for help?  Your silence hurts us but it condemns you.  Now is not the
time for the weak-willed.  We are ready to fight.  Are you ready to lead?

This kind of question requires from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection on the principles of the moral teaching on marriage—a teaching which is based on the natural law as illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation.

No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation. (3)

In carrying out this mandate, the Church has always issued appropriate documents on the nature of marriage, the correct use of conjugal rights, and the duties of spouses. These documents have been more copious in recent times.
ENCYCLICAL LETTER
HUMANAE VITAE
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
PAUL VI

If Nancy Pelosi received the same brand of ultra catholicism lite I received - she really does believe in her own statement. The appalling lack of true and comprehensive catechesis over the last 40-50 years has brought has us to this point. The lack of real and committed Shepherding left many Catholics malformed and vunerable.  Our chickens are coming home to roost.  May God have mercy on us all - especially the uncatechized among us!

A GAY marriage is between a man and woman; same-sex ‘marriage’ is between whatever; so quit attacking normal people that have been given the name of Gay, Gail, Gaylord, Gayle, etc. by misusing a very wonderful word to describe something that is abnormal. Mrs. Pelosi and Joe Biden must have had the same ‘religious’ teacher to keep coming up with their great wisdom, and it appears that they have been teaching the Obamas about God, America and our Constitution as all of them are in the dark.  Rich Dykstra, it seems that your thinking is what is backwards. The Church has always been in a CRISIS, which is why they hung Jesus on the Cross and tried to eliminate His Church.  Why are there so many different ‘denominations’ and ‘new churches’ popping up every day? Because of people like you that don’t know just what the Bible is all about and you want things your way, not God’s way, which is okay if you are buying a hamburger, but, not okay for your salvation.  Thank You Jesus for giving us our very Holy Church and for always staying on the right path, even if it goes against the thinking of the worldly people.  +JMJ+

If you have not heard Pelosi’s homily on “the word” you will not understand her brand of Catholicism. I wish I could quote the website
but just google Utube and Pelosi speaks on her favorite word, The Word
and you will perhaps find. It sort of explains this nitwit’s take on
Catholicism which is whatever she wants it to mean…today. Tomorrow it might be different. The wind blows where she makes it like all pols!
Forget the Bishops making any formal statements re Ms Pelosi…most of them are Democratic ideologues!first and Catholics lastly! Sorry, do not mean to malign the individual ones who do stand for Truth!

excomunicated her OFFICIALLY
nowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Don’t be surprised when this sort of thing happens.  Even Christ had Judas among only 12 apostles.  How many individuals do you think there might be in over 1 billion Catholics?  There will always be dissidents like Pelosi, Biden, etc. and heretical “catholic” organizations like Georgetown University.  Many such people and ideas have come and gone in 2,000 years.  All of these people/organizations ignore the Natural Moral Law and as such, they will eventually whither and die.

Ok, where is a bishop to put Canon 915 into action?? Now would be a good time.  A decade ago would have been better.  As publicly as possible.  Perhaps on a blimp over baseball games at all major cities since the media might not cover it otherwise?

The bishops and priests must speak the truth and not worry so much about empty pews and smaller collections. I rarely hear homilies about the magisterium/ doctrine/abortion/contraception/marriage I hear feel good homilies about social justice.  This is why even Catholics who go to church every Sunday have no real understanding of the catholic church. They go to church and hear nothing of the tough stuff. If Catholics who go to mass every Sunday and even weekday masses aren’t hearing the truth, how can we expect anything different of nancy pelvis?

Oh dear. My Ipad changed the word Pelosi to pelvis. How do you stop that???

The problem is not Pelosi and the many others like her. The problem is with the many Bishops who are internally conflicted by their liberal beliefs in relation to Catholic dogma. Not knowing who they really are they then have only weak knees and keep silent.  I now understand why so many have departed from a leaderless Catholic Church.

Nancy Pelosi (and many, many others) appears to be a heretic:
“If a person, after receiving baptism and retaining the Christian name, pertinaciously denies any of the truths which are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or if he doubts the same, he is a heretic.  If he departs entirely from the Christian faith, he is an apostate.  If finally he will not be subject to the Supreme Pontiff or refuses to associate with members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic.” 
Code of Canon Law, Canon 1325, n.2

Ah, snap.

Love it.

Can we all not sign a petition to ask the Vatican to PLEASE Excommunicate her and have her STOP saying she is CATHOLIC???  WHEN do we start DEFENDING THE FAITH against people like this?

I’m not sure if Pelosi’s misrepresentations of Catholic moral teaching or some of the other commenters understanding of Catholic Ecclesiology is more saddening.  The Bishops are our leaders and pastors, it is not up to us to condemn them or to tell them who should or shouldn’t be excommunicated. If anathemas and excommunications flew as quickly as some on these boards wished, the extreme disrespect shown to our Bishops would warrant those penalties as much as supporting Same Sex “Marriage.”  Count yourselves lucky the Bishops are slow to act in these matters.

San Fran Nan said “My religion has, compels me—and I love it for it—to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, ...”

I have to ask: Mrs. Pelosi, do you mean that “your” religion would allow this discrimination in some other country?  Or, perhaps, were not of “your” religion such discrimination would be ok in this country?  Is this why you are so silent regarding the “discriminations” in the Middle East? 

Actually, Nan is very close to a female counterpart to that wonderful orator Joe Biden.  Both tend to be bitten by their sound bites; which emphasises the flaccidity of their minds, and their complete lack of either intellectual, or moral, integrity.

Rick said, “I suspect that, like many Catholics, she is letting her conscience guide her, and she is sincere in her belief!” I reply, no doubt and I’ve never really seen even her most ardent critics say she didn’t really believe the sewage pouring from her mouth. Conscience has been a term misappropriated to be code for the dictatorship of relativism. What people fail to understand is that while the conscience is invoilable, it is also a feature of Man most damaged by the Fall. In other words, saying abortion and same-sex “marriage” are ok because one’s conscience says they are ok is like sitting in a living room engulfed in flames and saying that there’s no fire because the smoke alarm isn’t beeping. Pelosi yanked the batteries out of her smoke alarm years ago.

There’s a huge difference between marriage and abortion folks. Let’s start living our faith and show support for equality of all people.

Excommunicate. Her. Now.

Bishop to DC—Checkmate.

Why won’t the Catholic Church EXCOMMUNICATE HER!!!  There has to be a reason (I won’t get mean and tell you what I think)  All I know is, she is an embarrassment to all Catholics, and a detriment to us when discussing this topic with those who are of Obama’s beliefs. The same with Biden who is Obama’s stooge. Sorry “Rick” Pelosi has no conscience, she is a politician. Anyone who would stand up and say “you will learn what is in the new Healthcare when it passes, well-l-l-l-l it is a stupid statement. How can anyone pass something they have not read, I still wonder WHO WROTE IT? [maybe they will read it on the LONG VACATION which is about to start.] The whole problem with people in “Washington” today is they get paid too much. They are in there for the money. It is a place to retire early with much riches.

