All articles from November 09, 2017


Featured Image
Corey Feldman
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy

News

Police close investigation into Hollywood pedophilia, citing statute of limitations

Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy

Update: The Los Angeles Police Department has issued a statement that it has closed the investigation into Corey Feldman’s official report about pedophiliac abuse in Hollywood. The statute of limitations on such child abuse in California comes into effect when the complainant is over 40. Feldman is 46.

LOS ANGELES, California, November 9, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Former child actor Corey Feldman has filed a report with the Los Angeles police department concerning child sexual abuse in Hollywood.

Detective Ross Nemeroff, a spokesman for the LAPD, told the Hollywood Reporter that an investigation into Feldman’s claims that there is a well-established pedophile ring in Hollywood has begun.

Feldman, 46, posted the news on Twitter on Monday.

The actor has maintained for years that a pedophilia ring is active in the film industry. He has repeated many times, on television and in print, that he and the late Corey Haim, a fellow child actor, were sexually abused by men they met in Hollywood. Haim died in 2010.

“They were everywhere, like vultures.”

Describing pedophilia as the longtime “big secret” in Hollywood, Feldman told ABC News’ “Nightline Show” on August 10, 2011, that powerful older men surrounded child actors “like vultures.”

“I can tell you that the number one problem in Hollywood was, and is, and always will be pedophilia,” he said.

Feldman alleged the “casting couch” -- a term for trading sex for roles -- applied even to some of the youngest Hollywood stars.

“It’s not done the same way -- it’s all done under the radar,” he explained. “It’s the big secret.”

Feldman, who began his career acting in commercials at age three, first appeared in a Hollywood film when he was 9. From 1984, he starred in a string of blockbusters, including Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (1984), Gremlins (1984), The Goonies (1985), and Stand by Me (1986). His success didn’t keep predatory adults at a distance.

“I was surrounded by them when I was 14 years old. Surrounded. Literally. Didn’t even know it,” Feldman told “Nightline.” “It wasn’t until I was old enough to realize what they were and what they wanted, and what they were about. ... Oh my God, they were everywhere, like vultures.”

“There was a circle of older men that surrounded themselves around this group of kids,” he continued, “and they all had either their own power or connections to great power in the entertainment industry.”

The Two Coreys

In 1987, Feldman began to work with Corey Haim in what would become a series of Lost Boys vampire films. They starred in a number of other films together and became known in both the industry and girls’ movie star magazines as “the Two Coreys.” In 2006, the two friends, now grown men, began to tape a “reality show” called The Two Coreys. One of their conversations on the show involved mutual recriminations that one friend had not done anything to help when the other was molested or, as Haim alleged, raped.

Haim died in 2010 at age 38 of pneumonia, his health weakened by an addiction to prescription drugs. Feldman blames Haim’s adult struggles on the abuse he suffered in Hollywood. Haim’s mother Judy, however, has called Feldman’s allegations “bogus” and expressed a wish that he talk only about himself and not about her late son.

In 2011, Feldman was criticized for bringing the film industry into disrepute. However, that same year another former child star, Alison Arngrim, who played bratty Nellie Oleson on Little House on the Prairie, told Fox News that Hollywood people had gossiped about the abuse Feldman and Haim allegedly suffered.

“This has been going on for a very long time,” she said. “It was the gossip back in the ‘80s. People said, ‘Oh yeah, the Coreys, everyone’s had them.’ People talked about it like it was not a big deal.”

“I literally heard that they were ‘passed around,’” Arngrim continued. “The word was that they were given drugs and being used for sex. It was awful – these were kids, they weren’t 18 yet. There were all sorts of stories about everyone from their, quote, ‘set guardians’ on down that these two had been sexually abused and were totally being corrupted in every possible way.”

'Harveywood' scandal

Citing fears for himself and his family, Feldman refused to name names until after the Harvey Weinstein “Harveywood” scandal broke. On October 25, Feldman announced that that he would identify his abusers, but only after he raised $10 million through crowd-funding to make a major film about child abuse.

This time, Feldman faced criticism for fundraising instead of naming men who might still be abusing children. During a heated exchange on the Today show with Matt Lauer, Feldman explained that he needed the money for his own personal security. He also said he had given the LAPD a list of names of abusers in 1993, during an investigation into Michael Jackson. In a subsequent Today show interview with Megyn Kelly, Feldman named child talent agent — and convicted pedophile — Martin Weiss as one of his abusers.   

On November 3 during the Dr. Oz show, Feldman named a former actor named Jon Grissom as another abuser and, after a grilling from the host, called the Los Angeles police from the set.

Allegations against Charlie Sheen

But the most dramatic twist to the Hollywood pedophila story this week is the allegation by one of Corey Haim’s other friends, actor Dominick Brascia, that Haim was raped on the set of a film called Lucas by the then 19-year-old Charlie Sheen.

Feldman describes hearing about Haim’s rape in his 2013 memoir Coreyography:

“Within hours of our first meeting, we found ourselves talking about Lucas, the film he made in the summer of 1985, the role I had wanted for myself,” Feldman writes. “At some point during the filming, he explained an adult male convinced him that it was perfectly normal for older men and younger boys in the business to have sexual relations, that it was what ‘all guys do.’

“So they walked off to a secluded area between two trailers, during a lunch break for the cast and crew, and Haim, innocent and ambitious as he was, allowed himself to be sodomized," Feldman continued. "(That man) walks around, one of the most successful people in the entertainment industry, still making money hand over fist.”

Feldman also hinted in an interview in 2011 that Sheen had hurt Haim in a serious way:  “Well I have to be completely honest and say, I'm not a huge fan of Charlie Sheen,” he told MovieFone. “I don't make it my goal to ever talk badly in the press, we're all in it together, that's the way I look at it, but Charlie in particular, especially the way that he's affected other people that I know — point blank, Charlie and Corey started their careers pretty much together, and Corey fought for his entire life to recover from those early experiences and to get his life together.”

A representative for Charlie Sheen has denied the allegations.

Featured Image
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire

News,

Former baby parts harvester: Planned Parenthood ‘made us do the dirty work’

Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire

November 9, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Planned Parenthood “made us do the dirty work,” an ex-procurement technician for a baby body parts harvester explained in a new video.

She outlined how Planned Parenthood profited from selling aborted baby parts to StemExpress, and how a nurse was reprimanded for throwing out fetal remains rather than letting them be harvested and sold.

