Pope lectures Pelosi on “natural moral law”; Update: Even MS-NBC can’t spin this

posted at 10:19 am on February 18, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The Vatican has released a statement after meeting with Nancy Pelosi, apparently mindful of the controversy created by giving an audience to a pro-choice American politician.  Before Pelosi has a chance to characterize the discussion, Benedict apparently wants everyone to know that he saw this as a teaching moment (via The Corner):

Following the General Audience the Holy Father briefly greeted Mrs Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage.

His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.

The consistent teachings, Benedict apparently emphasized, in contradiction to Pelosi’s strange insistence that Catholic opposition to abortion only goes back 50 years:

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…

MR. BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it…

REP. PELOSI: I understand that.

MR. BROKAW: …begins at the point of conception.

REP. PELOSI: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions. That’s why we have this fight in Congress over contraception. My Republican colleagues do not support contraception. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must–it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think. But that is not the case. So we have to take–you know, we have to handle this as respectfully–this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been–and I’m not saying Rick Warren did, because I don’t think he did, but others will try to.

Message from Benedict: Study more.  And he sent another message as well — that those with higher positions have higher responsibilities not to formally cooperate with the sin of abortion. That message undoubtedly was intended not just for Pelosi but for the entire class of Catholic politicians who support abortion rights, like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Joe Biden, among others.

As for excommunication, that question rightly belongs to Pelosi’s bishop, not the Pope.  Also, it likely would not have arisen in this setting, as the Pope does not give Communion during private audiences; that would only be an issue if Pelosi had attended a Papal Mass.  It seems clear, though, that Benedict XVI does not share Pelosi’s view of Catholic teachings on abortion — and used the visit to make that clear.

Update: Jim at Gateway Pundit wonders whether Pelosi will heed Benedict’s teaching.  I’d say: doubtful.  The teaching has always been plain; it’s the student that has the problem.

Update II: Even MS-NBC can’t spin this one:

Pope Benedict, underscoring the Vatican’s ruling on an issue that divides Americans, told U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday that Catholic politicians and legislators cannot back abortion rights.

Pelosi, a powerful U.S. politician who is Catholic and pro-choice, has been accused by U.S. bishops in the past of misrepresenting Church teachings on abortion.

The headline?  “Pope to Pelosi: Catholics cannot back abortion”.

The Anchoress has a great round-up on this story.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


unclesmrgol on February 19, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Thanks for the heads-up. Yes as you point out, LDS aborts its own absolute with the weasel out clause. Personally, I think it’s more of a cult than a branch of Christianity. Although I’ve had the pleasure of knowing a few that were morally devout. From time to time we debate the doctrine, but I certainly don’t get off on bashing them.

At the time I wrote it, I was thinking more of Reid the scheming crook with regards to his blatant lies, lobbyists, land deals etc, etc. All the same, if he were smacked down by his group, I’d be glad of it. Until then, he’s just a festering blemish on the face of LDS.

AH_C on February 19, 2009 at 12:21 PM

TTheoLogan was attacking doctrine and not any person. You’re comments in the past have been the opposite.

shick on February 18, 2009 at 11:34 PM

Wrong. TTheoLogan accused others of being pedophiles in the last Pelosi vs. Pope thread. Hardly a doctrinal issue.

darclon on February 19, 2009 at 12:33 PM

The problem with abortion is that each situation is different. Some are needed for health reasons, and others are to erase a mistake. My belief is that it is wrong to deny a child life, but its also wrong to deny a woman, or family the right to choose. Ultimately in a free nation, you are free to do whateva you want even if its killing a child. The govt shouldn’t endorse it. Just provide the necessary support/regulation and get out the way.

hiphopconservative on February 19, 2009 at 11:52 AM

HipHop, what you’re espousing is situational ethics. If it’s wrong to deny a child life, then why, in the case of a mother’s health, allow one to play God and choose who gets to live? If God wanted to spare the baby and take the mother home, then aborting the baby would interrupt God’s plan for him. By the same token, if God so wills it, he could easily spare both, or alternatively, take the baby after putting the mother thru a near death experience. Again, he could take both.

