The mentality of the Left

SolitaryRoad.com

Website owner:  James Miller

[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Info ] [ Mail ]

I just read the following article and wish to make some comments on it.

______________________________________________________________________________

'Deeply wounded' by Cardinal Dolan’s adulation of Charlie Kirk

By Marc H. Morial Oct 2, 2025, 7:00am EDT

Kirk’s death was, without question, a tragic loss of a young father and husband. But compassion does not require canonization. To elevate Kirk to sainthood is to rewrite the moral ledger of his public life.

The fatal shooting of right-wing provocateur Charlie Kirk unleashed vitriolic and unhinged responses from every point on the political spectrum.

Few have been as bewildering and tone-deaf as Cardinal Timothy Dolan’s.

In the days following Kirk’s assassination at Utah Valley University, Dolan, the archbishop of New York, called Kirk a “modern-day St. Paul,” a “missionary,” an “evangelist” and a “hero.”

As a Black Catholic, I was not only stunned but deeply wounded by Dolan’s tribute.

As the Sisters of Charity of New York wrote in a rare public rebuke, “What Cardinal Dolan may not have known is that many of Mr. Kirk’s words were marked by racist, homophobic, transphobic, and anti-immigrant rhetoric, by violent pro-gun advocacy, and by the promotion of Christian nationalism.” To liken Kirk to St. Paul, they warned, “risks confusing the true witness of the Gospel and giving undue sanction to words and actions that hurt the very people Jesus calls us to love.”

This is not a minor theological disagreement. It is a clash over the moral compass of the church in a time of political extremism and rising violence.

Charlie Kirk was not a quiet disciple. He was a slick political operative who chased fame through confrontation and sensationalism. As director of the right-wing activist group Turning Point USA and host of “The Charlie Kirk Show,” he amplified divisive rhetoric, often targeting LGBTQ+ individuals, immigrants, people of color and even Pope Francis himself. He called the pontiff “heretical” and “corrupt” and rejected papal primacy until earlier this year.

To lionize Kirk is to endorse his unequivocally racist pronouncements questioning the qualifications of Black professionals and declaring that Black women in positions of authority “had to go steal a white person’s slot,” because they “do not have the brain processing power” to be taken seriously.

This flies in the face of everything my faith represents to me.

Kirk’s death was, without question, a tragic loss of a young father and husband. But compassion does not require canonization. And grace does not demand historical amnesia. To elevate Kirk to sainthood is to rewrite the moral ledger of his public life.

The church has long struggled with how to respond to political figures who claim religious conviction while sowing division. In this case, Dolan’s remarks were not just a personal reflection — they were a public endorsement, broadcast to millions and delivered with the authority of one of the most prominent Catholic leaders in America.

The backlash was, rightfully, swift and wide-ranging. Catholic scholars, laypeople and clergy warned that Dolan’s comments could alienate marginalized communities and undermine the church’s commitment to justice and inclusion. The National Catholic Reporter accused Dolan and other conservative prelates of “myth-making” and warned “our discourse has been poisoned with a false dichotomy": endorse Kirk’s cause for sainthood or be cast out of civil society.

This moment demands more than platitudes. It requires moral clarity.

Kirk’s death, like any act of political violence, should be condemned unequivocally. His family deserves compassion, and his children deserve peace. But the church must resist the temptation to sanctify ideology. It must remember that sainthood is not earned through popularity — it is forged in humility, service and love.

The Sisters of Charity reminded us of that. Their statement reaffirmed their mission to walk with the poor, welcome immigrants, defend LGBTQ+ dignity and labor for peace. “These are the marks of authentic discipleship,” they wrote. “These are the qualities of saints.”

In a time when political identity often eclipses spiritual integrity, the church must be a beacon leading us out of the shadow of violence, not a mirror reflecting the partisan fervor of the moment.

Marc H. Morial is president and CEO of the National Urban League and was mayor of New Orleans from 1994 to 2002. He writes a twice-monthly column for the Sun-Times.

See

'Deeply wounded' by Cardinal Dolan’s adulation of Charlie Kirk

______________________________________________________________________________

The Catholic Church has its left and right wings and this article represents the typical viewpoint of the Democratic left in this country. I am sure there are many Catholics who would not agree with this article and were possibly strong supporters of Charley Kirk.

I was not a follower of Charlie Kirk and I might have disagreed with him on many things. I believe he was a MAGA type and a very strong supporter of Donald Trump. I am not a MAGA type and not a big admirer of Donald Trump (although I do agree with much that he has done, especially on DEI).

I quote from above:

The above article represents the typical view of a person of the liberal world who reads and listens to only liberal type material and has all of the assumptions, biases, outlooks, and values of the liberal echo-chamber that he lives in. The article wreaks with hatred for the Right.