Holly O’Donnell worked for StemExpress, one of the companies that found itself in the middle of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) videos showing the abortion industry’s work with the baby body parts trade.

When the CMP videos first came out, Planned Parenthood claimed that the money they received from companies like StemExpress was just reimbursement for things like shipping costs.

But Planned Parenthood never shipped the body parts, O’Donnell testified in this new video. StemExpress handled all aspects of the fetal organ harvesting process: getting patients to consent, dissecting fetuses, packaging organs, and shipping them off via FedEx.

And invoices show that customers paid StemExpress, not Planned Parenthood, for the FedEx shipping.

“Planned Parenthood’s executive team repeatedly lied to the public and to the news media when they promised StemExpress was only paying them for ‘shipping costs,’” said CMP’s David Daleiden.

“Holly O’Donnell’s testimony totally debunks Planned Parenthood’s fake excuse for the money they took for aborted baby body parts,” Daleiden continued. “Any defense Planned Parenthood had is now totally discredited, and Congress and the Administration should move immediately to hold Planned Parenthood accountable under the law.”

“Planned Parenthood never shipped anything, we did all the shipping,” said O’Donnell.

“Even some of the medical assistants” employed by Planned Parenthood “didn’t like doing path lab,” said O’Donnell, referring to the pathology lab where aborted babies’ body parts were sorted.

“They wanted StemExpress staff to deal with all the path lab,” she said.

O’Donnell recalled how one medical assistant disposed of fetal body parts rather than give them to StemExpress as requested.

“I know she was throwing the specimens away ’cause I kept telling her over and over again” that StemExpress wanted them, said O’Donnell. “I’m like, ‘hey, I keep telling you, I need this kind of specimen, you’re just throwing them out.”

When O’Donnell complained about it to the head nurse, she intervened on behalf of StemExpress, saying “we need the money.”

“Now I kinda don’t blame” that medical assistant, said O’Donnell.  

But “I think that some of the staff at some of these clinics knew exactly what was going on, that they were getting compensated by, you know, the tissues,” she said.

Daleiden said one of his main hopes during the investigation was to find the original contract between StemExpress and Planned Parenthood.

During the Congressional investigation into the body parts scandal, this contract was revealed.

StemExpress paid Planned Parenthood Mar Monte $55 per fetal organ and $10 for maternal blood samples, according to the contract.

The contract said Planned Parenthood would send an invoice to StemExpress every month “based on the number of harvestable POC’s (products of conception) that have been obtained at the Planned Parenthood clinics in that month,” said Daleiden.

“In that contract, it looks like – based on the language – that ‘POC’ means individual fetal organ and that means Planned Parenthood was getting paid for every individual body part that StemExpress was harvesting,” said Daleiden.

“Other people and StemExpress lawyers have tried to say, ‘oh, no, you know, we promise it was only per abortion’” that they were paid, Daleiden explained.

“I don’t believe that was true because we as procurement technicians got our bonuses based on organ, not per abortion” said O’Donnell.

At big Planned Parenthood facilities, eighty or ninety percent of the time it was StemExpress employees and not abortion workers who sorted through the body parts after abortions, she said.

“So you were doing some of their work for them, you were harvesting the body parts that you needed, and then StemExpress would pay Planned Parenthood?” Daleiden asked.

“Yep,” replied O’Donnell.

O’Donnell has testified in other CMP videos about her experiences collecting body parts at Planned Parenthood. In one video, she explained how a baby’s heart was still beating as she harvested his brain.

CMP is releasing a series of interviews with O’Donnell. In one of them, she said she could “feel the death” inside Planned Parenthood on her first day at work.

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and the U.S. House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives both referred Planned Parenthood to law enforcement for criminal investigation and prosecution. 

Featured Image
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

News

If a Pope teaches falsehood, Catholics ‘are obliged not to obey it’: philosopher

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

November 9, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- A world-renowned Catholic philosopher said that faithful Catholics “have an obligation” not to follow or obey the Pope if he clearly contradicts perennial teachings of the Catholic Church.

Dr. Josef Seifert, president of the new laity-led Academy for Life and close friend of the late Pope St. John Paul II, said that Catholics “have an obligation not to believe [all that the Pope teaches and writes] to be true if we see that it clearly contradicts perennial Church teaching or evident moral truth accessible to human reason, or both.”

“I think that as soon as we find that a new teaching is false, we are obliged not to obey it. And as soon as we find a new pastoral decision of the Pope inapplicable in good conscience, such as giving the sacraments to unrepentant sinners on the basis of an (impossible for us) ‘discernment’ of whether their sin is compatible with their being in the state of grace for subjective reasons, we are likewise morally obliged not to obey it,” he said. 

Quoting from the Acts of the Apostles, Seifert said that when it comes to the perennial truths of the Catholic faith, Catholics “have to obey God more than men.”

The philosopher made the comments in an interview with OnePeterFive’s Maike Hickson published November 7. 

His comments come at a time when arguments between Catholic thinkers are raging over to what extent Catholics owe fidelity to controversial teachings of Pope Francis on marriage, conscience, and the sacraments, specifically as found in his 2016 exhortation, Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love). 

One of the most controversial aspects of the exhortation is its apparent opening of the door to civilly-divorced-and-remarried Catholics who are actively living in adultery receiving Holy Communion through a process of “discernment.” Though numerous prelates and experts have insisted that the document should be interpreted in a traditional way, in light of the Church's perennial teaching, this liberal interpretation has been adopted by various bishops and bishops’ groups, including those in ArgentinaMaltaGermany, and Belgium.

Seifert said in the interview that numerous Catholics worldwide who are trying to be faithful to the Church mistakenly hold that everything the pope utters or writes must receive their unconditional consent. 

But there can be no real “unity with the Pope” unless there is a prior unity based on “truth,” he said. 

“To agree with the Pope, have unity with the Pope, on an error is of no value whatsoever,” he said. 

“On the contrary: as Saint Thomas and the Acts of the Apostles stated clearly, in such a case the subordinate has an obligation to criticize his superior, even publicly, as St. Paul criticized St. Peter,” he added. 

The philosopher said that priority of truth over unity is “absolute.” He emphasized that “truth has not only priority over unity and peace, but is the condition of authentic unity and peace.”

Seifert outlined why he thinks one of the foremost defenders of Amoris Laetitia, Professor Rocco Buttiglione, is wrong in his arguments that Catholics must adhere to the exhortation.  

“Buttiglione holds that as Catholics, we have to believe to be true whatever the Pope says in the exercise of his Ordinary Magisterium, while I agree that, yes, we have an obligation to look first for the truth contained in a magisterial document and to try to interpret it in the light of the truth expressed in the tradition, but do not have any absolute obligation whatsoever to believe that every part of a pronouncement of the ordinary papal magisterium is true or compatible with the perennial teaching of the Church,” said Seifert.

“Moreover, we have an obligation not to believe it to be true if we see that it clearly contradicts a) perennial Church teaching or b) evident moral truth accessible to human reason, or c) both,” he added.

Seifert laid out four arguments against the exhortation being an exercise of the Pope's Ordinary Magisterium, which if it was, Catholics would be bound to consent to it. 

  1. Because the decisive new points of AL are chiefly found in mere footnotes that cannot reverse the sacramental discipline of the Church of 2000 years, solemnly reconfirmed by the apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio (FC) of Saint Pope John Paul II. Such footnotes cannot be considered an Exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium, as also Cardinals Brandmüller and Burke as well as the other dubia Cardinals and many others noted.
  2. Moreover, the Pope explicitly says in Ch. III of Amoris Laetitia that he does not want to settle the decisive novelty in AL through his magisterium, but leaves it open to decide by the various national and culturally different and decentralized bishops’ conferences.
  3. He confirmed this position by approving both the decision of the Polish Episcopate to follow FC entirely and not to admit any divorced and civilly remarried or active homosexuals who do not want to change their lives, to the sacraments, and by confirming and praising at the same time also the opposite position: the pronouncement of the Argentinian Bishops of the Buenos Aires area, which coincides with that of many other bishops, including the archbishop of Granada. These bishops adopted the exactly opposite interpretation. The Pope even praised the far more radical pronouncement of the Bishops of Malta on AL, who proposed a completely situation-ethical interpretation of AL. Thus, Pope Francis follows the idea he proposes of a “decentralized magisterium” or different “magisteria” in the Church — all of which he approved — an idea which I heard Karl Rahner express in Munich half a century ago. Now, pure logic tells us that the position of the Bishops of Buenos Aires or Malta and that of the Polish Bishops’ Conference, which is diametrically and contradictorily opposed to that of the bishops of Buenos Aires (defended by Buttiglione), and both of which are admitted and approved by the Pope in his new “magisterial pluralism”, cannot both correspond to the “ordinary Magisterium of the Pope”. Hence the novel teachings of AL (, i.e., the Buenos Aires reading) cannot be the “Magisterium of the Pope”.
  4. The novelties of AL are not primarily doctrinal but pastoral and thus more subject to categories of prudence or imprudence than of truth and falsity; for example, if Popes in the past have asked in the Exercise of their ordinary Magisterium in papal bulls or encyclicals that heretics, magicians, and witches should be burnt at the stake, or when they excommunicated in bulls entire cities because their prince led a war against the Vatican, I am certainly not obliged to believe that this was a prudent pastoral decision. Buttiglione himself, somewhat contradictorily, says that the new teaching of AL is a purely pastoral one and he also stated, at least in letters to me, that we are not bound to agree with the wisdom of a pastoral decision of a Pope that is not per se true or false, but can be prudent or imprudent. But in that case I am not at all obliged to agree with AL (according to logic being applied to Buttiglione’s admission), nor to agree that its new Pastoral guideline is wise.

Seifert said it amounts to “papolatry,” a worshiping of the pope, to insist that Catholics “have an absolute duty to accept everything a Pope or Council are saying,” insofar as it is “not dogmatic and de fide [of the faith], and if he has good reason to believe that it is contrary to natural or revealed truth or to both.”

“I think that the infallible Extraordinary Magisterium only applies to such central matters of doctrine and faith that either the Pope defines 'ex cathedra' (which happened only two or three times in the history of the Church) or which a Council, in union with the Pope, defined as being a dogma and de fide in such a way that anyone who contradicted it was declared ‘anathema,’” he said. 

“The infallible Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is present only in teachings of the ordinary magisterium that coincide with what the Church has taught always and everywhere, not with entirely novel teachings. Neither one of these criteria of infallibility applies to the novelties of Amoris Laetitia,” he added. 

“To treat Catholics who dissent from AL as heretics, schismatics in fact or in spirit, or disobedient to the Pope, is a grave injustice,” he said. 

Seifert was fired from his university position by his Archbishop in September after publishing an article in which he questioned the Pope’s teaching in Amoris Laetitia

He suggested in his article that if Pope Francis believes that adultery — to quote the exhortation — “is what God himself is asking” of couples in “irregular” situations, then there is nothing stopping any other intrinsically evil acts from eventually being justified. He called the exhortation a ticking “theological atomic bomb” that has the capacity to destroy all Catholic moral teaching. 

Seifert's entire interview can be read here.

Featured Image
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy

News

Famous Ratzinger interviewer: Pope Francis is destabilizing the Church

Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy

MILAN, Italy, November 9, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — A best-selling Italian writer has broken his silence on the current papacy to voice concerns over Pope Francis’ attitude toward doctrine.

Vittorio Messori, 76, is best-known in the English-speaking world for his book-length interviews with then-Cardinal Ratzinger in The Ratzinger Report (1987) and with Pope John Paul II in Threshold of Hope. The journalist has now published an essay in an Italian Catholic magazine, Il Timore, outlining his fears that Pope Francis is turning the Catholic Church into a kind of “liquid society” in which the only certainty is uncertainty and the only constant is change.

The article, which is not available online, was first brought to the attention of the English-speaking world by Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register.

In his essay, Messori draws on the work of Zygmunt Bauman (1925-2017), the Jewish-Polish philosopher who introduced the concept of “liquid modernity” to sociology. “Liquid modernity” represents a change from what Bauman called “solid modernity.” Bauman wrote that the “liquid” modern man values individualism over social ties. He “flows through his own life like a tourist, changing places, jobs, spouses, values and even sexual orientation and gender.”

Bauman observed that such a man excludes himself from traditional networks of support, freeing himself from their restrictions or requirements. This extreme individualism has created societies in which, Messori writes, “everything is unstable and changeable.” Today it is acceptable to believe that change is “the only permanent thing” and that uncertainty is the “only certainty.”

