All articles from November 26, 2018

Featured Image
James Risdon James Risdon


Manitoba ‘bubble zone’ law would ban pro-life ‘harassment’ that doesn’t even exist

James Risdon James Risdon
By James Risdon

WINNIPEG, Manitoba, November 26, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) — A politician is trying to push through a "bubble zone" law to keep pro-lifers away from abortion clinics, allegedly to prevent them from harassing women going to get abortions.

But pro-lifer Maria Slykerman, president of the Manitoba chapter of Campaign Life Coalition and organizer of the annual 40 Days for Life prayer vigils, says there has been no such harassment.

Slykerman and usually two other people hold the pro-life prayer vigils in September every year in front of the Health Sciences Women's Hospital.

The three pro-lifers hold signs with messages like "Choose Life," "Pray to End Abortion," and "Regret Your Abortion" as well as one with a message from the Bible, Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you."

In nine years, Slykerman says neither she nor any of the pro-lifers have even spoken to a woman going to the hospital to get an abortion.

"We don't even see the women who are going into the hospitals, because they go in through the back door," she told the CBC. "I really don't know what (Opposition NDP MLA Nahanni Fontaine) is talking about."

In Winnipeg, the pro-lifers' annual prayer vigil is in front of the women's hospital, on Notre Dame Avenue. They walk back and forth from the entrance to the exit, a few hundred feet. Between them and the hospital doors is a small lot for emergency parking.

The parkade the woman going to get an abortion would use is farther away, behind the main building, with a door on Emily Street. That's around the corner from where the pro-lifers are located.

According to Slykerman, the pro-lifers and the women going to get abortions never even see one another.

Under the private member's bill introduced by Fontaine, Bill 200 - The Safe Access to Abortion Services Act, there would be a bubble zone of 150 metres around any facility that provides abortions.

In that buffer zone, pro-lifers would not be allowed to perform any act indicating their disapproval of abortion. Pro-lifers would even be banned from repeatedly observing the places where abortions are performed or photograph, film, videotape, sketch or in any way graphically record any person going in or out of these places.  

In previous interviews, Fontaine has claimed this law would protect women seeking abortions and abortionists from those who are protesting, picketing or demonstrating within the bubble zone. She reportedly claimed she had seen protesters outside of the women's hospital shouting.

Maybe the MLA did see people shouting, but they weren't pro-lifers, said Slykerman.

"She might have seen the other side," the Campaign Life president for Manitoba said. "The pro-aborts were there with ugly signs and foghorns and screaming. They were right in front of us.

"There is no reason for this MLA to be saying this kind of thing," she said.

Fontaine did not return a media request for comment for this article.

In other news reports, though, she has reportedly expressed confidence that the Safe Access to Abortion Services Act, if it is passed, would withstand any legal challenge.

"Listen, if anyone knows me you'll know that I'm fond of a good protest," she reportedly told the CBC.

"I understand the need and the right of individuals to protest for something that they feel is important to them. I get that, I support that. What I'm saying is that protests should not impact on Manitoba women's and girls' right. It is a human right to access reproductive health."

But Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister, leader of the ruling Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba, has reportedly expressed concern this proposed bubble zone law would whittle away at people's right to freedom of expression.

Bubble-zone laws exist in British Columbia and Ontario, where Fr. Tony Van Hee, an 83-year-old priest, has been arrested under a similar law to the one being proposed by Manitoba.

Fr. Van Hee's lawyer, Albertos Polizogopoulos, a partner in the Ottawa-based firm of Vincent Dagenais Gibson, is planning to argue his client's case on constitutional grounds.


Constitutional lawyer to represent 83-year-old priest charged for praying too close to abortion mill

Ontario’s new leader should restore free speech to pro-life advocates

Priest and four others arrested saving unborn inside abortion center

Featured Image
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy

News, ,

Taiwan votes against same-sex ‘marriage,’ but leaders may enforce it anyway

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

TAIPEI, Taiwan, November 26, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) ― Taiwanese voters said “No” to same-sex marriage and LGBT indoctrination in a national referendum held this past Saturday. However, it is unlikely to do more than stall the imposition of the novelty on Taiwan.

On November 24, Taiwanese voters were presented with referendum questions by both supporters and opponents of same-sex unions. The three put forward by supporters of the traditional definition of marriage passed, and the two suggested by pro-LGBT activists did not.   

At stake was not just marriage, but children’s education. One of the motions put forward by homosexualist activists was for “gender equality education covering LGBTI rights to be included in compulsory education.”

