Tag Archives: Christians

Jihad, Guns, and Gays

Predictably, a shitstorm of Biblical proportions has arisen following the horrific mass-murder in a gay nightclub in Orlando last Sunday by a Jihadist Muslim who claimed allegiance with ISIS.  And shamefully, but just as predictably, the vulturine Left – including Obama and Hillary Clinton – has opportunistically exploited this slaughter, in their usual fashion, to attack second amendment rights and Christians, while ignoring the real threat of radical Islam.

Before I continue, I’ll just state that while, yes, the club’s patrons were engaging in a sinful, immoral lifestyle, that in no way excuses or lessens the evil of the murder, and this should be a solemn time of prayer and mourning, rather than self-righteous condemnation.  But neither should we react as some, acting as though the victims were holy martyrs for a noble cause, as so many are doing.  And I don’t believe the slaughter would be any bit less horrific had it taken place in, say, a school or a Wal-Mart rather than a gay club.  Using this tragedy to promote LGB-Whatever politics is as shameful as any other political exploitation, but of course the Left knows no shame.

While our Dear Leader still cannot bring himself to so much as utter the words “radical Islam,” he, Hillary, and the rest of the Jackass Party rogues gallery are once more seeking to punish law-abiding citizens by infringing on their right to keep and bear arms.  And the NRA-endorsed Donald Trump is talking of further restrictions on gun rights, reverting, as on abortion, to his liberal true colors.

 

In dealing with Islamic terrorism and violence in general, the Left typically takes two lines, neither of them truthful.  The first is to deny (a la Obama) that such acts of murder and terror, or that groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda, actually have anything to do with Islam (which, after all, as no less an Islamic scholar than George W. Bush has assured us, is a Religion of Peace).

Of course that is nothing but pc hogwash.  I see no point, as a Catholic who believes Islam to be a false religion, to get into debates about whether violent Jihadists or more peaceful groups represent “true Islam.”  All the violent “extremist” views are supported by some Muslim clerics, and have backing in the Qu’ran , and, from the beginning, the history of Islam is far from peaceful.

But, whether you believe it represents “true Islam” or not, the fact is that the jihadist terrorists, whether formal members of terror cells or internet-inspired “lone wolves,” are in fact motivated by a religiously-based ideology.  Many on the secular Left cannot understand this, and insist that the “real cause” of Islamic terrorism must be something else – laying the blame on entirely on U.S. foreign policy (even though many attacks are in countries such as France), poverty and income inequality (even though the data says that most Islamic terrorists are not poor), and even that liberal catch-all demon, Climate Change.  (You see, gas from your SUV makes the Middle East more hot and dry, so the people there go mad and blow shit up.)  In short, nothing about Islamic terrorism that wouldn’t be fixed by a Bernie Sanders presidency.

But the claim that Islamic terror is primarily motivated by economic factors (which will be fixed, of course, by more socialism), rather than religious ideology, has no basis in reality.  There’s a reason the Orlando killer shot up a gay night club, rather than a corporate headquarters or SUV factory.

The other route is to acknowledge that Islam has a violent branch, but also to claim that it’s no worse in that respect than any other major religion, particularly Christianity.  This line of pc is typified by a presentation to West Point cadets a few years ago equating “extreme” Islam with evangelical Christianity, the Catholic Church, and Orthodox Judaism.

It’s not just militant atheists or secularists that use this line of talk; even the Pope has attacked generic “religious fundamentalism,” rather than radical Islam, following the Paris “Charlie Hebdo” attacks.

Of course, this is quickly dispelled as nonsense by the facts; there simply aren’t any significant numbers of conservative Christians or Jews blowing up buildings, murdering, and raping in the name of their faith.  (And frequently cited groups like the IRA are more political than religious.)  Take the most devout, hard-core conservative Traditionalist Catholic you can find (maybe at my FSSP parish). Start a gay club, or draw a blasphemous cartoon of Jesus, and he might start a novena of prayer and fasting for the salvation of your immortal soul.  His Islamic counterpart will load up his Sig Sauer, or load up his truck full of pipe bombs.

