Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco has formally barred Speaker Nancy Pelosi from receiving Holy Communion “until such time as you publically [sic] repudiate your advocacy for the legitimacy of abortion and confess and receive absolution of this grave sin in the sacrament of Penance.” His decision was communicated not only via a direct letter to Speaker Pelosi, who resides in the archdiocese, but also in separate correspondences to the priests and laity of San Francisco.
Here are some significant takeaways from the decision and the reasons behind it.
It’s Pastoral, Not Political
During 2021’s months-long controversy over whether the U.S. bishops should issue a document explicitly prohibiting pro-abortion Catholic politicians from receiving Holy Communion, a common refrain against such a move was to insist that it would be inherently political, not pastoral. The logic went that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, as a national body centered in Washington, D.C., and with an active role in American public life, was not in position to make what was fundamentally a decision not about public policy, but the spiritual care of individual Catholics. Such a decision, these voices insisted, could only be made by said individuals’ local bishop, and only then in a decidedly pastoral key.
Well, that’s exactly what has happened in San Francisco.
In a letter to Speaker Pelosi, but also in his correspondences to the priests and lay faithful of the archdiocese, Archbishop Cordileone goes to great lengths to lay out the pastoral approach he has taken, which ultimately resulted in the measure taken today. He notes that although he has received many letters over the years calling for some form of public reproachment of pro-abortion Catholic politicians like Speaker Pelosi, he has consistently held that “conversion is always better than exclusion, and before any such action can be taken it must be preceded by sincere and diligent efforts at dialogue and persuasion.”
Regarding Speaker Pelosi, those efforts have clearly been made. The two have spoken about the dissonance between her public support for abortion and her Catholic faith previously, something Archbishop Cordileone acknowledges and expresses his gratitude for in his letter to the speaker. But since September 2021, when Speaker Pelosi announced that she would push forward a bill to enshrine extreme abortion-access measures into federal law, the archbishop notes that he has attempted to speak with the archdiocesan resident about her public advocacy for abortion access on five separate occasions, most recently on May 4. In each instance, he has received no reply.
As a result, Archbishop Cordileone has concluded that “there is nothing more that can be done at this point to help the Speaker understand the seriousness of the evil her advocacy for abortion is perpetrating and the scandal she is causing.” The archbishop notes that he “finds no pleasure whatsoever in fulfilling my pastoral duty here,” adding that he has been guided by the three pastoral motives pointed to in Pope Francis’ recent revisions of canon law: responding to the demands of justice, moving the offending party to conversion, and repairing the scandal caused.
He also acknowledges that he has struggled with what he should do regarding this pastoral situation “for many years now,” though he notes that today’s decision is the fruit of “years of prayer, fasting, and consultation with a broad spectrum of Catholic leaders” and that he is at peace with what he has decided.
With such a clear commitment to dialogue and persuasion, it will be noteworthy to see how those who adamantly opposed the USCCB pushing for any kind of nationwide prohibition on the grounds that it would be “political” respond to Archbishop Cordileone’s pastoral approach and the decision that came from it.
It’s Consistent With Pope Francis
A talking point that will likely be pushed by those who disagree with Archbishop Cordileone’s decision will be that it deviates from the pastoral example Pope Francis has recently set with regards to pro-abortion Catholic politicians. For instance, we’re likely to hear a lot in the coming days about how the Holy Father says he has never knowingly denied a pro-abortion politician Communion, or how he apparently told pro-abortion President Joe Biden that he is a “good Catholic” and should continue receiving Communion.
Of course, those framings of Pope Francis’ own pastoral approach are misleading in themselves. We don’t actually know what the Pope said to President Biden, and we know that he maintains someone who has broken communion with the Church through their commitment to grave evil should not be receiving the Eucharist, as this amounts to “a total contradiction.”
In fact, Archbishop Cordileone’s measure is in many ways inspired by Pope Francis, to whom he makes frequent reference in his letters to Speaker Pelosi, archdiocesan priests and the San Francisco faithful. Particularly noteworthy is that the archbishop’s decision flows in part from Pope Francis’ recent revision of Book VI of the Code of Canon Law, the Church’s legislation on penal sanction, promulgated in Pascite Gregem Dei. Although Archbishop Cordileone is not issuing a penal sanction on Speaker Pelosi, and is instead making a public declaration that she is “obstinately preserving in manifest grave sin” according to Canon 915, he says that the Pope’s revisions to canon law emphasize the importance of “insuring the integrity of the Church’s sacramental life.” For instance, the canon punishes by suspension one who “administers a sacrament to those who are prohibited from receiving it.”