The people’s choice was a great disappointment to pro-LGBT activists in Taiwan and abroad who have vowed to impose same-sex marriage and homosexualist education on the island nation. The leader of Taiwan’s branch of Amnesty International, Annie Huang, lamented the rejection of “same-sex marriage rights” and “LGBTI-inclusive education in schools.”

“This result is a bitter blow and a step backwards for human rights in Taiwan,” she wrote in a press statement. “However, despite this setback, we remain confident that love and equality will ultimately prevail.”

The referendum followed a controversial ruling by Taiwan’s high court in May that it was “unconstitutional” to ban same-sex unions. The government was given two years to change the law, but then a conservative grassroots movement used the nation’s referendum law to stop it.  

However, it is unlikely that the will of the people will be enough to overthrow the legal ruling in favor of same-sex unions.

In the weeks leading up to the referendum, Taiwan’s small Christian community was divided. One pro-LGBT pastor was photographed with a banner reading “Rainbow Bridges” whereas the Catholic Church, while expressing respect for people with same-sex attractions, made a firm statement against the proposed novelty:

According to the Asian Catholic news service, Archbishop John Hung Shan-chuan of Taipei cited Pope Francis as he declared Catholic teaching about marriage:

"The pope means that we respect gay people as they are also our brothers and sisters. But the teaching of God about marriage is composed of one man and one woman and the church doesn't change this position. We do not discriminate against gays and are willing to protect their certain rights, but we cannot support same-sex marriage and same-sex union," the archbishop said.

"During the review of the Civil Code by the Legislative Yuan, I have clearly stated the attitude of the Catholic Church: the legalization of same-sex marriage and same-sex union is not in line with our teachings,” he continued.

“ ... We accept gay people, but it does not mean we endorse all their actions; just as a mother accepts her child but may not agree with the child's behavior or meet all his requirements."

Featured Image
Father Gil Martinez, former pastor of St. Paul the Apostle Out at St. Paul facebook page
Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug


Pro-LGBT parish group insinuates deceased Bishop Morlino was their ‘enemy’ in tweet

Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug
By Doug Mainwaring

November 26, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – In a tepid call for prayer for recently deceased Bishop Robert Morlino, the New York City LGBT ministry known as Out at St. Paul implied that the group views the stalwart defender of Catholic teaching as an “enemy.”     

“Say a prayer for Bishop Robert Morlino, who died last night. He was one of the most outspoken opponents of LGBTQ people in the Catholic Church,” tweeted the group, adding, “‘But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute…’”

The parish group, a favorite of pro-gay Father James Martin, SJ, participates in and promotes homosexual “pride” events, promotes groups that encourage those with same-sex attraction to embrace and act on it, and otherwise implicitly encourages those suffering with same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria to act upon their inclinations in conflict with Church teaching.

Bishop Morlino, on the other hand, was consistently firm in his support of orthodox Catholic doctrine and the Gospel of Life and recently showed that he was not afraid to speak out against the politically sensitive issue of the role homosexuality has played in the ongoing clerical sexual abuse crisis. On August 18, 2018, he released a blistering letter demanding that the “depravity of sinners within the Church” be rooted out.

The Out at St. Paul tweet sparked a backlash of comments critical of the group’s thinly-veiled insult to Bishop Morlino.

“Really! Announcing the Bishop's death with a dubious request for prayers, while taking a shot at his moral stance on issues which you describe as opposing LGBTQ. Should this be considered charitable?” asked Ewart Harris.  

“You just twisted and maligned a bishop, who spoke the truth for the sake of people of the LGBTQ movement or persuasion,” noted Rannie R. Ramos, adding, “Very classy.”

“No, he was a proponent of life in Christ, love in Christ and truth in Christ,” wrote one user. “Read Matthew chapter 19 [about] Jesus and the rich young man to see this truth in ‘great love.’ Death to self has to happen for the Kingdom of God. I know this sacrifice [–] it's worth it.”

“That is a blatant #lie,” countered another. “+Bp. Morlino was a compassionate shepherd to ALL who were seeking freedom from the bonds of sin. He did not ‘oppose’ self-identified LGBT individuals; he simply didn't ratify them in their sins. It’s called genuine Christian charity.”

“Is this how the lgbtq+ community at a Catholic Parish acknowledges the death of a bishop?” asked another. “Showing your true colors Out at St Paul. Are you that needy that it's necessary to bully folks into accepting homosexual acts as normal?”

“Not very Godly to trash someone within an ‘in memoriam,’” responded DeberaAne.

