All articles from July 6, 2018




The Pulse

  • There are no Pulse articles posted on July 6, 2018.

Featured Image
Banned from their young children’s school by organizers of a Pride event, several parents at Heavers Farm Primary School in London kept their kids home rather than expose them to what they saw as promotion of the LGBTQ lifestyle. Facebook
James Risdon James Risdon


Parents plan protest against primary school Pride parade, get banned from event

James Risdon James Risdon
By James Risdon

July 6, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) -- An elementary school that boasts on its website about the involvement of its students’ parents banned them from its grounds for a day last month after they objected to a planned Pride parade for children as young as five years old.

Steve Reed, an openly gay Labour & Co-operative member of Parliament in the United Kingdom, praised the school, Heavers Farm Primary School, and its students for the LGBTQ event.

In a tweet, Reed wrote that he was “very proud of them for standing up for equality and diversity.”

A photograph on Twitter shows hundreds of young children at the event on June 29, many of them wearing rainbow flag-themed hats. An LGBTQ flag is proudly displayed.

On Twitter, school officials gushed over the event’s success, calling it a “wonderful end to #PrideMonth this morning with some fantastic singing and lots of things to be proud of!”

But not everyone agreed that children so young should be taught about homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism.

Ruth Anderson, the mother of one of the students, reportedly told British media that she and several other parents were outraged by the planned Pride parade.

"We were given this whole story that it was all about having pride in yourself, but that's ridiculous,” Anderson told the Croydon Advertiser.

"There were rainbow flags around the school, and the kids were even told to wear bright colours,” she said. “That's not having pride in yourself, that is blatant support for LGBT. I am not homophobic, but my faith teaches me a certain set of beliefs, and I do not want my child's school making her choices for her."

When a group of parents planned to protest outside the school, Heavers Farm pulled its invitation to parents. Those parents reportedly reacted by keeping their children home on the day of the planned Pride parade.

According to media reports, that led to the parade being cancelled and a smaller Pride event being held inside the school’s classrooms.

In the wake of the incident, Anderson has called for the school’s head teacher, Susan Papas, to be fired.

“Some parents have taken exception to this,” Papas reportedly told the Evening Standard. “They feel the school is shoving LGBT issues down the kids' throats. This takes us back decades.”

“We thought we would celebrate Pride month so those children from LGBT families would feel included and to show the kids that children come from different families,” she is quoted as saying. “But some parents aren't happy with the term LGBT and don't want their children knowing about these terms or what they mean.”

Featured Image
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin

News, ,

Teen assaulted in restaurant for wearing Trump ‘MAGA’ hat

Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

SAN ANTONIO, Texas, July 6, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) -- A man verbally and physically assaulted a Texas teenager for wearing one of President Donald Trump’s trademark “Make America Great Again” hats in an incident captured on video.

The man approached 16-year-old Hunter Richard and his friends at a San Antonio Whataburger earlier this week, local NBC affiliate News 4 reported. The man can be seen holding Richard’s stolen MAGA cap, throwing soda in his face, and telling him “you ain’t supporting s**t, n***a.” He can also be heard swearing and planning to throw the hat in his fireplace while walking away.

Richard says the man pulled some of his hair while stealing his hat.

"I support my President and if you don’t let’s have a conversation about it instead of ripping my hat off,” Richard said. “I just think a conversation about politics is more productive for the entire whole rather than taking my hat and yelling subjective words to me.”

One of his friends caught the incident on video and posted it online, at which point it quickly went viral.

"I didn’t think it was going to generate the amount like what people are doing,” Richard continued. “I was looking at the comments by some people and ‘they are like this is uncalled for’ and other people are like mixed opinions, but I didn’t think it would blow up to what it is now.”

Whataburger corporate communications quickly issued a statement declaring it was “shocked” by the video and “certainly (doesn’t) condone this type of customer behavior.” It added that Whataburger staff wasn’t involved and did not witness the incident.

A police report was filed and local police confirmed to USA Today that they interviewed Richard and witnesses. On Thursday night, police identified the alleged assailant as 30-year-old Kino Jimenez and confirmed he had been arrested for theft. Jimenez has been released on a $5,000 bond.

Jimenez’s alleged actions have already cost him his part-time job at the San Antonio bar Rumble, which released a statement denouncing his actions and declaring the establishment a “SAFE SPACE FOR EVERYONE,” regardless of their politics.

It is unknown whether Richard’s original hat was recovered, but the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., and Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina, both offered to send him a replacement signed by the president.

“This is disgusting and a disgrace,” Trump Jr. said. “Imagine if someone did this to an Obama supporter?”

There have been numerous instances of private citizens being harassed, threatened, and attacked for their pro-Trump apparel and signs, including a young black customer surrounded by Cheesecake Factory staffers in Miami, a Florida man punched in his front yard, and a Georgia public school teacher who forbade students from wearing pro-Trump shirts.

Following a Virginia restaurant kicking out White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters openly calling for leftists to harass off-duty Trump Cabinet officials, CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin pleaded with liberals in her audience to stop harassing Trump supporters -- because of the optics.

“The Sarah Sanders episode over the weekend — It is helping Donald Trump. Let me say that again, it is helping — for the people who are praising it, it’s helping him,” she said. “I know you want to jump back in, he has a 90 percent approval rating among Republicans. So what do you do with that number?”

Featured Image
Society for the Protection of Unborn Children

News, ,

British MP shows daughter’s ultrasound in Parliament, chaos ensues

Society for the Protection of Unborn Children
By Society for the Protection of Unborn Children

July 6, 2018 (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children) – An MP held up a scan of his unborn baby in the Commons chamber to make a point about parental leave offered to members of parliament.

A baby first

The SNP's David Linden wanted more time to debate the principle of proxy voting - where another MP votes on a colleague's behalf, for example when they are on paternity leave - so it could be voted on later. Holding the picture aloft, Mr Linden told colleagues: "This is my daughter to be born in the autumn, so I'm particularly keen to see this be put in place as soon as possible."

The debate was pulled yesterday because of two Government statements and an urgent question, but Mr Linden may have unknowingly broken new ground - SPUC's sources believe that this is the first time an ultrasound scan of an unborn child has been shown in the Commons chamber.

Rarely acknowledged

 In fact, despite the fact that abortion has been debated an unusual amount in recent months, the very mention of the unborn child is unusual enough to be noticed. During Stella Creasy's emergency debate on repealing sections of the Offences Against the Person Act (which would decriminalise abortion in England, Wales and Northern Ireland), the DUP's Sammy Wilson noted that the debate "has of course reflected the views of those who wish to control their own bodies, but what about the unborn child? That side has been lacking in most of the speeches today. What rights and protections does the state afford to unborn children?"

Shut out of debate

Mr Wilson and his colleagues did stand up for the rights of the unborn, but they were jeered and heckled for doing so. Hannah Bardell MP (SNP) stormed that for "DUP talk about unborn children being thrown in the bin or babies being disposed of, are disgusting ways to describe the choices that women have to make anywhere in the UK but particularly in Northern Ireland."

The Conservative MP Maria Caulfield was faced with similar vitriol when she defended the unborn during Diana Johnson's decriminalisation bill last year. "Too often today," she said then, "debates about abortion—about the risks involved and the rights of the unborn child—are shut down; but I, and many colleagues who share my views, will not be silenced as we seek to be a voice for the voiceless, and as we argue for more modern and humane abortion law that upholds not only the dignity and rights of women but the dignity and rights of the unborn child."

These comments meant Ms Caulfield faced a huge media outcry when she was appointed as the Conservative Vice-Chair for Women. 

Despite 50 years of legal abortion, it's taken a discussion on parental leave for MPs to be shown the image of an unborn child – perhaps they'll be less shocked when an MP dares to mention the unborn in any future abortion debate. 

Published with permission from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.

Featured Image
Michael Sean Winters C-Span / video screen grab
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy


Dissident Catholic journalist: I’ll enjoy watching conservatives executed for not opposing Trump

Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

KANSAS CITY, July 6, 2018  (LifeSiteNews) – A columnist for a left-wing Catholic newspaper has ended his Fourth of July piece with a grisly image: himself sitting by a guillotine knitting while his conservative friends have their heads chopped off. 

In his July 4 column in the National Catholic Reporter, titled “A grim Fourth of July arrives in the age of Trump”, Michael Sean Winters reflects how, in past arguments with conservative friends, he has joked about putting in “a good word” for them and their families when “the revolution comes.”

Now, however, angered by recent political events, particularly the defeat of a union fight to collect user fees from non-members and the upholding of the travel ban on citizens from some majority-Muslim countries, Winters is no longer interested in saving his pals.

“To my friends in the Republican political and legal establishment who have not stood up to Trump: When the revolution comes,” he wrote,  “you are on your own, and I will be clamoring not for mercy but for a seat next to the guillotine, where I can do my knitting.”

The image recalls Madame Defarge of Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities, one of the “tricoteuses” or knitters who sat by the guillotine during the French Revolution and watched the public executions. Although the Madame Defarge was fictional, the tricoteuses--and the tens of thousands of decapitations--were not.  

Winters’ strange remark was criticized by Catholic blogger Father John Zuhlsdorf, who suggested that Winters, who is against the death penalty, had revealed his true colors.

“Occasionally libs slip and reveal more of what they really think than they usually intend,” he wrote. “Remember, scratch a lib and find, beneath, a well of venom.”

Saying he preferred to think of Winters as the Wyle E. Coyote of the Catholic world, Zuhlsdorf remarked that Winters is now “Madame Defarge, Tricoteuse of the catholic Left.” 

“His is a particularly venomous mind but this vision of the future is what the Left really wants,” the blogger averred.   

Steve Skojec of the One Peter Five blog was disturbed by the violence of the image. 

“It appears that @MichaelSWinters of @NCRonline is comfortable sharing a fantasy of violence and murder against his fellow Americans because they disagree politically,” Skojec wrote on Twitter. “This was actually allowed to be put in print by a ‘Catholic’ publication. Reflect on that.”