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.—-” Thomas Jefferson. Pelosi was not there to inform us of her embrace of homosexual behavior. Pelosi was there to inform us that every taxpayer will pay for the homosexual agenda, the indoctrination in public schools, the change of books, social engineering, adoption, even the cost of arresting priests for HATE SPEECH for preaching the Gospel, an assasination of our First Amendment right to free speech and peaceable assembly. For one thing, the Bishops are against gay-marriage. Marriage is a Sacrament of the Catholic Church. For two, civil unions are matters for the state, and the Catholic Church separates its imposition upon the state. Whatever the soul is the body grows to be, form follows function. Had the homosexual been catechized properly he might have had the will to mature properly. Instead, he has dug his heels in to remain in arrested development.

JS, it is not living our faith to encourage men to have more anal sex with each other.  Anal sex is harmful and unhygienic.  It commonly results in specific types of urinary tract infections, and ultimately anal cancer - all of which as not found in heterosexuals.  Further, there are some studies out there showing drastically reduced life expectancies for homosexuals due to a wide array of psychological and physical ailments.  There are other studies showing very promiscuous life styles with many, many partners.  Promiscuity, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual, is never a good thing.  The sad thing is that I know a few homosexuals and they are caring decent guys.  But I would never encourage them into a lifestyle that would ultimately harm them.  That would be more cruel than not allowing them to marry.

Support for SSM is not support for equality.  Ask yourself, what is it that advocates for SSM are truly seeking?  Is it the legal benefits of marriage: health insurance, tax laws, adoption laws, etc.?  If so, one must remember that those laws were brought into existence specifically to support the family unit and the protection of children, which the govt has a compelling interest to protect as this directly impacts all of society.  Since SSM does neither of those things, then SSM cannot be supported on that basis.  Are advocates seeking acceptance, using “marriage” as a vehicle for promoting SS behavior as “normal?”  Because SS attraction is far different from SS behavior, then SSM cannot be promoted on that basis, either.  Most people intuitively understand that SS behavior is not okay (as with ANY sexual behavior outside of marriage).  However, where many in our society fail is in their attitudes toward those who have SS attraction, and this is something we could all stand to work on.  But you can’t legislate attitudes (look at the abortion issue, for example); you can only serve as a conduit of God’s love with the hope of spreading light, one person at a time.

I get frustrated by this stuff too but I can’t help but remember the parable about the weeds and wheat. When ask if the weeds should be removed Jesus said to leave them; he will deal with them in the judgment. The thing is every week at Mass I see a long line of people going up to receive the Eucharist and then I see or 3 little old ladies lined up for Confession. Are not many of these people also profaning the Eucharist just the same as the politicians? Where does one draw the line for excommunication? Perhaps it would be helpful if she was restricted from receiving Communion if the Bishop sees fit to bring her to repentance. Maybe we should all pray for her to receive a harrowing vision of the ETERNAL destination of heretics! Can you imagine what a defeat and embarrassment to liberalism and totalitarianism Pelosi’s complete reversion to the TRUE faith would be!!!!!

Look….I don’t fly off the handle wanting people excommunicated rapidly.  I WAS from CA and just moved to the South this last year.  Pelosi has been doing stuff like this for YEARS against Church teaching and just getting away with it!  She HAS been talked to by her Bishop and yet nothing further is done about it….God says that he would RATHER see people repent than die…SO WOULD I!!!  But after years and years of this stuff one gets to the point where a person need disciplined - even PAUL talks about this and has a protocol for it.  There IS a point (PER PAUL) where you hand them over to Satan to be sifted out and yet YOU STILL PRAY for their CONVERSION…...I just take the faith seriously and I don’t like it when people trash it and step on it and then get to the point of DANCING ALL OVER the DEATH OF IT…...I get to that righteous anger point.  If ANY of you come up with that sweet sanquine “WE should NOT judge others” well THAT is NOT Biblical….what IS Biblical is to NOT JUDGE Non-Believers.  What we ARE suppose to do with BELIEVERS is if you have somone sin against you or are found in a sin, you are doing a good act of saving them by going to them privately and talking to them IN LOVE about their waywardness.  If they do not listen to you, then you are suppose to take another believer with you to talk to them together.  IF at THAT point they STILL will not listen you then take them to the CHURCH itself and if they don’t listen to the CHURCH then the CHURCH is suppose to cast them out (for the sake of their own souls the scripture says).  All of this should be done in humbleness and love lest you fall yourself!

According to the Vatican encyclical “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion—General Principles” (2004; Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger), Pelosi cannot receive Holy Communion. She is already excommunicated for her support for abortion. If she does in fact go to Mass and receives the Eucharist, then the only way the celebrant is not in violation of Canon Law is if she has not been previously admonished to stop her public pro-abortion activity. That would only be known by her bishop, of course, if the admonishment has not been made public.

The correct move is for the bishops of DC and SF to issue a simple statement saying that she has been so admonished. Then any priest may deny her the Eucharist, and wait for the media circus to descend upon him. And may he be blessed in it, for to suffer at the hands of the wicked is a joyful task for a holy priest of God.

@Jim, to support the right to financial security through domestic partnerships is proof positive that the Catholic Church does NOT discriminate against homosexuals.  This was a valid *right* to defend. MARRIAGE however is an entirely different subject, for obvious reasons.  Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. Pelosi can jump up and down until she’s blue in the face, but she can’t make an apple an orange, just because she thinks the apple has the right to be an orange.

Let’s start living our faith and show support for equality of all people.

All adults are equally able to get married—to someone of the opposite sex. Same-sex “marriage” is a fiction with a legal rubberstamp. One might as well say “Let’s start living our faith and show support for this guy’s belief that he is Napoleon and make everyone who meets him salute and say “Oui, mon general!”

The bishops need to man up and publicly denounce and excommunicate these heretics.  Their silence only confuses the flock they’re supposed to shepherd and dilutes the orthodoxy of the Catholic faith.