After the Orlando attacks, many on the left went one step further and actually blamed Christians, rather than radical Islam, for the killings.  We’re told that an “environment of hate” caused by anti-gay Christians was responsible.  Even liberal Catholic bishops have used this line, exploiting the killings to condemn Catholics who actually agree with Church teaching that homosexual activity is sinful.  (What about the “environment of hate” towards orthodox Catholics/Christians?)  And I’ve seen Catholics express guilt that “Christians like themselves” made the murder possible.  The reality is that Christians or Christianity had nothing whatever to do with it.

Please.  It’s time we wake up, stop being cowed by pc guilt-tripping, stand up for truth, call a spade a spade, and identify the real enemy: radical Islam.  We must not allow the left to continue to exploit evil acts of terror to advance its own rotten agenda, and chip away at our own liberties.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jihad Comes to Texas

Last week, Islamic Jihad came to the Lone Star state (sort of) when two would-be Jihadists armed with AK-47s, pistols, and over 100 rounds of ammo attacked the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, TX, which was hosting a “Draw the Prophet” art exhibit organized by Pamela Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative.  (The center was the site of January’s “Stand with the Prophet” event which I had mentioned in my previous rant “Standing Against the Prophet.”)   Unfortunately for the “Prophet” and his “religion of peace,” the attempted at Jihad came to a quick end when the gunmen were shot dead by a hero cop with a Glock pisto.  Despite the two Jihadist wannabes being the only fatalities, the Islamic State (which claimed credit for the attack) bizarrely declared it a “victory for Islam.”  (Guess those guys still got their 72 virgins, so score one for them.)

Members of the Left (once known for being an advocate of absolute free speech, especially when the speech offends religious sensibilities) were for the most part either silent, or placed all the blame on Geller and her group for indulging in “hate speech” and needlessly provoking Muslims.   Some even claimed that the exhibit as “hate speech” (aka speech leftists don’t like) was not in fact protected by the first amendment.

That’s quite a different tune than that sung by the left concerning speech or artistic expression offensive to Christians.  In such cases, it is not “hate speech,” but free speech that must be allowed, and even tax-subsidized.  Remember the controversy over Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ” back in the late ‘80s?  Any opposition to funding that little piece of artsy blasphemy with tax dollars was strongly decried by liberals as un-American censorship, and a sure path to fascism.   Would many liberals be so adamant about supportive of publicly funding a “Piss Mohammed”?

Why the double standard?  Well, of course, there’s the obvious (though un-pc) difference that pissing off (figuratively or literally) Muslims involves a real risk of getting gunned down or blown up, while pissing off Christians does not.  It might at most result in an upset letter to the editor.  (All ridiculous pc claims that Islam is no more violent than Christianity to the contrary.)

Ironically, it’s typically expression offensive to Christians that liberals praise as “bold,” while insulting Islam is slammed as hateful bullying and bigotry.  But try to argue with a bleedin’ heart on this point, and they’ll typically start spouting incoherent babble about “Christian White Privilege” and such.

While this failed attempt at Jihad in Texas may not amount to much, the harsh reality is that in other parts of the world, followers of the “Religion of Peace” continue to murder, rape, and oppress Christians on a major scale.  Once upon a time, Popes called Christian men to crusade to defend innocent Christians against Muslim aggression.  Today, many Church leaders, like their secular liberal politician counterparts, are strangely quiet.  Apparently, more politically correct first world concerns, like “climate change” and finding ways to make “gays” feel more welcome in church, are more pressing priorities.

While some “liberals” may try to argue that Muslims and other “oppressed minorities” somehow have a right not to be publicly offended, the religious liberties of Christians as well as Muslims are falling under ever greater threat.  Legal experts say that if the Supreme Court declares “gay marriage” to be a “constitutional right,” as many say is inevitable (despite the fact that the Constitution says nothing about marriage whatever, and nowhere grants the federal government the power to define marriage), churches and religious institutions opposed to homosexual “marriage” may lose their tax exempt status, and face lawsuits.  Believe it or not, once upon a time, the job of the Supreme Court was actually interpret and uphold the Constitution, rather than dictate the demands of social liberalism to the masses.

And Democratic presidential Anointed One Hillary has stated that “religious beliefs” that oppose “reproductive rights,” including abortion, “must change.”