The takeaway is that Pope Francis’ pastoral example is not that no one should ever be denied Communion, as some will likely falsely claim. Instead, it’s that bishops should make such decisions as pastors, not as politicians. And again, it seems like that’s what has happened in San Francisco.
It’s ‘Repairing the Scandal Caused’
One of the pastoral motives cited by Pascite Gregem Dei that Archbishop Cordielone says has guided his decision is “repairing the scandal caused.” And in his various correspondences, he makes clear that the grave problem of Speaker Pelosi’s very public advocacy for abortion access is not only that it promotes such an evil practice, but that it sows confusion among the faithful and the wider public about just what the Church teaches regarding abortion.
In fact, the archbishop takes significant issue not only with the fact that Speaker Pelosi has become such a forceful advocate for abortion access, but that she has repeatedly referred to her Catholic faith as a justification for doing so. For instance, in her May 4 comments to The Hill, she not only grounded her support for abortion in her status as a “devout Catholic,” she also described Pope Francis and the Church’s teaching against abortion as an “appalling” invasion of an issue of a “personal nature.”
Archbishop Cordileone’s decision will likely generate attention from the national press, which some will point to in an effort to characterize his motives as political. Instead, the conversation that this will generate is an indication of both the fact that political actions are moral and that the widespread scandal caused by Catholic politicians who obstinately persist in advancing moral evils must be publicly addressed, especially by those who are bound to be “concerned for all the Christian faithful entrusted to their care” (Canon 383).
It’s a Spiritual Battle
Archbishop Cordileone is deeply aware that this decision will not help him — or the Catholic Church — win any popularity contests in deeply progressive San Francisco, especially at a time when Catholic churches are already being targeted for violence with the likely overturn of Roe v. Wade on the horizon. “These attacks may now likely increase,” he wrote to his priests. “But for us, as faithful disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ, this is a cause for rejoicing, for the only reason this is happening is due to the Catholic Church’s consistent defense of the sanctity of human life in all stages and conditions, and especially at its beginning in the womb of the mother.”
“I am convinced that this is a time that God is calling us to live the last beatitude,” the archbishop continues before quoting Mark 5:11-12: “Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you falsely because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven.”
The archbishop also makes clear that the Church is engaged in what is essentially “a spiritual battle.” For this reason, he instructs San Francisco priests to preach about the grave evil of abortion “with great pastoral sensitivity” and to continue to promote services that assist women and their children, “both during the pregnancy and for years after the birth of the child,” and also programs that support women wounded by abortion. “This is not time to be intimated into silence,” he writes.
Archbishop Cordileone also urges his priests to promote the archdiocese’s consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and other spiritual practices like the daily Rosary, fasting on Fridays, and spending one hour a week in adoration.
“What we are facing in this particular moment of history is a powerful reminder to us that the Priesthood is not for the faint-hearted,” he concludes in his letter to the priests. “Of course, it never was. But for a long time, up until recently, we lived in a society that allowed us to imagine that it was. Let us not fool ourselves any longer.”
Its Wider Implications Are Unknown
Many will connect Archbishop Cordileone’s decision regarding Speaker Pelosi with another prominent pro-abortion Catholic politician: President Joe Biden, whose support for abortion has only become more extreme since moving into the Oval Office. The implication may be that because Archbishop Cordileone has moved to prohibit Speaker Pelosi from coming to Communion until she publicly repents, the same thing should necessarily happen to President Biden and other pro-abortion Catholic politicians.
Of course, that’s anything but guaranteed. As Archbishop Cordileone’s approach has demonstrated, the decision to prohibit a pro-abortion politician from Communion is one that the local bishop must make within the context of a pastoral dynamic. The question of whether President Biden will continue to be allowed to receive Communion despite his consistent and now-heightened support for abortion is ultimately one that only Cardinal Wilton Gregory of Washington, D.C., can answer.