Let us consider some of the basic issues mentioned here. It says Kirk’s words were marked by racist, homophobic, transphobic, and anti-immigrant rhetoric, by violent pro-gun advocacy, and by the promotion of Christian nationalism.

1. Homophobic, transphobic. Let us first consider the topic of homosexuality. If a person doesn’t approve of homosexuality the left labels him as homophobic. (If I don’t approve of murder is it fair to call me a hater? Because I condemn murder doesn’t mean I hate murderers.)

The topic of homosexuality has long been a big divide in our society. I think that most evangelical Christians view homosexuality as wrong and much of the rest of society does not. Much of our society has been programmed to believe that if you don’t accept homosexuality, you are a hater, a bad person. The Bible-believer has been stigmatized as being evil. What does the Bible have to say about homosexuality? I submit that there is no sin that the Bible talks about nearly as much or as strongly as homosexuality. Not murder. Not theft. Not adultery. Not any other sin. The Bible represents homosexuality as a sin of a much higher order than other sins. In Genesis 13:13 we read “But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.” What was this great and terrible wickedness that they were guilty of? Homosexuality. See

The LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire

What does God think about homosexuality? His action against those cities on the plain of Sodom and Gomorrah speaks far better than any words could of what he thinks about homosexual conduct. It is all that simple. His view of homosexual conduct is no different now than it was then.

Note the following:

Lev 18:22,24 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It

is an abomination. Do not defile yourselves with any of these

things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am

casting out before you.

Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman,

both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely

be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

The attitude of Christianity is the same as that of the Old

Testament, completely unequivocal on the subject:

Rom 1:26-28 For this cause God gave them up unto vile

affections: for even their women did change the natural use

into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men,

leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one

toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly,

and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error

which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in

their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do

those things which are not convenient;

Jude 7 ... as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them

in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to

sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth

as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

1 Cor 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not

inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither

fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,

nor sodomites, {10} nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards,

nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

In the Bible homosexuality is not just another sin. It holds a special place among sins. It is a sin of sins, a sin dwarfing other sins in its grossness, its depth of moral depravity, its wickedness. Nowhere in the Bible do you see this harshness of language for any other sin. The Bible makes numerous references to Sodom and Gomorrah and the references are all allusions to that great sin: homosexuality.

I think it is very interesting that the atheistic western intelligentsia have picked, of all issues, the practice of homosexuality to challenge Christianity and the Bible. The Bible teaches that Satan rules this world and I don’t think there is any better illustration of this than the way western man has allowed himself to be brainwashed on this subject.

2. Racist. He says Charlie Kirk was racist. On what basis? One of Charlie’s best friends was the popular YouTube influencer Candace Owens who is black. I suspect there were lots of blacks who liked and supported Charlie. I think there is no truth in this charge. The author is trying to stigmatise the right by suggesting that people of the right are all racist. Some may be. But not most.

3. Anti-immigrant. Many people on the Right are upset about millions of people coming into our country illegally (Under Biden’s presidency around 10,000,000 were allowed to come in illegally. And be sure that was deliberate.). Is there something wrong with being opposed to that? What country allows people to come in and live in the country illegally? If people do come in illegally, what should be the natural consequence? They should be made to return to their own country. Is there something wrong or unfair about that? But the Left will label you a hater if that is your position.

4. Pro-gun. What is the first thing Communists do when they take over a country? They take away everyone’s guns. Why do you suppose they do that? Because once they have done that they can force everyone to do whatever they want them to. It gives them total power over everyone. They can torture people if they don’t do as they are told, or send them to some labor camp, or just execute them. A populace giving up its guns is the most foolish thing they can do. They are then powerless against the government. You can then forget about freedom of speech or any other kind of freedom. A government can have soft-on-crime policies and criminals can rob and rape you and there is nothing you can do about it (like is currently the case in England).

5. Christian nationalism. I don’t know much about Christian Nationalism but if you had a country really based on the true Christian religion I think it would be a much better country than we have now. According to ChatGPT “Christian nationalists believe that their nation was founded as, or should be restored to, a Christian nation. They often claim that government, law, and culture should reflect biblical principles.” This sounds like a really great idea to me. I am sure liberals would really hate that idea. That would kill all of this homosexual, transgender, woke foolishness in one stroke.

Another quote from the above article: To lionize Kirk is to endorse his unequivocally racist pronouncements questioning the qualifications of Black professionals and declaring that Black women in positions of authority “had to go steal a white person’s slot,” because they “do not have the brain processing power” to be taken seriously.

It is a simple fact that for years now blacks have been given priority over whites just because they are black. They have been getting jobs, positions, and college admission slots that whites ought to have gotten. It is part of the liberal mentality and agenda. That is not justice and it is not a policy that is good for our country. I don’t know what Charlie Kirk said but it sounds like he was speaking truth.

2 Oct 2025