Messori is troubled that these ideas have begun to influence religious faith. He writes that believers are becoming “disturbed by the fact that even the Catholic Church — which was an age-old example of stability — seems to want to become ‘liquid’ as well.”

As evidence, Messori cites a recent interview with the superior general of the Society of Jesus, Father Arturo Sosa Abascal. In conversation with journalist Giuseppe Rusconi, Sosa said that because Jesus’ words were not recorded on tape or disk, “we don’t know exactly what he said.” Because of this “uncertainty,” Sosa believes that Christians need to “discern” the true meaning of Scripture with reference to their current circumstances.

“Doctrine is a word that I don’t like very much, it brings with it the image of the hardness of stone,” Sosa told Rusconi. “Human reality is much more nuanced, it is never black or white, it is in continual development.”

Messori criticizes Pope Francis for being susceptible to the same attitude:

"But another Jesuit, also a South American, no one less than the Pope himself, in one of the many interviews he gives to the most diverse people, in the most diverse places -- by plane, in St. Peter's Square, on the street -- has repeated what is one of the (pillars) of his strategy of teaching and government: ’the Catholic temptation that must be overcome is the uniformity of rules, their rigidity, while on the contrary we must judge and act on a case by case basis.’"  

Messori distinguishes between the original meaning of “discernment” as used in classic Jesuit spirituality and the way it is now used — to “freely interpret even dogma, depending on the situation, as has happened in some official documents containing his signature, which have aroused perplexity (to use a euphemism) in some cardinals,” he writes.

The Italian journalist says this approach seemed to him “wrong and damaging to the Church and the faith;” “in a ‘liquid world’ where everything becomes uncertain, precarious, provisional, it is precisely the stability and firmness of the Catholic Church that all humanity needs, and not only believers.”

“Those rocks of dogma, to which the superior general of the Society of Jesus is allergic, could and should become firm ground in a society that flatters itself and tends towards mushy chaos,” Messori continues.  

He observes that one of the symbols of the Catholic Church is a “robust oak, held firmly to the ground by strong roots.” He asks if it is “really helpful to replace the oak with a rod that folds in any direction, with any breath of air, every human desire or fashion?”

As a help in returning certainty to the Church, Messori recommends a new appreciation and re-appropriation of the “ancient and beautiful” motto of the Carthusians: Stat crux dum volvitur orbis (the Cross is steady while the world turns).

Featured Image
Edward Pentin speaking at the 2017 Catholic Identity Conference YouTube Screenshot
Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa

News

Vatican expert lays out the current ‘crisis’ in the Church

Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa

November 9, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — “A near total absence of dialogue with orthodoxy” and homosexual activity in the Vatican at an all-time high are among the issues recently raised by a Rome correspondent covering the Francis papacy.

The “Protestantization of the Church,” a pope concerned about power, and reports of a climate of fear at the Vatican were also discussed by Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register during a presentation at The Remnant traditional Catholic newspaper’s recent Catholic Identity Conference.

As a Vatican journalist, Pentin gave a firsthand perspective on the crisis during the Francis pontificate, including the problematic Synods on the Family — which were the basis for Pope Francis’ controversial exhortation Amoris Laetitia.

His observations — the contents of which he said are played down by the mainstream Catholic media — consisted of viewpoints from numerous Vatican officials, clergy and other well-placed sources who were compelled to remain anonymous due to the “great fear” in the midst of the crisis.

“And I think you’ll agree it is a crisis by any objective measure,” stated Pentin, “despite the wider Church and the world thinking otherwise, or rather, not thinking very much about the issue at all, sometimes on purpose.”

There’s so much ignorance about the situation, he said, but it’s to the point where all of this has to be out in the open, as Catholic identity in the West is not only being threatened by secular society “but now seemingly by the leaders of the Church Herself.”

“And this can’t be passed over as if nothing is happening,” Pentin said, “even if you agree with what is happening and what the changes are.”

Pentin said he has been told of the pope being focused on politics and power. But in fairness, he said, he also has heard that Francis is generous to work for and tolerant.

Pentin said it’s important to assume the pope’s motives are only for the good of the Church, even if the facts still might appear otherwise, recounting his distinct impression from watching the pope on papal trips, that Francis genuinely believes he’s doing the best thing for the Church.

However, the majority of Pentin’s presentation was a recounting of negative response to the papacy.

Pentin told those at the conference that he really only wants to expose what is happening to encourage everyone to pray for the unity of the Church.

“Because I do believe that only by exposing some of what people I often hear say is a diabolical presence in the Church or naming the demons, as it were, can they be properly exorcised,” he said.

A multitude of issues

“One issue that many are deeply concerned about is the prevalence of homosexual practice in the Vatican,” said Pentin, “and I’m told on good authority that it’s never been as bad as it is now.”

Pentin said another aspect of concern to many in Rome is the development of a “parallel Curia.”

This is seen most clearly with Francis’ apostolic letter Magnum Principium, released in September and removing much of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments’ authority and giving it to the local bishops instead.

Cardinal Robert Sarah, the Congregation’s Prefect, was not notified of the change, Pentin told the conference, as it had been devised and enacted through a Francis-appointed commission. After Cardinal Sarah then wrote a subsequent article saying the Vatican’s authority remains intact, the pope issued a very public rebuttal of Sarah.

This public refutation of the cardinal is just one that has occurred in the Francis pontificate. And Pentin’s sources attribute the reprimands of Sarah to the cardinal advocating a liturgy that puts God at the center.

The incident puts into sharp focus the existence of two Curias, Pentin said, “one essentially run by Francis and filled with so-called reformist officials and external advisers, and another made up of orthodox largely Benedict-appointed staff.”

But it also shows Francis’ tactic of placing orthodox prelates in charge of some dicasteries, he added, possibly to give a “veneer of orthodoxy,” and then placing those more favorable to a more reformist position in less senior ranks of the Curia positions, which are historically actually more influential than can be the Curial prefect or president.

“There seems to be a near total absence of dialogue with orthodoxy” by Francis, he said, except for when a mandatory formality.

Instead, Francis will speak with all kinds of other groups and give interviews with left-leaning papers, but he has yet to offer a single interview with any orthodox or right-leaning publication.

The pope’s pronouncements of mercy have played well to the world, Pentin said, though it does remain to be seen if this will bring people to the faith.

“But as somebody pointed out,” Pentin noted -- having heard from some that the Church is no longer known for being clear on doctrine, “if the identity of the Catholic faith is no longer clear, which faith would these people really be attracted to? Is it the true one, or a Protestant one?”

