Over the years, Nancy Pelosi has been a staunch supporter of abortion rights, gay marriage, and assisted suicide. I tend to disagree with her, but I do agree with her stances on those issues. With that said, I find it hard to believe that someone with these views could present themselves as a devout Catholic. The last time I checked, the Catholic Church was strongly opposed to abortion, assisted suicide, and gay marriage.

I’m trying to figure out if Nancy Pelosi’s inconsistency is due to her ignoring the differences between church doctrine and her voting record in an attempt to be everything to everyone, or is due to a lack of intellect. With Madame Speaker, either one is possible.

Have you been following the “South Park” situation? If you haven’t, here’s a quick summary: The creators portrayed the Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit, which angered a Muslim group. On their website, the group posted pictures of Theo Van Gogh, who was murdered after one of his films offended some Muslims. The site hints that a similar fate may await “South Park” creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker.

“South Park” makes jokes about everyone, and they’re usually quite funny while they’re doing it. As a matter of fact, Jesus has a recurring role on the show! As far as I know, no one has threatened the creators over their portrayal of Jesus, and no Christian groups have threatened death.

Since 9/11, many have gone out of their way to describe Islam as a religion of peace. From observing the reaction to a cartoon, along with many other situations, it doesn’t seem very peaceful to me. It’s unfortunate that Comedy Central has decided to give in to threats by censoring the work of Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Their actions send all networks down a slippery slope where freedom of expression is hampered by bullies.

I’m strongly pro-choice, but I don’t want a dime of taxpayer money spent on abortions, except in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. If one of these conditions doesn’t exist, then the abortion is an elective procedure used to remedy irresponsible behavior. What’s next, allowing people to get taxpayer funded liposuction because because they’re too lazy to exercise and eat right?

The bishops are right on this issue, but of course, they’re dead wrong on so much else. In the same letter, they criticize Congress for forcing legal immigrants to wait 5 years before they are eligible for Medicaid, and for supporting a bill that would prevent undocumented workers illegal aliens from purchasing insurance through an exchange. After all, the undocumented workers illegal aliens only trespassed into the country and spit on our laws on a daily basis. Why not give them a break?

If you’re a Catholic who agrees that illegal immigration is a major problem facing the United States, I ask that you withhold financial support for the church. Any hard-earned money you give to your local diocese will likely find its way into supporting those who are threatening our country’s economy.

Pope Benedict criticized Irish Bishops for doing wha the Vatican expected of them

Pope Benedict criticized Irish bishops for “grave errors in judgment,” which led to many children being abused by priests and nuns. Catholic Bishops in Ireland deserve the criticism, since they were complacent while priests and other members of the Church harmed young parishioners. Unfortunately, Pope Benedict glossed over the major cause: The Vatican.

The abuse allegations in Ireland are not confined to that country alone. Allegations came to light in the United States several years ago, along with Germany and many other European nations. It’s also likely that the number of allegations will increase as victims gain the courage to face the Catholic Church and their abusers.

Were the Irish Bishops also responsible for abuse allegations in other countries and continents? Of course not. Each diocese was working on orders from the Vatican, which some feel encouraged a veil of secrecy. If blame is to be assigned, a good portion of it needs to be directed at Pope Benedict himself:

While a cardinal at the Vatican, Joseph Ratzinger penned a letter instructing bishops around the world to report all cases of abuse to his office and keep them secret under threat of excommunication. Irish bishops have said the letter was widely understood to mean they shouldn’t report the cases to police.

In addition to telling bishops to keep quiet or else, Joseph Ratzonger aka Pope Benedict also contributed to the abuse of children:

…reports emerged last week that while he was archbishop of Munich in the 1980s, Ratzinger approved therapy for a priest suspected of molesting boys. The priest was then transferred to a job where he later abused more children. He was convicted in a criminal trial.

So to summarize, we have a Pope who encouraged bishops to hide allegations of abuse or face excommunication, along with personal failures that contributed to the abuse of more children after an abusive priest was transferred. His hypocritical behavior and failure to take responsibility are a disgrace to Catholicism.

As in cases in the United States, priests and other members of the church are being accused of abusing children, while the Catholic Church kept everything quiet, while offending priests were moved to other parishes to harm a new community of children. If that wasn’t bad enough, it appears that Pope Benedict might have also shuffled pedophile priests from one parish to another.

This should prove to everyone that these problems are beyond a single country. The Church’s problems can likely be linked to the types of people attracted to the priesthood. It’s not a popular thing to say, but it needs to be said. Widespread abuse over multiple continents should be enough proof that the priesthood needs to be opened up to a broader group of individuals. There are men who are happily married, good fathers, and outstanding members of their community who would probably like the opportunity to become a priest. Unfortunately, the priesthood is limited to men who aren’t allowed to marry or have children. Personally, I think this rule leads to the selection of individuals who are more likely to be prone to this behavior. You might disagree, but I don’t see this type of behavior in reverends or ministers of other denominations.

