Alexandra Pelosi, daughter of the new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has been getting some major press (as well as celebrity endorsements) lately for her documentary, "A Friend of God: A Road Trip With Alexandra Pelosi," which takes a look at Evangelicalism (although it sounds as though it focuses quite often on Fundamentalist groups and various televangelists). Pelosi's relationship with Catholicism, the religion of her youth, is rather conflicted. The San Francisco Chronicle reports:
Alexandra Pelosi doesn't like to say she's a "lapsed" Catholic. Because when she does, her mom, recently appointed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, tends to take it as a "failure that she couldn't keep me in the church." That position looks especially bad lately, after the elder Pelosi stressed her devout Catholicism during swearing-in ceremonies this month.
So despite 12 years of Catholic education in San Francisco and four more at a Jesuit university, Alexandra, a 36-year-old documentary filmmaker, prefers to say that Catholicism "didn't stick. I always try to tell my mother that I believe in God, but I don't believe in church. But that offends her. Parents take it personally when you reject something they gave you."
If Nancy Pelosi is a devout Catholic, then, well, I'm a devout left-handed, neo-Marxist, lesbian Buddhist who loves pro wrestling and walks on the beach. I only say that based on her abortion-loving public record. For all I know, she might privately be very devout, and only pursues public policies in direct violation of Church teaching just to show others how private her beliefs really are. Anyhow, the California Catholic Daily provides a further glimpse into the sixteen years Alexandra spent losing her faith while being educated in Catholic doctrine, practice, and culture:
“In my family, we have a hundred years of Catholic school experience, and none of us ever heard that homosexuality was a sin. At my school, the nuns taught us about evolution.” So Alexandra Pelosi, 36, told the Jan. 21 Washington Post. Pelosi is the fifth child of Nancy Pelosi, the pro-abortion San Francisco congresswoman recently elected Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. ...
Pelosi, a graduate of San Francisco’s upscale Convent of the Sacred Heart High School and Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, said what she was taught in these Catholic schools differed dramatically from what she learned from the Evangelicals. “We were taught just to accept people, that was just a given,” she told the Jan. 17 San Francisco Chronicle. “I don't ever remember being told at Convent of the Sacred Heart that gay was wrong. They never even told us there was anything wrong with abortion. They were just choices. That’s why it was weird when I’d go to these [Evangelical] places and... people would say, ‘It’s in the Bible.’ And they fall back on the Bible for everything.”
And then, returning to her famous mother, the quote of the day:
Of Madam Speaker, who supports a woman’s “right to choose,” the younger Pelosi said, “My mother, throughout her entire life, has been faithful to the Church, even though the Church has not been that faithful to her because of her politics. And I think that takes a lot of perseverance. And still, people protest her right to go to her own church.”
Not only did Alexandra not learn what the Church teaches, she apparently didn't learn a bit of formal logic or common sense. I hate to break it to the Pelosis, since they seem quite comfortable in their alternative reality, but neither the world nor the Church revolves around them. But maybe Ma Pelosi could work with Congress to try to change that.
Mike Liccione of Sacramentum Vitae offers some good commentary:
Alexandra Pelosi affords the perfect living synecdoche of AmChurch. If you didn't grow up Catholic during the last half of the twentieth century, all you have to do to know the nature, and the fruits, of "progressive Catholicism" is listen to her and her story. Are you evangelized by such an example? Of course you're not. If you're impressed all the same, is that because you care passionately about the truth?
This is not a religion anybody would die for. It is a religion destined to die. Its dilution of truth in a soup of relativism and individualism proceeds apace by the generation.
Young Catholic blogger Natalie Aka Inksmudge, who is a Democrat, rightly asks, "Since when did following Church doctrine become choices and Nancy Pelosi a “faithful” Catholic???" And:
Those that happen to be Catholic Republicans will immediately jump on this story to showcase Pelosi, saying that one cannot be both Catholic and Democrat. I don’t believe so. Am I a Democrat? Yes, but I’m also a Catholic and not a Pelosi Catholic. I can’t even begin to describe the hostility I’m met with when I encounter other orthodox Catholics. With the exception of perhaps three people, every orthodox Catholic I’ve come across with is a Republican.