Winters’ column appeared in the wake of a July 1 tweet from Infowars' Alex Jones that the Democrats were on the verge of starting a “Second Civil War." 

Neither Winters nor the National Catholic Reporter responded to LifeSiteNews’ requests for comment by press time.

Featured Image
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, speaking here at the U.S. Bishop fall general assembly in 2014, has been a prominent liberal voice in the U.S. Church. Lisa Bourne / LifeSiteNews
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy


‘Vatican Insider’ writer: Why are predator bishops promoted to cardinal?

Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

VATICAN CITY, July 6, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) — A prominent Italian newsman has asked a question on many Catholics’ minds: why are bishops who molest anyone under their care allowed to become cardinals?

Andrea Tornelli, 54, raised the issue this week in the La Stampa newspaper’s Vatican Insider magazine. While waiting to hear if disgraced Monsignor Carlo Alberto Capella, sentenced to five years for possessing and distributing child porn, would appeal, the journalist wondered why prelates accused of much worse have not been sent to jail.

Calling the situation a “paradox,” Tornelli observed: “a prelate who has unleashed his perverse fantasies by compiling web images will have to serve a five-year sentence, while prelates who have effectively abused children and teenage boys ruining their lives, in several cases, do not spend even one single day in a cell.”

Then Tornelli brought up the case of Cardinal McCarrick, who is accused of having abused a boy 45 years ago in New York, and reflected that three other Cardinals appointed in recent years have been accused of abusing boys or young men. They are Hans Hermann Groer, the former Archbishop of Vienna; Keith O’Brien, the former Archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh; and George Pell, Prefect of the Secretariat of the Economy.  

While admitting that charges against Pell are open to doubt, Tornelli observed that there seems to be a problem in nominating bishops. He said that this was particularly evident in the case of McCarrick, who was known for having sexually harassed men under his charge:

“What strikes [me]... is] the information published in the statement of Cardinal Joseph William Tobin, Archbishop of the Diocese of Newark, who revealed that ‘In the past, there have been allegations that he engaged in sexual behavior with adults. This Archdiocese and the Diocese of Metuchen received three allegations of sexual misconduct with adults decades ago; two of these allegations resulted in settlements.’”

“In the three cases concerning McCarrick’s past – when he was already bishop – no minor was involved, but there is talk of harassment of seminarians and priests,” Tornelli continued.

Although the newsman is willing to believe that the Vatican had never heard allegations McCarrick had abused boys, he finds it difficult to understand how it was “possible to appoint a prelate from Metuchen to Newark, and then...from Newark to Washington (with cardinal promotion)” who had paid damages to “his own [adult] victims of harassment.”  

Tornelli observes that only men who are proven to have mature personalities should be made priests, let alone bishops and cardinals. He underscores that the sexual abuse of children and young men is not tied to personal ideology – Groer was considered a conservative – but to a flaw in the process of appointing bishops.

“The McCarrick case ... represents a significant alarm signal that is not simply linked to the problem of pedophilia or abuse of adolescents, but once again questions those responsible for the processes and the criteria determining the choice through which the bishops are selected,” Tornelli concluded.

His focus on actively-abusive prelates does not mean Tornelli sympathizes with the porn-using monsignor, however. Commenting wryly on Capella’s explanation that he had turned to porn to cope with loneliness, Tornelli wrote, “Obviously the prelate had to have a predisposition for that kind of shocking images, which include children filmed in sexual acts and abuses, because fortunately child pornography is not a widespread landing place for personal crises or excessive loneliness.”

Featured Image
Kellie Copeland NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin

News, ,

NARAL pro-abortion leader decries Trump admin for ‘putting babies in cages’

Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

CLEVELAND, Ohio, July 6, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – In a curious line of attack for pro-abortion lobbyists to pursue, the head of NARAL’s Ohio affiliate attacked the Trump administration Thursday for allegedly “putting babies in cages.”

The comments came during the latest episode of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio’s “The Morning After” podcast, in a conversation between the group’s executive director Kellie Copeland and communications manager Gabriel Mann.

The bulk of the conversation concerned the potential ramifications of President Donald Trump’s next Supreme Court nominee overturning Roe v. Wade, a topic of intense fear and anger among abortion advocates. The group encouraged members to contact the state’s two US senators, Democrat Sherrod Brown and Republican Rob Portman, to thank the former for supporting abortion and pressure the latter to oppose Trump’s nominee.

Overturning Roe would enable individual states to vote directly on abortion’s legality, and Copeland expressed dread at the prospect of losing abortion’s Supreme Court “firewall.”

“You know if your state legislature does something boneheaded the courts will eventually sort it out and they’ll make it right,” she added. Pro-lifers have decried the abortion lobby for using the courts to insulate their favored policies from the democratic process.

Approximately 32 minutes into the podcast, Copeland urged pro-abortion activists to overcome their “misery” toward the political landscape and mobilize for pro-abortion volunteerism.

“Look, I get it, the misery index is really high,” she said. “It seems like they’re coming at us from every direction, I mean...they’re putting babies in cages, for God’s sake.”

Copeland was referring to immigration officials’ temporary detainment of parents and children in separate facilities for the duration of criminal proceedings over illegal border crossings. In fact, the child holding areas are the same as those used by the Obama administration; the only change under Trump was to stop waiving adult prosecutions, increasing the number of kids being held separately.

Since the public uproar over the policy began earlier this summer, Trump has signed an executive order calling for families in custody to be housed together, and the administration will comply with a court order to quickly reunite families that have already been separated.

As for babies within America’s borders, NARAL’s Ohio chapter declares the legal power to kill them before birth a “fundamental human right,” including beyond twenty weeks of pregnancy, via partial-birth abortion, and at taxpayers’ expense. A variety of medical literature suggests preborn babies are capable of feeling pain by twenty weeks.

It also bitterly opposes giving abortion-minded women the opportunity to see ultrasound footage of their unborn baby or hear his or her heartbeat, and condemns pro-life pregnancy centers for offering support to help pregnant women let their babies live.

Ohio saw a total of 20,672 induced abortions in 2016, the most recent year for which government data is available.

Copeland also suggested that the pro-abortion cause was “intertwined” with other left-wing priorities imperiled by a more conservative Supreme Court, including illegal immigration and same-sex “marriage.”

“All of those things are intertwined, and all of those values are at stake right now,” she said, a sentiment with which pro-family advocates agree, albeit because they hope for different outcomes.

Featured Image
Priests wearing cassocks and surplices at the 2015 Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage in Rome
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy

News, ,

Over 20% of newly-ordained priests in France belong to traditional, orthodox orders

Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

PARIS, July 5, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) — Over 20 percent of the 114 men who will be ordained to the Catholic priesthood in France this year belong to traditionalist communities.

Overall, the number of ordinations has fallen in France. In 2017, the “Eldest Daughter of the Church” received 133 new priests, 19 more than this year. However, according to La Croix, the number of priests belonging to communities that celebrate the Mass of John XXIII strictly according to the rubrics or the Traditional Latin Mass has continued to increase.

Of the “traditionalist” or “classical” priests to be ordained for France this year, eight are from the Community of Saint Martin, three are from the Institute of the Good Shepherd (IBP), two are from the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP), and two are from the Institute of Christ the King (ICK). The Fraternity of Saint Thomas Becket, the Society of the Missionaries of Divine Mercy, and the Canons of the Abbey of Lagrasse all have one.

La Croix did not mention the 2018 ordinations for the canonically irregular Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) despite the recent thawing of the Vatican towards Archbishop LeFebvre’s traditionalist order. On June 29, Bishop Fellay ordained three Frenchmen to the priesthood in Econe, Switzerland.   

Julienne Thurrott, organizer of a contingent of Scottish pilgrims, told LifeSiteNews that the health of the traditionalist Catholic movements in France can be gauged by the huge numbers that attend the annual Paris-to-Chartres Pilgrimage.

“It regularly attracts about 15,000 – the majority of whom are French,” she said. “The SSPX pilgrimage, which walks from Paris to Chartres at the same time, attracts about 5,000 pilgrims.”

Fewer than half of France’s dioceses will ordain new priests this year. Of its 99 dioceses, 58 will ordain no new priests at all. Paris and Bordeaux have the most ordinands: six each. Lyon, Versailles and Fréjus-Toulon – a tradition-friendly diocese – will have five each. Evry-Corbeil-Essons will have four.

The La Croix article stressed that the number of “late vocations,” the ordination of middle-aged men, is also rising, particularly for priests who will say the Novus Ordo (post-Vatican II Mass).

This suggests a shorter term of service.  

In 2014, it was estimated that if traditional communities continued to ordain men at the current rate, and ordinations for the Ordinary Form of the Mass continued to decline at those levels, then in 2038, more than half the Catholic priests in France would be traditionalists.

Although this may seem like good news for those who love the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, it actually represents a collapse of the Catholic Church in France. If the predictions are accurate, the year traditionalists become half of all French priests, there will be only 500 priests in total in France.  

Featured Image
Pope Francis greets Cardinal-designate Kevin Farrell
Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa

News, ,

Pope-Francis-appointed cardinal: Priests have ‘no credibility’ to do marriage prep

Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa
By Lisa Bourne

July 6, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Catholic priests lack "credibility" to prepare the faithful for the sacrament of marriage because they have never been married, according to the leader of the Vatican’s office for ministry to the family.

Priests are not the best people to train others for marriage, said Cardinal Kevin Farrell, prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life.

“They have no credibility,” Farrell said, “they have never lived the experience; they may know moral theology, dogmatic theology in theory, but to go from there to putting it into practice every day.... they don’t have the experience.”

The comments from Cardinal Farrell, who hails from the Dublin suburb of Drimnagh, came in a recent interview with Intercom magazine, a publication of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference. His remarks were covered by The Irish Times and picked up by Crux.

