The gospel according to Nancy Pelosi and Whoopi Goldberg

I'm sorry but I just can't stay away from the story of Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone announcing that, because she's an aggressive advocate for unlimited abortion, Nancy Pelosi no longer qualifies for Communion in his diocese.  With the weekend having passed since the Friday announcement, noted religious scholars Nancy Pelosi and Whoopi Goldberg (that was sarcasm for those who thought I was serious) have weighed in, and their takes are, well, extraordinary.

To go back a little to set the stage, on Monday, the San Francisco Examiner (one of two hometown newspapers for Pelosi) issued an aggressive editorial announcing that, between Pelosi and the archbishop, Pelosi is the way more Christian one of the two because she wants to use your money to help the poor, while the archbishop is just being a right-wing meanie.  I'll add here two points I meant to include in that post but forgot.

First, Cordileone is entirely in line with Pauline doctrine regarding the appropriate freedom from sin when taking Communion.  According to 1 Corinthians 11:27, "so then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."  As I understand it, "sinning against the body and blood of the Lord" is getting on a highway to damnation.

And that brings me to the second point: Cordileone is not punishing Pelosi when he prevents her from taking Communion.  Like a good shepherd, he is protecting her from the consequences of her actions.  Because he believes in his faith, and not the faith as leftists wish it to be, he sees Pelosi engaging in, and encouraging others to engage in, a mortal sin, and it is incumbent upon him to act to save her and others.

Image: Whoopi Goldberg (edited).  Twitter screen grab.

But as I said, that's not the view from where Pelosi and Goldberg (who is not Jewish and doesn't seem to be very Christian, either) are sitting.  Pelosi strongly implied that the archbishop was out of line for "foisting [his views] onto others":

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed back Tuesday on the decision by San Francisco's conservative Catholic archbishop to deny her Communion over her support of abortion rights, saying she respects that people have opposing views but not when they impose them on others.

The California Democrat says she comes from a large family with many members who oppose abortion. "I respect people's views about that. But I don't respect us foisting it onto others." Pelosi added, "Our archbishop has been vehemently against LGBTQ rights. In fact, he led the way in an initiative on the ballot in California."

Apparently, Pelosi thinks that, to stay in his lane, the archbishop, a representative of God's church on Earth, needs to keep his mouth shut about the principles that underlie his faith.  Doing otherwise is just pushy.  And Pelosi, who called abortion "sacred" and goes to the mat for it every time, is suddenly assuring people that she's just being "respectful" of other views — as long as they're not the views that say abortion is the murder of an innocent.

Not only is the archbishop wrong regarding abortion and LGBTQ+++ rights, but, according to Nancy, he's silent about opposing the death penalty.  That's because, while there is a debate within the church about the death penalty, it's not an integral, unchanging part of the church's doctrine.

While Pelosi, a seasoned politician, merely hinted that the archbishop was out of line, Whoopi Goldberg, a woman of staggering, almost impressive stupidity, came right out and said it:

According to Whoopi, the archbishop, by denying Pelosi access to Communion, has blurred the lines between church and state.  Further, she says, "This is not your job, dude.  That is not up to you to make that decision."

Oy, vey, Ms. Goldberg!  That's completely backward.  The state may not interfere with the church.  However, it is the archbishop's job to intercede in a parishioner's affairs when church doctrine tells him that the parishioner is on a highway to hell.  What kind of religious shepherd would he be if he did nothing as one of his flock wandered ever closer to the cliff's edge?

Leftists love opining about religion, but they do so merely to prop up the beliefs that they arrived at, not through faith and religious doctrine, but through Marx and navel-gazing.

If you experience technical problems, please write to