Religion: To bind back to.
Is that the definition? It's under some dispute; that English inherited it from Latin isn't disputable, but which components of the Latin noun are in play? All the way back to the Romans this was under debate.
Nonetheless what is not under dispute is that a religious tradition is, by the definition of a tradition, not yours to define as you wish. You can debate what things mean within the group of people who adhere to a certain set of beliefs, but at the end of the day you can't forcibly change their mind.
Nancy Pelosi, along with Biden and many other politicians, think they can.
While speaking with The Seattle Times editorial board, Pelosi said, “The very idea that they would be telling women the size, timing or whatever of their family, the personal nature of this is so appalling, and I say that as a devout Catholic.” She added, “They say to me, ‘Nancy Pelosi thinks she knows more about having babies than the pope.’ Yes I do. Are you stupid?”
A devout Catholic eh?
Well, no you're not Nancy, because you don't get to define what "Catholic" is. There's a process for that, it takes place over long periods of time and utterly nothing you can do, say or otherwise will ever change any of that.
I have plenty of issues with the Catholic Church and haven't set foot in one in quite some time. Those who have read these pages along with Musings, before The Ticker was my primary publishing outlet, know why. But that is neither here or there; the facts are that the Catholic Church holds that certain acts are serious, mortal sins and other acts are inherently disordered.
That doesn't mean you hate people who do these things.
It does mean if you support such you're not in a state of grace appropriate to receive Communion -- or other sacraments, other than Confession, of course, which requires that you repudiate those acts.
The Catholic Church has been absolutely steadfast on this issue, with published writings going back to the 5th century in which affirmation of an aborted fetus' soul-hood, and thus recognition as both a human and entrance into eternity, as the Church defines it, were were. As such if personhood exists then "thou shalt not murder" is rather clear.
For private individuals their state of grace, such as it is, is a private matter. But politicians, when they advocate and legislate, along with other public figures, are placing their "state of grace", such as it is, on public display and using it as part of their argument. It is the difference, in short, between a priest offering you communion ignorant of the fact that you screwed another woman as a married man last night and you preaching to the entire congregation, with full knowledge of the pastor, that you did so and yet are in "grace" appropriate to receive communion during the Homily as a guest sermon. In the first case you may damn yourself; in the latter, if the Church goes along with it, said damnation could reasonably be extended to the Church itself!
One does not have to sacrifice one's own life in furtherance of another's, but that's where the line is drawn under that standard. You can disagree with that and many people do but that is how the church sees it and has since the earliest days.
Why don't Pelosi and Biden (along with the others) leave the Church and go find a faith community that agrees with them? There are many.
At the root of this from Pelosi is not religion at all. It is thuggery. She, Biden and others, believe they can force the Catholic Church to change its views and do as they will. Their deliberate thumbing of their nose and in fact erecting the middle finger at Catholic doctrine is simple and pure arrogance -- and long past the point where the Church should have slammed their fingers in the door.
That this has finally happened is a good thing.
The Catholic Church is notoriously slow in virtually every respect. It is slow to make decisions, it is slow to shift perceptions and, when it comes to someone sticking up the middle finger repeatedly in Mass and in the media, as Nancy Pelosi has done over the last decades, it is also slow to react to that.
Deliberative processes that are slow are often a very good thing. They give someone involved the capacity to rethink what they're doing and perhaps change their mind. They give the institution time to contemplate not only the action but the possible and probable reactions, along with the consequences. They give everyone, in short, time to act with thought instead of on a rash, reactionary basis.
Pelosi has had that time now, and the Church has spoken. It should speak to the rest of the political sphere and make clear that if you're in a policy-setting role and speak directly against what the Church believes then the Church will uphold what it believes and not participate in your hypocrisy nor bow to it.
In short: It's about damn time.