The cardinal's assertion that lack of marital experience is a handicap conflicts with Pope Saint John Paul II's pivotal 1960 work Love and Responsibility. In it, then-Karol Wojtyla said that priests have a different and “wider” experience that allows them to minister to couples. He wrote: 

It is sometimes said that only those who live a conjugal life can pronounce on the subject of marriage, and only those who have experienced it can pronounce on love between man and woman. 

In this view, all pronouncements on such matters must be based on personal experience, so that priests and persons living a celibate life can have nothing to say on questions of love and marriage. Nevertheless they often do speak and write on these subjects. Their lack of direct personal experience is no handicap because they possess a great deal of experience at second-hand, derived from their pastoral work.

For in their pastoral work they encounter these particular problems so often, and in such a variety of circumstances and situations, that a different type of experience is created, which is certainly less immediate, and certainly ‘second-hand’, but at the same time very much wider. The very abundance of factual material on the subject stimulates both general reflection and the effort to synthesize what is known. 

This is not the first time Farrel has made such comments. Last September, while addressing a gathering of Catholic leaders in Ireland, the Cardinal said that priests have “no credibility when it comes to living the reality of marriage.” He said laity should organize and administer marriage prep programs.

Specifics of formation for the priesthood vary from diocese to diocese and between seminaries, as does marriage preparation from one diocese to another. However, the role of priests in preparing couples for marriage usually lies in them instilling the spiritual and theological components of matrimony in the faithful. Many dioceses enlist lay sponsor couples to prepare engaged couples for the day-to-day elements of married life, which is done in tandem with the spiritual preparation provided by priests.

Farrell was most recently bishop of Dallas since 2007 after having been an auxiliary bishop in Washington D.C. beginning in late 2001.

In August 2016, Pope Francis named him head of the new office Laity, Family and Life, which combined several other Vatican offices in the course of Francis’ reform of the Curia. 

In October of that year, Francis raised Farrell to the rank of cardinal, making him the highest-ranking American prelate serving in the Vatican.

The month following his being elevated to cardinal, Farrell said one of his immediate priorities would be to develop a marriage program based on the controversial Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia.

While cardinal-designate in October 2016 he had told the dissident National Catholic Reporter publication that the pope’s document “is faithful to the doctrine and to the teaching of the church,” that “It is carrying on the doctrine of Familiaris Consortio of John Paul II,” and “Basically (this) is the Holy Spirit speaking to us.”

Amoris Laetitia, in particular footnote 351, tacitly suggests that Catholics living in objectively sinful relationships may have access to the sacraments, which conflicts with Pope St. John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio, which unequivocally states the Catholic Church’s established teaching that those divorced and remarried whose prior unions have not been declared null by the Church may not receive Holy Communion.

Also in November 2016, Farrell criticized Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput’s guidelines upholding Church teaching that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics may not receive Holy Communion unless they “refrain from sexual intimacy,” as causing “division.” 

Farrell, as head of the Dicastry for Laity, Family and Life, is overseeing the World Meeting of Families taking place August 21-26 in Dublin.

The event is using Amoris Laetitia as its foundation, and critics have more than once called out either related material as espousing homosexual unions or other concerning signs that homosexuality will be promoted by the gathering.

Lay Catholics are conducting a separate conference concurrent with the World Meeting of Families promoting the Catholic Church’s teaching on marriage and family.

Farrell said last fall that the young people involved in the upcoming Youth Synod must say “how the Church needs to change its ways of doing things so we can be more attuned to the voice and to the hearts of the young.” 

The Youth Synod, another Vatican-conducted assembly, has also raised red flags, with its preparatory document seeming to embrace LGBT language – with Vatican officials endeavoring to lay responsibility with inclusion of the language on young people, while someone added it after youth had finished work on the document.

Farrell was also one of a number of high-ranking U.S. prelates to lend verbal backing to LGBT-affirming Jesuit Father James Martin’s recent contentious book calling for the Catholic Church to be more “welcoming” to LGBT-identifying persons.

Featured Image
Embattled Marquette professor John McAdams is refusing to apologize even if the university fires him.
Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa

News, , ,

Prof fired by Catholic university for defending marriage has huge court win

Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa
By Lisa Bourne

MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin, July 6, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – The professor forced out by a Jesuit-run Catholic university for blogging about an undergrad student being assailed by his teacher for his having voiced defense of marriage has won in court.

In a landmark decision Friday the Wisconsin Supreme Court said Marquette University violated John McAdams’ right to free speech when it suspended him for writing the blog post, and it ordered the University to restore McAdams immediately with his full rank, tenure, compensation and benefits.

“The undisputed facts show that the University breached its contract with Dr. McAdams when it suspended him for engaging in activity protected by the contract's guarantee of academic freedom,” court documents say.

The Court wrote further that, "we reverse the circuit court and ... order the University to immediately reinstate Dr. McAdams with unimpaired rank, tenure, compensation, and benefits."

Breaking details were shared on Twitter by Weekly Standard author Charlie Sykes.

The ruling from Wisconsin’s high court comes three years into litigation over the 2014 blog post.

McAdams sued the Jesuit-run University in 2015 for breach of his employment contract after it moved to fire him when he refused to apologize for exposing the graduate instructor who had quashed opposition of same-sex “marriage” in her class. 

Marquette prevailed in the first round at the trial court, and McAdams appealed. The Supreme Court agreed earlier this year to bypass the Court of Appeals and hear the case immediately, with arguments made before the Court in April.

Marquette alleged McAdams had violated professional responsibility toward graduate-student teacher Cheryl Abbate, causing her direct, irreparable harm with the November 9, 2014 blog post.

McAdams has continually disputed the assertion, telling LifeSiteNews the blog post was a pretext, and that Marquette has wanted to get rid of him for a long time.

The case pitting the outspoken political science professor against the University with liberal repute had gotten national attention with implications for what is viewed by many as a battle between political correctness and freedom of speech on college campuses nationwide. Various groups had weighed in in the case via amicus briefs.

Marquette suspended McAdams in December 2014 over the blog post, and banned him from campus at that time, also moving to revoke his tenure and then fire him the following month.

In September 2015 a faculty hearing committee began a review and gave the recommendation in January 2016 for McAdams to be suspended without pay for up to two semesters. 

McAdams had argued as well that he was denied due process in the faculty review and alleges bias in the review.

In March 2016 Marquette president Michael Lovell advised McAdams via a letter that not only was he suspended, but also that McAdams had until April 4 to provide him and Abbate with a written statement expressing “deep regret” and admitting his blog post was “reckless and incompatible with the mission and values of Marquette University.” 

McAdams notified Lovell that he would not make the statement, because he did not believe its contents to be true, and sued May 2, 2016, arguing the University had broken its contractual agreement of academic freedom and free speech protected under the U.S. Constitution. He has been suspended ever since, without pay after the initial suspension period.

The November 2014 blog centered on an after-class exchange over gay “marriage” between an undergraduate student and Abbate, his grad student instructor for an ethics class.

During the conversation, Abbate told the student among other things that some opinions are not appropriate, that it would be offensive to gay students for him to express his opposition to gay “marriage” in class, and further, that homophobic comments would not be tolerated in the class. 

In his blog post, McAdams had criticized the idea of a college instructor restraining the speech of a student based upon a point of view. 

The student had felt his attempts to address his concerns over his conversation with Abbate with University leadership were unsuccessful and had approached McAdams, who was his advisor. McAdams emailed Abbate telling her he was writing about the exchange and asked for her version of what occurred.

Abbate did not respond to him. 

She did, however, communicate with others about it, and various email and other discussions ensued among the parties involved before and after the blog post went live. Some of those made it into court documents, exhibiting divergent accounts of the events in the case.

McAdams had blogged in the past about concerns over the University’s Catholic identity, which he argued in the case was a factor in the University’s actions against him.

“In his blog, Professor McAdams has regularly taken positions contrary to majority sentiment among faculty and administrators on campus and has been highly critical of certain faculty colleagues and many in positions of authority at Marquette, including the president, provost, deans and department chairs,” the lawsuit says. “In general, Professor McAdams has been a critic of a set of values referred to by some as “political correctness” and, at times, has pointed out the tension between certain positions taken by Marquette and its Catholic identity.”

LifeSiteNews is following the details of the decision and will update as it unfolds.

Featured Image
Australian Archbishop Julian Porteous has defended Catholic teaching on marriage.
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire

News, ,

Archbishop stops Jesuit who supports gay ‘marriage’ from speaking at conference in his diocese

Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire
By Claire Chretien

TASMANIA, Australia, July 6, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – An Australian archbishop has banned a dissident Jesuit priest who supports homosexual "marriage" from speaking at a conference in his archdiocese and faces secular media criticism for doing so.

Hobart Archbishop Julian Porteous, who in 2015 faced a government investigation for distributing a pamphlet articulating Catholic teaching on marriage, sent a letter to Father Frank Brennan’s superior notifying him of the decision.

Brennan had been scheduled to speak at a conference where Porteous was speaking about marriage.

Brennan, the head of Catholic Social Services Australia, supports same-sex “marriage” in opposition to Church teaching, calling its legalization a matter of the “common good.”

The archbishop “felt it was inappropriate for Father Brennan to speak at the conference, due to his public position regarding same-sex marriage,” an archdiocesan spokesman told Australian media. However, Brennan has not been formally banned from all diocesan speaking engagements.

ABC News (not to be confused with the U.S. network ABC) reported that a “former Catholic priest” who is banned from speaking in several dioceses defended Brennan. Other commentators attacked Porteous as “hypocritical,” charging that since the archbishop wanted the right to speak out against the redefinition of marriage, he should let priests who oppose the Church’s broadcast their dissent.

The Catholic Church teaches that sexual activity between persons of the same sex is “intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to natural law.”

“They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity,” the Catechism of the Catholic Church instructs (CCC 2357). “Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

“In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty,” Pope Benedict XVI wrote as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger when he was Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.”

Bishops have the authority to prohibit individuals from speaking on church grounds in their dioceses and grant or deny priests permission to say Mass and hear Confessions in their dioceses.