The tweet about the Bishop of Madison’s death by Out at St. Paul is unsurprising, because he stood up against forces within the Church seeking to weaken Church teaching.  

After Bishop Morlino’s death, the Wisconsin State Journal reported:

Morlino quickly became a polarizing force after his installation on Aug. 1, 2003, gaining a national reputation for vigorously opposing abortion and same-sex unions. Under his tenure, more young men studied to become priests, Latin masses made a comeback in some areas and priests were encouraged to use only boys and seminarians as altar servers.

In announcing his death, the diocese said Morlino’s three priorities were to “increase the number and quality of the men ordained to the diocesan priesthood, to instill a greater sense of reverence throughout the entire diocese … and to challenge Catholic institutions in the diocese to live out their professed faith in Jesus Christ … through their ministry in the secular community.”

LifeSiteNews reached out to the Archdiocese of New York, home of Out at St. Paul, seeking comment on the group’s tweet. The archdiocese did not respond by press time.


LGBT ministry at New York parish promotes gay porn

New York parish promotes ‘Catholic’ gay activist rally that includes Mass

Featured Image
Society for the Protection of Unborn Children


Canada gov’t pushes euthanasia ads in hospital waiting rooms

Society for the Protection of Unborn Children
By Society for the Protection of Unborn Children
M.A.I.D. that was shown in hospital

November 26, 2018 (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children) – In yet more evidence of how far Canada has slipped down the euthanasia slippery slope, a hospital in Ontario is advertising "Medical Aid in Dying" in its urgent care waiting room.

Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute writes that a source sent him the above photograph of a public information announcement that appears on a large television screen in a William Osler Health System hospital urgent care waiting room. The same advert can be found on the health system's website.

Killing, not care

The advert tries to appear compassionate, with an image of a male doctor's hand gently resting on the arm of a woman in a hospital bed, and the promise to "help eligible patients fulfill their wish to end their suffering."

However, as Mr Smith points out, people in a hospital waiting room may be afraid, in pain, or depressed, and so particularly vulnerable to the suggestion that having their lives ended is the best solution. The advert makes no mention of palliative care or genuine medical care to help alleviate suffering in ways that do not involve killing.

Just the latest example

This is not the first time health officials in Ontario have been accused of pushing euthanasia instead of life-affirming medical care and support. In March, Roger Foley, a man with an incurable neurological disease started legal action against the attorney generals of Ontario and Canada for offering medically-assisted death without guaranteeing the option to receive proper care. He says the only options offered to him were to return to a healthcare team that provided substandard care, or medically assisted death.

Other developments which show how sanitised legal killing has become in Canada are proposals to take organs from living people who have chosen euthanasia, and to extend it to the the incompetent and mentally ill, and, horrifyingly, to children

The advert shows that not only is deliberate killing being normalised, it is becoming a reasonable, and even preferred method of alleviating suffering. 

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

Featured Image
Nes_tyyy Instagram Page
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin


Pro-LGBT media hail 12-year-old ‘drag kid’s’ success in Thailand

Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

THAILAND, November 26, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Pro-homosexual media outlets are celebrating yet another prepubescent child for immersing himself in the hyper-sexualized world of drag.

Nes is a 12-year-old boy in Thailand whose early childhood curiosity with makeup served as a gateway to a drag career with his parents’ full support, LGBTQ Nation reported. Photographs of him in women’s clothing and makeup garnered an Instagram following of more than 300,000, invitations to red carpet events, and even some advertising deals with cosmetic companies that brought in enough revenue to buy a new home for his family.

“The child star is praised for his versatility and creativity when it comes to the looks he cultivates,” The Advocate’s Jessa Powers approvingly wrote. “Even though he's faced bullying from classmates, his confidence is clearly infectious.”

Gay Star News cheered the child’s story with the one-word sub-headline of “Slay!” The term is slang that can mean anything from thoroughly excelling at a task to “look(ing) sexy as f***.” In the queer context, a 2016 Advocate piece says “slay” was “coined by the African-American LGBTQ community, meaning to dominate, conquer, or take care of business.”

The boy’s Instagram page shows Nes wearing lipstick, fake eyelashes, and heavy eye liner, as well as women’s dresses, swimsuits, and other outfits. Nes is frequently seen in poses showing off bare legs and shoulders in ways that would be considered provocative if done by adult female models.

Other “drag kids” to become LGBT icons in recent years include 11-year-old Desmond “Desmond is Amazing” Napoles and nine-year-old Nemis Quinn Mélançon Golden, a.k.a. “Lactatia.” Both young boys have become media darlings for performing in sexually-tinged female attire, and both are hailed by pro-LGBT activists as icons for self-esteem, diversity, and gender fluidity.