Of course, such measures will be supported and applauded by many bleeding heart “Catholics.”  Can’t let issues such as human life get in the way of “social justice,” aka leftist socialism.  God help us all.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Imposing Immorality

A lot has already been said about the recent uproar by “gay rights” activists and liberals in general over Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and Governor Mike Pence’s subsequent spineless folding in typical Republican fashion.  Protesters even forced a local pizza parlor to close because the owner said in an interview that she would not cater “gay weddings.”  (Though the news is that the shop has now re-opened.)

(I tried to keep Holy Week at least somewhat holy, and thus held off on commenting on the ungodly cesspool of current politics, but I thought I’d share a few thoughts.)

At this point no one can still harbor the foolish and naïve notion that the political-cultural left has anything whatever to do with freedom, tolerance, or diversity.

Talk about, for instance, any proposed laws even restricting abortion, and liberals will howl like rabid banshees about how we must never “impose our morality” on others by law.  This is typically followed a lecture on the evils of “theocracy,” with grim warnings about how parental consent laws or whatever are just one slippery step away from beheading infidels and burning heretics at the stake.  (Personally, I prefer my heretics just well done.)

However, as illustrated by the hullabaloo in Indiana, the same secularist bleeding hearts are more than ready to impose their own “morality” on those who disagree with politically-correct orthodoxy on issues such as “gay marriage.”  (Or, rather, to force others against their will to cooperate in immorality.)

As I pointed out earlier regarding similar issues in Texas, choosing not to cater or a homosexual “wedding” is not about discrimination against individuals, but about not catering a particular type of event that is contrary to Christian morality.

Forcing persons in private business to cater or support events contrary to their beliefs against their will not only violates the free exercise of religion guaranteed in the First Amendment, but the basic right to freedom of association, regardless of religious belief or lack thereof.  (Deroy Murdock makes this point eloquently in a National Review article, giving a wide variety of potential non-religious examples where this principle would apply.  Should a feminist be forced to do photography for a strip club?  A black musician play at a KKK event?  Etc.)

Prior to the passing of the Indiana statute, there was never any actual issue of discrimination.  Gays have no problem finding bakers and such to cater their “weddings.”  The hysterics of the likes of Al Sharpton notwithstanding, who scream that unless Christian bakers are forced by law to bake gay wedding cakes, the return of Jim Crow is imminent.  (You know, back when gays were forced to sit in the back of the bus.)  Hell, it will probably set us back to the days of slavery, when gays were put in chains and forced to pick cotton from dawn to dusk in the hot Southern sun, to the tune of the slave-driver’s whip.  (Though I hear some of them liked the whole whips and chains thing.)

(If I were black I’d be absolutely disgusted at the comparison of “gay rights” issues to slavery and segregation.  Hell, I’m not black, and I’m still disgusted.  But that’s another rant.)

But the very thought of a few bakers, wedding photographers, or caterers out there who don’t conform with pc orthodoxy on “gay marriage” so enrages the bleeding heart fascists that they are willing to force people at gunpoint to conform and comply.

Freedom of religion and of association be damned.

For the left, “gay rights” has become an all-important all-trumping sacred cause, which they pursue with the fanaticism of religious crusaders (or perhaps Jihadists?).

Perhaps most disappointing is that Catholic response to this blatant assault on religious freedom seems largely lacking.  Though that is hardly surprising, given the weak and tepid response to Obamacare’s contraception mandate.  And the sad truth is that most of the bleeding heart social-justice “Catholics,” who salivate like Pavlov’s dogs at any statist activism claiming to be on behalf of The Oppressed, and who piously obey every dictate of political correctness, side with “gay rights” against the teachings of their Church.

For many, the issue of a few gay wedding cakes and such may seem too trivial and petty to be worth  bothering with.  And by itself, perhaps it is.  But wars are won or lost by many small battles, and freedoms once taken for granted in this country are being steadily and relentlessly chipped away piece by piece.  If (as expected) the Supreme Court (absurdly) declares “gay marriage” to be a “constitutional right,” things will only get much worse.  How long before we wake up?