Featured Image
UK House Speaker John Bercow at the July 4, 2018 PinkNews reception in Speaker's House. Pink News / video screen grab
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin

News, , , ,

UK House speaker: LGBT rights ‘has to trump’ religious liberty

Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

WESTMINSTER, July 6, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – In the latest and clearest break from the pro-homosexual movement’s past assurances that “gay rights” wouldn’t endanger religious freedom, on Wednesday the speaker of the United Kingdom’s House of Commons explicitly declared that the former should override the latter.

John Bercow made the declaration at a July 4 PinkNews reception, PinkNews reports. “Gay rights, lesbian rights, bi rights and trans rights are not gay rights, lesbian rights, bi rights or trans rights, they are human rights,” he declared, “and that seems to me to be the inescapable conclusion of any serious consideration of these matters.”

Bercow went on to claim to “respect people’s rights to adhere to and profess their faith,” but asserted that when “somebody’s adherence to faith on the one hand and the acknowledgement of and demonstration of respect for human rights” come into conflict, “the latter has to trump the former.”

“If there are people who take a different view, no doubt they will profess it, but that is my absolutely clear sense,” he reiterated. “The rights of LGBT people of this country and of such people around the world are human rights and need to be acknowledged as such.”

In particular, he singled out the 1988 law known as Section 28 for ridicule as “the single most pernicious piece of legislation in the post-war period.” Repealed in 2003, the law forbade public schools from promoting homosexuality in sex education classes.

Despite his claim that no law more “pernicious” was on the books in the past half-century, racial discrimination in public places was legal in the UK for twenty years after World War II, while current British law permits aborting preborn babies.

Bercow has advocated for the LGBT agenda throughout his nine-year tenure as speaker, and even incorporates a rainbow flag into his official heraldic Coat of Arms. He has also advocated to legalize abortion in Northern Ireland and allow the destruction of embryos for stem cell research, as well as supported measures to mandate explicit sex education for children as young as six, and criminalize pro-life pregnancy centers for advertising the government deems “misleading.”

Across the world, formal legal recognition of homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” has led to numerous attempts to force private citizens, businesses, and organizations to serve same-sex ceremonies, refrain from speech critical of homosexuality, place adopted children with same-sex couples, and more.

In the UK, the collision between LGBT interests and religious or conscience rights has included official “hate crime” guidelines in which mere speech is potentially punishable as long as an alleged victim simply “perceives” hate, a government inspection threatening to close a Jewish elementary school for declining to teach kids as young as three about transgenderism, a proposed total ban on individuals’ ability to seek out therapy for unwanted homosexual attraction, primary schools instructing students to report other children for calling transgender classmates by their biological sex, and more.

Featured Image
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne

News, ,

Ontario Conservatives will ‘restore’ sex-ed to pre-Wynne days, but when?

Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence

TORONTO, July 6, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Ontario’s new minister of education says she’s committed to keeping Premier Doug Ford’s campaign promise to “restore” the province’s 1998 sex-ed curriculum while consulting parents on a replacement.

But Lisa Thompson didn’t say if she’ll pull former Liberal premier Kathleen Wynne’s controversial sex-ed curriculum from schools before children return in the fall.

The MPP for Huron-Bruce told the Owen Sound Sun Times the Liberals didn’t consult parents before rolling out their sex-ed curriculum in 2015 in the face of massive parental backlash.

“We need to ensure that we facilitate a forum whereby anyone who wants to share their perspective has a chance to do so,” said Thompson, who was sworn in Friday as education minister in Ford’s Conservative majority government.

“The previous government when you take a look at the number of people that they actually consulted with, it represents roughly one person per school in the province. And to my way of thinking, that's not good enough,” she said.

LifeSiteNews contacted Thompson's office for a comment but did not hear back by deadline.

The minister reiterated the Tories would revert to the sex-ed curriculum in place before the Liberal version, but said only that her ministry is discussing timelines, the Owen Sound Sun Times reported.

“As a jumping-off point, we’re returning to the previous sex-ed component and from there we’re kicking off our consultation. We recognize it needs to be done in a time-efficient manner so that the realities of 2018 can be shared in the classroom with our students,” she said.

Parental rights advocacy group Parents As First Educators (PAFE), and pro-life lobbying group Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), among the foremost critics of the Wynne sex-ed curriculum, are pressing for its repeal by September.

They warn it prematurely sexualizes children by introducing them to sexual concepts at too early an age.

They also note that former deputy minister of education Ben Levin was the architect of the 2010 sex-ed curriculum, which is virtually identical to the 2015 version and shelved by Premier Dalton McGuinty after huge parental outcry.

Levin was convicted in 2015 of three child pornography-related offences — including counselling to commit rape, in this case, of a minor — and sentenced to three years in prison.

The Wynne sex-ed curriculum introduces homosexuality and gender identity in Grade 3, masturbation in Grade 6, and oral and anal sex in Grade 7. It advises Grade 7 children to carry a condom in case they engage in sexual activity, and Grade 8 children to think up a sexual plan. It teaches there are six genders rather than the two biological sexes of male and female.

At no point does the sex-ed speak of marriage or of marriage as the only relationship in which sexual relations should take place. 

PAFE president Tanya Granic Allen said repealing the Wynne sex-ed curriculum “does not require legislation and can very easily be done before the kids return to school in September.”

Granic Allen ran for the PC Party leaderSHIP on a platform of repealing the Wynne sex-ed curriculum and replacing it wit one developed with parental consultation -- a position Doug Ford adopted during his campaign.

Granic Allen emerged as kingmaker in the race when her supporters backed Ford as their second choice on the ranked ballot.

The Tories must also ensure schools give parents advance notification and opt-out, she told LifeSiteNews, a position she outlined in an op-ed in Post Millennial titled “Repealing Kathleen Wynne’s sex-ed by September? It’s as easy as 1-2-3.

“There must be a very clear, uniform, across-the-board advance notification of when these lessons are taught, and parents can opt out,” she told LifeSiteNews.

“Because there’s always going to be some parents who have concerns about what is being taught and how, and it’s always important that parental rights are respected.”

Campaign Life Coalition senior political strategist Jack Fonseca lauded Thompson for “making good on Doug Ford’s campaign promise.” 

However, the “only piece still missing” is her “promise to repeal the Wynne/Levin sex program by the start of the new school year in September,” he told LifeSiteNews.

“This can be easily done — and must be done — to protect our children from being further sexualized by, and indoctrinated with, harmful liberal ideologies,” Fonseca noted. 

Thompson “just needs to issue a directive to the schools ordering them to revert to the previous sex-ed curriculum.”

CLC has launched a petition directed at Ford asking him to do just that.

Signed by almost 16,000 people to date, the petition will be delivered to both the premier and the education minister, Fonseca said.

“We’re also happy to hear that a genuine consultation process will begin to develop a new curriculum that parents actually buy into,” he added.

But he warned Thompson to consult only with parents, and not touch “with a barge pole” the “so-called ‘experts’ that helped Kathleen Wynne and Ben Levin cook up this perverse sex program for young children.”

The minister needs to be aware that many “experts” the Liberals consulted are “actually far-left groups like Planned Parenthood Toronto, an abortion advocacy organization,” Fonseca said.

Planned Parenthood Toronto “publishes sex-ed resources for 13 year olds like Anal Play 101 that encourages the unhealthy practice of ‘fisting,’ and Making Sex Feel Good which seems to encourage children to view pornography,” he pointed out.

“The objective of PPT, like many of the other activists consulted as ‘experts’ by Wynne and Levin, is not to attain ‘sexual health’ for children, but rather, to achieve sexual anarchy in society,” Fonseca said. “Kids are just pawns in their sexual revolution.”

To sign the Campaign Life Coalition petition urging Ford to repeal the Wynne sex-ed curriculum before September, go here.

Action item:

Contact Minister of Education Lisa Thompson to ask that she repeal the Wynne sex-ed by September. Email: [email protected] 

Featured Image
Lynette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson AKA Diamond and Silk Diamond and Silk / Youtube screen grab
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin

News, ,

Diamond & Silk slam Democrats: They fight for immigrant children but not preborn babies

Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

FAYETTEVILLE, North Carolina, July 6, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – The conservative video blogging duo Diamond and Silk took aim at the double standard of the Democrat Party’s pro-abortion stance Friday in their latest fiery video commentary.

The main topic of the video was not abortion but illegal immigration, specifically the growing calls from several Democrats, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand and socialist congressional nominee Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, to abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The calls are the latest development in the controversy over the federal government temporarily separating parents and children who illegally crossed the southern border for the duration of criminal proceedings.

Early on in the video, Lynette “Diamond” Hardaway blasted the “Dummy-crats” for “fighting in the streets hard to abolish ICE, but they did not fight to end slavery, to abolish slavery.” Shortly afterward, Rochelle “Silk” Richardson followed up by declaring that "Democrats fight for separation of babies from their mothers’ breasts, but refuse to fight for the innocent children being separated from their mothers’ womb.”

The bloggers’ observation follows several prominent pro-abortion Democrats, and even the nation’s leading pro-abortion lobbying groups, denouncing the Trump administration over the scandal using language strikingly similar to what pro-lifers say about abortion.

Jesus Christ “did not say ‘let the children suffer,’” failed presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said of “this cruelty.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi decried the “barbaric and unacceptable policy of ripping children from the arms of their parents at the border.” Rep. Maxine Waters invoked the Bible to declare she was “on the side of understanding that if we can’t protect the children, we can’t protect anybody.”

Planned Parenthood Federation of America tweeted that “all of the fathers and parents who have been separated from their children at borders” were in “our hearts and minds” for Father’s Day. NARAL President Ilyse Hogue decried the “inhumane” and “evil” “torture” of “these children.

Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and various Democrats and pro-abortion pundits similarly attacked President Donald Trump in May for impugning the humanity of the violent gang MS-13 by calling them “animals.”

“As a Christian, I am called to love people – not to eliminate punishment for wrongful actions,” Radiance Foundation founder Ryan Bomberger wrote last month, addressing the intersection of the pro-life movement and immigration policy. “I don't support families being separated at the border unless there is verifiable abuse or neglect. Many parents put their children in peril by illegally crossing when they could cross legally. This latest political media tantrum is merely a continuum of resistance against having laws that prescribe what legal immigration is.”