Anymore, the end justifies the means it seems.  Homosexuals deserve the same happiness as heterosexuals, we all agree on that.  How one should derive at that happiness is where the conflict lies.  Simple minds like Obama, Pelosi, Clooney stop there.  These homosexuals are the victims, no doubt.  They have become who they are for multiple of reasons, most of them from situations beyond their control, in childhood.  This is where we need to place our focus.  Not on what they are, but WHERE and HOW.  I have 2 cases in my next of kin.  On one side, I have a pedophile cousin.  On the other side, I have a homosexual second cousin.  The common denominator for these “nice” individuals?  Their parents were sex-crazed lunatics who on the surface appear to be regular nice people like you and me.  One had Playboy all over the place, pin-ups, nudie camps ... and 3 young boys who were exposed to all this ... who turned into a pedophile.  The other?  Well, lets just say her father and mother have 3 children and are divorced, but they still live together ... and dad has a new live-in girlfriend and a baby.  Sounds polygamist, but no admittance of that on the part of the adults involved.  One of the girls became a lesbian ... I say these poor people had rough childhoods and sin begets sin and the beat goes on.  Just my observation, which is a sorrow and nice people like Obama, Pelosi, Clooney want to call all this “normal.”  Hmmmmmmm

Merno, you’re right.  There are reasons why people develop same sex attractions and they typically follow a pattern of development from early childhood. Try as some people have, a “gay gene” has never been found.  Men who end up being attracted to men almost always have had dysfunctional relationships with their fathers where the fathers reject them and the boys “retreat” to their mothers and become oversaturated with feminism.  This is very, very sad.  Still, the unfortuante souls raised in this type of environment need prayer, love, and therapy to help them deal with their feelings.  The last thing they need is a slap on the back and encouragement into a lifestyle that will harm them. Too many well meaning people with a misplaced sense of compassion have been doing this. Anyone interested in researching how people develop same sex attarctions should start by Googling “Dr. Joseph Nicolosi”.

Am I the only Catholic who feels excommunication for CINO politicians is long overdue? By allowing the very public scandal created by Pelosi, Sebelius, Biden, and the rest, the bishops run the risk of heresy and apostasy to become more deeply entrenched. Does anyone else hold this opinion and wish the bishops would finally take concrete action?

I think there’s many other people who agree with you, Julie.  The danger of CINO’s is that they mislead weak Catholics into thinking abortion, SSM, etc, are just fine.

Great quote, Matthew.  Don’t forget about automatic excommunication, Julie. God is still in command.

@ Christopher Michael
Actually, she’s an insane evil witch!  But at least she’s an articulate speaker - LOL!

Seriously, she’s been a black eye for Catholics for so long, I can’t even get upset about the latest “garbage” that spews from her mouth.  It’s just more of the same from this “D.C. Puppet.”

Obama has stacked his cabinet with “Cino’s” like Pelosi trying to confuse the Catholic voting block, assuming we won’t know our own faith well enough, and will follow the Cino’s.  Problem is…60% of Catholics voted for him last time.  I sure hope it’s different this time around.

There’s a great prayer to stop Obama from being reelected:  May the blood of Christ’s passion stand between Barack Obama and his reelection.  Maybe we can also include other politicians like Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, etc.

Maria, thank you for that prayer.  I hope you don’t mind that I copied it to e-mail to my faithful friends.  And yes, it should include all the CINO’s who are corrupted Catholics.

LOVE the prayer Maria….!!! I am going to pass it on for all my Catholic Friends to pray daily!

@merno: I am not disagreeing with what you said, but I too have 3 nephews who are gay. The two from one family have active Catholic parents who were the best parents to 4 boys and 1 girl. [They had a gay uncle.] The other one also had a good bringing up with good parents but they had one grandfather who dressed like a female in his old age.  What I am saying is that it may be partially learned and partially heredity. [so my psycho-therapist niece feels]I was reading abt. this at one time in a waiting room of a hospital and it showed a picture of a brain in a male. The center arrow show normal sex feelings, going to the left it showed strong male sex feelings who would want to have a male partner and to the right it showed more female feelings so that the man would want a female partner. Made sense to me because all male and females have both male and female hormones. So it could be hormonal. I don’t think anyone really knows yet, but my one gay nephew who is well educated through to Catholic College, said “I would never choose to be gay because society does not approve of it, but I know I am”  Only God knows the true answer.

Dear God, do these people have a clue as to what the teaching’s of the Carholic church are??!??!?!?!?!?  AND THEY CLAIM TO BE CATHOLIC!!!!! You can shine it up, you can “reason” it, but the truth is, homosexualtiy is a sin against God. Period. We’re all born with sin, it may take different forms, but we all have our pet sins we’re prone too. It deosn’t excuse anyone.

@ Sue,
I understand what you are saying…but to me the bigger question is, how do we respond?  Say I was born a kleptomaniac.  It’s not my fault.  I’m a nice person otherwise, and I deserve to be happy, right?  So now there are 2 choices…1) validate my disorder, and have kleptomaniac pride parades, and try to change laws that define stealing.  2) Try and help me to understand why it is wrong, and how I can avoid it in the future.
We are all sinners, but if you are my friend, you will help me to move away from my sin, not validate me in it.
(I’m not saying I thought you were validating homosexual “marriage,” but just saying even *if* it is something they are born with, we still need to help them.)

she should read the bible.

@Kathy: First of all I am Sue(old) There is another “Sue” on this blog but I know you were referring to me. As to the gay parade, even my nephews, [both are attorneys], say that the gay parade makes things harder for them & they do not agree with it. What I am saying is that I feel that homosexuals are born that way and I guess my true reason for thinking that way is because as a female I just cannot imagine ever having those feelings toward another female. In fact some females annoy me. I know that being gay is not a sin, but living the lifestyle is. Well, I am not about to judge them. Jesus said not to judge and they are intelligent enough to know what is going on. Why should I tell them their lifestyle is sinful as far as the CC is concerned. They already know it. That is why they are no longer members of the CC.  They made their choice. I happen to believe that “works” are important to God also. My husband was dead 10 days when my insurance man came to the house to take my husband’s name off of our auto insurance. I allowed him to do this because in my state of mind I was not thinking correctly. I did not know that he cancelled the ins. and wrote up another one. This Jew was a born again Christian who stood there, after he scammed me, and told me how he was Baptized in the River Jordan & that “the only way to Heaven is to acknowledge Jesus Christ as your Saviour,and what you did on this earth did not matter”. In my mind I am thinking, “somewhere in the Bible Jesus tells you how to treat widows”. I reported this to the Ins. Co. and they said he probably wanted another sale before the end of the yr. Well, maybe my nephews have a sinful lifestyle, according to the CC, but in their minds they don’t and they are very, very good people and I strongly believe that God takes that into account. Remember, we are all sinners. Many Catholics do worse things.
@Joseph Metrick: Yes, I know Catholic Teaching and I am not “shining up” homosexuality and I am not reasoning it out. I am stating facts about the situation.  I am NOT making excuses for them…I just am not judging them. Who are you or anyone else to judge who is sinning and who is not, only God will judge them, you and me. There are worse things than being Gay, how about pedophilia or murder, or beating your wife and children, even these things God will judge. There was a time in the CC when women who just gave birth had to be “Churched” which meant that they had to be made pure again after having a baby, because to have a baby, you had to have sex. Hmmmmmmm.  This is no longer a practice in the Catholic Church. The only way I can help my very adult nephews is to pray for them & show them my love, which is exactly what Christ did.