That being said, San Francisco’s archbishop has demonstrated that one outcome of such a pastoral approach can indeed be prohibiting a politician who consistently manifests formal cooperation with a grave evil like abortion from receiving Communion, opening the door for other bishops to follow his bold example.
The above comes from a May 20 story in the National Catholic Register.
I hope Archbishop Cordileone and the other American Bishops also bar from receiving Holy Communion the Catholic politicians who are ardent supporters of capital punishment. Former Attorney General William Barr, Texas Governor Greg Abbott, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh all come to mind. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the “death penalty is inadmissible” (section 2267 in the CCC) and encourages Catholics to work towards its abolition. One cannot be a Catholic in good standing with the Church, assert to being pro-life and advocate for the death penalty. If the other Bishops do not bar these pro death penalty politicians from Holy Communion, then Archbishop Cordileone’s action against Speaker Pelosi is nothing but a publicity and political stunt.
Whats the matter Wilma, you upset your Moloch queen was finally called to the carpet. Your whataboutism are predictable as liberals equivocate the life of an unborn child with that of criminal.. You lose liberal
As long as we’re pulling ‘gotchas’ from the CCC….
This :2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.
Is not even nearly this: “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
Because of this: 2273 The inalienable right to life of every INNOCENT human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation…
And this:2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every INNOCENT being to life.
But I’ll see your death penalty distraction and raise you support for homosexuality for grounds of being denied Communion:
2357 …Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” 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.
BTW, the canard of the equivalency between the death penalty and abortion shows an absurd lack of self awareness. Less than 700 executions by governments take place worldwide every year. Less than 1600 have taken place in the US since 1970.
Compare that number to the 125,000 abortions per DAY worldwide. Abortion is irrational and so are the arguments that try to defend it.
I’m for the death penalty because God supports it in Scripture. You can’t win this argument with such a stupid counterexample.
can’t win– yes. No pope can change Scripture.
Wilma, as has been stated so many times in the past, the two issues are not, IMO, comparable. Capital punishment has its roots in Scripture and Tradition, and has remained in Tradition until Pope Francis changed the Catechism with the word “inadmissible.” Some argue the pope cannot reverse 2000 years of Church teaching (see Ed Feser for example); I leave that to others to weigh in with prudent care. Abortion is condemned implicitly in the Scriptures and explicitly in Tradition, beginning with the Didache in the first century, until now. Capital punishment is rarely administered and only in special-case circumstances where the crime is particularly heinous; appeals are put in place to prevent the innocent from being put to death. In contrast, abortion is administered everywhere for almost any circumstance without any regard for the innocent human life being taken. Wilma, are you bitter at those on the Court with a conservative bent, and are using the death penalty as a means of hitting back?
Dan’s comment (“until Pope Francis changed the Catechism with the word ‘inadmissible’) is misleading because it gives the false impression that Pope Francis changed the teaching of the Church concerning the death penalty. Wrong. The traditional teaching of the Church has always been that “if this [ie capital punishment] is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor,” then and only then can there be recourse to the death penalty (Catechism 2267 from the previous edition). However, Pope St. John Paul II had judged that because there are now other means to protect society other than putting to death a capital criminal (ie, life without possibility of parole), then the recourse to the death penalty in all cases is “very rare if not practically non-existent” (again from Catechism 2267 from the previous edition). Therefore it was Pope John II who had made the initial change in the Catechism and who had judged the rare need for the death penalty. Pope Benedict and Pope Francis merely continued the saintly John Paul’s correct papal judgement. Pope Francis by judging the death penalty’s “inadmissibility” has (thank God) put the final nail on the coffin of the death penalty.
Now, if Dan’s comment is misleading, Wilma’s is blantantly wrong. The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith back in 2004 (see the document “Worthiness To Receive Holy Communion”) has addressed the question: may Catholic politicians who dissent from the Church’s teaching on the death penalty continue to receive Our Lord’s Body in Holy Communion? Now, albeit dissenting from the Church’s teaching on any issue is sinful, the CDF has judged that such a politician may still receive Our Lord because the issue of capital punishment does not carry the same moral weight as support for abortion and euthanasia. Such Catholic politicians therefore who dissent on this issue are at best committing a venial sin. Warning though: consistent and persistent venial sins can lead to mortal sins and at some point will need to be purged from one’s soul if one desires to reach heaven. Take home: obey the Church’s living Magisterium completely in all matters of faith and morals which includes issues of abortion and the death penalty. Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life!