Featured Image
Thomas Lifson


Trump instigating collapse of UN Green Climate Fund

Thomas Lifson
By Thomas

July 6, 2018 (American Thinker) – Yesterday, a board meeting of the U.N. Green Climate Fund collapsed in bitterness, failing to approve any funding, and its executive director abruptly resigned.  Like so many other global warmist gatherings of well paid officials in luxurious and exotic locales, this one was supposed to share the joy of distributing other people's money and being praised for it.  But President Trump turned off the spigot from the United States Treasury, and nobody else was willing to step up and replace the American cash with his own.

Megan Darby reports in Climate Change News:

Howard Bamsey resigned as executive director of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) with immediate effect on Wednesday, in a bombshell finish to a fraught board meeting.

The Australian cited "pressing personal reasons" in his resignation letter, adding that it was best he leave before the next round of fundraising started.

It came as the four-day meeting in Songdo, South Korea collapsed with no decisions on 11 funding bids worth nearly $1 billion, or on how to top up the flagship climate finance initiative's dwindling resources.

The resources are dwindling because of President Trump's pullout from the Paris Climate Accord and his suspension of 2 billion taxpayer dollars slated for the fund:

As well as the US withholding $2bn of its pledge, the pot has lost some $1bn in value due to exchange rate fluctuations since 2014, officials reported.

That "exchange rate" loss strikes me as highly suspicious.  How does one lose that much without risky speculation?  The entire commitments to date, according to Bloomberg, have been only $3.7 billion.  Were the funds invested in Iranian rials?  Could a U.N. agency possibly be corrupt?  Perish the thought!

With resources dwindling, and nobody anxious to replace Uncle Sam, the applicants apparently have turned on one another:

With developing countries complaining their priorities were not properly represented, it took nearly two days to agree on the agenda for the meeting.

"I have never served on a board that is this dysfunctional and toxic in my life," said US representative Geoffrey Okamoto, as the discussion dragged on.

In the context of Donald Trump's US cutting off contributions to the fund, however, Okamoto's comment rankled with some.

"It is typical playing to the crowd," said Zaheer Fakir, who represents South Africa.  "The reason why it is dysfunctional and toxic is the way [the co-chairs] prepared for this board meeting."

He said there had been a "serious lack of consultation" and the chairs had not responded to comments regarding the agenda before the meeting.

Giving away other people's money to third-world countries in the name of "fighting climate change" used to be the sort of thing to delight a progressive's heart...until President Trump ruined the game, that is.

If one wants to really help the developing world, the focus ought to be on affordable energy production, not on fighting carbon dioxide emissions, an entirely theoretical danger, and one with many benefits (faster crop growth with less fertilizer, for instance).  Green power is expensive power, and poor countries need more energy to raise their standards of living.

Trump's refusal to contribute has driven a wedge between other wealthy countries and the developing world, which still expects governments to fulfil a collective promise to deliver $100bn climate aid a year by 2020, partly through the GCF. ...

Other major multilateral funds like the Global Environment Facility are also running low on climate cash and tightening their criteria.

If the other developed countries (I'm looking at you, Chancellor Merkel) aren't willing to replace the American cash, maybe they don't really believe all the scary predictions.  It's enough to make one suspect that we have been suckered all along.

Published with permission from the American Thinker.

Featured Image
Clarice Feldman


The truth about Trump, the border, and ‘Kidtrina’

Clarice Feldman

July 6, 2018 (American Thinker) – The advantage of having to write a column at the end of the week is that usually within seven days, the latest leftist meme has been thoroughly debunked. And so it is this week with such bunkum as claims that crying toddlers and children at the border are being ripped from the arms of loving parents and held in concentration camp-style settings. My online friend Randy Bock has dubbed this propaganda ploy "Kidtrina," and it certainly bears a great deal of similarity to the overwrought coverage of the Hurricane Katrina aftermath in New Orleans. And for the same reason: to deflect blame from Democrat politicians and to demonize Republican presidents.

If you will recall, that disaster was caused by outside forces – the hurricane – but was compounded by corrupt local politicians' mismanagement of the levees and the gormless responses by then-mayor Ray Nagin (now serving a ten-year sentence in Texarkana prison camp for corruption) and Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, since retired from public office.

Recall if you will the hyperbolic (and false) accounts of cannibalism in the Superdome, babies dying there, bodies stacked up in the Convention Center, the slanders that levees were deliberately blown up to destroy the black part of the city, and that the federal government – that is, George W. Bush – was slow to respond. My favorite photo shot of the disaster was of apologist for Venezuelan communism Sean Penn and John Kerry hagiographer Douglas Brinkley paddling about for the camera in a purported rescue effort. Well, on second thought, maybe it was Lieutenant General Russel L. Honoré "don't be stuck on stupid" taking charge of the mess.

This time, too, the forces behind the kerfuffle are largely not of our doing. They are the direct effect of crime and poverty south of the border, Mexican refusal to grant the refugees asylum as international law requires, and Democratic policies designed to make our borders open to people who will and do take advantage of our generous social welfare policies and greater economic opportunity.

Since news coverage is so one-sided as a rule, you have to go online to understand what is going on. One of the best explanations is to be found in a National Review article by Rich Lowry

In sum, this administration isn't changing the rules about separating adults from children. "Separation happens only if officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child's parent, or is a threat to the child, or is put into criminal proceedings. Once an adult is put into criminal proceedings, federal marshals must turn the children with him into the care of HHS in temporary shelters." This is not at all different from housing children of those arrested for felonies domestically. We don't leave the children unattended, nor do we jail them with their parent. At the moment – without protest, over 20,000 U.S. kids are separated from their jailed parents.

Last fiscal year, 90 percent of apprehended children were released to a parent or close relative.

Secondly, the criminal proceedings are short-term, absent any "aggravating factor such as prior illegal entry or another crime." Migrants generally plead guilty and are returned to ICE custody. If the migrant agrees to return, he and the child are returned home together.

Asylum claims are a bit more complicated. Detentions are likely to be longer because of a consent decree in 1997 (President Clinton) and its extension by the Ninth Circuit (Flores v. Lynch), which together held that unaccompanied children and children who come with an adult can be held for only 20 days. Asylum claims generally take longer than that to process – especially given the large influx of border-jumpers claiming asylum with open borders advocates coaching them how to do this. Given the shortage of facilities for holding family units, to comply with Flores, the administration must either release the adults and children together pending adjudication of the claim or hold the adult and try to find a responsible adult who will care for the child. This is the genesis of the "catch and release" practice of the Obama administration. Relying on rarely kept promises to return for a hearing on the asylum claim, the adults and children were released and unlikely to be heard from by ICE again. To those considering these practices harsh, remember that we have consulates all over Mexico and Latin America where asylum claims can and should be made, and they can as well be made at the ports of entry without landing on U.S. soil. Indeed, under international law, those traveling through Mexico from Central America must seek refuge in the "first safe country" – Mexico – which is defying that law by refusing asylum requests and facilitating their passage to the U.S.

Trips across the border illegally, usually with the help of coyotes, are dangerous. It has been reported that 80% of the women and girls who make that trip suffer rapes on the journey.

And then there's the problem of sex-trafficking of children by people who have kidnapped them and pretended to be their parents when they arrive here seeking asylum. Powerline notes (emphasis added):

Every year thousands of children get raped, abused, and sold. Right here in America. Many of these kids are immigrants, and a key tactic traffickers use is to pretend that they are their parents.

Daniel Horowitz picks up on this theme, as well as the matter of drugs and gang violence:

We have two choices when it comes to border security and interior enforcement. We can continue telegraphing the message that when you come here with children you are home free. This will continue fueling the drug crisis, growing MS-13, enriching the drug cartels, inducing sex trafficking and terrible crimes at the border, encouraging illegals to kidnap children to gain admission, and causing death and mayhem on both sides of the border. 

Or we could finally deter this behavior by announcing an end to any immigration requests not processed in a controlled environment through our embassy.

Horowitz argues that DACA created the surge of children into the U.S. And why not? The prospect of amnesty must be enormously enticing.

This surge of teenage illegal immigrants, in turn, fueled the drug and gang crises. Ironically, gangs like MS-13 create the hellish enclaves that are said to cause immigrants to flee Central America. 

Horowitz concludes:

If you truly feel bad about separating families of both illegal aliens and Americans and all the chain reaction of woe it brings, you'd support automatic and immediate denial of entry and deportation for families – together.

How better to assure that these kids are not being trafficked than by separating them to learn the truth? 

By any honest account, children caught in this web during this administration are being handled far more humanely and responsibly than they were under Obama's. 

Like the coverage of Katrina, the media handling of Kidtrina is short on fact but high on partisan emotionalism.

The pundit class have officially snapped over the Trump administration's zero-tolerance border enforcement policy. Since Friday, the collective breakdown has yielded a total of 22 instances in which cable news commentators compared the separation of parents and children illegally entering the country to World War II-era war crimes and human rights violations. 

The Holocaust was invoked 12 times across CNN and MSNBC between June 15 and the 18th, generally in the form of comparisons between DHS detention centers and Nazi concentration camps. There were also six mentions of Japanese-American internment camps, as well as four comparisons to slavery. 

On Friday, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough opened Morning Joe with a tasteless Holocaust reference. "Children are being marched away to showers," he intoned, "just like the Nazis said they were taking people to the showers, and then they never came back. You'd think they would use another trick."

Over the weekend, CNN political commentator Dave Jacobson threw a miniature tantrum over the policy. On Saturday's CNN Newsroom during the 10 a.m. hour, he opined, "Donald Trump increasingly looks like Hitler in Nazi Germany." The following day, he appeared again on Newsroom in the afternoon to embellish on his already hysterical take: "Increasingly, Donald Trump is turning this nation into Nazi Germany and turning these [detention centers] into concentration camps."