Once upon a time, it was all ‘chance’ or as believers would put it, in God’s hands. In a way modern medicine comes with the curse of pre-knowledge. Knowing that a certain pregnancy is risky injects the dilemma of aborting (sin) to save the mother (selfish), instead of trusting God to do his will. Nonetheless, modern medicine also comes with the gift of C-section and preemie care, so the “health” of the mother is rendered moot. I can personally speak to this as my wife’s 1st two childbirth were uncomplicated while the other 3 required C-section up to 5 weeks early, since natural childbirth could easily kill her.

As for rape, again, aborting the baby is pure selfishness because God allowed conception to take place and was already intimate with the developing baby until life was rudely snatched away. There are plenty of real life examples where the beauty of preserved life overcame the tragedy of rape.

Furthermore, the two cases for abortion that I cited happen less than 1% of all pregnancies. As for ‘erasing a mistake’, well that is the height of selfishness. For someone to rip asunder what God allowed to happen…

AH_C on February 19, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Oklahoma police cite “abort Obama, not children” car sign a threat to the president, reporting the man to the secret service who in turn search the man’s home.

The Police launch the Secret Service before turning to a dictionary to define the word, “abort”. Meanwhile, freedom of speech and intrusion of privacy are no longer the norm. Polite manners do not excuse abuse.

From Merriam-Webster

Latin abortus, past participle of aboriri to miscarry, from ab- + oriri to rise, be born — more at orient
Date: 1580
2 entries found.

1. 1abort (verb)
2. 2abort (noun)

intransitive verb1: to bring forth stillborn, nonviable, or premature offspring2: to become checked in development so as to degenerate or remain rudimentary3: to terminate a procedure prematurely transitive verb1 a: to induce the abortion of or give birth to prematurely b: to terminate the pregnancy of before term2 a: to terminate prematurely : cancel b: to stop in the early stages
— abort·er noun

Function: noun
: the premature termination of a flight (as of an aircraft or spacecraft), a mission, or an action or procedure relating to a flight

maverick muse on February 19, 2009 at 12:46 PM

hiphopconservative on February 19, 2009 at 11:52 AM

I take it you’ve never been to http://www.klannedparenthood.com. You ought to check it out to see the true soul of the Pro-Choice cult.

Once upon a time even Jesse Jackson was firmly against abortion, however, the lure of worldly riches and fame flipped him.

AH_C on February 19, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Members of the Church must not “submit to, be a party to, or perform an abortion” (General Handbook, 11-4). The only exceptions are where “incest or rape was involved, or where competent medical authorities certify that the life of the mother is in jeopardy, or that a severely defective fetus cannot survive birth” (Packer, p. 85). Author: Beard, Mary K., 1992, Encyclopedia of Mormonism (Please note that the contents of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, a joint product of Brigham Young University and Macmillan Publishing Company, do not necessarily represent the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) [No responsibility.]

“A severely defective fetus” made so by an abortive procedure excuses the aforesaid prohibition.

There is no absolute official Mormon position on abortion. If ever there were, since the Romney family’s abortion to facilitate political aspirations, that church has no iron rod protecting life. As lovely as Mormons may be, convolution is not.

maverick muse on February 19, 2009 at 1:16 PM

This whole witchhunt is not becoming of the Christian faith

ThackerAgency on February 19, 2009 at 11:10 AM

I agree with you that there are some who are on a witch hunt against Pelosi on this issue by calling for her excommunication as some form of revenge or punishment for her position. It is important for those people to understand that excommunication is done for the good of the sinner in question, not as a form of punishment. It is considered a far graver sin to receive communion while in a state of conscious sin than the actual sin itself. Excommunicating Pelosi and other Catholics who promote and facilitate abortions would be done to save them from the far greater sin of receiving communion without having repented for their postion on abortion.