@Kathy again: You are right. I was not validating gay marriage, in fact my nephew asked me what I thought about it and I told him I was against it as did his own mother. I just think all the gay bashing is awful and sinful in itself because it is judging again, when only God should do this. Jesus forgave the sinner, remember.
@Gary: “she should read the bible”. Actually I was taught in bible study by a wonderful Priest who became our Bishop and who died in recent months.  I know what the Bible says, but I shall never judge. If I were judgmental, I’d be out of the CC for what has been going on for the past 20 yrs. of my life, let alone over the centuries.  Fortunately for me, I realize that the Church is run by people not by God. I think I will “shock” all of you with another of my thoughts: I would rather see a child brought up by a loving gay couple than to be in an orphanage with no love. Also in my husband’s family was three cousins brought up by a minister and his wife (got paid for it) as foster parents because the mother left them and the father was alcoholic. I asked the cousin if the minister and his wife were good to them and his answer was, “they put a roof over our heads and fed us, but there was no love.”  Life is very complicated, isn’t it.

As an RN who works with children in foster care, I have read hundreds of documents from child protective service workers and case workers regarding these kids and it is not reading for the weak of heart. Most of these children have heterosexual parents who abused drugs and alcohol and while under the influence physically, sexually and mentally abused these precious children. There are two pieces of heterosexual garbage in jail awaiting trial in Davis County, Utah right now who tortured and murdered the mother’s little 6 year old boy.  The bio mom was living with a piece of scum and while that precious little boy was locked in a closet battered and bruised, they went to the courthouse to get married. After they got home from the court house they came home finished the little boy off and buried him out in the field somewhere.  They then called the police to report their little boy was missing. This little was in his father’s custody and his mother wanted him to come for a visit. They did these horrible things to punish the father and laughed about.  I’ve been working in in the state foster care system for 8 years now and I have yet to see a child of a gay couple do horrible things to their children and I happen to have several friends who are gay couples with kids and they are so loved and cherished.  I don’t approve of their lifestyle but as Pope John Paul II stated “Love the sinner but hate the sin”. This news story upset the citizens of Utah that people were wondering if this couple would ever get a fair trial. As a Catholic the only consolation I can have is this little boy is now in Heaven, in God’s loving arms and no longer suffering.  Please, please keep these precious children in your prayers.

Pelosi will next say that no woman should discriminate men. Husband or no husband, all are equal, creation of God. Why should a woman have any special consideration for a man As one nun few years ago left the convent saying that she would love to offer herself to anyone as God wanted to love and give joy to others.  Yes we have such “catholliks” among us

Nobody is suggesting that heterosexual parents are incapable of unspeakable abuse; and no one is suggesting that a homosexual couple are particulary likely to engage in physical abuse. But this is all anecdotal. Read: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

“As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.”

To CeCi, I can agree to the horror and evil you describe.  The man and woman accused of murder of the little boy, if convicted stand a good chance of spending the rest of their lives rotting in a prison cell or having their lives ended by a needle and the State of Utah. Yet, the thesis you posit is nothing more than equivocation by replacing one evil with another. In this political year, when a candidate stands up before us and says he/she is not as much a scandalous dirt bag as their opponent should be of no comfort to the audience of voters…both candidates are dirtbags.  How many more examples should I cite here?  Jesus Christ, God incarnate humbled himself coming to us born of a woman married to a man, thus the Holy Family.  This IS the model, THE DIVINE model God has given to us by convention, model, and example. I must confess to you and all here, I am no biblical scholar but in reading the Gospels, I’ve never read of any parable or encounter where Jesus justified his teachings either by equivocation or resigning himself to the lesser of two worsts.

Pelosi is causing great scandal on the public stage. The bishops are essentially silent on the matter. Pathetic!

they say (pelosi and others) what is popular and cool to gain votes. Hypocrites they are. They want to act upon or believe on the things that are convenient for them but when it becomes inconvenient they make up things. TRAGEDY!

Our Lord never promised us Salvation through politics.
What is needed here is more time in front of the bleesed scarament,
increse in daily masses and an extra rosary or two.The offering should be for all the sinners in the world.
The prophet Daniel’s words to the Israelites during the Babylonian exile speak to the current situation: “To us, O Lord, belongs confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes and to our fathers, because we have sinned against thee ... because we have rebelled against him and have not obeyed the voice of the Lord our God by following his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets” (Daniel 9:8-10).

@anna lisa: I agree that marriage is between one man and one woman, but I strongly support civil unions. People have a basic civil right to be able to form a household with whom they choose and the law should respect that decision. But to say that gay relationships are equivalent to marriage is simply not true.
.
Perhaps what is most frustrating is that gay couples could have had civil unions yesterday, but calling it “marriage” is a step too far for most people.

@ Sue (old)
You said “all the gay bashing is awful and sinful in itself because it is judging again, when only God should do this. Jesus forgave the sinner, remember.”

We are to love the sinner, and hate THE SIN.  This article is about Pelosi saying that “her faith” compels her to support same sex “marriage.”

We can judge same sex “marriage” to be sinful, because that is the truth.

I really haven’t heard anyone “gay bashing” on this thread. (?)

Neither the blogger nor the comments in response seem to know that in the US, religious principles are not grounds for public policy. Governmental policies which are applied to all citizens may not impose religious practice upon the citizenry. The USCCB is mistaken, legally, to invoke “freedom of religion” as a rationale for requiring non-Catholic employees of Catholic institutions to be denied contraception. Such a denial offends the principle of the equal protection of the law.

Further, there is little grounds for asserting that an institution has a “conscience” which may be, in some way, violated. Virtually all references to “conscience” by Catholic doctrinal authorities are directed at the situation of the individual.

There is a simple solution to the current dilemma. If a Catholic-controlled institution does not wish to fulfill legally binding obligations under a government contract, then just don’t sign the contract.

“Neither the blogger nor the comments in response seem to know that in the US, religious principles are not grounds for public policy.”

Say what Richard Baldwin Cook?

1. Thou shall not steal? Stealing is a criminal act. Petty theft is a misdemeanor and grand theft, theft of property over a certain aggregate dollar amount is a felony.

2. Thou shall not kill or more aptly Thou shall not murder?  That one speaks for itself.

3. Thou shall not commit adultery.  Adultery is grounds for divorce in many if not all 50 states.

4. Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.  It’s a little thing called libel.

I rest my case.

@ Richard Baldwin Cook
You said…

“The USCCB is mistaken, legally, to invoke “freedom of religion” as a rationale for requiring non-Catholic employees of Catholic institutions to be denied contraception. Such a denial offends the principle of the equal protection of the law.”
While this has little to do with Nancy Pelosi’s intentional deception of Catholic teaching (the point of Matthew Archbold’s article,) your erroneous comment certainly caught my eye.  You are mistaken on many points.
In the 1st Amendment, the free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person’s practice of their religion.  Why do you think Shakers, and other pacifist religions were exempt from the draft?  It is a violation of their religion for the government to force them to participate in acts of violence.  They are protected by the 1st Amendment.
Your phrase “requiring non-Catholic employees of Catholic institutions to be denied contraception,” is both deceptive, and inaccurate.  NO ONE is denying anyone anything.  Anyone can walk into their nearby Wal-mart, K-mart, etc, and buy birth control.  ANYONE!  But to tell the Catholic Church they have to BUY it for other people, when it is against the tenants of their faith?  Unconstitutional!

As long as Catholics use the U.S. Constitution much like St. Paul used his Roman citizenship to duck a stoning, I don’t have an issue. However, when Catholics and even bishops start waving it around like a holy talisman against a vampire, we should get worried. When we overdo the constitution stuff, it comes off as, “We have this kooky belief that Paul VI saddle us with that contraception is wrong, but there is something in the Constitution that forces you to allow us Catholics to be wing nuts.” Rather, eventually we have to witness to the truth and not act like we are ashamed to say, “Contraception is evil. It desecrates the marital bond, offends against chastity, and is a menace to public morals. The State has no common-good interest in promoting it to say nothing of forcing people to materially support it.”

Nancy Palosi is a Catholic in her own mind, whatever mind she has left.  She makes her own beliefs, re-writes her own bible passages and again, in her own mind, is the spokesperson for the Holy Catholic church.
She like many so called “cafeteria Catholics” just pick and choose what they want and what they choose to believe in.
The good thing is that more and more “real” conservative Catholics are finally speaking out and also standing behind our “real” conservative Bishops and religious and saying, “we are not taking this lying down!

To respond to Sue:
Homosexuals are “not born homosexual” just like an alcholic is “not born that way.”  If that were the case, then we all have an excuse and we all would not be responsible for ourselves!!
We have a free will to choose right from wrong, abusing our bodies whether it be from drugs, alcohol, or sexul perversion.
Remember, history has always repeated itself and humans have very short memories of the past and the downfall of nations from over indulgences of sexual perversion, drugs, alcohol and the absense of God.
Some of these nations were, Sodom & Gomorrah, the fall of Rome, the reason God had Noah build the Ark and countless other nations that fell into sin and degredation.  Now, history today, is again repeating itself!

In reply to Frank (who replied to me)

Thanks for reading and writing. But the confusion continues. Frank, you have cited prohibitions from he Hebrew Scripture as if that refutes what I said - which was that in civil society, you cannot prescribe or proscribe behavior based on religious mandates. You have said nothing that refutes this statement. No one goes to prison in the US for violating “the Ten Commandments.”

In reply to Sue (who replied to me)

Thanks for your comments, but you mistake the private exercise of religion with an employer’s legal obligation to treat equally all employees and members of the public.

You cite draft resistance as equivalent to a Catholic institution denying contraceptives to, say, a Jewish employee or a non-religious employee. There is no analogy. Draft resistance on the grounds of individual religious conviction is recognized as the private exercise of religion. This has nothing to do with denying employee medical benefits to individuals whose conscience isn untroubled.

I would be interested in seeing addressed my point that a Catholic institution that wishes its employees not to have access to employer-provided medical care ought simply not to sign a contract to receive tax money to provide services.

I also do not see why anyone thinks Rep. Pelosi ought to implement Catholic doctrine. She - like all elected officials - must look to the interests of all constituents, not just Catholics, as if there is a Catholic consensus on public issues. Certainly, bishops may invoke a magisterial teaching authority on matters of doctrine which effect only Catholics, but this authority does not reach beyond the Catholic community. I should think everyone could agree on this point: we would not expect religious leaders, whether bishops or imams, to dicate the civil law to all the citizens. Right?

@ Richard Baldwin Cook

I believe you meant me, when you replied to Sue, since they were my comments.  You said…
“you mistake the private exercise of religion with an employer’s legal obligation to treat equally all employees and members of the public.”

No, I really haven’t confused anything.  The Obama Administration is trying to SET A NEW PRECEDENT in demanding that employers pay for contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacients.  The Obama Administration wants to call this “Health Care,” because they perceive pregnancy as a terrible disease (instead of the beautiful gift that it is.)  Catholic institutions want to treat everyone the same, they don’t want to PURCHASE contraceptives or abortifacients; or supply sterilizations for ANYONE! 

You go on to say…
“You cite draft resistance as equivalent to a Catholic institution denying contraceptives.” 
I would phrase it, “In the 1st Amendment, the free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person’s practice of their religion.”  Why are pacifists not drafted into the military?  Because it is against the tenets of their faith to commit acts of violence.  The Government can’t legally make them kill people.  Why are Catholics not providing aborticacients to people? Because it is against the tenets of their faith to kill babies.  The Government can’t legally make them kill babies.  [Your argument seems to be that only those who WANT abortifacients have rights, which is a non-issue here, since no one is stopping them from getting them.]

You then said…
“my point that a Catholic institution that wishes its employees not to have access to employer-provided medical care…”
Again, abortion isn’t health care, because killing isn’t healing.
You went on to say…
“I also do not see why anyone thinks Rep. Pelosi ought to implement Catholic doctrine.”
Ah, no, that’s not what was said at all.  The whole point of the article is that Pelosi intentionally, and publicly distorted Catholic teaching.  She can state her own personal opinion, but DO NOT say your Catholic faith taught you to think that gay marriage is great!

Why has this woman not been excommunicated?  She espouses Catholic Doctrine as if it agrees with her whacked out views.  She is a hypocrite and definitely not a Catholic.  Where is her bishop on this issue.

Richard baldwin Cook, you stated, “I would be interested in seeing addressed my point that a Catholic institution that wishes its employees not to have access to employer-provided medical care ought simply not to sign a contract to receive tax money to provide services.” 

First, what goevernment contracts are being signed by Catholic Universities?  What about hospitals?  There are some Catholic organizations that provide services (like counseling for victims of human trafficing).  Some of these organizations have already lost their contracts despite the fact that they are still the best organizations out there to get the job done.  I suppose you’re OK with that, right?  I mean it’s OK to ditch the best qualified contractor because of a deep concern over whether the employess have enough birth control pills, right?

Also, why do you think anyone is imposing Catholic moral standards on the entire population?  No one is advocating prohibition of birth control pills.  They are simply saying they don’t want to pay for it in the medical plans for their employees.  Many Catholic institutions are self insured.  No one is trying to stop an employee from going to Walmart and spending $9.00/month for birth control pills.  They are free to do so.  And, if that really upsets them, they are free to find a job that provides health insurance with that coverage. 

Also, it makes no difference that many Catholics use birth control.  The Catholic Church is not a democracy.  There is inherrent wisdom in the teachings that don’t change even if popular culture thinks them to be ridiculous.  Artificial birth control encourages rampant promiscuity.  Separating pleasure from the possibility of creating new life enables most people to pursue pleasure with wreckless abandon.  Sine the advent of birth control pills we have more divorce, more abortions, more pornography, and an aging population that is not replacing itself.  The church understands these things even if most Catholics do not. The job of the church is to continuosly broadcast the right message - and that message is not going to change.

REPLY TO KATHY16670:

Thanks very much for reading and for taking time to respond. Virtually everything you say is correct and beyond dispute - from the point of view of Catholic teaching. Who could find fault?

But, you and I are talking about whether employees of a Catholic institution ought to receive benefits which are available to them under a contract with the government. My point boils down to this: if an agency or a business does not wish to offer all services to the public or to employees, as is required by a contract with the government, then that entity can simply decline to sign the contract and decline the public funds, which otherwise would be transferred to the agency to support its programs.

You commented, as to Catholic-affiliated agencies, “They are simply saying they don’t want to pay for it [contraceptives] in the medical plans for their employees.”

Exactly. And since the conscience of any number of employees is untroubled by contraceptive services, then employees must be provided medical services which are available to other citizens. It does not matter who the employer is; we cannot permit an employer or a service provider to pick and chose which medical service is moral and which is not.

Example: if you or I worked for an agency affiliated with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, would it be acceptable to you that you or I be denied blood transfusions because the Witnesses find this procedure is contrary to Witness teachings?

Mr. Cook, this is really fascinating.  You wrote “And since the conscience of any number of employees is untroubled by contraceptive services, then employees must be provided medical services which are available to other citizens. It does not matter who the employer is; we cannot permit an employer or a service provider to pick and chose which medical service is moral and which is not.”

This is ridiculous.  Since when did birth control become an inalienable right?  Is that in the Declaration of Independence right after “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness”?  Unless of course we consider birth control an essential element of happiness.  Then I guess it could be an inalienable right.  But I’d like a boat.  That would make ME happy.  Do I have a right to a boat?  Where does this insane logic end?

I also hate to break the news to you, but not all health insurance plans are the same either.  Employers make decisions on what’s covered and what’s not all the time.  There’s different deductibles, different rates of reimbursement, different premiums, and certain procedures (like breast enlargement or nose jobs)are usually not covered.  I guess we’re going to have to mandate that ALL plans cover these things as well, right?  I guess we can’t let the employers decide what services they want to offer their employees.

I don’t work for the Watchtower organization, but if I ever did consider them as an employer, I’d have to accept the fact that they don’t want to cover blood transfusions.  That would be one factor in the decsion making process of whether or not to accept the job offer.  I wouldn’t expect THEM to change for ME.

I think the real bottom line here is that people simply do not like or understand what the Catholic Church teaches and just want their employers to subsidize their pursuit of pleasure.  They’re willing to torpedo Catholic organizations that are the best suited to provide needed services just because they don’t want to pay $9.00/month at Walmart for their own birth control pills. 

New Yorker: Thanks very much for reading and leaving a comment

We differ in that I do not expect employees to lose health care because of employer policies.

No one is demanding that any entity cover contraceptive services - except when these are made available through an insurance program sponsored by the govt. An employer who wants to opt out for reasons of policy certainly may do so - by not signing the contract. This is the most obvious solution to the empasse, isn’t it?

You wrote: “I don’t work for the Watchtower organization, but if I ever did consider them as an employer, I’d have to accept the fact that they don’t want to cover blood transfusions.”

I suppose that would be fine for you, but it may not be realistic for many others, who seek employment and do not have a lot of options - and who may not even find out until they have been on the job for a while, that the “conscience” of the employer trumps their own individual conscience. That seems to me to be pretty far from the free exercise of religion, and much more like employer coercion.

In civil society (occupied by Catholics and non-Catholics alike) , freedom of religion has to include freedom from religious strictures, as well. Our bishops can decide doctrinal issues but not government policy, as applied to non-Catholics and to Catholics, who may not agree with the bishops. I am surprised this point is even controversial.

Mr. Cook, you still didn’t answer my quetsion.  When did birth control become an inalienable right?  When did it become something so indispensible to life that we all just have to have it?  Birth control is not a life or death situation like say heart disease or plastic surgery.  Birth control pills and by-pass surgery are not the same.  Just because government insurance plans offer this coverage is no reason to force a religious organization to provide these coverages - even if they are signing a contract to help needy people.  Birth control is OPTIONAL and your health does not depend on it.

Next question: so you are OK with torpedoing the Catholic Church’s organizations that are helping the very people who, “may not have have a lot of options”.  These would be people who have been caught up in human trafficing for example.

The type of reasoning you employ has already been used to shut down a Catholic adoption agency in Washington, D.C.  They would not place a child with a same sex couple and since they were doing work on behalf of the local government, under contract, they were forced out of business.

Lastly, what about Catholic Universities that don’t have any government contracts?  Can they exclude birth control coverage using your logic?

If we keep up with this logic there won’t be any Catholic instituions left as we will have crippled them all.  Are you OK with that?

REPLY TO NEW YORKER:

I thought I had answered. Sorry. Here goes. Re contraception , we are not talking about inalienable rights; we are talking about the laws applied equally to all the citizens. (If you mean that the freedom of religion is ‘inalienable’ I do not disagree but would suggest that in civil society, freedom from religion is just as ‘inalienable’ as religious practice.)

So, what re we talking about? Health care policies. Government policies re what is to be made available under government programs. For an employer - any employer - to intervene in the decisions of employees re what is available to the public would be overreaching.

You state, “Birth control is optional.” But this is an inadmissible judgement about why someone seeks contraception. Some contraceptives are effective against certain debilitating medical conditions. No one ought to be in a position to tell you what is a good or a bad reason for you to seek or obtain government- subsidized medicaments. I submit that you cannot therefore put yourself in that position and substitute your judgement for that of another person, as to what they ar entitled to have under their health care plan.

Do you really, in your heart, think it would be OK to turn away a Jewish woman from contraception, who has no personal qualms? A Methodist? A Catholic (even)? On what grounds can this be done? On Doctrinal grounds?

