That Prochoice Franciscan Again

I happened to go to the site of that prochoice Franciscan - yes, I know that's really impossible to be in any intelligible way - and he had a post about Nancy Pelosi quoting someone in a really unflattering way, and using that alleged quotation to attack the man and the administration.

I posted a comment.

Hmmm. This is based on Speaker Pelosi’s report. She has been less than truthful in the past, so I wonder if there is an objective source for this alleged comment that recorded him actually saying this, and in what context?

He responded:

She’s a Catholic and I believe what she said. She knows the Pope’s Twitter handle which is @Pontifex. She’s pro-choice as am I. I don’t agree with her on every issue but I have no doubt that she is a woman of faith. Here’s and NY Times article about her faith, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/us/politics/in-pelosi-strong-catholic-faith-and-abortion-rights-coexist.html

I then replied: 

Just because someone is Catholic does not preclude that person from lying. Sadly, Catholics are as likely to lie as anyone else.

As for being prochoice, what does that have to do with the topic at hand? That seems to be an odd thing to toss in. Moreover, it tends to undermine your point. First, being prochoice is incompatible with being a Catholic in good standing – https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/why-catholics-cant-be-pro-choice#.XmOF41GPLXk.blogger - so that would go against your “Catholic” argument.  Moreover, prochoicers have a history of lying.  Here are two pieces concerning that - https://paxchristirochester.blogspot.com/2018/06/former-abortion-advocate-we-lied.html and https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/26/us/an-abortion-rights-advocate-says-he-lied-about-procedure.html

So, citing someone as a prochoice Catholic increases the suspicion the person might just be lying!

But the Catholic and prochoice elements are extraneous to the actual point. Speaker Pelosi contends that Mr. Mnuchin said something. She has at times in the past been less that truthful, and as far as I know there is no other more objective source for this alleged statement, so that raises questions.  I was asking you to provide that.

I know my own policy when dealing with such troubling statements, especially when politics is involved. I always check for other sources – separate, objective sources that corroborate the claims.  I would state them as likely true only then. If I felt that the information was important enough to post even if I did not know for sure they are true, I always state them in a qualified way, admit that I don’t know if they are true, and ask if anyone has more information. I certainly would not base an attack on a person or a Party or an administration on such flimsy evidence. To state something as fact that later turns out not to be true or to have been distorted undermines one’s credibility.

So far, although he has posted other things, he has chosen not to post my last reply.

Maybe I was too blunt.

Pax et bonum