I don’t expect the church to ever embrace such a change, at least not in my lifetime. Of course, failing to address the situation will lead to members who distrust the very people they are supposed to trust.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Bishop Thomas Tobin appeared on “Hardball” to discuss his decision to ask Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy to refrain from receiving Holy Communion. The funny thing is that Thomas Tobin is criticized in this clip, even though Patrick Kennedy began this nonsense by criticizing the Catholic Church’s stance on abortion, then brought up a conversation he had with the Bishop 2 years ago, when he was asked not to receive Communion.

In the interview, Chris Matthews seems thoroughly confused. Part of it may be due to him attempting to reconcile his prochoice stance with his life as a Catholic. He continually criticizes the Bishop and essentially demeans him by asking how he would write particular laws, and attempts to make him look incompetent.

Unfortunately, Chris Matthews misses the big picture. He is right in saying that Patrick Kennedy’s voting record is none of the Church’s business. His error is in not realizing that his life as a Catholic certainly is fair game. Besides being prochoice, Kennedy supports legislation that would increase the availability of abortion. These actions run counter to Catholic teachings and the Church has every right to call someone out for not following their faith. When you present yourself as a member of a particular faith, you’re essentially voicing acceptance of their beliefs.

This topic is actually quite interesting to me. I was raised as a Catholic, but I am staunchly prochoice, I support gay marriage, and I’m against open borders. All three of those views are at odds with the Catholic Church. These positions, along with theological reasons, have led me away from the Catholic Church. I don’t present myself as a Catholic, and I don’t expect the Catholic Church to conform to my world view, or to accept my views. If you don’t believe what you are supposed to believe, then how can you be a believer? This seems obvious to the Bishop and I. It’s unfortunate that Patrick Kennedy and his conflicted friends aren’t able to understand.

I’m amused by how many people present themselves as Catholics, then live their lives counter to the church’s teachings. You shouldn’t be able to pick and choose which aspects of a religion you like, and which aspects you don’t. If a particular religion doesn’t suit your particular view of the world, then find another one. For too many, their religion is nothing but a habit. If that’s the case, isn’t it better to just stop attending mass and stop living a lie?

I was raised Catholic, but I have serious disagreements with many of the church’s teachings. Unfortunately, you can often find parishioners who don’t make any attempt to be a good Catholic, they just go through the motions. Patrick Kennedy is a good example. Here’s an elected official who supports abortion rights and fights to make abortions more acessible. My problem isn’t with his views on abortion (I’m pro-choicee), it’s with people who strive to make those views consistent with their Catholic religion. Sorry, it can’t be done.

Ideally, we would see Bishop Tobin’s actions duplicated with other pblic officials. Too many politicians try to be everything to everyone. They present themselves as a religious individual, then support ideas that are in opposition to what they profess to believe. Hopefully, Bishop Tobin’s actions will be a first step in calling out the hypocrites and bringing some thought into the public sphere.

During the attack, Malik Nadal Hasan allegedly shouted, “Allahu Akbar!” during the attack. This is an arabic phrase which means “god is great.” Before the shooting, Hassan also seemed to tie up lose ends by thanking people for their friendship and clearing out his belongings. It’s like he was planning on not making it back. Hasan also opposed U.S. involvement in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and was quoted as saying that, “Muslims should stand up to the aggressor.” Malik Nadal Hasan’s writing also came to the attention of law enforcement officials after he was suspected of authoring blog posts which equated suicide bombers with soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save fellow soldiers.

After reviewing these facts, I’d be surprised if this attack wasn’t a terrorist act fueled by anit-government sentiment. Some may see this as just another senseless act of workplace violence, but there are far too many coincidences to ignore. Pretending they don’t exist is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Barack Obama is definitely well-educated, having received a law degree from Harvard. Although, that doesn’t really set him apart from other Presidents. Bill Clinton also had a law degree and attended Oxford, while George W. Bush received an MBA from Harvard. Next, we have his background. I’m not sure what this is a reference to, so I’ll leave it alone. To be honest, I don’t think Sting knew what he was referring to. Finally, he mentions knowledge/background in regards to Islam. Since when is a background in Islam a qualifier to be President of the United States?

What I find funny is that liberals got all worked up whenever Islam was mentioned during the campaign. Even the mere mention of his middle name, Hussein, was enough to elicit complaints. Democrats didn’t mind us mentioning “Jefferson” while Bill Clinton was President, so why were they so touchy over “Hussein?” Of course, Barack Obama also played down any link to Islam. Well, until it wasn’t useful any more. If you remember his speech in Egypt, then you remember how he spoke fondly of America’s link to Islam, as well as his own personal link. Does that mean it isn’t considered an insult to call him Barack Hussein Obama?

Sting’s opinion isn’t important in the grand scheme of things, but it is interesting. He tries to point to the qualities that make Barack Obama the perfect President, but there’s nothing concrete. If you read into the comment, Sting just seems to be thrilled that someone linked to Islam is President. I’m not sure how this would help with handling two wars, a financial crisis, and a restructuring of our health-care system, but Sting appears to think it is pertinent. The scary part is that he is not alone. Many of the people who put Barack Obama on a pedestal do so without knowing exactly why. They just feel they should.