Sorry, jon. Dan is correct.
jon, re-read Dan’s comment of May 21 at 7:30 pm. It is excellent.
Sorry people, but “Dan’s” comment is neither “excellent” nor “correct.” As mentioned earlier his comments give the erroneous impression that Pope Francis “changed” Catholic teaching on the death penalty, and that is wrong. Very wrong. Rather, the present Pope continued John Paul II’s judgement which builds upon the traditional Catholic teaching on this issue: the traditional Catholic teaching that if there are other possible means to protect society short of executing the unjust aggressor (criminal), then there is to be no recourse to the death penalty (from Catechism 2267 of the previous edition). In fact, the initial changes to the Catechism occurred during John Paul’s pontificate and some of the changes related to the death penalty. And those changes were based on John Paul’s “Evangelium Vitae.” Folks, this is well-known. Moreover, if you people were paying attention at that time, John Paul was widely-known to speak against the death penalty forcefully and with conviction by drawing on the traditional Catholic teaching on this issue.
jon– always wrong, always uncharitable– a bad Catholic.
Oh? Me? Always wrong? Always uncharitable? and a bad Catholic? Oh my. Go ahead and prove it. Quote to all of us here statements I had made that prove that I am wrong, uncharitable, and a bad Catholic. In our system of justice a person who is making an allegation (such as yourself) is bound to prove the allegation if called upon. So, I am calling upon “Wrong and” to prove her point.
Wilma– Please give the truth some deeper, more clear thought. Compare two situations: 1. A judge sentences an extremely violent, dangerous murderer (like an extremely evil Charles Manson gang or Taliban gang member) to be put to death by the State, not merely as a punishment for his crimes– but to justly protect the public from harm. 2. A promiscuous college girl with mo morals, goes down to the abortion clinic, to deliberately murder her poor, innocent, helpless unborn baby– to lie, to keep up her phony social status, to deceitfully cover up her sins. Abortion is a violent, horrifying, totally unjust Murder of a helpless, innocent child, made by God, murdered violently while lovingly cradled by God in their Mother’s womb.
An argument put forth by “Abortion is” injects an erroneous point which is not held by the Catholic Church. “Abortion is” describes a judge giving a sentence of death to a murderer in order “to justly protect the public from harm.” This is erroneous because principally this sentence of death does not “justly” protect society. “Why not,” you ask. Because there are now other means to protect society from a murderer (such as maximum security prisons and life without parole), executing such a criminal is not “just”. Executing such a criminal “is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”. (Catechism 2267 of the “present” edition this time folks). Moreover, as the same Catechism teaches “there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes.” Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life.
jon, Re-read what the pope said in the changes to the Catechism. The pope says the death penalty is inadmissible but not an intrinsic evil. Abortion, however, is an intrinsic evil. Pope St. John Paul II, in his “Evangelium Vitae,” emphasized that the death penalty may only be permissible in cases where there is no other recourse to protect society. Today, we have better means to protect society from extremely dangerous criminals, than in the past. And capital punishment is more rare, today. However, capital punishment, unlike abortion, is not an intrinsic evil. The two are not comparable.
“Abortion is” is perhaps throwing a smoke screen. Nobody, least of all me, has said that the death penalty is an intrinsic evil. However, in case she has forgotten, “Abortion is” should be reminded that the death penalty is not an intrinsic good. The Church is working not merely to make the death penalty “rare”, but the Church is working to abolish it. Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life.
Jon open your heart to love and respect for God and your fellowman. St. Francis of Assisi said, “Preach the Gospel at all times– use words, if necessary.”
A person shows love and respect for God by showing love and respect not only to his fellowman, but especially to his Vicar on Earth. Therefore show love and respect to the Holy Father by upholding his papal teachings, such as Traditionis custodes. Show love and respect to Pope Francis by not being quick to believe the negative Francis blog posts and media spins. Show love and respect to Pope Francis by upholding the Church’s teaching on abortion and the Pope’s judgement that the death penalty is inadmissible.
jon. As always, waste of words, no heart.
Without Christian charity, all is meaningless,, jon.
Oh Everything I write is from the heart and in union with the Pope whom I love. You see, if you do not love the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis, whom you can see, how can you claim to love Christ Himself Whom you cannot see? (1 John 4:20).
No, jon.
You write a lot about love, and preach that others do so yet you are unwilling to love Christ’s Vicar on Earth by adhering to his teachings like Traditionis custodes, by giving him the benefit of the doubt. If you love only those you agree with (such as the bishops who offer the Extraordinary Form), what credit is that to you? Even pagans do the same.
I mean, honestly, where is the love in this poster’s words? I mean, comment after comment, what is being promoted is the Church of the 1950’s (does she really think that the people of the 21st century can revert to being caricatures of “Leave It To Beaver”?), the “institutional Church” is bad, the Vatican is bad, the new Mass is evil, Pope Francis is bad. I mean, it’s one false cliché after another. Where is the love for the Church, not the Church of Pope Pius XII, but the present Church. I mean, come on (thank you Joe Biden).
She has been warned, the state of her soul is her responsibility.
That’s Pelagianism. Everything good is from God’s grace.
And every evil comes from us…
Democrats, take note. Your support for politicians who enact and pursue gravely immoral policies is gravely sinful. Reflect on Canon 916.
Republicans take note! Do not vote for politicians who support capital punishment! It is a sin!
The state bears the sword in vain?
The Vatican has been clear on this. It is possible to support a politician who supports access to abortion, so long as that is not the reason for the support.
YFC— The Vatican has indeed been clear on this. When he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger gave explicit guidance in written form on this question to the Bishops of the USA. He instructed that Catholics could vote for a candidate who supports abortion BUT ONLY IF [1] the voter did not support the candidate BECAUSE he supported abortion AND [2] no other suitable candidate was available. Both conditions must be met. Mister Theodore McCormick [then Cardinal] read the instruction concerning [1] to the Bishops but omitted any mention of condition [2].
In short, Mr. McCarrick pulled a fast one.
Fair enough but doesn’t change the substance of what I said. In a two party system, there is rarely an acceptable candidate who favors abolishing abortion.
YFC– I do not care what the Vatican said, they messed-up on that one. I always have flatly refused to cast a vote for any candidate who supports the Murder of a helpless, innocent, Unborn Child, for any “reason.” Period. No phony compromises. No exceptions. I abstain from voting– or else, “write-in” an appropriate candidate– on religious and moral grounds. My first duty is to God– to save the life of the Unborn Child. Not to mindlessly “do my patriotic duty,” and “cast a vote”– for someone who wrongfully accepts Child Murder, in any way, shape, or form. What if we lived in the Slavery era, in a state where Slavery was legal– and all the political candidates supported Slavery? Would we abstain from voting– or “write-in” an appropriate candidate– on religious and moral grounds?
For the past few decades, every election year, I have always informed both the Department of Elections Office and all the political parties, when all of the candidates support immorality, especially abortion– and there is no one to vote for. I tell them that their candidates are immoral, and that this is unacceptable, for America! I always abstain from voting– or may write-in a candidate, in these cases. I never compromise with Evil. Our society has become extremely immoral! I have never accepted the post-1960s evil, filthy “hippie leftist liberal” society. It must be uprooted and destroyed!
Three Cheers for the Archbishop!!!
I assume that Archbishop Cordileone informed the Vatican that he was doing this to the #3 person in the USA Government.
You just know that Speaker Pelosi is going to cry to Pope Francis, that she is being picked on.
Archbishop Cordileone is the true profile in courage. He is the shepherd/leader that we so desperately need today. This ban should relieve Nancy Pelosi of her hypocrisy.
God Bless Archbishop Cordileone. Praying that all Bishops everywhere follow his leadership. Thank you your Excellency.
Let me take another approach: What does the Pelosi ban mean for Fr. James Martin? Fr. James Martin promotes homosexual unions, gay sex and transgenderism, which you cannot do while claiming to be a faithful Catholic/Christian. Fr. James Martin obstinately persists in manifest grave sin. When will any bishop or any of Fr. Martin’s superiors have the courage and clear-mindedness to tell him that he may not present himself to receive Holy Communion until he publicly recants all his positions in support of LGBT, dismantles his LGBT outreach organizations, confesses his sin and receives sacramental absolution, and affirms that he believes and professes the Catholic Faith in all its integrity? He should be placed under interdict and forbidden from celebrating Mass until he repents. Time to rein in all the wayward children.
Only gays would give that post above a thumbs down. Give it up. He’s right. Or she’s right. Fr. James Martin should not be receiving Communion nor celebrating Mass nor allowed to preach, speak or write as a Catholic priest until he says he believes in Catholic faith. Martin’s twitter and facebook are exploding with his dumb examples of comparing it to people selling or owning guns. Really? guns? He can’t bring himself to agree with pro-life unless he also gets to play pro-left.
“When will any bishop or any of Fr. Martin’s superiors have the courage and clear-mindedness to tell him that he may not present himself to receive Holy Communion…” I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the Jesuits to rein in Fr. Martin. See Jesuit at Large p. 14, for the late Fr. Paul Mankowski’s take on his own order. And his analysis of “tames” in the clerical life, basically, peace at any price men, gives cause to see why “all our efforts in the culture wars on behalf of Catholic positions [have] gone up in the same bureaucratic smoke”(p. 73). To the tames Fr. Mankowski adds the large number of gay clerics who would not brook any criticism of the likes of Fr. Martin or of the gay lifestyle. Any change in Fr. Martin will have to come from Fr. Martin himself. And at present, that would be a 180 degree turn from the direction he is going.
In answer to the headline: hopefully it means that Cardinal Gregory will charitably exclude the president and the Speaker from receiving Holy Communion, when in Washington, until they have a change of heart, go to Confession and start working to protect innocent life rather than end it. Hopefully, Bishop Soto will do the same for our governor. And, of course, this should apply to all, including Republican Senators Collins and Murkowski. “God our Savior wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim. 3b-4)
Even yesterday, when the Archbishop’s letter came out, Bishops Vasa (Santa Rosa) and Barber (Oakland) publicly stood with the archbishop, as did several other archbishops and bishops. The only clergyman that I know of who was publicly critical of the archbishop was…
no surprise here, Rev. James Martin SJ.
Bishops are successors to Apostles and are to shepherd their flocks. Not everything needs to be micromanaged by the Vatican.
anonymous clergyman — I wish I knew you in person. You are great.
Bishops first and foremost job is to evangelize
The lack of evangelization in the last 90 years in The United States has created this mess id poorly Evangelized Catholics politicians.
It takes the bishops to clean up the mess they themselves created
This Archbishop action is a first Good start it needs to be done along with an aggressive economic investment in a true Evangelization in every U. S. Parish
Pelosi is a victim and a failure of the lack of true Catholic teaching in matters of what it means to truly believe in the life of a true living God.
Why is it that priests who are pedophiles can still receive Holy Communion? It’s confusing.
Barney, if you know a pedophile, clergy or otherwise, notify local law enforcement immediately. If that person is a cleric, religious, Church employee or volunteer, notify the diocese as well. Such priests should be in jail, not serving at the altar.
Deacon Craig: I know a priest who molested children and now lives a life of seclusion. However, he is a daily communicant although he know longer presides at Mass.
Pedophilia is now being touted as a sexual orientation that should be tolerated
No pedophilia is not being touted as a sexual orientation.
Uh yes it is, MAPS.. minor attracted persons its already slithering around the universities… knew this was the logical result of “sexual freedom”
Report them to law enforcement
Re: the comment on the death penalty – Unlike abortion, the death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Inadmissible is not a theological term, but rather a legal term.
Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in 2004, that unlike abortion, being in disagreement with the Vatican on the issue of the death penalty does not bar one from communion.
Many of those who try to raise this issue seem to be more interested in justifying support for pro-abortion politicians than they are in the issue of the death penalty.
After the roses and rosaries failed, this is a good second step.
If she still won’t repent, then it’s time for the strongest medicine:
three strikes and she’s out.
How do you know they failed?