Yet the real story isn't "Dem. vs. Rep.", but that a person claiming to be a devout Catholic supports things that are completely contrary to consistent, clear Church teaching. This is a "Catholicism vs. My Personal Brand of Modified Catholicism" story, regardless of the political parties.
I grew up Democratic. That was a long time ago.People where I lived were Democrats because Roosevelt brought electricity to the rural areas. A lot of their kids are still Democrats for similar reasons.
When I'm in the mood, I sometimes tell folks "I'm a Harry Truman-Right to Life-Fiscally Conservative-Democrat who will vote Republican until sanity overtakes us again." I also ask party pollsters if there's if there's a place for me back amongst the Democrat party regulars. One said, "No, there's not. But there's not one for you with the Republicans either."
Posted by: cranky | Friday, January 26, 2007 at 02:51 PM
Thanks, Carl.
As for what the commenter just above said, I'm afraid he's got a lot of company. I can't seem to find a place for myself in either major party either. I onced fantasized that the solution is some sort of Christian Democratic party that would generally reflect the social teaching of the Church, including those about the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. I quickly realized that such a party would gain few votes other than Catholic ones, and the very constitutionality of its existence would probably be challenged.
Posted by: Michael Liccione | Friday, January 26, 2007 at 03:19 PM
" I hate to break it to the Pelosis, since they seem quite comfortable in their alternative reality, but neither the world nor the Church revolves around them"
I think that goes too far. If she legitimately was told that these things were choices then she was being, blindly, loyal. It had nothing to do with the world revolving around her, in fact it would mean the exact opposite. Something to think about.
Posted by: Nick | Friday, January 26, 2007 at 03:40 PM
Thank you for a great entry Carl and for reading my blog. You raise a great point by stating that this is a "Catholicism vs. My Personal Brand of Modified Catholicism" story rather than a political party issue. I agree with the previous comment about not feeling totally in place with either party. It tends to be frustrating, especially when the media coverage tends to focus on cafeteria Catholic politicians such as Pelosi and Kennedy.
Posted by: Natalie | Friday, January 26, 2007 at 06:10 PM
Neuhaus' weighin' in on this is VERY significant.
Posted by: Ed Peters | Sunday, January 28, 2007 at 02:24 PM
We are witnessing the toll that 40 some years of misinformation, lack of formation, poverty in catechesis, and willful-deliberate, "I can make up my own Catholic-beliefs-thank-you-very-much" leadership has created. The price is heavy, because with 157 "Catholics" in the 110th Congress, imagine what the Spirit could do to affect legislation and the general direction of our country.
What is really curious about the Faith, Pelosi-style, is the loyalty to the "magisterial" teaching of the nuns. Are the nuns never to be questioned, the supreme authority in matters of fatih, morals and origin of our species? Seems it's safe to ignore the Pope, the CCC, Scripture and Sacred Tradition, but not those nuns!
Posted by: darice harmon | Monday, January 29, 2007 at 10:35 AM
Seems it's safe to ignore the Pope, the CCC, Scripture and Sacred Tradition, but not those nuns!
Unless the nuns in question wear traditional habits and are loyal to the Pope, the Magisterium, Scripture, and Tradition. Then all bets are off!
Posted by: Carl Olson | Monday, January 29, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Seems it's safe to ignore the Pope, the CCC, Scripture and Sacred Tradition, but not those nuns!
Unless the nuns in question wear traditional habits and are loyal to the Pope, the Magisterium, Scripture, and Tradition. Then all bets are off!
Given that in many parochial schools, you don't even have to be Catholic to teach, coupled with the scarcity of nuns on grade school, high school and college campus', one must question exactly how many nuns instructed her in the ways of "choice."
I think I smell a rat!
Posted by: denise martin | Monday, January 29, 2007 at 11:09 AM
So, only if Nancy Pelosi believes as you do on each and every issue can she be a catholic? Nice. And you wonder why some people believe that the conservative elements of every religion are intolerant and repressive. No wonder the Church is losing members among the educated and well-off and can only seem to have any success recruiting from the masses of the third world, the uneducated and the poor. Those are people who are accustomed be being told what to do and what to think.
