while the race for the WH was on Romney was talking economics and how to get America back on the right path again. Obama was talking about the war on women(not jobs)and brought out Sandra Fluke.Little did we know that his rhetoric about the war on women would catch on with the voter. Romney really never touched on it.He mentioned briefly(pun intended) his brief case full of women and that was it.Which the liberals tore to shreds of course.

I’m still dumbfounded. With the economy in the tank how could anyone fall for this war on women? It’s PHONY.

First of all Romney was married to a woman and he appeared to treat her decently with much love and  respect.Doesn’t strike me as someone who had it in for women.(No skeletons in his closet either-how about the recent sex scandals involving Democrats?)

Second,i don’t ever recall Romney saying or even insinuating he was going to ban contraceptives. I don’t think he did so as Gov either.Not sure where that came from.

We know for a fact Obama is pro abortion.This is where i think most of his support came from.Pro abortion groups are well funded and powerful. If you oppose abortion you’re branded anti woman. It’ s like being opposed to Obama’s policies and being branded racist.Or opposing same sex marriage and being branded a homophobe. The truth is the liberals control the narrative and will brand you,try to shut you up and call YOU intolerant for having a different pov.

You’re going to be beat up if you’re pro life and being called anti woman carries a lot of weight.Be informed right here.I am a woman.

It seems to be that to be pro abortion is counter intuitive. We’re actually killing babies that are female. We’re letting men abandon both women and children.Frankly we have PRESSURED  women into a terrible choice.

Obama was asked when life began.He was being facetious and he thinks very clever by replying,”That’s above my pay grade.”  He knew what he believed the minute he said it.For a subject as serious as this he denigrated it. People assumed what they wanted to by his answer. He knew he didn’t want to put off pro life people but he didn’t want to lose his pro abortion base either.So he managed to avoid the answer altogether and look like he gave an answer.Science tells us. Biology tells us.The reproductive process tells us.Life begins at conception and i can’t imagine a country that would brow beat it’s women into believing otherwise. Women have abortions because they feel there is no other choice and it’s written off as just some simple procedure. They are also told that pro life people want to take away something from them.Pro abortion people want to take something away too.The very life of their baby.

It’s not about forcing women to keep a baby they may not be able to raise. There isn’t a pro life person who believes that.What we do believe is that the baby should have a chance and the mother should get all the help and support she needs.Not abandoned at a clinic,dropped off and then left alone to pick up the pieces of her life.

It doesn’t mean forcing the woman to keep her baby either.There are so many people who would be wiling to adopt. What an act of love that is on the part of any woman.I hear people say,”you pro life people want women to have their babies but after that you don’t care.” That’s not true at all.There are many pro life programs that offer all kinds of help to women in need. Why do they keep perpetuating that lie?

IMHO it would be better for teens to wait until they are married. I’m not sure why we consider this impossible as if  teens are not prepared to make responsible decisions?Especially a decision that will affect their whole life.

I have enough faith to know that teens will accept guidelines if you give them to them.

It’s not just a war on women that the Liberals are waging-they are the ones waging the war on women.It’s a war on our youth.

Notice how they look the other way over the recent sex scandals no matter how much women were hurt by them? It’s not about women.It’s about power,politics and party.

Romney waged no war on women. If anything was phony that was it.Benghazi, IRS, NSA,Fast and Furious and other scandals are NOT. Those are REAL.miss

An Open Letter To Lauren Green

I have to admit over the years you’ve done a pretty good job of reporting on the topic of religion for Fox News. Better than most. That said,i usually have a problem with the coverage of religion in the news media.

Case in point:the recent plane interview with Pope Francis on the way from Rio. Glaring headlines that made it seem like our Holy Father had changed Church doctrine(upsetting some)or had not gone far enough according to others.

Fox news said very little about the interview.It was more like a footnote. The rest of the media turned it into a real brouhaha.

I want to talk about your interview with the representative from Opus Dei(at least you talked to a practicing Catholic-that’s more than most do)and point a few things out.

