Peter LaBarbera Takes On Pope Francis, Claims 'Satan's Earthly Minions' Use Homosexuality To Undermine Catholic Church

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality head Peter LaBarbera is none too pleased with new comments on homosexuality made by Pope Francis, writing that a fear he “and many like-minded pro-family advocates share (including several Catholic friends with whom I’ve spoken) is that the pope is naive about the aggressive homosexualist agenda.”

According to LaBarbera, “Satan’s earthly minions” concocted a plan to bring gay men into the priesthood so they can “seduce and molest” boys in order to discredit and weaken the Church’s authority to condemn homosexuality. LaBarbera now fears that the Pope is giving ammunition to “pro-homosexuality and pro-abortion militants” to further their goal of bringing “corruption and destruction to many institutions.”

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality works closely with conservative Catholics from across the nation, indeed the world, in opposition to the homosexual activist movement. It is my experience that wherever the Catholic Church still has influence, if the Church or its leaders takes a strong stand against pro-”gay” legislation, the bills usually fail — but if Church leaders compromise on doctrine or go AWOL (public policy-speaking), homosexual activists triumph.

Having said that, I acutely recognize — from my perspective as an evangelical (who was raised Catholic) — that there has always been a “friendly distrust” or competition between ministry and the defense of morality. Between Christians who believe that primary role of believers is compassionate Gospel outreach to lost homosexuals — and “culture war” Christians who (although also loving the Gospel) see religious traditionalists as a crucial force resisting the Sin Movement of homosexuality that so profoundly threatens our culture.



I dare say that a more sinister plot to undermine the Catholic Church and its reputation could not have been carried out had Satan’s earthly minions spent $100 million devising one:

1. Homosexual men take advantage of more lax standards to enter priesthood.

2. Homosexual priests and male Catholic school officials use their authoritative role to seduce and molest mostly male teenagers and boys.

3. Homosexuals like then-Archbishop Weakland and their sympathizers in the Church cover up priest abuses and transfer predators to new, unsuspecting parishes, where they molest more boys.

4. The homosexual-predator scandal blows up in the media — alienating millions of Catholics from the Church and doing untold damage to its reputation and moral, spiritual and political influence.

5. Homosexuals and liberal allies who advocate for acceptance of homosexuality turn around and say Church is now discredited because it harbored “pedophiles.” Meanwhile, Church officials resist full disclosure of the scandal, thus perpetuating it.

6. Lastly, “gay” activists and their liberal allies continue to insist that the male-on-boy priest abuse scandal has little or nothing to do with homosexuals — but rather was a “pedophile” or “ephebophile” (adult who is sexual attracted to adolescents) problem.

My hunch is that each and every one of those complicit Church apologists for homosexuality, like Weakland, would consider himself “more compassionate” and “more Christ-like” than “anti-gay Catholics” who have been scandalized by the homosexualist advances in their Church. Such is the arrogance of liberals. This despite the untold suffering of boys victimized by sexual deviants masquerading as pastoral guardians of others’ souls.

All this is a roundabout way of saying that the great fear that I and many like-minded pro-family advocates share (including several Catholic friends with whom I’ve spoken) is that the pope is naive about the aggressive homosexualist agenda. Pro-”gay” ideologues are cunning and tactical — they are already using the pope’s words to advocate ideas that he surely condemns. While laying claim to the Gospel and noble concepts like tolerance and equality, they have brought corruption and destruction to many institutions, of which the Catholic Church is but one.

We understand that the pope is not embracing a change in Church doctrine, and that he truly wants to help homosexual strugglers come to God. But at the same time we recognize that words matter in this debate — indeed, they often drive it. (Witness the deviously brilliant slogan “marriage equality” used by LGBT advocates to denote sodomy-based so-called “marriage.”) And unfortunately the words Pope Francis has chosen (e.g., warning against “obsessing” about Church doctrines (such as Vatican teachings on homosexuality) and stating regarding “gay” priests: “Who am I to judge them?”) are already being manipulated, distorted and exploited by LGBT activists and their allies. That includes pro-homosexual priests like Fr. James Martin who are no friends of orthodoxy.



Nobody is predicting the dissolution of the Catholic Church, but when you see pro-homosexuality and pro-abortion militants acclaiming the new the pope’s approach, beware. AFTAH will be following this story closely.

Brown: Ellen DeGeneres Proves That Gay Rights Are Nothing Like Civil Rights

Anti-gay activist Michael Brown, the author of "A Queer Thing Happened to America," was the guest on "Dr. Chaps" Gordon Klingenschmitt's "Pray In Jesus Name" program today where he made the case that the fight for gay rights cannot be equated to the fight for civil rights because blacks didn't have a popular figure like Ellen DeGeneres during segregation.

Apparently operating under the delusion that there were no popular African American celebrities before the end of segregation, Brown said that gay rights and civil rights have nothing in common not only because blacks don't have to "come out" and declare themselves as such but also because "during the days of segregation, we didn't have people like Ellen DeGeneres who were national celebrities who were black and just loved by the whole nation."