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Standing Against the “Prophet”

Over a week ago (since I didn’t finish this rant in a timely fashion), I attended the local March for Life in Dallas (where the original case was heard that would lead up to the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.  Of course, the predictably spineless Republicans in Congress failed to push a bill banning late-term abortions (otherwise known as infanticide).

Later that same day in nearby Garland, another demonstration occurred, a “Stand with the Prophet” rally of Muslims, against the urgent threat of “Islamophobia” to America and the world.  (No, I didn’t make it to that one.)

Of course, the “Stand with the Prophet” march, and the counter-demonstration in favor of free speech, got all the media attention.  And for good reason, because irrational fear of Islam (much like that other great phobia of our times, that of the homo variety) is an issue of far greater importance and urgency than the murder of millions of babies.

After all, the rising bloody tide of violence and hate of Islamophobia (so the event’s organizers inform us) is indeed horrific, and a threat to us all.  I mean, just  look at the recent murder and mayhem caused by Islamophobes in France, and earlier in Australia.  Oh wait. . . .

You mean to tell me “Islamophobia” was not to blame, but rather the more fanatical practitioners of the “Religion of Peace”?  You hateful bigot!  Yes, just as they were responsible for the 9-11 attacks here in the U.S., countless other terrorist activity around the world, and the bloody savagery and aggression of ISIS.  Not to mention the large-scale slaughter, rape, and enslavement of Christians by Muslims in Africa.  (The media only pays attention when white people in affluent Western countries are victims.)

Atheists and other secularist types (as well as plenty of bleeding heart Christians) insist that such behavior is hardly unique to Islam, but happens just as often among members of all religions (especially Christianity), at least among conservative members who really seriously believe their own religion.  Which explains all the suicide bombings by Traditionalist Catholics, and deadly hostage situations perpetuated by Orthodox Jews.  Let’s not even get started on the global scourge of Amish violence.

The media just keeps quiet about these things because of its right-wing pro-Christian bias.

Suggest that Islam may in fact be responsible for a far greater share of the world’s violence, and you’re a racist bigot.  (I’ve heard leftist types actually argue that Islam is in fact a race.  Hey, they said it, not me.)

After the terrorist attacks in France, the world seems to at last be waking up to the reality of the ugly nature of Islamism, though it seems largely clueless as to how to deal with it.  (I’ll let others debate whether Dear Leader should have marched with other world dignitaries in France or not.  Yes, it was merely a probably ineffectual public gesture, and I’m sure he had important golfing to do.)

In any case, we’ve come a long way since the time of Obama’s first election, when the left assured us that Islamic terrorism was all Bush’s Fault, and would no doubt soon dissipate as our Dear Leader spread peace, luv, and hopeychange around the world.

Also, looking increasingly ridiculous are the various forms of unseemly “ecumenical” ass-kissing towards the so-called “religion of peace” which Catholics have engaged in since Vatican II.  This nonsense has led to all sorts of confusion among the faithful, some believing (wrongly) that the Church actually endorses the religion of Mohammed, and many Catholics ardently defending the false religion against any and all criticism, or babbling pious poppycock about Islam being “another path to Jesus.”  Of course, never mind the reality that Islam blatantly denies key Christian doctrines, including the divinity and crucifixion of Christ (according to Islam, Jesus was really a prophet who preached Islam, and prophets are invincible and cannot be put to death by their enemies), and was originally spread mainly by violent military conquest, much of the conquered lands being formerly Christian.  (Most of the Middle East and North Africa was Christian, and the Muslims did not convert the people in those places through peaceful dialogue.)

In fact, Islam has been the greatest external enemy of Christendom through the bulk of its history.  It deserves to be taken seriously, and ultimately, the only end to the Islamic threat will come through conversion to Christ.  This won’t be done, however, by singing Kumbya and pretending we really all believe the same thing, which will accomplish absolutely nothing.  Muslims know better than that, and the first step to any progress is to acknowledge the truth.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Duck Commander vs. Liberal “Tolerance”

As everyone knows by now, A&E banned Duck Dynasty patriarch and Duck Commander inventor Phil Robertson from filming for making some comments in a GQ interview that the network deemed too intolerant to be tolerated.  I’ll admit, I don’t watch the show (I watch hardly any TV), but from what I’ve heard, Duck Dynasty appears to be a decent and wholesome show which has made millions of fans “happy, happy, happy.”