Pentin also spoke of inconsistencies under Francis, such as the pope’s call for collegiality while ruling from the top by decrees without consultation.

“This inability often to practice as he preaches or to criticize others for what many see himself doing ought to be a warning sign,” Pentin related from a trusted observer. “And like an increasing number of Catholics in Rome of good faith, he put it down to a disregard for absolutes and tradition teaching.”

There are also reports that some lament “a total lack of substance coming from this pontificate,” said Pentin, “and concern that the faithful aren’t being properly nourished in their faith.”

While orthodox cardinals and others are being dismissed from their posts, Pentin reported, the pope extends mercy to heterodox and tarnished prelates, priests and laity, or non-Catholic groups.

A climate of great fear

He detailed how the climate of fear has spread beyond the Vatican to staff in chanceries and vicar generals around the world, as well as the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family.

This has created “a breakdown of trust,” he said, with reports of anyone not towing the party line coming back to Francis through the Congregation for Clergy.

Anger and frustration, alarm, sadness and depression were among the reactions that Pentin reported among many close to the Vatican, including cardinals – as many as 40 to 70 who want a change at the head of the Church.

“They’re simply petrified about speaking up,” stated Pentin, “despite seeing the Church being attacked from within and often from the very top.”

One Vatican official reported demoralization and physical sickness, the result of seeing “the pope and bishops trying to destroy the faith and the Church.”

Vatican officials often go along out of obedience, Pentin said.

Some either lay low to avoid trouble with the Francis papacy, or they leave — orthodox prelates, canonists and experts in ecclesiology being replaced by priests and laity with sociology, psychology or backgrounds in human sciences.

“It’s all part of a general shift from God to man,” one Vatican official told him.

Pentin was also told earlier this year by an official that he and his colleagues are often reluctant to tell a stranger that they work in the Vatican because they’re ashamed of the poor image that Vatican officials now have.  

The synods

Pentin discussed some of what he covered in his 2015 book The Rigging of a Vatican Synod, explaining that what went on during the synods gives the best clue to understanding the forces behind the current situation.

The synods were criticized for manipulation, he said. And while engineering and strong-arm tactics are not new to synods, this time these methods were “especially mendacious.” And they weren’t used to protect orthodoxy as in the past, he said, “but rather to bring in concepts and practices that many argued broke with the Church’s teaching and Tradition.”

“Many I spoke with at the time were concerned, and they were convinced that the synods were a Trojan Horse,” Pentin stated, “an attack on the Eucharist that was geared towards allowing acceptance of homosexual unions, cohabitation and other immoral practices.”

“But something happened which I think is crucial to remember, and which is often neatly forgotten or blithely ignored by defenders of Amoris Laetitia,” he went on, “as it shows the flimsy basis I think on which Amoris rests. I think you can see that from any objective view.”

Pentin pointed out how at the end of the first synod, the Kasper proposal to allow Communion for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics failed to gain the requisite two-thirds majority needed for approval.

“And yet the pope controversially broke with custom,” said Pentin, “which he can do, and authoritatively insisted that the Kasper proposal and two others be kept in the document, thereby enabling them to be carried over into the working document for the Ordinary Synod on the Family the following year.”

The Holy Spirit?

Pentin added that it’s probably little surprise given its genesis that Amoris Laetitia has led to what we’re now witnessing in the Church.

“If the document is all the work of the Holy Spirit, as its proponents often freely insist,” he pointed out, “and that you have to be converted to understand it, it’s quite legitimate to ask the question — Why the need for such manipulation, heavy-handedness and underhanded methods?”

There also has been much name-calling, rancor and failure to deal with the substance of the criticism, he said, something he has never seen after any of the other synods he has covered at the Vatican.   

Help in the media

Pentin also described for the Catholic Identity Conference the dubious tactics of what he called the Vatican media machine, consisting essentially of the Vatican Insider website and La Civilta Cattolica, the prestigious Jesuit journal run by Father Antonio Spadaro -- a close confidant of Francis and possibly one of his ghost writers.

“It’s been quite remarkable to watch over these years how the news is spun by these publications and others,” he said, “and they often resort to personal attacks, and they have a failure to tackle the issues at hand.”

“And the accusation of fake news I’ve notice recently is sort of thrown about when there’s something which by all accounts is factually true, and they’ll accuse of spreading fake news,” Pentin added, “it’s quite remarkable really.”

L’osservatore Romano used to be known as the Vatican Pravda,” he said, “but I would say that that description perhaps now best fits these publications, because they really do put across the pope’s line in a very uncritical and often untruthful way.”

“But it’s perplexing why,” he continued, “if the message is so right and true, as the pope’s supporters say it is, there’s a need to go to such great lengths to spin it.”

The influence of secularists

Connected to the media is the quality of the content coming from the Vatican, Pentin said, adding, “What’s clear to me even before Pope Francis was elected is how secularists have been increasingly defining the terms of debate in the Church.”

Thus papal pronouncements are more and more on issues such as the UN, poverty, appeals for peace and migration.

“Those are acceptable,” he said, “while abortion and other pro-life issues and same-sex marriage and any mention of Christ for that matter in the public square has become hardly spoken of at all because they’re seen as taboo. So the Church is finding her positions on family and life in particular, being steadily narrowed, but this seems to be hardly noticed and it’s happily conceded to.”

He said some have noticed that this pontificate appears to not only be going along with the secularists, but also actively encouraging them in their ideology and giving pointers to strike the wider Church.  

Pentin related how critics say we now have a Vatican that’s openly flirting with population control advocates to find a solution to poverty and climate change, a pope who dares not criticize Islam and promotes seemingly syncretist view of religion as a result, and blanket approval given to the UN Sustainable Development Goals despite their support for reproductive health – “which everyone knows is a code word for abortion and contraception.”

“They also say we have a pope and a Vatican that remains silent on crucial issues and so aren’t teaching,” Pentin stated. “This seeming surrender to the world appears to be accelerating.”  

“The concerns are real, they’re growing every day,” Pentin stated, summing up the things he has been told, “these are genuine attacks on the Church coming from within, and at least in the Vatican, and appear to be perhaps a full-frontal attack on all that the Church stands for.”

“But I’ll leave you on a hopeful note with the words of one of the Vatican officials I quoted earlier, which I think is quite salutary,” Pentin said. “And he says, apart from the battle and because of it, one thing remains, that the most important thing to remember is to pray, perhaps offer sacrifices, knowing that God does not abandon His children, or His Church.”