Brown continued, making an even more illogical point by declaring that "we didn't have a gay or lesbian president - we have a black president now - [so] you can't compare the these things at all." Of course, we didn't have a black president during segregation either, so we are not quite sure what point Brown thinks that he is making:

Right Wing Round-Up - 9/20/13

Right Wing Leftovers - 9/20/13

  • It looks like Joseph Farah's "9/11 National Day of Prayer and Repentance" is going to be an annual thing.
  • Tony Perkins continues to blame the SPLC for last year's shooting at FRC headquarters.
  • Ted Baehr knows how to stop mass shooting like the one this week at the Navy Yard: "We must end the arbitrary judicial bans on religious and moral teaching in our schools that deprive America’s children of the Ten Commandments that God gave Moses and the Hebrew people on Mount Sinai and the teachings that Jesus Christ gave his disciples in the Sermon on the Mount in Chapters Five through Seven of the Gospel of Matthew and in Chapters 13 through 17 of the Gospel of John."
  • Speaking of the Navy Yard shooting, Rob Schenck says it turned out to be a good opportunity for him to spread the Gospel: "What had begun as a horrible tragedy became a wonderful opportunity to show the love of God, to turn attention to our only true source of help in times of desperation, and to point hearts and minds to the only Savior of humankind."
  • Finally, Matt Barber says President Obama is "creating a constitutional crisis here because he is violating the Constitution" by letting gay couples take advantage of federal benefits.

Harvey: Ban Gay Pride Parades And Adoption

On her radio commentary yesterday, Linda Harvey said she couldn’t comprehend why anyone would be opposed to Russia’s new law criminalizing speech it considers “homosexual propaganda.”

The Mission America president, who has endorsed and promoted the law, called on the US to view the law as a model, such as its ban on gay adoption and pride events: “A ban on homosexuals adopting children was also part of this law as well as a ban on gay pride parades, something we should consider in cities here, and a ban on any public promotion of homosexuality.”

She also praised Russia’s efforts to prevent gay people from “influencing children.” 

Harvey just didn’t understand what all the fuss was all about, dismissing gay people for “playing the victim.”

“It’s amazing to me, with all of Russia’s flaws, they understand how important this is and we don’t,” Harvey maintained. “Homosexual groups specialize in playing the victim card even though in reality the Russian law is all about preventing children from being victims so it’s not victimizing anyone.”

Fischer: Right Wing Watch Is 'Helping Me Get The Word Out'

Earlier this week, Bryan Fischer hosted Peter LaBarbera on his radio program and we didn't write a post about it which, according to Fischer and his producer, Jeff Reed means ... something.

Fischer, who normally complains that we are "cyberstalking" him, is now complaining that we are not posting clips from his show because supposedly the topic of HIV rates among young males does not fit our agenda.

Of course, we did actually mention LaBarbera's appearance on Fischer's show in our daily Right Wing Leftovers post.  In fact, if you scroll through our Bryan Fischer archive, you will find dozens of instances where we just dumped his nonsense in a Leftovers post because, shocking as this may be to Fischer, not every single thing that he says is something that deserves a blog post.

But sometimes he does say things that we think deserve highlighting, such as his declaration today that he appreciates our efforts to help him "get the word out" about his insanely bigoted views:

We are always happy to help.

Rep. Huelskamp: Defund Obamacare Because 90 Percent Of Americans Oppose Abortion Provision That Doesn't Exist

You really have to marvel at Republican members of Congress who believe that the message of the 2012 election, in which the candidate who campaigned for Obamacare soundly defeated the candidate who campaigned to repeal Obamacare, was that most Americans want to repeal Obamacare by any means possible.

Following an election in which Democrats won the popular vote for the House of Representatives, a mere 36 percent of Americans favor repealing the Affordable Care Act and just 28 percent of voters say they’d be more likely to support a congressman who is willing to shut down the government in order to prevent the law from being funded.

That brings us to Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), who in an interview with talk show host Steve Deace today followed his attacks on food stamp recipients by spewing the patently absurd GOP talking points that it is actually President Obama — not the Republicans — who want to shut down the government.

Then, Huelskamp asserted that voters will side with the GOP because a whopping “90 percent” of Americans oppose the reform law’s provision that “every single person under Obamacare” will pay a $1 abortion surcharge.

One problem with the congressman’s claim is that the abortion surcharge does not exist.

But no matter how many times the claim is proven false, Republicans like Huelskamp will keep repeating it and then cite the bogus charge as a justification for their nihilistic anti-Obamacare efforts.

Rep. Huelskamp, Whose Family Takes Government Farm Subsidies, Mocks Food Stamp Recipients

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), who bravely opposed federal aid to all those greedy Northeasterners affected by Hurricane Sandy, is now boasting about his support for a House GOP plan to kick four to six million people off the food stamp program.