We best not open the door to doctrinal mandates telling us how to live - in civil society. There is no end in sight, once we start down this road. If the Catholic bishops can dictate to secular employees what they can or can not receive as health care, why not look to Imams or Anglican bishops or the next vote at the next Southern Baptist Convention? Why ought we listen to the USCCB and not to the Episcopal Synod? or the Methodist Bishops in their formal gatherings?

I am aware of the shut-down of the Catholic adoption agency in DC, that turned away a couple from adopting a child, all the while receiving government money. This is a no-brainer. You cannot take government money to provide a service to the public and then practice discrimination.

I do not want to see a Catholic or any agency “crippled” but neither do I want to see any agency engaging in discrimination. That is cruel. That is illegal. That is contrary to the equal protection mandates of the US Constitution.

This is why I suggest: if for some agency, doctrine trumps equal access, that agency just ought not sign the contract - or be prepared to lose it if the agency is caught discriminating.

Fascinating, Mr. Cook.  I completely disagree with you on every point, but I do find your thinking fascinating.

Let me ask you a question.  If a church refused to marry a same sex couple in a state that has same sex marriage, would that be discrimination and subject to a lawsuit?  The priest is, after all, acting as an agent of the government of sorts because he would be witnessing the sacramant of marriage as well as acting as a justice of the peace and performing the the civil marriage as well.

RESPONSE TO NEW YORKER (ande thanks for your reply):

YOU ASKED: “If a church refused to marry a same sex couple in a state that has same sex marriage, would that be discrimination and subject to a lawsuit?” 

MY RESPONSE: Nope. That would not be discrimination. Just s it is not discrimination to maintain a celibate clergy, or to change the ancient text of the Nicene Creed, or to deny alters service to girls, or to preach against abortion.

The line is crossed when (1) an agency accepts government funds (2) to employ members of the public and/or (3) offer a public service but then (4) refuses to perform that service and/or (5) denies health care benefits to its employees, on doctrinal grounds. Under these conditions (4) and (5) are discriminatory.

Solution: don’t sign a contract to employ people or offer a service to the public.

This is not a hard case. But it is made a confusing one by the USCCB raising the banner of religious freedom over discriminatory conduct.

I’m going to split the ticket on this one:

I believe in the separation of church and state—theoretically, this should protect each from undue interference from the other.
    I agree with the bishops that Catholic institutions should not have to provide birth control.  Although I disagree with the church’s stance on this issue, it does not change the fact that such a law requires that the church DO something that run counter to its doctrine.
    However, laws that legalize civil marriage for same sex couples do not require that the church perform such marriages or say say their marriages are sacramental.  It only requires that gay employees of church sponsored institutions be able to obtain whatever medical and survivor benefits the church provides for its other married employees.  There is nothing in Catholic doctrine that prohibits caring for widows, widowers, and orphans and there is nothing in Catholic doctrine that prohibits providing medical care to even the most egregious of sinners.  If you are in a state that is looking to either legalize or prevent civil marriage for same-sex couples, vote how you will.  However, I do not see how civil marriage for same-sex couples creates a situation where either the church as a whole or Catholics as individuals would be forced to violate their consciences.

Response to Motherboard:

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Permit me to probe a bit:

You wrote: “I agree with the bishops that Catholic institutions should not have to provide birth control.”

I notice that you did not say “must not.” Is this an intentional softening of a harder posture that some maintain?

I think there is a difference - a big one - between “should not” and “must not.” In fact, most Catholic colleges (I have read) do indeed cover contraceptives for faculty, staff and students. Take Notre Dame, for example. Or Georgetown. The bishops have been quiet forever about this. Why?

I think the answer is that there is a lot of USCCB posturing on a great many doctrinal issues.

It is one thing to announce that a doctrine is unshakable and binding on all Catholics. It is quite another to actually attempt to enforce this doctrine by seeing to it that Catholics conform their individual behavior to the announced doctrine. So, bishops look away when confronted by widespread variation. They say one think but do not enforce it, I suspect, because there would be a further exodus from the pews. Imagine if a bishop - take your pick which one - announced that Catholic women in the diocese would be subjected to close inspection to be sure they did not use contraception.

It is only when the USCCB can wrap institutional policies in constitutional gauze (“freedom of religion”) that it declares itself willing to go to the mat and insist that . . . what? Not insist that all Catholics abide by doctrine but that the government enforce doctrinal mandates on the entire population, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

Should vs must: Catholics “should” avoid contraceptives but the government “must” enforce this mandate on 300 million citizens. Wha . . .?

Does anyone see a problem here? The bishops simply do not enforce the no-contraception doctrine upon Catholic women. But despite this “should” we get a “must” directed at the secular government.  We see a parade of bishops to the nearest media microphone to denounce the government for not enforcing a position they do not in fact themselves require of the “faithful.”

Mr. Cook, I do see your point, but I don’t agree.  After many years this has suddenly become an issue.  The real reason this has surfaced is because the president wants to energize his base by taking on an instituion which most of his base disagrees with and probably (passionately) dislikes.  He needs to energize his base so they get motivated to come out and vote for him in November. 

There have been, and will continue to be, many “Catholic” institutions that are dissident (like Georgetown).  Even Christ had Judas.  And, we are not privy to any internal discussions going on between the USCCB and dissident institutions, especially in view of the fact that the USCCB is increasingly orthodox.  While it may seem like the gates of hell are prevailing, the church always snaps back, despite the best efforts of foolish leaders from within and without.

As far as some women requiring birth control for a serious illness, I’ve heard this argument before.  It sounds convincing on the surface.  But I think it’s somewhat dramatizing and exaggerated.  Ditto for the part about people not having options for other jobs if they are so upset that they can’t get their birth control subsidized. 

With regards to that Catholic adoption agency in Washington shutting down, if I remember correctly, there was another adoption agency nearby
that would place a child in a same sex household.

I don’t see this as a violation of anyone’s rights.  I don’t see it as the USCCB forcing anything on anyone.  The policy has existed for years and has never been an issue until the president decided to sensationalize it and make it an issue to gin up his base.

@ Richard Baldwin Cook

Sorry, I haven’t been able to join the discussion for a couple days!  As to your question to me:
” My point boils down to this: if an agency or a business does not wish to offer all services to the public or to employees, as is required by a contract with the government, then that entity can simply decline to sign the contract and decline the public funds, which otherwise would be transferred to the agency to support its programs.

It sounds very simple when you say it, but it is much more complex of an issue.  ANY hospital, no longer able to accept medicaid/medicare payments would be belly up in no time.  What you propose could also be phrased as “it’s simple, why don’t Catholic Hospitals just shut their doors?”