Well, God gave us all Free Will, so you just have to keep trying, with “wayward sheep!” Discipline is not easy. You take it in steps. If the “sheep” fails to respond– then, it’s time for the next proper step. Seems fair to me!
We are continuing our Friday fasts, and daily prayers and Rosaries for the conversion of Nancy Pelosi, as requested by our Archbishop. We all need to do days of fasting, say many Rosaries, make many sacrifices, plus many more religious devotions– Holy Hours, First Five Sat., Divine Mercy, etc.– whatever we can do– making lots of Spiritual Bouquets, for the conversion of Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and all other “fallen” Catholics! I went to Mass today at Nancy’s church in the Marina district, and knelt and thanked God for the Archbishop’s decision! And prayed for the conversion of Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden– and much more, of course! May God bless our dear Abp. Cordileone!
YFC— The Vatican has indeed been clear on this. When he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger gave explicit guidance in written form on this question to the Bishops of the USA. He instructed that Catholics could vote for a candidate who supports abortion BUT ONLY IF [1] the voter did not support the candidate BECAUSE he supported abortion AND [2] no other suitable candidate was available. Both conditions must be met. Mister Theodore McCormick [then Cardinal] read the instruction concerning [1] to the Bishops but omitted any mention of condition [2].
In short, Mr. McCarrick pulled a fast one.
I gave a thumbs up on that one but am not sure it was entirely correct. I was told one could only vote for the lesser of two or more evils if no other candidates for that office were pro life, or to leave the vote for that office blank. But Mc Carrick did pull a fast one when Pope Benedict sent out his letter or letters.
The point was to knock the worst candidate with the most seniority if there were no other good pro life candidate.
Correction: “knock out” the worst candidate by voting them out.
Been praying for Nancy Pelosi. Perhaps this is the “medicine” that will save her soul from eternal damnation. Thank you, Archbishop Cordileone. You did the right thing. God bless you.
May all of our Catholic prelates worldwide, and the Pope, follow our dear Abp. Cordileone’s true, authentic, faithful Catholic leadership!
Um… Cordileone is not the leader of the pope. The pope doesn’t follow him.
Popes have followed the lead of others before. Leadership is not the same as office. For a couple examples, think of Catherine of Siena and Francis of Assisi. All Christians, including the Pope, should be humble enough to recognize the virtue of others and emulate it. Good leaders, in the Church, business, government and elsewhere, look to others in order to learn how to lead and serve in even better ways. The Pope is not the CEO of the Catholic Church. He and the archbishop are brother bishops, with the Pope given the special office of maintaining the unity of the Church. When Saint Catherine, never a nun, but a Third Order Dominican, told Pope Gregory XI what to do, he did it. The truth is the truth, regardless of the position of the person speaking it. And, shouldn’t we all be seeking the Truth.
Abp. Cordileone’s leadership on the serious matter with Pelosi, may be a source of inspiration to the Pope. Much better than others the Pope has listened to, like LGBT-promoter, Fr. James Martin, S.J.; whoever initiated the strange “Pachamama” idols incident; whoever placed gay “marriage”-promoter, Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, S.J., as Relator General of the Synod on Synodality– or Cardinal Parolin, and all the others involved in the strange Vatican-China “deal!” Hope Abp. Cordileone’s decision will have a far-reaching influence, worldwide!
memo to Wilma:
Cordileone is bishop of
San Francisco – not Bedrock
if you don’t believe, ask Fred
I’ll tell Wilma for you, Barney!
Bam bam
My faith is in the Lord. Through prayer the Lord has guided me to be against abortion and for life, against military grade weapons in the hands of children and for life, against the death penalty (which our Lord Himself suffered unjustly) and for life, against illiteracy and for life, against racism and for life, against hunger and poverty and for life, against illegal drugs and for life, against alcohol and for life, against pornography and for life, against euthanasia and for life, against hate and for life. I believe my stance on these matters are consistent with the teachings of the Church. One can speak eloquently about history, Scripture, Tradition and so on about capital punishment, but life is life and death is death. From the Gospel for today: “…in fact, the hour is coming when everyone who kills you will think they are worshiping God…”May God Bless Us All!
The Sanctimony is beyond words
“Heart of a lion”?
https://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2022/05/archbishop-cordileone-undoes-with-his.html