MSNBC's Chris Matthews, evidently eager to join in the hyperventilating excitement, managed to last less than a minute before evoking concentration camps while hosting Hardball on Monday. Throughout the show, he repeatedly interrupted guests to draw their attention to images of crying children that flashed across the screen.

Papers ran photos of children inside cages covered with foil blankets, neglecting to clearly indicate that the pictures were from 2014, Obama's administration, not the pictures of present shelters like this.

The winner in the over-the-top reporting and distortions of the truth is the almost completely defunct Time magazine, which ran a cover of a crying toddler being stared down by a tough-looking President Trump as the story touted the cruelty of the separation policy, which rips the wee ones from their concerned parents. Unfortunately for Time, it was quickly established that the child was crying only briefly as her mother was being patted down and then returned to her. Worse for them, the mother who was seeking asylum had left, without notice, her husband and three other children in Honduras, paid a coyote $6,000 to transport her to the border, had no basis for an asylum claim, and was just looking for economic opportunity. Even worse, she had previously been deported (in 2013), so her re-entry was a felony. 

As Ed Morrissey said:

In other words, like so much of the media coverage of this issue, Crying Girl actually represents the opposite of the assumptions blasted around by outlets like Time. We've experienced a deluge of misinformation and a complete lack of context over the past week or so from media outlets that are clearly more interested in an agenda than an informed debate. Yanela Varela Hernandez is the poster girl for media's appetite for activism over truth. And they wonder why people continue to accuse them of peddling 'fake news'?

Time eventually was forced to publish an online correction – "The original version of this story misstated what happened to the girl in the photo after she was taken from the scene. The girl was not carried away screaming by U.S. Border Patrol agents: her mother picked her up and the two were taken away together" – but it defended its decision to run that distorted article and cover. "Our cover and our reporting capture the stakes of the moment." No, they do not. Jeffrey Satinover on Facebook satirized the magazine's underwater backstroke. "The June 12 photograph of the 2-year-old Honduran girl became the most visible symbol of the ongoing and utter degradation of journalistic standards in America," the Time board opined, "reaching levels so sublunar that were Solzhenitsyn to give his critique of the press now rather than in 1978 when he did, he would have probably stayed in Switzerland."

In the meantime, a mob descended on the home of HHS secretary Kirstjen Nielsen after forcing her out of a restaurant near the White House, a restaurant where the manager conceded that his staff might have alerted the mob. He did nothing to stop the harassment or ensure her safety, and he endorsed their action in threatening a patron. 

For those who might still think open borders is a great policy, many of whom previously and may still claim that we need zero population growth to sustain the planet, you might remind them that over fifty percent of the nation's immigrants are receiving some kind of welfare benefit. Ask them to show you a single country in the history of the world that long survived open borders and a generous social welfare policy. The E.U., under "Stuck on Stupid" Merkel's 2015 plan, has tried it, and it may well lead to the end of that grand experiment as members peel away under an unsustainable welfare burden and burgeoning crime.

Published with permission from the American Thinker.

Pope Francis with Cardinal McCarrick
Jonathan Newton-Pool/Getty Images
Elizabeth Yore

Opinion, ,

When Pope Francis joked about Cardinal McCarrick going to hell

Elizabeth Yore
By Elizabeth Yore

July 6, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) -- The Irish have a name for the likes of Ted McCarrick, Sleeveen. A sleeveen is a sly, smooth talking trickster, whose silver tongue dupes and deceives people.  Sleeveens are often successful in politics, able to charm and inculcate trust among people, especially the powerful.

Ted McCarrick is your typical loquacious Irishman, weaving endearing self-deprecating tales and occasional Irish jokes sprinkled throughout his speeches and sermons. McCarrick enjoys the gift of gab, employing it over the decades, as an effective lobbyist, fundraiser, and as the ultimate cleric with political clout. Even as an octogenarian, the silver-tongued one appears to be an engaging, even likable, aging leprechaun. 

If you listen carefully to McCarrick, he simply can’t resist bragging about his close personal relationship and conversations with Pope Francis. According to McCarrick, he and Bergoglio are old friends whose paths crossed over the decades. 

In October 2013, McCormick gave a speech at Villanova entitled, “Who is Pope Francis.” During the talk, McCarrick shared a conversation that he had with the newly elected Pope Francis. McCarrick told the audience that he had a very serious cardiac incident while he was at the Vatican during the 2013 Conclave. When he returned from the hospital to the seminary where he was staying, his phone rang and it was the newly elected Pope Francis on the line inquiring about McCarrick’s health.

McCarrick relayed this conversation with the Pope Francis, “I told the Pope that I guess the Lord still has some work for me to do.” The Pope responded to McCarrick, “But on the other hand, maybe the Devil did not have your accommodations ready.”

This same Bergoglio story is retold in a 2014 effusive interview of Cardinal McCarrick.  David Gibson interviewed McCarrick for a Washington Post article, entitled, “Globe-trotting Cardinal Theodore McCarrick is almost 84, and working harder than ever.”  

McCarrick also told Gibson about another curious exchange with Pope Francis when the pontiff was surprised to see Cardinal McCarrick show up during the Pope’s visit to the Holy Land in May of 2014:

"McCarrick travels regularly to the Middle East, and was in the Holy Land for Francis’ visit in May.

“The bad ones, they never die!” The pope teased McCarrick again when he saw him.”

The bad ones never die! Was this a mere tease or was it an indication of the Pope’s awareness of McCarrick’s sordid conduct with seminarians and boys?

Ask any McCarrick victim, they will tell you that he was a bad one, protected for decades by his brother bishops and cardinals who knew about his immoral and criminal behavior and looked the other way.

These papal quips, related by McCarrick himself, raise the question of whether Pope Francis knew about McCarrick’s sexual misconduct allegations and legal settlements.

Edward Pentin, the Vatican reporter for the National Catholic Register reports that a senior curial official said the homosexual network in the Vatican “has never been worse.” And for the last five years during the entire Francis papacy, Cardinal McCarrick was able to globe trot around the world as a papal emissary for various Catholic charities and causes.

Elizabeth Yore is an international child protection attorney and has investigated clergy child sex abuse cases.

Featured Image
Amy Coney Barrett
Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug


12 reasons Amy Coney Barrett should be on the Supreme Court

Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug
By Doug Mainwaring

WASHINGTON, DC, July 5, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) — In less than one week, President Trump’s field of potential Supreme Court nominees to fill the vacancy left by Justice Anthony Kennedy’s surprise departure has quickly gone from over 20 to just three.  

The White House will announce the President’s nominee on Monday, July 9, less than 72 hours away.

And of the three left standing, one stands out: Federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Iconic radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh has often said that liberals “always let us know who they fear” through their unhinged attacks. Among all the potential nominees mentioned a little over a week ago, Amy Coney Barrett immediately attracted the most flak from the left.  

Michael Brendan Dougherty writing at National Review basically said the same thing. Expect hysterics from liberals:  

“The facts of Barrett’s life — that she is a mother of seven children, and that when she speaks about her Catholic faith, she speaks about God as if she really believes in His existence — will provoke nasty and bigoted statements from Democratic senators and liberal media personalities. Again.”

The sputtering from the left brings one thing into crystal-clear focus: The guardians of the sexual revolution – those who fight to protect and promote abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism and sex without consequences – fear no one more than a strong, intelligent Catholic dedicated to living their faith – especially if that Catholic is a woman.

So here are a dozen reasons to look forward to Judge Amy Coney Barrett as the next United States Supreme Court Justice:  

1.) NARAL fears her:  

2.)  Planned Parenthood fears her:

3.) Seasoned Democrat politicians have attacked her Catholicism:  

Last fall, Senator Dianne Feinstein attempted to disqualify Coney Barrett during her confirmation hearing for the Federal bench because of her Catholic faith, saying, “The Dogma lives loudly within you.”  

More than anything else, Feinstein will be forever remembered for her oddly-worded statement to Barrett.

4.) Likewise, Senator Dick Durbin a fellow Catholic, may have illegally grilled Barrett during her Senate confirmation hearing last fall, attempting to impose a religious litmus test on the nominee:  

5.) Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer has attempted to use scare tactics to make her a toxic choice: “If chosen as the nominee, she will be the deciding vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.”


6.) The New York Times published a hit piece, hoping to derail Barrett’s 2017 confirmation. The Grey Lady was disturbed that Barrett’s Senate interrogators had failed to call attention to her affiliation with an ecumenical Christian community, the People of Praise in South Bend, Indiana.

In particular, the Times worried that some members of the group “swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a ‘head’ for men and a ‘handmaid’ for women. The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.”

They no doubt hoped to draw a correlation between the community’s terminology and The Handmaid’s Tale.  Their idea didn’t catch on.

7.) MSNBC mocked Barrett for her faith. reports:  

On Tuesday, MSNBC hosts and correspondents displayed their religious intolerance by attacking the faith of potential Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. During one hour after another, Barrett’s membership in a faith group was ridiculed and listed as one of her “potential weaknesses” in a Senate confirmation fight.  [...]

In the 10:00 a.m. ET hour, anchor Hallie Jackson listed Barrett’s faith as a “weakness” when it came to confirmation: “But, when you look at some of the potential weaknesses here. This People of Praise, reported ties that she has. An interesting religious group that, for example, labels heads of household, the men, the ‘heads,’ the women the ‘handmaidens,’ along those lines.”

Just prior to that, Politico Senior White House Reporter Josh Gerstein worried: “Amy Barrett would be among the more provocative possible nominees because of her skepticism about the Roe v. Wade decision is basically a matter of public record. So the White House would be making, I would say, a pretty edgy nomination if they go in that direction.”

8.) Ruth Marcus at the Washington Post says she “is a danger”:

Of all the potential Supreme Court nominees that President Trump is considering, the one who seems most inclined to undo Kennedy’s work and overturn Roe as completely and quickly as possible is Amy Coney Barrett, a 46-year-old newly minted (last November) federal appeals court judge.

