[OpusatFR]

"Sounds like a condition of membership."

You are close, but I think the concept of "membership" is wrong.

Being a member of something implies a choice, true, but it does not convey the sacrosanct beliefs implicit in religion.

Not to be nitpicky ( -; I think adherent or follower would be a better description. If Pelosi and daughter adhered or followed Catholicism, they could not make statements opposed to the tenets and remain followers.

[theBuckwheat]

I agree. A church is free to officially define what it holds to be true and what it holds to be unacceptable teachings or behavior. In the process, it will define some as being so much a part of its core values as to allow it to disown or eject any member who disagrees in public.

We would not expect the local mosque to continue to accept anyone who said Mohammad just dreamed up Islam so he could marry young girls. If such a person still insisted he was a full and faithful member even though he insisted on that belief, we would not take his side and say the mosque was wrong for ejecting him. Based on the actions of many supporters of Pelosi, we might not even care when some other mosque members cut off this fellow's head for apostasy.

In reviewing this story about Pelosi's views on abortion, it seems like the MSM is at best neutral, if not surprised that any clergy would have the gall to state the facts in public. Of course because the MSM assumes that abortion is not the killing of the unborn. That is not a developing baby, that is only a blob of tissue that looks like a baby.






Individuals are not free to change those statements and doctrines on the church's behalf. They are only free do accept or reject them for themselves.