Posted by: El Perro | Monday, January 29, 2007 at 05:51 PM
I believe Alexandra. I believe that she was never taught that sodomy is wrong. I believe she was taught exactly what Vatican II has promulgated-there is no sin. All religions are good and equal. It is not the mission of the Catholic Church to proclaim God's truth handed down to his one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church but to honor, celebrate, respect and encourage all false religions to propgate. Everything the Church taught prior to Vatican II comes into question and can be interpreted in light of modern man.
And one wonders why Nancy, Ted, John, Patrick and so many others (including priests and bishops) actually call themselves faithful Catholics? Why shouldn't they? They are practicing the New Order, new religion-the "seamless garment" faith that is proclaimed every day in every single parish in the U.S.
Posted by: Elaine | Monday, January 29, 2007 at 07:15 PM
*No wonder the Church is losing members among the educated and well-off and can only seem to have any success recruiting from the masses of the third world, the uneducated and the poor. Those are people who are accustomed be being told what to do and what to think.*
That is some mighty hearty disdain for poor, uneducated people from third world countries.
Posted by: Neil | Monday, January 29, 2007 at 08:55 PM
"No wonder the Church is losing members among the educated and well-off and can only seem to have any success recruiting from the masses of the third world, the uneducated and the poor. Those are people who are accustomed be being told what to do and what to think."
These comments about the 3rd world and its poor are inhumane and reveal the elitist attitude of those who question all authority but their own.
I'm a hispanic from the 3rd world and I have enough sense to know that certain moral truths, such as the kiling of the innocent, are unchanging. Labels like "conservative" and "liberal" only apply to things that can change. The Catholic faith is neither con. or lib., it is true!
The Pelosi's seem to just need an injection of truth as do some of the commentators.
Catholic, independent, and Hispanic.
Posted by: Rigo | Tuesday, January 30, 2007 at 10:44 AM
I believe she was taught exactly what Vatican II has promulgated-there is no sin.
I don't know which "Vatican II" you are referring to, but the Vatican II that I've studied and whose documents I've read said the following:
"The Christian family loudly proclaims both the present virtues of the Kingdom of God and the hope of a blessed life to come. Thus by its example and its witness it accuses the world of sin and enlightens those who seek the truth." (Lumen Gentium, 35)
"Christ, becoming obedient even unto death and because of this exalted by the Father,(206) entered into the glory of His kingdom. To Him all things are made subject until He subjects Himself and all created things to the Father that God may be all in all.(207) Now Christ has communicated this royal power to His disciples that they might be constituted in royal freedom and that by true penance and a holy life they might conquer the reign of sin in themselves.(208) Further, He has shared this power so that serving Christ in their fellow men they might by humility and patience lead their brethren to that King for whom to serve is to reign. But the Lord wishes to spread His kingdom also by means of the laity, namely, a kingdom of truth and life, a kingdom of holiness and grace, a kingdom of justice, love and peace (4*). In this kingdom creation itself will be delivered from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the sons of God.(209) Clearly then a great promise and a great trust is committed to the disciples: "All things are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's"(210)" (Lumen Gentium, 36)
"Therefore man is split within himself. As a result, all of human life, whether individual or collective, shows itseLf to be a dramatic struggle between good and evil, between light and darkness. Indeed, man finds that by himself he is incapable of battling the assaults of evil successfully, so that everyone feels as though he is bound by chains. But the Lord Himself came to free and strengthen man, renewing him inwardly and casting out that "prince of this world" (John 12:31) who held him in the bondage of sin.(4) For sin has diminished man, blocking his path to fulfillment." (Gaudium et Spes, 13)
"He Who is "the image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15),(21) is Himself the perfect man. To the sons of Adam He restores the divine likeness which had been disfigured from the first sin onward. Since human nature as He assumed it was not annulled,(22) by that very fact it has been raised up to a divine dignity in our respect too. For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man. He worked with human hands, He thought with a human mind, acted by human choice(23) and loved with a human heart. Born of the Virgin Mary, He has truly been made one of us, like us in all things except sin.(24)