The show’s wild popularity actually gave me a glimmer of hope for this country, especially as the Robertson clan seem to be a compendium of everything the forces of political correctness would have us despise and hate: white Southern rednecks, gun-owners and enthusiastic killers of innocent birds, successful businessmen in the “capitalist” system, and (worst of all!) devout born-again Christians.

Given that Mr. Robertson has made no secret of his Christian Faith, his beliefs regarding the immorality of homosexuality should hardly come as a shock.  What he stated was essentially the same as what the Church teaches on this matter:  that homosexual activity – along with other sins such as adultery and drunkenness – is sinful and wrong, citing Corinthians.  Yeah, he made an indelicate remark about vaginas being preferable to anuses, but since when were liberals prudes?

He didn’t say anything actually hateful, or make any call for violence, but said, “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus — whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus — whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?

Maybe not quite as elegantly worded as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but still a sound summation of basic Christian moral theology – and no more hateful of homosexual persons than it is of folks with a fondness for the sauce.

As far as I’m aware, no drunks have yet expressed outrage over the Duck Commander’s shocking anti-drunkard bigotry.

The problem is, apparently for A&E, simply personally holding Christian moral beliefs found in the Bible is reason enough for punishment.  (The remarks in question were not even made on the show, or in connection with it.)

Of course, as a private company, A&E is free to decide who will and won’t be on its programs, and I’m sure Phil will probably be able to get along okay without A&E or Duck Dynasty.  (And if A&E wants to lose its main cash cow for the sake of political correctness,  surely someone else will be willing to buy – that is, if they’re not all complete slaves to pc idiocy.)

But the central issues here are much bigger than A&E and Duck Dynasty, and reflect a truly troubling trend in our country.  Our supposedly tolerant “liberal” society is becoming increasingly intolerant of any views contrary to its dominant ideology.  People have lost their jobs for blogging on their own time with the view that homosexuality is sinful.  A few months ago Fox Sports fired football analyst Craig James for opposing “gay marriage” (again, while off the job).

Progressives who preach ad nauseum about “tolerance” and “diversity” in fact support neither.

All opinions and beliefs are tolerated – so long as they agree with the cultural left ideology.  No dissent will be tolerated.

As usual, the left’s hypocrisy here is staggering.  I’d bet the bank that if, instead of being Christian, Mr. Robertson adhered to a more politically correct religion such as Islam, and had been fired for citing unpopular teachings from the Qur’an, the same bleeding hearts calling for his blood would instead be rushing to defend his civil liberties against the Islamophobic bigots.

When liberal celebs and media personalities make truly hateful remarks against Christians or conservatives, their jobs are never in danger, and it’s typically smiled on as edgy and cool, if not “daring.”  If Christians complain, they’re told to quit whining and grow a thicker skin.

Hell, even anti-gay slurs can be tolerated, so long as the person making them is sufficiently liberal (such as Alec Baldwin).

Sixty years later, liberals continue to remind us of the horrors of Hollywood blacklisting during the “Red scare” of the ‘50s.  But it’s all cool now that Christians rather than Commies are blacklisted.

Demanding, as many on the left now do, that opposing views be censored and suppressed (as one “liberal” commenter said, “bigoted religion has no place in modern America”) is in fact contrary to the most fundamental principles of a free and liberal (in the true sense of the word) society.

Sadly it appears that for the most part only conservatives and Christians who agree with Robertson’s comments are defending him against A&E.  I’ve seen almost no statements along the lines of “I’m a liberal and don’t like what Phil said, but A&E was wrong to punish him for his religious beliefs.”

Fortunately, the backlash against A&E appears strong and healthy (as was the backlash against the homo Chick-fil-A boycott), and hopefully will help draw attention to the issue of true freedom of practice of religion for all Americans.

Stand with Phil and boycott A&E!  (And don’t forget to keep eating mor chiken!)

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Great Religious Right Schism & Other Fantasies

You gotta hand it to the folks in the “mainstream” liberal press.  Their consistent ability to cram enormous amounts of nonsense, distortions, and falsehoods into brief articles – especially with regards to religion, especially with regards to the Catholic Church – is nothing short of amazing.

