mary bobo;14677156:
Let’s see: In spite of constant media coverage, she has never been photographed inside a Catholic Church before this last trip, she was married in another church to a man who, in the eyes of the Church, is not free to marry, she baptized her son in another religion and is raising him in that religion.
But questioning a statement for which there is no supporting evidence is an indication that those who do so are “anti-Trump” and wish to denigrate him and his innocent family members.
It couldn’t possibly be that those who defend Trump are people who do not place much emphasis on facts.
Oh, but there are facts – “alternative facts” – namely, that she was baptized in secret, that she goes to church in secret and receives all her sacraments in secret and with the benefit of dispensation, and despite being a major celebrity, has never been photographed inside a Catholic church prior to meeting the pope OR after – and, if that effort weren’t impressive enough, she goes to extra mile to raise her child in a non-Catholic environment because the “liberal media” makes it extra difficult for her. (Is this summation correct?) To say this ‘story’ requires “suspension of disbelief” is an understatement: I’m more inclined to believe that Captain Jack Sparrow is a real person and that “Pirates of the Caribbean” is a documentary. Evidence? Facts? Pfft–! Who needs 'em?