In particular, Marcus is worried that Barrett’s “flexible” understanding of stare decisis, a legal principle which holds that precedent, i.e., former decisions such as Roe v Wade, should weigh heavily in decisions and should not be overturned.  

Marcus continued:  

When “a prior decision clearly misinterprets the statutory or constitutional provision it purports to interpret, the court should overrule the precedent,” [Barrett] writes. “Reliance interests count, but they count far less when precedent clearly exceeds a court’s interpretive authority.”

In other words, Barrett believes that the meaning and intent of the United States Constitution should outweigh precedent, eclipsing stare decisis. The Supreme Court has done just that, overturning its earlier decisions such as Plessy v. Ferguson.

9.) CNN’s Chris Cillizza insulted Amy Coney Barrett, and by association, the country’s entire female population, by deploying a misogynist attack, suggesting that if she were chosen as the nominee, it would be because of her “appearance.”

Twitchy in turn asked: “Does the smart lady scare you?”  

Cillizza insists that for Trump, image is everything — which is not a take we remember him floating when Trump chose Neil Gorsuch. But now that a woman, Amy Coney Barrett, is in line for the seat, it’s all about “central casting” — again, not a take we remember when Gorsuch was nominated.

One of the many Tweets critical of Cillizza said that he “reduced her to looks. Disgraceful.”

10.) The very liberally-minded folks at alleged that Barrett belongs to what looks like a “cult.”

Law professor and Senate candidate Richard Painter tweeted the old Times story this weekend and said People of Praise “looks like a cult”; another prominent critic one-upped Painter by calling it a “secretive religious cult.”

And in fretting that “people of Praise members are said to be accountable to a same-sex adviser, called a ‘head,’” Slate for perhaps the first time in its history used the hyphenated term “same-sex” in a derogatory manner.

The point of the article was not investigative journalism. It was to toss the word “cult” into the national conversation, hoping that it would get batted around enough to knock Barrett out of the competition.  

11.) “The more Progressive Democrats attack her, the more likely [Barrett] is to be the nominee to replace Anthony Kennedy,” William A. Jacobson notes.

Writing at, Jacobson quotes an article in the Washington Post suggesting that Barrett is “everything Trump’s base could want. But she also gives Trump something less tangible: The opportunity to stoke a culture war.”

Jacobson asks:  “Culture war? That would be liberal Democrats’ war against Barrett’s Catholicism.”

12.) A little-discussed but crucial component of Amy Coney Barrett’s fitness to serve on the highest court in the land is her education. Barrett received her law education not from one of the Ivy League schools, but from Indiana’s University of Notre Dame.

Princeton’s Professor Robert George drew attention to the significance of this in a humorous tweet:


Featured Image / screen grab
Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug


Evangelical ‘Revoice’ conference aims to normalize homosexuality. Here’s proof​

Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug
By Doug Mainwaring

July 6, 2018, (LifeSiteNews) – When my good friend Peter LaBarbera, a pro-family leader and former LifeSiteNews colleague, wrote to let me know that his registration for the upcoming “Revoice” Conference was denied, I was alarmed.

Revoice has been in the news a lot lately in Evangelical circles. It is evidence of a movement afoot within the evangelical world similar to what we’ve experienced in the Catholic Church, mirroring the rise of pro-LGBT organizations such as New Ways Ministry and personalities such as Fr. James Martin, SJ.  

And like the Spiritual Friendship movement within the Catholic Church, Revoice seeks to establish a new category of Christians: “Gay Christians,” a notion which implies that God creates people to be gay, and insists they should cherish their gayness.

While these groups and individuals always portray themselves as obedient to Church teaching, their aim is to normalize homosexuality and transgenderism within all of Christendom, directly opposing church teaching and best pastoral practices. 

What and Who is Revoice?

The stated purpose of Revoice is, “Supporting, encouraging, and empowering gay, lesbian, same-sex-attracted, and other LGBT Christians so they can flourish while observing the historic, Christian doctrine of marriage and sexuality.”

Many sense that there is something more to the movement than that.

“Revoice is incremental gay activism, designed to eventually lure conservative evangelicals into accepting ‘gay Christianity,’” warned nationally syndicated daily Christian talk show host Janet Mefferd.  

Mefferd also refers to Revoice as a “Trojan Horse,” and has called for the movement to be repudiated. 

“While I am grateful that so many of those on the other side of this are embracing a biblical view of marriage I do believe that they have adopted an unbiblical view of human identity—one that treats same-sex attraction as a matter of moral indifference and homosexual orientation as an identity to be embraced,” said Denny Burk, Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate school of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY.  

“There is little doubt that Revoice is intended to be revolutionary in shaping the thinking of evangelical churches,” concludes Pastor Tom Buck, Senior Pastor at the First Baptist Church of Lindale, Texas and currently completing his doctoral work at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

“Understanding the problems with the Revoice Conference does not require PhD level research,” says Buck. “Fifteen minutes is sufficient to familiarize yourself with its direction.”

What Revoice Leaders Believe about being Gay Christians

Nate Collins, President and founder of Revoice has previously referred to his same-sex attraction as “My redeemed gayness,” which “reflects the beauty of the gospel when my orientation is caught up in a desire to serve one of my guy friends.”

Collins has also said that “churches that adhere to a traditional understanding of marriage and sexual expression,” make it hard for people who identify as gay to feel as if they fit in.  “It’s much more difficult if Christian versions of heteronormativity are present and active in the community.”  

“A gospel-centered ethic calls Christians to subvert straight privilege when it causes difficulty for gay,” said Collins who asks, “Have followers of Jesus been guilty of a baptized form of heteronormativity?” 

The worship leader for the upcoming conference, Gregory Coles, expresses a common thought shared among those involved in the Spiritual Friendship movement––that God does indeed create people to have a gay identity:  

Is it too dangerous, too unorthodox, to believe that I am uniquely designed to reflect the glory of God? That my orientation, before the fall, was meant to be a gift in appreciating the beauty of my own sex … ?

What if the calling to gay Christian celibacy is more than just a failure of straightness? What if God dreamed it for me, wove it into the fabric of my being as he knit be together and sang life into me?

Keynote speaker Wesley Hill has suggested, “Perhaps celibate gay and lesbian Christians, precisely in and out of their celibacy, are called to express, rather than simply renounce and deny, same-sex love.”

“Being gay colors everything about me,” said Hill. “Being gay is, for me, as much a sensibility as anything else: a heightened sensitivity to and passion for same-sex beauty that helps determine the kind of conversations  I have, which people I’m drawn to spend time with, what novels and poems and films I enjoy, the particular visual art I appreciate, and also, I think, the kind of friendships I pursue and try to strengthen.”

Ron Belgau, cofounder with Wesley Hill of the Spiritual Friendship blog, does not condone gay sex between men, but speaks positively about “cuddling” between homosexuals. “I believe that gay sex is sinful, and that the desire for gay sex, though not itself sinful, is a temptation that cannot be regarded as morally neutral.”  He says that the desire that same-sex attracted men experience is “much more complex than simply a desire for gay sex.”

However, Belgau does speak of intimate interactions between men with fondness:

That night, we split a few logs from the woodpile, built a fire in the fireplace, and made hot apple cider. Then we sat on the couch, staring at our physics textbooks and doing practice problems. Later, after the fire had died down and his parents had gone to bed, the conversation circled back to gays in the military.

“Doesn’t the concept of two men holding hands weird you out?” he asked.

Then he slid closer to me on the couch and reached for my hand.


“But aren’t you totally weirded out by two guys cuddling?” he persisted. Then he laid his head against my chest, where presumably he could hear my heart race. We kept arguing. After a few minutes, I took the risk of running my fingers through his hair. He did not resist, and we sat like that for the next couple of hours … 

So far as I can recall, although I was quite happy with cuddling with him, the idea of trying to escalate this into a sexual encounter never seriously crossed my mind. At any rate, although I have extraordinarily vivid memories of this particular evening, I don’t remember struggling that much against sexual temptation. I just remember a feeling of incredible tenderness …

Revoice Rejects Americans for Truth

Hoping to attend the Revoice conference in order to better understand its goals and motives, pro-family activist Peter LaBarbera, founder of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, was informed by Revoice Founder Nate Collins that his registration had been rejected:

Dear Mr. LaBarbera,

Based on publicly available information, we believe that your presence at the inaugural Revoice conference would work against the stated mission and purpose of Revoice. We are refunding your registration fee in full, and would be happy to answer any further questions you might have.

 Grace and peace,

Nate Collins, PhD

President and Founder of Revoice

LaBarbera responded to Collins with the following series of questions:

1) Will you allow LGBTQ activists to attend Revoice who do NOT share your belief against acting out homosexually (e.g., religious activists with groups like Human Rights Campaign)? Have any registered to attend? 

2) To the same point: are all attendees at Revoice committed to honoring the biblical proscription against homosexual practice? Have you researched the histories of other attendees--including those who one might have reason to suspect embrace a full sexual expression of their "gay" identity--as you did mine? 

3) If such "fully pro-gay"/affirming-homosexual-practice advocates are indeed allowed to attend, do you see a problem in allowing people who reject biblical teaching on sex and homosexuality to attend Revoice while ejecting people like myself who defend these same biblical teachings? (Again, this is assuming that both types of advocates would be peacefully attending and not disrupting your proceedings in any way.)

4) Does Revoice accept funding from pro-gay groups and advocates who do NOT share your commitment to abstaining from homosexual practice (eg, HRC, GLAAD, etc.)? What will be your policy on this going forward? 

5) Would you allow thoughtful "ex-gays" like Robert Oscar Lopez and orthodox Christian scholars like Robert Gagnon to attend Revoice? Here is a video by Bobby based on a conversation he had with Karen Swallow Prior:

6) Will Revoice be encouraging debates/discussions with Christians (like me and Bobby) who adhere to more orthodox teachings on sexuality? 