Not to mention another violation of conscience.  The truly Catholic Hospitals will never say to a person in need “Got the cold hard cash for treatment?  If not, we won’t take care of you.”

@ Richard Baldwin Cook
To Motherboard you stated…
“It is one thing to announce that a doctrine is unshakable and binding on all Catholics. It is quite another to actually attempt to enforce this doctrine by seeing to it that Catholics conform their individual behavior to the announced doctrine.

I think you are looking at this all wrong.  It is the job of our Bishops and Pastors to explain doctrine, but not police everyone to see that they are “in line.”  Just as in teaching that drunkenness is sinful, but they are not expected to police the bars, to make sure the faithful of their diocese are not having “one too many.”  It’s their job to explain, but the choice to do the right thing is ours to make.  (Free will.)

As far as these “Catholic in name only” University’s that you speak of, they HAVE been reprimanded, and choose disobedience.  So the next question becomes “What, legally, can the Bishop do about it?”  There is no legal “ownership” of the word “Catholic.” 

Hmmmmmmmm, let’s see.  Just like the current administration is in the works to re-define the word ‘marriage’......sooooo…..Nancy P. is trying to redefine what is a “Catholic”.  May the mercy of God strike her and have compassion in her and Biden (since they use their ‘Catholic’ religion as a means of speaking for their church, not THE Church) and give them a dose of humility.

Matt and Pat:
I have a topic for you to throw out into the websphere, for readers that can THINK for themselves to answer:

My nephew made his first Holy Communion on Sunday.  A friend of the family told us he did not know how Pres. Obama would fare, with so many Catholics being at Mass this season for Communions/Confirmation, after news that he (and Joe Biden) support same sex marriage.  Another friend said, “Well, I’m Catholic, and I support same sex marriage.”

So maybe we can have a discussion on another blog (please, just among fellow Catholics that can THINK for themselves, not those that cut and paste miles of Catholic Answers web links, or that parrot Rome) about how to reply to people like that.  I need help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My nephew is 9.  He was intently listening to this discussion.  I’m disgusted.  I’m pro-traditional marriage.  All I could say was “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” - which got a laugh, even though it’s an old statement, then I asked them all what was better for a child, two fathers, two mothers, or the balance of a mother AND a father?

The same sex marriage supporter just said, “A loving couple.”  When I pointed out Ellen Degenerous was “in love” with Anne Heche, who later dumped her, and now Ellen is with someone named “Portia”, the same sex marriage supporter said, “Well, that’s Hollywood.”

Really, I need help!!!  I need to know how to answer these people.  Clergy are NOT teaching this.  *Thinking Catholics* need to group together, and learn to interact with the public, even with fellow Catholics.  Please: rosary toters, novena copying, Vatican parrots, that can’t use their own words, please do not reply.  I intend to educate myself, and you frustrate me.  I am already disgusted.

By the way, the same sex marriage supporter is a CATECHIST in her church, for children.

Oh, Nancy.  Words are important.  Particularly one word: “unjust,” which is the kind of discrimination the Catechism states should be avoided.  If there is such a thing as unjust discrimination, what is not stated but implied is that there is also such a thing as JUST discrimination.  I suggest that just discrimination is discrimination not between persons, but between ideas—good ones and bad ones.
-
I have heard it theorized that perhaps the bishops lay off excommunication because they don’t want to give her the satisfaction of instant martyrdom among her crowd (look what happened with LCWR, and it wasn’t even close to excommunication).  I have no inside information on that, but I did want to mention it.

Mr. Baldwin Cook, the problem with your argument is that religion is precisely what Pelosi is using to justify herself.  And nobody is denying anyone contraception, what they are protesting is beng forced to subsidize it.  Institutions are made up of individuals, but that doesn’t particularly matter, because the so-called accomodation does absolutely nothing for individual heads of small businesses.  And please, if you can, tell me what contract did they sign to be granted the ‘privilege’ of existing, and running their own affairs?  Being publically funded is not a qualification the mandate makes—it applies to ALL.
-
What does it have to do with equal treatment?  Equal treatment would also be refusing to pay for any contraception, to any person, under any circumstances.  But that wouldn’t stop the complaining, I bet.
-
How is draft resistance a private matter?  Whether we are adequately defended in a war is everybody’s business, no?  The question is not about privacy, but about proportionality.  You could also ask, if we felt the ends justified steamrolling the deeply held convictions of the Amish, what would be left worth defending.
-
We do not want Pelosi to “implement Catholic doctrine.”  Articles of faith are articles of faith, and I would not expect anyone to adopt them under duress.  What we want her to do is quite simple: quit misrepresenting what the Church actually teaches.  Subtle difference, I know. /sarc
-
“If you or I worked for an agency affiliated with the Jehovah’s Witnesses…”
That’s why I don’t.  Or rather, I would think very carefully to begin with about whether I wanted to accept a job from this organization or not, realizing that in some respects I would be on my own.  I don’t consider it my place to tell them what to cover or not cover, or that they must cover anything at all.  Is it too much to expect people to do any homework about the organization they are going to work for, before they accept the job, even if their options are limited?  Nobody said all choices are easy.  It’s a matter of priorities, I guess.
-
“Some contraceptives are effective against certain debilitating medical conditions.”
Then they cease to be used as a contraceptive—but, and I find this telling, when they are used for such conditions it is often called “off-label.” 
-
“Do you really, in your heart, think it would be OK to turn away a Jewish woman from contraception, who has no personal qualms? A Methodist? A Catholic (even)? On what grounds can this be done?”
On the grounds that it’s not my job to provide it gratis, nor is there such terrible scarcity that I am the only feasible source.
-
“The bishops simply do not enforce the no-contraception doctrine upon Catholic women.”
What would you have them do to “enforce” it, bathroom cabinet raids?  Surely you would object to that.  You can’t have it both ways.
-
Next!

It also might be worth mentioning, I have a friend who quit her job because she did not agree with their practices (I expressed my support).  Fortunately she still has the option of private consultation—there is no such area that the HHS mandate doesn’t touch.

Imagine how much sweeter your rhythm will sound as is imperative manufacture of the drug and in meth addiction.  But don’t beat their are might best-possible there are a consequences and lead to higher quality strains.  True guidance will help factors if provided symptoms the next process that follows is germination. Do you lie and tell yourself that you will its outdoors Angeles Cultivation Laws in drug associated with chemotherapy treatment and AIDS.  http://paxbyploom.info Is pot a cure to getting in destroying of cigarettes it have territories where medical marijuana is legalized. You will acquire significant inputs on the type of cafs that he has never felt better since he got back from the war. Previously, The Obama administration signaled that it Denver has outnumbered the number of the city’s Starbucks.