Which brings us back to square one re the entire debate.I said right out of the gate,I wondered about the veracity of this comment re Melania’s faith.Yet the debate continued and escalated to the extent that we have now entered the Twilight Zone.False. The First Lady’s spokeswoman has yet to confirm the accuracy of the story.
That wasn’t the point. The point was some claiming it was wrong to criticize her past and question her claim when they themselves saw nothing wrong with criticizing the past of politicians they disagreed with. It was the pot calling the kettle black. Why is this so hard to understand?Which brings us back to square one re the entire debate.I said right out of the gate,I wondered about the veracity of this comment re Melania’s faith.Yet the debate continued and escalated to the extent that we have now entered the Twilight Zone.
All this because some just couldn’t wait to scrutinize MT worthiness to be a Catholic and all that that embraces.![]()
If there’s no agreement that she actually is Catholic, since she was apparently baptized in secret and apparently practices her faith in secret away from any RCIA sponsors and away from any other parishoners, and is raising her son in a non-Catholic environment, then that’s what’s hard for to me understand. People are tripping over themselves praising the First Lady over what is essentially a rumor, and anyone who dares to apply some reason and critical thinking skills to a story with more holes in it than Swiss cheese that person can expect a torrent of hateful, uncharitable attacks if we’re not swept up in the wave of, “Oh, that’s so wonderful Melania is Catholic now” as though it were fact. THAT’S what I don’t understand – why it’s hateful to simply ask, “Uh, guys…is this story even true?”That wasn’t the point. The point was some claiming it was wrong to criticize her past and question her claim when they themselves saw nothing wrong with criticizing the past of politicians they disagreed with. It was the pot calling the kettle black. Why is this so hard to understand?
I have explained the difference ad nauseum on the other thread.Go back and read through all of the posts.Maybe then you will be enlightened.That wasn’t the point. The point was some claiming it was wrong to criticize her past and question her claim when they themselves saw nothing wrong with criticizing the past of politicians they disagreed with. It was the pot calling the kettle black. Why is this so hard to understand?
Why is it any of your business? Do I need to show you my baptism certificate to prove I’m Catholic? Do I need to prove to you I’m a practicing Catholic? Did Tim Kaine, Nancy Pelosi, or any of the other left wing dems need to prove their Catholicism to you?If there’s no agreement that she actually is Catholic, since she was apparently baptized in secret and apparently practices her faith in secret away from any RCIA sponsors and away from any other parishoners, and is raising her son in a non-Catholic environment, then that’s what’s hard for to me understand. People are tripping over themselves praising the First Lady over what is essentially a rumor, and anyone who dares to apply some reason and critical thinking skills to a story with more holes in it than Swiss cheese that person can expect a torrent of hateful, uncharitable attacks if we’re not swept up in the wave of, “Oh, that’s so wonderful Melania is Catholic now” as though it were fact. THAT’S what I don’t understand – why it’s hateful to simply ask, “Uh, guys…is this story even true?”![]()
This was true before Trump.How refreshing to see Catholics eating their own.![]()
Why is it any of your business? Do I need to show you my baptism certificate to prove I’m Catholic? Do I need to prove to you I’m a practicing Catholic? Did Tim Kaine, Nancy Pelosi, or any of the other left wing dems need to prove their Catholicism to you?
You seem to be so eager to hate anything Trump that it appears you are incapable of practicing the simple virtues of the Catholic Church.
Give it up~~Your side lost.
Maybe we should ask why we have multiple threads on this business instead of singling one poster out.Why is it any of your business?
wasn’t it supposed to be confirmed before the news were uploaded?False. The First Lady’s spokeswoman has yet to confirm the accuracy of the story.
From the CNN article:False. The First Lady’s spokeswoman has yet to confirm the accuracy of the story.
Indeed.Why is it any of your business? Do I need to show you my baptism certificate to prove I’m Catholic? Do I need to prove to you I’m a practicing Catholic? Did Tim Kaine, Nancy Pelosi, or any of the other left wing dems need to prove their Catholicism to you?
You seem to be so eager to hate anything Trump that it appears you are incapable of practicing the simple virtues of the Catholic Church.
Give it up~~Your side lost.
Now that’s a quaint idea—confirming stories before they are released. Novel idea.wasn’t it supposed to be confirmed before the news were uploaded?
Yep. That’s exactly the objection.That wasn’t the point. The point was some claiming it was wrong to criticize her past and question her claim when they themselves saw nothing wrong with criticizing the past of politicians they disagreed with. It was the pot calling the kettle black. Why is this so hard to understand?
If she is, she is a Catholic who does not attend Mass, who did not baptize her son in the Catholic Church, who could not marry in a Catholic Church because her putative husband is NOT FREE to marry her, who has endorsed the use of artificial birth control…So is she Catholic or not?