Click HERE to view the video of Pentin’s presentation.

Featured Image
Penny Nance
Fr. Mark Hodges Fr. Mark Hodges

News

Trump considers strong pro-life, pro-family advocate for global women’s post

Fr. Mark Hodges Fr. Mark Hodges

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 9, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — President Donald Trump is expected to nominate one of the nation’s most pro-life, pro-family, and pro-marriage advocates to the State Department.

President and CEO of Concerned Women for America Penny Nance is rumored as Trump’s pick to be Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues. The position was created by former President Barack Obama shortly after entering office to promote abortion and a liberal “gender equality” agenda worldwide.

If picked and confirmed by the Senate, Nance would head the Office on Global Women’s Issues in the State Department. Ranked as an Assistant U.S. Secretary of State, her duties would include working to ensure that the rights of women are protected and promoted in U.S. foreign policy.

In an age of polar opposite definitions of women’s rights, Nance’s philosophy is contrary to the reigning politically correct agenda of abortion-on-demand, same-sex “marriage,” and transgenderism. The organization she led since 2010 and would be stepping down from to take the post specifically “protects and promotes Biblical values and Constitutional principles through prayer, education, and advocacy.”

“Abortion is the seminal human rights issue of our time,” Nance believes, noting that the 54 million preborns aborted (more than one billion worldwide) far outnumbers any other genocidal atrocity in human history. “This is an injustice which must end.”

In a stand that may forecast a radical change in American foreign policy should she be picked, Nance opposed the Obamacare forced abortion coverage mandate.  

“Americans may want better healthcare, but not at the expense of promoting abortion,” she wrote. “Planned Parenthood’s radical dream of any number of ‘free’ abortions for any reason at any point in a pregnancy is an affront to the majority of America’s women, and particularly to women of faith.”

The author of “Feisty and Feminine: A Rallying Cry for Conservative Women” also favors an emphasis on abstinence education for teens. “Schools and public health advocates owe it to parents and people of faith to support the young girl or boy who wants to delay sexual behavior,” Nance said. “Marriage and delaying sex until at least adulthood are good goals.”

She weighed in on same-sex “marriage” as “unconstitutional,” and called the U.S. Supreme Court “lawless” for its Obergefell ruling.

The pro-binary advocate has spoken out against transgender bathrooms, not only for their invasion of privacy but for the potential danger to women and girls.

Nance called transgenderism a “delusion.” She praised President Trump’s order halting the recruitment of transgenders into the U.S. military. “The truth is we cannot be expected to participate in someone else’s delusion,” she opined.

She cut down legislation that would decriminalize prostitution in a Washington Times op-ed titled “When high-sounding legislation becomes a war against women.” In the column, Nance wrote that The Violence against Women Act “hurts sex-trafficking victims, seeks to legalize prostitution for minors and fails to protect the consciences of organizations, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. In Germany, Australia and the Netherlands, child prostitution increased after prostitution was legalized.”

Nance has also defended Christians in the Middle East, who she points out are “being exterminated.”

Her criticism of Hollywood’s stereotypically negative depiction of men garnered her mockery from liberal media outlets. She criticized Disney’s animated feature, Frozen, for portraying men only as villains and fools.

“Hollywood in general has often sent the message that men are stupid,” Nance critiqued.  “Is this message helpful” for “our little boys sitting there?”

She said as mothers, “We want to raise heroes. We want to raise real men that will stick in their families and be great dads and be great providers and great husbands.”

“We want to encourage masculinity and not villainize masculinity,” she explained.  “We’re Concerned Women for America and we’re the women’s group who love men — real men.”

Not unexpectedly, pro-abortion and pro-gay organizations are livid. “For Trump to even consider putting Penny Nance in charge … shows a fundamental disdain for women’s health and their lives,” Planned Parenthood’s Dawn Laguens said.

Nance’s CWA has been listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a “Hate Group.”

Very aware of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s label of “Hate,” Nance says conservative women and religious Americans should overcome such bullying by standing for traditional values. “There has to be a return to normalcy,” she said. “There has to be a return to common sense, and I think that’s what we’re working at,” she said.

Nance has been a strong Trump supporter, even going so far as to publicly ridicule in Trump-like fashion Republican senators who question the president’s fitness to serve.

When Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Arizona, broke with his party to denounce the president from the senate floor, Nance tweeted, “Wow today is a day for self righteous indignation on #CapitolHill & around #DC @JeffFlake @BobCorker.”

The next day she tweeted again in support of Trump, “JeffFlake sounded like a middle school girl yesterday. Oh the drama. #getoveryourself”

She worked with Trump’s daughter Ivanka to drum up support for expanding the child tax credit. She told Politico that she and the younger Trump “agreed to work together to increase the child tax credit in order to allow families to keep more of their own money and to free up their ability to invest in their children.”

As a member of the Council for National Policy (CNP), Nance also lobbied to protect religious liberty. CNP was behind a leaked executive order draft that allowed churches and Christian-owned businesses the freedom to live and operate by their sincerely-held beliefs.

Featured Image
Cathy DeCarlo, a nurse from New York who was forced to help with abortion, becomes emotional at a press conference on Capitol Hill. YouTube
Katie Yoder

News

Nurses testify on being forced to do abortions: ‘I still have nightmares’

Katie Yoder

November 9, 2017 (NewsBusters) — While many in the liberal media herald abortion as “women’s rights,” they censor how abortion endangers women’s rights in the medical profession — women who are forced to either help perform abortion or risk losing their jobs.

On Wednesday, pro-life leaders and lawmakers attended a Capitol Hill press conference in support of the Conscience Protection Act of 2017. The bill protects the conscience of those in federally-funded healthcare systems who object to performing or participating in abortion. Nurses, whom the legislation would affect, testified at the event.

Sponsored by Rep. Diane Black (R-TN), the bill would would allow healthcare professionals to pursue legal action if they’re discriminated against for refusing to perform abortion and “provide legal recourse for hospitals, health systems, religious charities, churches and insurance companies who are required to participate in or provide coverage for abortion,” The Hill reported Wednesday.

At the event, three nurses shared personal testimonies in support of the bill: Cathy DeCarlo, a New York nurse forced to help with abortion, Sandra Mendoza, an Illinois nurse who lost her job because she wouldn’t aid in abortion, and Fe Vinoya, a New Jersey nurse who risked her job for refusing assist with abortion.