There’s an axiom which says there is no such thing as a stupid question. Agree.There is such a thing as a  misinformed question.

My biggest beef with the media when covering religious topics  especially when it involves the Catholic Church they do so as outsiders looking in. This wouldn’t be so bad if they reporters would just do their homework.

Here’s the bottom line:

Pope Francis did not change doctrine. He actually reiterated what the Church has taught all along. The best source to know that is to get the Catechism of the Catholic Church and read the section on homosexuality.

Pope Francis did not set a different tone.If you look back at his predecessors Blessed John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict the XVI you would find there isn’t much daylight on tone.Their style of communication and personality,yes,Tone.No.

Yes, there are some differences which you pointed out. Pope Francis using an open popemobile, living in an apartment etc. I think what people are trying to make of this is that Pope Francis is a humble man and  Benedict the XVI was not. BTW. I think we should remember that the popemobile went with the bullet proof glass for years w/ good reason. Blessed John Paul II had been shot. That thought doesn’t wear off anytime soon and I’m sure the Papal security took that into consideration.I’m honestly not sure why this is being made such a big deal.I think it’s wonderful that Pope Francis opened it up so he could be close to the people and I admire him greatly for that.However,i also understood the need for the protection John Paul II and Benedict had. Truth is,it’s risky but perhaps not as risky as it might have been.

In reality our recent Popes have all brought about changes. Pope Emeritus Benedict focused more on tradition(small t)in the Catholic Church but that didn’t make him any less humble. He stepped down from the Pontificate of his own free will knowing because of his age he could no longer bring to the Church the stamina required for the service the Pope must provide.I don’t know how much more humble you can get.Some people believe he should have stayed on like Blessed John Paul II did-till the day he died.What they fail to realize is that Benedict the XVI actually stepped down at the age John Paul II died. When you consider it you get a whole new perspective.

The media uses  Pope Francis to take jabs at Pope Emeritus Benedict. Most of us are aware of what is going on.

I would say that all 3 recent Popes;Francis,John Paul II and Benedict came to the Papacy from different cultural backgrounds and that in itself makes them different men.They also bring to the Papacy their unique life experiences.

It doesn’t make one less or more humble and it doesn’t mean they’re going to change doctrine. The media has taken off with the interview and for some reason think that the Church will change her teaching on homosexuality,marriage and the priesthood. They TOTALLY misunderstood what Pope Francis actually said.As i said they’re outsiders looking in and they need to do their homework. A non Catholic may not agree with Church teaching but as reporters the least they can do is TRY to understand it. They could make an attempt and do a far better job.

You do that and you get a whole set of different questions you can ask.

Here are some of the questions i would have asked the rep from Opus Dei: why do you think the media took the statements to mean the Church was changing their attitude towards homosexuality? What do you think people make a comparison between Francis and Benedict on?Do you see a difference? I would have asked questions re Pope Emeritus focus on tradition(small t)and what the focus of Pope Francis pontificate will be? How will Pope Francis address the traditional Latin Mass compared to how Pope Emeritus addressed it? Do you see any changes or do you see the hermeneutics  of continuity? (which i do btw.If you look they are there.People have a perception of changes based on their own pov.Not really there Lauren.

I’d say personality and cultural backgrounds are different. Beyond that? Frankly,no. The Church is very clear on her teachings re homosexuality, marriage,sexuality and the priesthood. Those who think the Pope will change them(dissidents)are badly mistaken(they have their own agenda) and probably not catechized too well.

IF the media had done their homework and not tried to make his comments sensational this might have been a whole different story and MORE accurate.

I hope in the future they would but not holding my breathe. Anytime they cover the Catholic Church it’s the usual. (grab the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It helps).

Thanks for having a rep from Opus Dei on(good call).Most of the media looks for people who do NOT represent the Church. Trust me,it’s DELIBERATE. SPECIAL NOTE: Thanks to Fr Z for:
‘hermeneutics  of continuity’

Pope Francis.THIS is  his message. It is the message of the Church.