Sounds like a condition of membership. As used to be commonly said (but no more), hey!, it's a free country! Nancy is free to associate with a church that doesn't place that condition on membership. And the church is free to accept or decline membership as it pleases as well. Or have we come to the point where there is no longer any such thing as voluntary association?
"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.
I'm less concerned with Pelosi's personal beliefs. She can answer for her own life at that dreadful hour. However, she is trying to construct a new Catholic worldview in which there is an alternative to life. This is something new compared to other "catholic" pols who obstinately vote in favor of abortion.
If she wishes to jump off a cliff, so be it. She doesn't need to lead others astray.
If I see pornography that is called "free speech" - I call it pornography. When I see garbage that is called "art" - I refer to it as garbage. When I hear of someone stating that they are Roman Catholic, though they strenuously do everything to undermine our faith I call it what it is - NOT Catholic. It is my obligation to do so.
Nancy claims membership in an organization, from which she derives certain presumably electoral benefits. She does not hold with the association's rules.
She is perfectly free to try to get the association to change it rules to conform with her position. She is perfectly free to leave the association. If she runs about as she and her daughter are doing, misrepresenting the association's rules, the association is free to throw her out.
Both sides are skating on thin ice trying to avoid dragging religion into politics. E.G., Giuliani (says he) doesn't "promote" abortion. Neither does Pelosi. But, they allow it, they vote for it, they permit funds to flow toward abortion providers.
The Romans haven't the ecclesiastical cojones ( a medieval theological term) to excommunicate them, or even deny them the sacraments. ("Them," including Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry, and a couple of hundred others. The "Catholic" pols look around and see what happened to Santorum, who took the position much closer to that his religion dictates. Just look what happened to him; in a majority-Catholic state, no less! So Pelosi/Giuliani/Kennedy/Kerry haven't the integrity to quit and join an association that's more in concordance with their position.
So I agree with the Bishop. However, his elegant Roman circumlocution just doesn't get the job done.