Trafalgar on February 19, 2009 at 1:58 PM


I believe that every person has the god given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Personally I agree with the notion that god is solely responsible for conceptions success rate. But as a citizen of this country I don’t believe in denying people the right to disagree with my view.

Politicians legislate and enforce laws
; not impose personal views on people. I don’t agree they should aid in the effort either, other than standard medical assistance to states.

We can go on forever about the many scenarios of the good bad and ugly when we look at the effects of abortion.

Planned parenthood is prevalent in my hood and is obviously targeted toward black mainly democrat constituencies. The broader problem is the self hatred involved in a lot of these decisions weather home or abroad in tyrannical cultures. Many people such as Obama himself think that un planned parenthood is a punishment to the so called not ready parents. I have friends and family members who are religious and don’t believe in abortions, but have secretly, and shamefully done so behind everyones back.
My young girlfriend and I faced the decision a few months ago and decided to keep the child and love him/her unconditionally… Unfortunately, she mis carried.

I believe deep down in my heart that God intervened without Planned Parenthood or anyone else politicizing it.

Empirical evidence shows me that although we have suppport from our large families,
And are willing to take responsibility, financially it would have been very tough to take on a child. Granted not using a condom caused the pregnancy, but some argue condoms are birth control.
We were saddened but have grown closer, and are practicing safe sex permanently.

I secretly hold a resentment toward her for wanting to abort our child, but those feelings make me realize the flaw in the theory of denying a woman the right to choose. In essence we are denying the human right to make a decision for ones self weather right, wrong, or in different. We are both young, and in college, and quite frankly are both selfish in many ways for thinking that a baby would somehow ruin our lives.

Don’t blame me blame society.

hiphopconservative on February 19, 2009 at 7:00 PM

Finally, Luther was born in 1483 (years after Gutenberg was dead and buried), so Luther and Gutenberg were not in any way contemporaries. Your “miracle” is not.

unclesmrgol on February 19, 2009 at 2:23 AM

So you are saying that the Gutenberg press (you do know that after he died, his press lived on) did not print Luther’s German bible, it did not print his 95 thesis?
How interesting…but wrong.
Notice I was mentioning the German bible, the first widely distributed bible in the “common” language.
Please, read the posts more carefully, the post was about Luther…Gutenberg that is his press, is a miracle that they were contemporary with Luther. If Luther preceded (I can’t believe I have to explain this to you) Gutenberg, his impact would have never been felt.
Ironically, the papal indulgences were originally printed by Gutenberg himself, and then Luther used his press for his 95 thesis, which of course dissed the indulgences…so a little irony there.
Unfortunately, we often don’t have a huge amount of space…apparently with you, you need many extra words to help you understand.

right2bright on February 19, 2009 at 7:23 PM

hiphopconservative on February 19, 2009 at 7:00 PM

so if the baby were born why then cannot the mother or parents have the choice without worrying about societal or legal constraints?

i think you need to grow a backbone.

Jamson64 on February 19, 2009 at 8:17 PM

ThackerAgency on February 19, 2009 at 11:10 AM

I’m certain that my doctrinal questioning is considered to be Catholic bashing on a regular basis. But the whole ‘idol worshiping’ is a problem for all of mankind since Adam. The Church is not immune from idol worship.

Idolization comes in many forms. I think the emphasis put on the Catholic church rather than Christ shows an idolatry of the Catholic Church. The concept of the pope (a human speaking for God) is also VERY close to idolatry. All the STATUES of Mary are also close to idolatry.

For starters, you willingly distort the Catholic church and then continue on the finer points of your mischaracterization as if it were true. Your skewed viewpoint of Catholics practicing their faith has been disproved and explained on countless threads and yet you still prop up the same tired rhetoric.

Put it this way. If it weren’t so common in the Catholic Church, and another religion were treating inanimate objects the way that Catholics do, Catholics would consider them to be idolaters.

Or perhaps it’s because it isn’t what you say it is. But to think that would mean you would have to humble yourself from your incorrect conclusions. However, you seem to lack any desire for understanding or humility, at least on this and other threads on HotAir.