Of the three nurses, DeCarlo spoke first. She began her nursing career in the Philippines to follow her “passion for helping patients” and to serve God.

“My faith in God and the Catholic Church’s teaching about the sanctity of all human life further inspired my career in nursing as it encouraged me to serve all those who are sick with gentleness and respect,” she added. “My faith also informed my conscience to never harm or intentionally take the life of an innocent person.”

After working in the Philippines, she moved to New York in 2001 for new opportunities to grow her career. Three years later, she began working at a New York hospital that “assured” her she would “never have to compromise my conscience and participate in an abortion.”

But in 2009, that changed.

“I was preparing for what I thought was going to be a common procedure following a miscarriage,” she said, tearing up, “only to realize that I was being asked to perform an abortion on a live 22-week-old unborn baby.”

When she asked for a substitute to take her place for the abortion, her supervisor refused.

Instead, her supervisor warned her that “if I didn’t assist, I would be charged with insubordination and abandoning my patient.” DeCarlo added, “My nursing career and ability to care for patients and provide for my family would be over.”

The memory still haunts her.

“I’ll never forget that day as I watched in horror as the doctor dismembered and removed the baby’s bloody limbs, and I had to account for all the pieces,” she confessed. “I still have nightmares about that day.”

Because of that experience, DeCarlo called on Congress to pass the Conscience Protection Act “so that no other nurses or healthcare professionals are ever forced to go through what I did.”

In addition to DeCarlo, Mendoza and Vinoya also cited their religious convictions against abortion.

An award-winning nurse, Mendoza stressed that she lost her job in 2015 at the Winnebago County Health Department because of her “religious convictions that prevent me from taking a person’s life,” including through abortion.

“I’m called to protect life, not destroy it,” she said, citing the Hippocratic Oath. “While we may not all agree on abortion, I’d hope we can all agree that no doctor or nurse should be forced out of employment on account of their faith and commitment to protecting life.”

“If Congress passes the Conscience Protection Act,” she added, “I would have legal recourse to pursue justice in my case to ensure that hospitals receiving federal dollars do not discriminate against or force to lose their jobs healthcare professionals like me who seek to protect all innocent life.”

Like Mendoza, Vinoya urged that “participating in the destruction of human life is not only a violation of my religious convictions, it also conflicts with my calling as a medical professional to protect life.”

“I was asked to choose between following my conscience or keeping my job to sustain my family -- a choice no American should ever have to face,” she urged.

While her state, New Jersey, and federal law “prohibited discrimination against” her and 12 nurses who refused to perform abortion, she warned, in a written statement provided after her speech, that “in practice those laws are only as effective as the willingness of government officials willing to enforce them.”

The Conscience Protection Act, her statement concluded, “clarifies existing protectons and provides a private right of action so that healthcare professionals like me do not have to rely upon which ever administration is in power to enforce law.”

Other speakers at the event included Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), Rep. Diane Black (R-TN), Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL), Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO), Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-PA) and Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX).

Reprinted with permission from NewsBusters.

Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Jonathan Abbamonte

News

Abortion providers sue Texas for banning dismemberment abortion

Jonathan Abbamonte

November 9, 2017 (Population Research Institute) — A Texas law banning a gruesome and inhumane abortion procedure known as dilation and evacuation (D&E) is being challenged in federal court.

This past Thursday, U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division opened a trial on the state’s D&E ban.

D&E, better known as "dismemberment abortion," is one of the most brutal abortion procedures legally permitted in the United States. The procedure involves tearing apart the unborn child limb by limb, causing the child to bleed to death. The baby is removed in pieces from the uterus using forceps or vacuum aspiration. Afterwards, the woman’s uterus is scraped with a long metal curette to remove any remnants of the baby or the placenta left in the womb.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has vowed to defend the state’s dismemberment abortion ban in federal court.

“I will always fight to protect the basic human rights and dignity of the unborn,” Attorney General Ken Paxton told PRI.

“The Texas Legislature, through the passage of Senate Bill 8, took reasonable steps to prohibit the live dismemberment of babies still in the womb, a brutal, gruesome and inhumane procedure that involves an abortionist tearing a fully formed child apart limb by limb,” Paxton said, “It’s time the American people fully understand the horrific practices occurring in our country.”

This past June, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), a sweeping pro-life law banning dismemberment abortion in the state. SB 8 also prohibited the sale of fetal body parts and required abortion facilities to at least treat the remains of aborted babies with the minimum of respect by burying or cremating them.

In August, Judge Yeakel placed a temporary restraining order on the Texas dismemberment ban, preventing the law from going into effect. In September, Yeakel extended the hold on SB 8 until November 22.

Federal and state courts elsewhere have also recently overturned or have placed holds on dismemberment abortion bans in other states.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson of the Middle District of Alabama struck down Alabama’s dismemberment abortion ban, claiming the law was unconstitutional. Courts have also placed temporary or permanent injunctions on dismemberment bans in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. Dismemberment laws in Mississippi and West Virginia have remained unchallenged.

The Kansas Supreme Court is currently hearing a case that will determine the fate of Kansas’ dismemberment abortion ban. The Kansas Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act was signed into law in 2015 by pro-life Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback. Due to a legal challenge, the law never went into effect. The Kansas Supreme Court is expected to hand down a final decision sometime this later week.

While pro-abortion advocates in Texas and other states have challenged dismemberment laws through federal courts, the Kansas case is being argued through the state courts. A majority of the sitting justices on the Kansas Supreme Court were appointed by pro-abortion former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who also served in Obama Administration as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Under Sebelius’ leadership, the HHS rolled out and implemented the onerous HHS Contraceptive Mandate which triggered the largest cascade of religious liberty lawsuits in U.S. history.

As Margot Cleveland, University of Notre Dame professor and former longtime federal appellate law clerk pointed out in an article last week, the Kansas case could have greater implications for the people of Kansas than the other cases pending in federal courts. While federal law, through the Supreme Court’s precedent set out in Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and others, has already long held that women have a so-called fundamental “right” to abortion, a liberal judgement from the Kansas Supreme Court could create a similar or perhaps worse purported “right” to abortion in the Kansas state constitution.