This piece I stumbled across last week from some guy named Peter Weber is pretty typical.  It’s titled, “Why Pope Francis Won’t Cause a Schism in the U.S. Religious Right,” and the gist of it was that the current Pope’s allegedly liberal “pro-choice,” “pro-gay” positions had failed to create a rift between faithful Catholics and conservative Evangelical Protestants on hot-button “culture war” issues such as abortion and “gay marriage.”  Shocking.

Perhaps it’s just me, but I detected a hint of disappointment in the piece’s title.  Maybe even a tear or two.  You see, it seems those darned orthodox “conservative” Catholics will just stubbornly cling to their unenlightened positions against abortion and “gay marriage” regardless of what the Pope says.

After quoting some rather ignorant statements of alarm at the Pope from some conservative Evangelicals, Weber quotes some typical delirium from lefty gay-activist “journalist” Andrew Sullivan, who crows, “The Catholic hierarchy has been knocked sideways by the emergence of Pope Francis and his eschewal of their fixation on homosexuality, contraception, and abortion. That fixation — essentially a Christianist and de facto Republican alliance among Protestants and Catholic leaders — has now been rendered a far lower priority than, say, preaching the Gospel or serving the poor and the sick. Francis has also endorsed secularism as the proper modern context for religious faith.”

(Ooh!  There’s that scary, scary word, “Christianist”!  If you’re pro-life, or don’t want “gay marriage,” you’re some blood-crazed fanatic eager to lop the head off of Infidels.)

And never mind, of course, that not a word of Sullivan’s gushing is actually true, but more on that later.

Weber disagrees with Sullivan’s liberal triumphalism, concluding:

“The long papacy of happy culture warrior John Paul II didn’t turn Ted Kennedy or John Kerry or Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi — Catholics all — into anti-abortion activists. And Pope Francis’ shift away from cultural politics won’t convert John Boehner or make any of the conservative Catholics on the Supreme Court — Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas — less eager to overturn Roe v. Wade.”

True (excepting, I’d argue, the eagerness of Roberts & co. to overturn Roe v. Wade).

But Weber (like most of his media brethren) remains completely clueless.

Both Weber and Sullivan, like most in liberal press, are unable to see Catholic moral teaching in any context other than American “liberals vs. conservatives” politics.

They apparently labor under the delusion that opposition to abortion and homosexual activity is a recent invention of the Republican Party, rather than what the Christian Faith has always taught for 2000 years, as found in the epistles of St. Paul and in the Didache.  (And, unlike the GOP “leadership,” the Church is actually serious about what it says.)

Besides the fact that personal papal interviews contain zero magisterial authority, and, as I noted previously here, Pope Francis did not change or do away with any of the Church’s moral teachings, which remain clearly stated in the Catechism.  (Excellent article in Catholic Culture by Phil Lawler here.)

The notion that Pope Francis reversed the Church’s teachings on abortion, etc., and that pro-life Catholics are now just as much in dissent from Church teaching as Pelosi, Kerry & co. were back in the pre-Francis days, is a heaping load of absolute and total excrement.  Sorry, if you ain’t pro-life, you still ain’t Catholic!

Those who think the current Holy Father is “pro-choice,” “hates dogma,” or wants the Church to just shut up about abortion and other moral issues, need to read his recent address to Catholic physicians, where he spoke of the importance of the right to life of all persons from conception, proclaiming:

Every child who, rather than being born, is condemned unjustly to being aborted, bears the face of Jesus Christ, bears the face of the Lord . . .  And every elderly person, even if he is ill or at the end of his days, bears the face of Christ. They cannot be discarded, as the “culture of waste” suggests! They cannot be thrown away!

Hardly the words of a Pelosi-esque “pro-choicer,” or of one who thinks the Church needs to “get over its fixation” on abortion.  Of course, those words of Pope Francis got almost no “mainstream” media attention.

Much as lefties may eagerly anticipate it, a socially-liberal Catholic Church leading the faithful to the light of acceptance of abortion and sexual immorality remains a deluded fantasy.  As it always will be.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,