I’ve seen what idolatry can do to good God-loving people. . . even within the Church. The scary thing concerning the Catholic Church is the willingness of Catholics to deny that the church has ever done anything wrong. They defend the church to the detriment of Christianity.

Again, you either fabricate, willingly ignore facts or just plain resort to fiction because perhaps you have to keep your facts corralled within your skewed perceptions.

I find most Catholics spending time arguing more about doctrine than expressing love, admiration, and desire to be with/like/near God.

Here for example. . . everyone is talking about Pelosi and abortion and the Catholic church.

Because here, on HotAir, is an audience of most Catholics? Debating doctrine on this forum is your first example (and only instance of providing any examples to any of your assertions) and it fails.

Christians really need to spend more time talking to non-Christians about who Jesus is instead of telling current Christian believers why they should be ‘kicked out’.

Obviously you have no idea what excommunication in the Catholic Church is. Least meaning “kicked out.” You have an idea of what you want it to mean but only if that skewed understanding fuels your incorrect stance.

If there is a need for a pope, and that pope met with a leader of Islam, I would HOPE that the pope would try to convert the leader of Islam rather than ask for ‘understanding’ from him.

Just too funny a sentence coming from you. You probably won’t get why based on the evidence of your method of logic.

Again, call me a ‘Catholic basher’, but really, Catholics need to be allowed to be critical of their organized church. It’s something that I don’t see. Most Catholics seemed to be complicit in covering up the priest abuse scandal. Jesus would have wept again.

Again, make up a fact then expound on your genius. You seem to be doing alot of assuming based on your self-imposed narrow viewpoint.

My responding to you was not to debate your points or explain where you are confused. I only needed to point out why your arguments can’t even make it out the starting gate of a real debate. Explaining and diffusing your misconceptions is a fruitless task because you display a reluctance to concede that you are viewing Catholicism with a bias and prejudice that only seeks to undermine rather than understand.

I pray that one day you are free from your burden.

geckomon on February 19, 2009 at 9:29 PM

And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins,

And as I’ve said every time this comes up, science answered this question a long time ago. The most basic tenet of biology is that life begets life. Life does not suddenly spring from non-life in the womb. By scientific definition both the egg and sperm cells are alive, as is the fertilized egg. There is no time in the process when the thing we call life is absent.

This is junior high biology.

taznar on February 19, 2009 at 9:38 PM

Unfortunately, we often don’t have a huge amount of space…apparently with you, you need many extra words to help you understand.

right2bright on February 19, 2009 at 7:23 PM

You provided many extra words to help me understand. Here’s part of your post, with the words which prompted my post bolded.

As far as Gutenberg, who do you think translated the bible into German?…it was Luther, he contracted to have Gutenberg print the bible. One of the “miracles” I always wonder about, Gutenberg at the same time as Luther. His 95 thesis was printed on the Gutenberg press, as was the first distributed common language bible. Imagine, the two most influential people, who could best compliment each other, being together, the same time, the same place…like our founding fathers, some things are just divinely created.

I think your comment says quite clearly that
a) Luther and Gutenberg were contemporaries, and
b) Luther contracted with Gutenberg to print his German bible.

You did not say, as you claim, that it was Gutenberg’s press, you said that it was Gutenberg.

In fact, the miracle to which you refer is that Luther managed to use an invention which was already 60 years old at the point of the 95 theses (the initial version of which was hand-written) — and that’s not much of a miracle. By the time 60 years had gone by, all manner of cheaply printed works (including Bibles) were possible.

Note that the Church did not ban Gutenberg’s Bible, which was the first bible not owned by either royalty or the Church — and in fact, provided Gutenberg a sinecure in his later life when he was rendered penniless by the theft of his idea by his backers. As I’ve pointed out, a Gutenberg Bible cost about three years of standard wage — so you and I can only guess what a hand copied and hand illuminated Bible would have cost. That each church had one, even in Latin, was quite an accomplishment, regardless of how little you think of it.

As far as the Bible in the vernacular, this is instructive. Note that prohibitions extended to translations done by heretics (one of which was considered Luther), as well as to fascicles of the Bible (since the entire text was not present, error could be introduced). The Bible had been in the vernacular since about the fourth century (when local languages began diverging from Latin, and when the Bible needed to be translated into Teutonic tongues).

So, what Luther did was not a miracle. It was what everyone was doing, aided greatly on the ability to print cheap Bibles.

unclesmrgol on February 19, 2009 at 9:40 PM

taznar on February 19, 2009 at 9:38 PM

Exactly! Perhaps the “when life begins” debate is perpetuated as a distraction to the real argument: personhood.

The act of denying a person the basic human right to live is scary to those who support abortion because then they would have the ridiculous task of providing the definition of a person without also including the unborn. Imagine having to be the one to be tasked with denying personhood to something that is definitely nothing less. Especially to a bleeding heart liberal.

Then again, there is that moral relativity issue that handicaps those who would seem otherwise intelligent.

geckomon on February 19, 2009 at 9:48 PM


Oh indeed my backbone (as Veep Biden would say) is made of steel. My stance is clear. I was posting in response to someone mentioning situational ethics then using a planned parenthood link (I guess)to scare me into a conspiracy mindset, as if I don’t live smack dab in the same hood the link was smearing
. I offered my stance in regard to our constitution, and my faith in God. I also made it clear that govt is by and for the people and religious views need not be legislated unless demanded by the people etc… What about my opinion and/or anectdote showed a lack of backbone may I ask? And while your at it, what exactly is your stance on the issue? Probably a long winded scripture that has nothing to do with your original lame attempt at a slick remark. More than likely you didn’t read the article, or thread, or my previous posts, or the headline and decided to waste everyone’s time with a lame comment. Lol thanx 4 the chuckle.

hiphopconservative on February 19, 2009 at 9:59 PM

hiphopconservative on February 19, 2009 at 9:59 PM

You are a mature young man with many years ahead of him to continue to grow. Your comment did not warrant the response that Jamson64 generated.

I only say that I hope you leave open your thinking of what exactly is that right of the mother that supersedes the life of a child. If the choice to her body is whether to augment or reduce a part of her body, there should be little question. However, when positioning yourself on the side of the argument that a woman’s choice includes denying a child’s basic right to live, then you may be tethering on a moral relativity; one that ignores a person’s status for the convenience of their own.

Hopefully in time you come to understand what I mean. We all want to practice free will, we all want to know that we are ultimately the makers of our decisions but we cannot forget that our free will should never include the right to abort a child.

Women have an awesome task and incredible responsibility of carrying for the most innocent of all persons, the unborn child. The gift of providing a safe haven for that which cannot protect itself otherwise is invaluable. Carrying a child should never be thought of as a burden, an inconvenience and especially after the fact of conception, a choice.

geckomon on February 19, 2009 at 11:04 PM

hiphopconservative on February 19, 2009 at 7:00 PM

I concur with geckomon’s response at February 19, 2009 at 11:04 PM

You have to admit that there is an incongruent irony that on one hand you recognize that God is the giver of life, yet it is a woman’s free choice. To see what I mean, in every pro-choice argument substitute the mother for slave master and swap baby with slave. That is the same personhood argument writ large over the slave debate since the founding of our country. In fact the slave trade still goes on even today, predominately in Muslim and pagan cultures. The slave is sub-human and owners can do as they please.

Simply put, question of pro slavery and pro abortion falls flat whenever the subject’s personhood is affirmed.

Speaking of Muslim, one could also transpose men vs women along the same lines, where a woman could be post-birth ‘aborted’ for shaming the family, or sold into marriage for the economic convenience of the family.

These are the tough decisions that people considering abortion have to think about — life or death. But that tough decision would be nullified or minimized if the government went ahead and recognized the personhood of a fetus at conception. In that case, the sexually-active person must either consider contraceptives or better yet abstain from sex until ready.

You say you were secretly angry at your gf for considering abortion, well, the odds are that had she gone thru it, she would carry the guilt and pain for the rest of her life. Not to mention the heighten risk of cancer and emotional scars.

Yes we can blame society, but we must acknowledge that society has clouded the individual’s thot processes by diminishing a baby to just a clump of cells, a slave as sub-human & closer to an ape, or a women as inferior to man.

In any case, I wish you well and that you grow in wisdom from your personal close encounter over abortion vs the sanctity of life.

AH_C on February 20, 2009 at 2:52 AM

AH_C on February 19, 2009 at 6:36 AM

You seem like a very nice Christian man and not an anti-Catholic.

You said that you are not interested in talking about these doctrinal beliefs, and I will respect that and not address some of your points. I understand that these are side issues to you. To me the misunderstandings separate Christ’s faithful and draw some away from His fullest truth and all truth is important. Because Jesus said, “I came to testify to the truth,” and “I am the way and the truth and the life . . . “

But, praise God, all true Christians share the most important truth of in Jesus Christ.

But, if I may, I would like to repost just one thing about Mother of God. I understand everything you wrote about it. But the Bible says that Mary is the mother of God.

Elizabeth said, “And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43) A Jewish woman back then (and even some today) would not speak the name of God. He was called Lord.

And when Elizabeth said this she was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:41-43)

God bless you.

Elisa on February 20, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Elisa on February 20, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Thanks for your kind words. It’s not that I don’t want to discuss doctrine, it’s just that it is rather OT to the subject of the Pope smacking down Nancy, for which all ChristiansBelievers should be glad.

Yet some commenters chose to start bashing the Catholics over other wrongs and doctrinal differences. When these ‘babies'(Hebrews 5) start spitting up curdled milk that either have no basis in Scriptures or lacking discernment, I can’t stand by and let their ignorance and/or spite go unchallenged. (1st they came for the Jews…)

Once they’re thru with one group of Believers, they’ll just start on the next, and next, until there’s only their group at which point, they’ll start tearing each other apart. All the while, Satan’s just ROTFLHAO. That’s hardly Christ-like and just plain old human nature.

AH_C on February 20, 2009 at 12:37 PM

At the time I wrote it, I was thinking more of Reid the scheming crook with regards to his blatant lies, lobbyists, land deals etc, etc. All the same, if he were smacked down by his group, I’d be glad of it. Until then, he’s just a festering blemish on the face of LDS.

AH_C on February 19, 2009 at 12:21 PM

As Pelosi is a festering blemish to me. Understood.

unclesmrgol on February 20, 2009 at 12:43 PM

I agree about the sanctity of personhood. It is a global problem. The challenge is to abort the slave mind state that is instilled in many Americans who turn to these institutions. The black community needs to follow our positive role models and not vice versa.

As the planned parenthood link proved, black exploitation is big business.

My overall point is that our beliefs are foreign to these young women, and we need to tackle the larger issue before simply outlawing this option.

hiphopconservative on February 20, 2009 at 1:17 PM

My overall point is that our beliefs are foreign to these young women, and we need to tackle the larger issue before simply outlawing this option.

hiphopconservative on February 20, 2009 at 1:17 PM

Yes indeed, our primacy of sex culture needs to be smacked down.

AH_C on February 20, 2009 at 2:18 PM

AH_C on February 20, 2009 at 12:37 PM

I agree. All believers in God and all sincere seekers with an open mind and all men of good will need to band together to fight what in reality is not secularism, but the quiet religion of evil that has cropped up in our society and around the world. They hate God. period.

(Not talking about sincere agnostics or atheists of good will who do not believe or just doubt, but do not hate either.)

And what you wrote in your last post about the primacy of sex in our culture is true. We are allowing our young to drown in a cesspool. And it is dragging all society down into it as well.

Elisa on February 20, 2009 at 3:18 PM