While the direct termination of the life of an unborn child is always contrary to the fundamental and inherent right to life for every human being, until Roe v. Wade is overturned, it is all but impossible from a legal perspective to unconditionally protect the right to life for the unborn. The state of Texas has maintained that the state has an interest in “promot(ing) respect for the dignity of the life of the unborn” by ensuring that, at the very least, the unborn child is not submitted to cruel and inhumane dismemberment procedures.

Roe held that the state could not restrict access to abortion prior to viability except to protect women’s health. But Supreme Court’s decision in Casey changed that. States are now able to regulate abortion for reasons other women’s health even prior to viability, just so long as those restrictions do not create an “undue burden.”

In the Texas case, pro-abortion advocates are arguing that banning dismemberment abortion places an “undue burden” on women’s access to abortion.

However, the Texas dismemberment abortion ban can only be applied to a limited number of cases. D&E abortions are generally only performed in the second trimester after 15 weeks gestation. D&E abortions only constitute a small percentage of the total number of abortions committed in the United States, hardly constituting an “undue burden” to abortion access. And even though dismemberment abortion is never medically necessary, the Texas dismemberment ban even carves out an exemption for a “medical emergency.”

Most countries worldwide set gestational limits on abortion prior to 15 weeks. Even countries that have legalized abortion place significant term limits on the procedure. It is difficult to imagine that laws in Western European countries such as France, Belgium, Germany, Spain, and Italy which prohibit abortion on-demand after 14 weeks gestation or less constitute an “undue burden” on abortion access. After all, each of these Western European countries have far lower maternal mortality rates than the United States.

And as a recent Marist poll has shown, an overwhelming majority Americans are in favor of restricting abortion to the first trimester or to cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. It is difficult to believe that abortion restrictions that comport with term limits that nearly 80 percent of Americans agree with constitute an “undue burden.”

The state further has a compelling interest in ensuring that human life, human dignity, and bodily integrity are protected by law. The state has the right, and in fact the duty, to ensure that unborn children—who are guilty of no wrong—are afforded the same constitutional legal protection afforded to criminals who are rightly protected from the imposition of “cruel and unusual punishments.”

The plaintiffs suing the state of Texas claim that D&E is the only “safe, studied, or medically appropriate” procedure for second trimester abortions, despite the fact that abortion, particularly dismemberment, is never safe or medically appropriate for the unborn child. D&E further carries health risks for the mother, including, in some cases, uterine perforation and excessive blood loss, not to mention the well-documented risks abortion poses to women’s physical, emotional, and psychological health in general, particularly during the second trimester.

As the state of Texas points out, several abortion procedures which do not dismember the unborn child while still alive are still legal including fetal injection of intracardiac potassium chloride, transabdominal injection of digoxin, and cutting of the umbilical cord. And as plaintiffs themselves admit, abortionists could simply induce labor instead of dismembering the unborn child.

According to the plaintiffs, potassium chloride and digoxin are not indicated for abortion. Texas state law prohibits the off-label use of drugs to procure an abortion. Yet evidence purportedly obtained by the state of Texas found that abortion providers in Texas already use digoxin to abort unborn babies prior to initiating D&E.

So if D&E is never medically necessary, if a ban on D&E does not constitute an “undue burden” on abortion access, and if a ban on D&E does not even eliminate the possibility of a second trimester abortion, what could possibly be the motivation for abortion providers like Planned Parenthood to fight so hard for keeping baby dismemberment legal? Perhaps the real reason has something to do with the method’s effectiveness.

At 15 weeks gestation, dismemberment abortion is the cheapest option and the only surefire way to ensure that the baby comes out dead. Abortionists don’t want to be bothered with lawsuits for botched abortions or criminal investigations into cases of infanticide. Instead, they’d rather tear tiny unborn babies apart limb by limb. Their depravity knows no bounds.

Christopher Manion, PhD contributed to this article.

Featured Image
Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug

The Pulse

Kevin Spacey’s scenes deleted, re-shot for upcoming movie. Hit TV show canceled

Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug

HOLLYWOOD, California, November 9, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Accused sexual predator and pederast actor Kevin Spacey’s star continues its precipitous fall from the Hollywood firmament.  

Spacey’s scenes for the about-to-be-released All the Money in the World, scheduled to open three days before Christmas, have been deleted and will be re-shot. Actor Christopher Plummer has been tapped to replace Spacey. The disgraced actor’s name has already been replaced on the movie’s IMDB entry.  

The thriller, directed by Ridley Scott and produced by Sony Pictures, is based on the true story on the kidnapping of J. Paul Getty’s grandson in 1973.

Hollywood trade publication Deadline called the move  “unprecedented” and “shocking,” and reported that cast and crew of the film “in a unified front ... agreed to re-shoot all of Spacey’s scenes.”  

Not much more than a week ago, actor Anthony Rapp spoke out about how in 1986 then 26-year-old Spacey had attempted to sexually assault him. Rapp was just 14 at the time.  

Rapp’s brave admission unleashed floodgates.  

Since then, there has been a cascade of accusations, mostly from actors — many far younger than Spacey — who have said Spacey used his stature as respected actor to sexually harass them.

Netflix has jettisoned Spacey from the TV hit House of Cards and has had other upcoming jobs cancelled.  

The House of Cards crew now insists that “Everyone knew about Kevin Spacey’s behavior.” According to CNN, the actor had turned the House of Cards set into a “toxic work environment.”

Spacey has been accused by Richard Dreyfuss’ son, Harry, of attempting to grope him when he was an 18-year-old high school student. The younger Dreyfuss penned an article for Buzzfeed, alleging that Spacey had the audacity to do this while his father, Richard, was present in the same room. “He knew he could fondle me in a room with my father and that I wouldn’t say a word. He knew I wouldn’t have had the guts. And I didn’t.”

In other news that demonstrates how quickly the actor has plummeted from Hollywood star to Hollywood pariah, the International TV Academy announced that it has dropped Spacey as the planned recipient of a special Emmy Award given to those “whose creative accomplishments have contributed in some way to the quality of global television production.”

Just this morning, former Boston TV news anchor Heather Unruh appeared on NBC’s The Today Show to tell the story of how Spacey in July 2016 grabbed her then 18-year-old son’s genitals.   

Unruh said, “It’s more than a sex addiction, he’s a predator. We want Kevin Spacey to be stopped, especially my son. He doesn’t want another young man to be injured.”

Others who have come forward to speak about being sexually harassed by Spacey are director Tony Montana and Sweet Home Alabama star Josh Lucas.   

Print All Articles
View specific date