As Jonathan Chait details, the GOP’s draconian food stamp cuts were coupled with a push to preserve excessive subsidies for farmers and agribusinesses, which the GOP refused to cut as much as the Obama administration proposed. And, surprise surprise, Huelskamp’s family has greatly benefited from such government aid:

Huelskamp has been able to see a need for federal relief closer to his home. His brother's farm received $1.6 million in federal subsidies from 1995 to 2011. The federal payouts included more than $30,000 for disaster subsidies.

Huelskamp's parents' farm has also received subsidies. Politico reported in 2011 that the farm took in $1.1 million in federal farms subsidies from 1995 to 2009.

While speaking to right-wing talk show host Steve Deace yesterday, Huelskamp had fun sticking it to all those whiney poors trying to receive food assistance for their families.

Huelskamp pointed to Jason Greenslate, a California surfer who has been all over Fox News, as the face of American food stamp recipients. Media Matters points out that “labeling Greenslate a representative of SNAP recipients flies in the face of readily available data, which shows that the fraud and waste rate in the SNAP program is less than 1 percent and that 41 percent of food stamp recipients live ‘in a household with earnings.’”

Huelskamp joked that his two kids always feel “starved” under his watch, but that with his vote to cut food assistance, he only “decided to starve a surfer by the name of Jason in California who has decided that he’s not going to get a job in life because he gets food stamps.” 

“Go pick up trash in a road ditch,” Huelskamp said, “you got to do something. There are 3.5-4 million American adults who are able-bodied, have no dependence and what do we require them to do to get a free check for food? Nothing.”

Huelskamp went on to call the food stamp program “out of control” because of its growth in size. Gee, it’s not like America has faced a recession or high unemployment rates or anything that might have driven up enrollment. Maybe all these working families struggling to put food on the table can just buy a big farm and get government welfare that way!

Glenn Beck Supports Right-Wing Vote-Rigging Scheme

As a general rule, the candidate who receives the most votes in an election is declared the winner.  But that would all change if the Family Research Council's Ken Blackwell gets his way and states start adopting a vote-rigging scheme that he is recommending whereby, in a presidential election, electoral votes would switch from winner-take-all allocations to a system where they were awarded according to congressional districts.

As a result of such a switch, candidates who lose the overall popular vote in a state could still end up receiving a majority of that state's electoral votes simply by virtue of winning the popular vote in more individual districts.

As Blackwell admitted several months ago, if this sort of system had been in place during the last election, Mitt Romney would have won the presidency despite the fact that he lost the overall popular vote by nearly 5 million votes.

David Barton has eagerly been supporting the scheme by laughably claiming that it would "give the people a greater voice" and last night he got Glenn Beck to endorse it as well on his television program:

GOP Senators Decide Attacking Women's Equality Is a Winning Message on Judicial Nominee

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to approve the nomination of Georgetown Law professor Cornelia “Nina” Pillard to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which is often considered to be the nation’s second-highest court. The party-line vote wasn’t exactly a surprise – Republicans have decided they don’t want President Obama to fill any of the D.C. Circuit’s three vacancies, so have voted against both nominees who have come before them so far – but the content of at least some GOP senators' objections to Pillard was notable.

Specifically, both Republican senators who chose to speak on their decision to vote against Pillard went out of their way to object to Pillard’s record on women’s equality.

Yes, the Republican “rebranding” effort is going so well that they are now threatening to hold up a judicial nominee because she believes that men and women should be equal in the eyes of the law and has been very successful in arguing that view in the courts.

Pillard has a long record of working with Republicans and Democrats to defend women’s equality: She worked with the Bush administration to successfully defend the Family and Medical Leave Act in the Supreme Court and crafted the arguments that convinced the Supreme Court to open the Virginia Military Institute to women (which earned her the respect of, among others, the head of the school who was at the time opposed to allowing women in).

She also has worked on women’s equality issues as an academic, including questioning abstinence-only education that presents a double standard to boys and girls…which  is what has sent the far right into a fit.

At yesterday's committee vote on Pillard’s nomination, both Sen. Chuck Grassley (the ranking Republican on the committee) and Sen. Orrin Hatch lifted talking points from right-wing activists like the Family Research Council, Phyllis Schlafly and Ed Whelan of the National Review to attack the nominee’s academic writings on reproductive rights and abstinence education and to even, bizarrely, question whether she appreciates the “benefits of marriage.”

And then every single Republican on the committee voted against allowing her nomination to go to the full Senate for a vote.

To put this in context, Republican senators including Grassley and Hatch were quick to defend demand the confirmation of George W. Bush judicial nominees who made rape jokes and belonged to clubs that excluded women and espoused any number of offensive views, claiming that they could hold these personal views and still be fair judges. As PFAW's Drew Courtney wrote in the Huffington Post yesterday:

Too often we're told that judicial nominations fights are too complicated, too subtle to get major national attention. Not this time. The Republican message is crystal clear: rape-joke making, gay-bashing, abuse-defending, discrimination-supporting, law-skirting, ideology-pushing Republican men are welcome to be judges in our federal courts.

Women who expect to be treated as equals are not.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious