Francis slams Trump’s Christianity, ignores Obama’s infanticide

Kevin WhitemanFebruary 18, 2016

0 299 3 minutes read

Politics and religion collide. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

In a none too subtle swipe, Pope Francis has openly questioned the Christianity of Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, as reported by Britain’s venerable BBC on Feb. 18, 2016. Finishing a six-day visit to Mexico, the South American Jesuit told the press “A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not of building bridges, is not Christian.”

For his part, Trump responded with, “For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian. No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith.” While campaigning ahead of the GOP South Carolina Presidential Primary, he also stated, “[The pope] said negative things about me. Because the Mexican government convinced him that Trump is not a good guy.”

Curiously, during a state visit last September between Francis and Barack Obama, there was nary a mention from Francis regarding Obama’s past opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) while he was an Illinois state senator early in his political career. In a 2008 report, LifeSiteNews.com noted, “Barack Obama, as a member of the Illinois State Senate, actively opposed a state version of the BAIPA during three successive regular legislative sessions. His opposition to the state legislation continued into 2003 – even after NARAL [National Abortion Rights Action League] had withdrawn its initial opposition to the federal bill, and after the final federal bill had been enacted in August 2002.”

According to Douglas Johnson, NRLC [National Right to Life Committee] spokesman, “in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an Illinois state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion – even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language…” As cited, in 2000, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) was first introduced to the United States Congress. This was a two-paragraph bill intended to clarify that “any baby who is entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who shows any signs of life, is to be regarded as a legal ‘person’ for all federal law purposes, whether or not the baby was born during an attempted abortion.”

Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?

Yes

Testifying before the US Congress in 2000 was Jill Stanek, a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, who saw firsthand what happened to children who survived the abortion procedure. “Stanek relates the story of how one night she saw a nurse bringing a baby to the soiled utility room to die, because the parents of the child did not want to hold it. The other nurse also did not have the time to hold the child. ‘When she told me what she was doing I couldn’t bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone,’ says Stanek. ‘And so I cradled and rocked him for the forty-five minutes that he lived.'”

Stanek also stated in her testimony to Congress that she also had previously appeared before an Illinois State Senate Committee, a Committee on which Barack Obama sat. “Barack Obama,” she says, “was unmoved, and actually opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.”

According to the official teaching of the Catholic Church regarding abortion is actually quite clear, especially concerning the the very basic right of being considered “a person”; “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”

Another part of the Catechism of the Catholic Church Francis may have missed was the quite unambiguous passage regarding immigration; “Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.”