You may not be familiar of the marks (they are good) left by certain Catholic Sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders.
Palin, thus, will always be marked as a Catholic whether she is a practicing Catholic or not.
I am familiar with some of the religious differences between denominations and various religious beliefs, for instance you are currently on your way to becoming a Mormon through baptism.
Palin isn’t a catholic, but if you want to start working on a list of people who are still catholics, are who remained catholic for life, that might be fun.
I have noticed that you don’t push this catholic forever point of view on all threads, even threads where I have tried to get you to post it, I guess Governor Palin is an exception.
Nancy Pelosi is Catholic, Sarah Palin is non-denominational Christian.
Not to quibble, but I don't think that's quite right (CCC 1267-74). My understanding is that ANY legitimate baptism (i.e. trinitarian formula as in Mt 28:19) configures the individual to Christ. Her baptismal seal was recognized by the Church (along with the vows of parents/godparents) as incorporating her into the Catholic Church. But the baptismal seal itself wasn't a Catholic mark per se. Rather it was administered by God during a rite performed by a Catholic priest. This is why most nonCatholic converts aren't baptized when brought into full communion with the Church at the Easter vigil. It's only required for the unbaptized or those baptized in traditions that don't use a trinitarian formula.
The Church may always consider Palin a separated member but that's because she once attained membership via her indelible baptismal mark and the vows made. It isn't because that baptismal mark contained something uniquely Catholic that's absent in valid nonCatholic baptisms. The Church would always consider me a separated member too if I, as a convert with a nonCatholic baptism, renounced the faith (God forbid!). At least this is my understanding.