As an innocent lamb He merited for us life by the free shedding of His own blood. In Him God reconciled us(25) to Himself and among ourselves; from bondage to the devil and sin He delivered us, so that each one of us can say with the Apostle: The Son of God "loved me and gave Himself up for me" (Gal. 2:20). By suffering for us He not only provided us with an example for our imitation,(26) He blazed a trail, and if we follow it, life and death are made holy and take on a new meaning." (Gaudium et Spes, 22)
" Now, since he who does not believe is already judged (cf. John 3:18), the words of Christ are at one and the same time words of judgment and of grace, of death and of life. For it is only by putting to death what is old that we are able to approach the newness of life. This is true first of all about persons, but it holds also for the various goods of this world which bear the mark both of man's sin and of God's blessing: "For all have sinned and have need of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). No one is freed from sin by himself and by his own power, no one is raised above himself, no one is completely rid of his sickness or his solitude or his servitude.(21) On the contrary, all stand in need of Christ, their model, their mentor, their liberator, their Savior, their source of life. The Gospel has truly been a leaven of liberty and progress in human history, even in the temporal sphere, and always proves itself a leaven of brotherhood, of unity and of peace. Not without cause is Christ hailed by the faithful as "the expected of the nations, and their Savior."(22)" (Ad Gentes, 8)
Posted by: Carl Olson | Tuesday, January 30, 2007 at 10:55 AM
That is some mighty hearty disdain for poor, uneducated people from third world countries.
El Perro's lone, demonstrated skill on this blog is disdain. Hopefully he won't ever spread that dubious skill among the poor and uneducated of the world...
Posted by: Carl Olson | Tuesday, January 30, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Rigo, read the documents one hundred times and pretend they mean anything. Go to the majority of parishes in the U.S. and you won't hear the mention of sin, Hell, purgatory, and most important of all, the Catholic Church is the one true Church. CCD classes don't teach this either.
What is actually being taught and preached? Social justice. Dialogue with every and all false religions. Popes that worship false gods!
The new religion with its new liturgy created in Vatican II is not the Catholic religion handed down by Christ through his apostles. It is a Protestant/Freemason/Pagan religion created for "modern" man who will not accept anything unless it is watered down to make him feel good.
Posted by: Elaine | Tuesday, January 30, 2007 at 01:20 PM
"They never even told us there was anything wrong with abortion. They were just choices."
Chilling words.
Posted by: Joe Previtali | Wednesday, January 31, 2007 at 09:42 AM
"No wonder the Church is losing members among the educated and well-off and can only seem to have any success recruiting from the masses of the third world, the uneducated and the poor. Those are people who are accustomed be being told what to do and what to think."
Hey, I'm from the third world!
Posted by: Cristina A. Montes | Wednesday, January 31, 2007 at 11:41 PM
Carl,
What is actually being taught and preached? Social justice. Dialogue with every and all false religions. Popes that worship false gods!
I'm in an RCIA program and we have not been taught social justice and dialog with false religions. I was happy to hear (as an aside) that Islam is at it's core a religion of violence, and that Martin Luther's actions led to the adoption of sola scriptura because once he left the church, he had no authority to appeal to, in justification of his actions. Of course we encouraged to be civil and kind to protestants, and if possible, educate them about the one true Catholic faith. How would you treat anyone? But you can't change the faith for them, in fact, two evangelicals in the class abandoned hope after being told that faith does not come from the bible alone.
The Catholic faith is alive and well. It's just that some choose to make what they want out of it. But you can't change the truth. And you shouldn't try to change the truth just because you can't live up to it. You have to try, and keep trying.
Posted by: dota | Friday, March 02, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Sorry my above comment was directed to Elaine, not Carl.
Posted by: dota | Friday, March 02, 2007 at 02:02 PM
I was taught by nuns through Catholic grade school, high school, and college. I was never taught that nothing was wrong with abortion. Is this some special California brand of Catholicism? At any rate, we were taught shouldn't revile people who sin, but we should know they're wrong and not follow their lead. And pray to change their hearts. "Hate the sin, love the sinner."
Posted by: April | Tuesday, May 08, 2007 at 07:25 PM