7) Will all future Revoice conferences be closed to Christians who defend orthodox teachings on sexuality, including those like me who actively oppose LGBT groups in the Public Square. (You will note from my Twitter feed that I routinely engage in dialogue with homosexual and transgender activists, including those on the far-left of the ideological spectrum--with whom I assume we both disagree.) 

8) Does or will Revoice take a position on LGBT legislation, such as SOGI (Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity) laws, laws banning "conversion therapy," "gay marriage," and laws like that in OK and Texas protecting the right of faith-based adoption agencies not to place children in same-sex households?

9) Will the Revoice sessions be taped so that all Christians and interested observers everywhere can evaluate this conference and address your speakers' arguments? 

Thanks in advance for answering these questions, and again I urge you to reconsider your decision to bar me from Revoice. As I have told countless homosexual and trans activists over the many years, there is always room for civil engagement with opponents, and I hope that holds true going forward for the "gay Christian" debate that is surely going to grow in the culture. All the best.

Peter LaBarbera

Americans For Truth

More than ten days later, LaBarbera’s very legitimate questions have gone unanswered.  

Concerning LaBarbera’s ouster, talk show host Mefferd tweeted: “Revoice: where love, tolerance & "biblical sexuality" are celebrated! Oh, wait ... no, if you believe in gospel transformation for homosexuals, YOU'RE KICKED OUT!

“The next scandal now unfolding before our eyes in both the Catholic and Protestant churches,” notes Christian author and commentator Fay Voshell in a recent Facebook posting, “is the formation of the unholy alliances of secularist and Catholic/Protestant LGBT movements determined to legitimize what has formerly been regarded by all denominations as distorted sexuality, thus mainstreaming LGBT goals into the structures of the Church.” 

Voshell points to, “a powerful network, which if successful, will result––as it already has resulted in Mainline Protestant churches––in the normalization of sexual sins that will then be sanctified by special liturgy and rites.” 

“The Southern Baptist Convention and the Catholic Churches are among the biggest targets,” continues Voshell. “We must realize that the power and wealth of the Churches sought after by a heretical movement that would then use the Church for its perverted ends.”

Featured Image
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon


Smartphones have given your teen daughter a secret life – and it’s destroying her

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

July 6, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – A couple of years ago, I wrote a column in this space titled “The Horror Stories Are Real—Don’t Give Your Children A Smartphone.” I explained how smartphones are transforming the world teenagers live in, creating a virtual universe impervious to parents and guardians—a universe created and accessed by the smartphones that are now present in the hands of nearly every girl and boy, at a younger and younger age. I noted that Nancy Jo Sales had recently written a book called American Girls: Social Media and the Secret Lives of Teenagers, which revealed that the teens themselves know social media is destroying their lives. Sales had been asked by the editor of Vanity Fair to begin researching the topic because he wanted to know why so many teen girls were killing themselves.

But for some reason, time and again, I find that many parents just don’t seem to get it. They can attend conferences where the brutal reality of sexting is laid out, replete with heartbreaking stories of nude selfies from girls sent to boys in a moment of bad judgement being passed around the school—resulting in humiliation, self-harm, and sometimes, horribly, suicide. They can hear that so many of these pictures are being passed around that Sales actually found that every high school she studied had a page where the boys could conglomerate the pictures they got or extorted from the girls onto what they call a “slut-page,” a personalized porn site featuring their female classmates. These pictures are often online, forever. Many of them constitute child pornography.

And many parents will respond: But my daughter or my son won’t get involved in that sort of thing. I’ve had parents say this to me when I know, because I talked to their son or daughter, that their children have been involved in this sort of thing. Parents often do not understand the massive pressures teenagers are under to engage in this sort of behavior, using a device that gives them access to a world that simply did not exist when their parents were young—and a world where horrible things can happen. I can think of one instance where a girl from a Christian school was blackmailed into having sex with a boy because some time before, she had made the awful mistake of sending him an explicit photo. Sleep with me, he demanded, or I’ll send this to your dad and everyone else. And so she did—and her parents had no idea.

Many parents also seem convinced, despite all statistical evidence to the contrary, that their children will not look at pornography as long as they have a good talk with them once or twice. But if they have a smartphone, what do you think the likelihood of kids deciding to look up porn really is? Thirty years ago, would anyone have believed that a teenage boy could grow up in a house filled with unlocked closets crammed with porn magazines, and not open a door to take a peek even once, out of curiosity or in a moment of temptation? Of course they wouldn’t have, because that runs contrary to what we know about human nature. And even the boys who can successfully resist such things—why would parents be cruel enough to permit them the omnipresent temptation of endless sexual imagery as they go through puberty, knowing that the porn companies have literally re-digitized their content so that teens can access their product on smartphones—where millions view it long into the night?

And then there is the ugly fact that porn companies are actively attempting reach teens where-ever they are, to secure their customers when they are young and impressionable and easily hooked. They tag hardcore porn videos with phrases like “Dora the Explorer” so children will stumble on porn early—the average age of first exposure to pornography is nine years old, and children even much younger than that have often been robbed of their innocence online. The porn companies create pop-up ads that leap onto the screen while teens are playing popular online games—I know one teen who clicked on only one, and spent years afterwards struggling with porn addiction as a result. The porn companies are trying to reach children and teenagers, and they are using the very smartphones that parents buy for their children to do it.

I’ve heard parents say that it is simply too hard to tell their child no when they ask for the smartphone that all of their friends have, even though they do not have their driver’s license and have no genuine need for any kind of phone at all. But stop to consider the cost. Think of what exposure to hardcore pornography does to a child’s developing brain, to a child’s view of sexuality, of men and women, of love itself. Think of how thoroughly this poison can seep into their lives. I can’t count the number of young couples who have contacted me to talk about how porn has ravaged their relationships—and in many cases, it was a smartphone that first let porn in. Saying no might be a hard thing to do. But for children, it is the right thing to do. 

Featured Image
Peter Kwasniewski Peter Kwasniewski Follow Dr. Peter


Why Sacred Liturgy’s modernization has resulted in abandonment of 10 commandments, Gospels

Peter Kwasniewski Peter Kwasniewski Follow Dr. Peter
By Dr. Peter Kwasniewski

July 6, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Tomorrow marks the eleventh anniversary of the promulgation of Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, which has yielded countless fruits but is still ignored by all too many, who will have to answer to God for their lack of responsiveness to this wise initiative and their lack of compassion for the people of God who are thirsty for liturgy that is palpably sacred.

In light of the unfolding (or perhaps one should say unraveling) of Pope Francis’s pontificate, we should revisit words once spoken by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, predating and anticipating Summorum—words that now have an alarming portentousness:

I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It’s impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden, and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent. Can it be trusted any more about anything else? Won’t it proscribe tomorrow what it prescribes today? (Salt of the Earth, 1997)

He has asked a question to which, so far, no honest answer has been given by the Church’s leaders. The reason is not hard to see. Ratzinger dared to say that the Church’s very being had been called into question when Paul VI declared the old Mass forbidden—which in fact he repeatedly did, in response to attempts to maintain a liturgy the Church had celebrated for 500 years, and in its essentials, for 1,000 years, and in the core of it, for 1,500 years. The longing for this treasure of faith was mocked, stepped on, suppressed, treated as a form of disobedience, arrogance, or neurosis. And the haunting question rises up: “Can the Church be trusted any more about anything else? Won’t it proscribe tomorrow what it prescribes today?”

If Paul VI in 1969 can abolish the oldest liturgical rite of Christendom and replace it with a new-fangled rite fashioned by committee according to modern ideas, with the two rites having very little in common when one looks at their details, why can’t Francis today modify the Ten Commandments or the Gospels? They, too, are awfully old, rejected by vast numbers of people as irrelevant to modern times, extremely provocative, and rather narrow in their fixation on obeying God or else. Don’t we need to update and modernize the whole of Christianity? If we can do this with what is our holiest and highest possession, namely the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we can do it across the board, top to bottom. What is permitted, what is forbidden, what is to be construed as good, what is to be rejected as evil, is simply up to the will of the reigning pontiff.

“Wait a minute,” you say. “Aren’t you exaggerating things?” No. Have we not seen, in the most dramatic way possible, how that which was yesterday universally taught and understood to be intrinsically evil, namely, attempted remarriage after divorce, is now deemed a step in the right direction, the best some people can do, worthy of reconciliation and holy communion—as if, for all the world, Our Lord Jesus Christ, the apostles, the Church Fathers, and innumerable saints had never condemned divorce and remarriage? Moreover, have we not seen how that which was yesterday universally taught and understood to be permissible under certain circumstances—the death penalty—is now being deemed intrinsically evil? 

One could paraphrase Ratzinger this way: “A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that its holiest and highest sacrament, so far from requiring moral rectitude in the observance of the commandments as always previously taught, may now be received by anyone who, in his or her own mind, feels sorry and sincere, and when it makes the longing for Penance and the Eucharist seem always decent and fulfillable, regardless of what their recipients intend to do next.” Yes, that is exactly what is going on, and we are either going to fight against it with all our might, or sign off on the self-destruction of the only institution left in the world that stands for the intrinsic good of marriage and family and the intrinsic evil of all that opposes them.

As Cardinal Bellarmine states:

In order to resist and defend oneself no authority is required. . . . Therefore, as it is lawful to resist the Pope, if he assaulted a man’s person, so it is lawful to resist him, if he assaulted souls, or troubled the state, and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him, by not doing what he commands, and hindering the execution of his will. (De Rom. Pont. ii.29, quoted by John Henry Newman in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk)

In 1969 the community centered around Paul VI began its wearisome journey down the road of calling its very being into question, as it chopped away century after century of development in pursuit of an illusory updating that was impossibly supposed to be, at the same time, a return to roots. Where would it all lead? From 2013 onwards, the community centered around Francis has completed this journey by renouncing continuity and non-contradiction. As Ratzinger implied, it cannot be trusted. Those who are looking for a rock of strength rather than a postmodern void had better look elsewhere—namely, to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as received and taught by the Catholic Church in her authentic Magisterium, which equally binds the lofty and the lowly.

Print All Articles
View specific date