Pro-family advocates, as well as some homosexuals who dissent from LGBT orthodoxy, argue that such children are being set up for emotional and psychological problems as they grow older, and their stories are setting a dangerous example for gender-confused children to endure the same.

Studies indicate that between 80 percent and 90 percent of children experiencing gender dysphoria outgrow it on their own by late adolescence, and that even full gender "reassignment" surgery often fails to resolve gender-confused individuals’ heightened tendency to engage in self-harm and suicide.

In September, Brown University behavioral scientist Lisa Littman published research indicating that 87 percent of the teens reviewed experienced some degree of peer pressure to question or “change” their “gender identity,” and that 63 percent of the teens had been diagnosed with at least one mental health disorder or neurodevelopmental disability before deciding they were a different gender.

“While they intend to celebrate the uniqueness of the child, they in effect steal the child’s innocence and impose an adult identity onto him, all to validate their own insecurities,” The Federalist contributor Chad Felix Greene wrote of Napoles and Golden’s examples. “We cannot stay quiet and allow more children to lose their childhood to the dreams of progressives who only imagine the future while failing to grasp the trauma they impose in the present.”

Featured Image
Christine Allen
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy

News, , ,

English bishops’ new charity chief partnered with pro-abortion groups in past

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

LONDON, England, November 26, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – The executive director of Britain’s leading pro-life organization is unsure of the newest addition to the Catholic Church in England and Wales’ foreign aid organization, citing concerns about her past partnership with pro-abortion organizations.

Christine Allen has been named the new director of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales’ own Catholic Agency for Overseas Development (CAFOD). At present the director of policy and public affairs for the UK’s Christian Aid, in the past Allen headed another Catholic charity, known as Progressio, for eleven years.  

John Smeaton of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) finds the Allen’s appointment to the CAFOD post problematic.

“This is a surprising appointment to say the least,” he told LifeSiteNews via email. “Progressio has a simply appalling record on matters relating to the Catholic Church and Catholic teaching.”

Smeaton said that during Allen’s leadership two of Progressio’s partner-organizations supported the “See Change” campaign to strip the Holy See, the government of the Catholic Church, of its permanent status at the United Nations.

“See Change” is run by the pro-abortion, fraudulently named “Catholics for Choice.” The organization is not recognized by any diocese as a legitimate Catholic group.

“One of the two Progressio partners supporting Sea Change, COMUS, (Colectiva Mujer y Salud or Woman and Health Collective) in the Dominican Republic, was described by Progressio as ‘a non-profit-making organisation which has been working since 1984 to defend the sexual and reproductive rights of Dominican women in rural and urban areas,’” Smeaton said.

COMUS lobbied its country's legislature to decriminalize abortion and protested the government's decision to declare March 25, the feast of the Annunciation, as the Day of the Unborn Child.

The other problematic partner supporting “See Change” was Nicaragua’s Fundacion Puntos de Encuentro, or Meeting Points Foundation, which itself partners with the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute. Progressio described the Foundation as “a platform from which to take on and debate different themes...among others, it deals with the themes of health and sexual and reproductive rights.” The Foundation accordingly campaigned against the closing of an abortion-allowing loophole in Nicaraguan law.   

Allen herself has criticized Catholic Church for its teaching against the use of condoms. As director of Progressio, she wrote in the UK’s socialist Chartist magazine that the Church’s messages about respect and fidelity are overlooked because of “its apparent intransigence that seems obsessed with the condom.” She hoped the Church would make an exception to the rule to prevent the spread of HIV.

Nevertheless, CAFOD is supportive of its new director, who will begin her tenure as director next spring. The organization acknowledged in its press release that Allen began her career in the charity sector as “a field worker with the Justice and Peace Commission in the Archdiocese of Liverpool in 1987 and as CAFOD’s Campaigns coordinator in 1989.”

Bishop John Arnold, the Chairman of Cafod’s Board of Trustees, took issue with an article in Britain’s Catholic Herald that suggested the Board was “forced to defend” the choice of Allen as the new director.

In a letter to the Herald, he wrote, “I would like to correct the impression given by Dan Hitchens that Cafod’s Board of Trustees were ‘forced to defend’ the appointment of Cafod’s new director, Christine Allen. Quite the opposite. Cafod’s Trustees fully endorse her appointment, which has been greeted with joy by Cafod staff and supporters. We are delighted to welcome Christine back to Cafod.”

SPUC’s Smeaton told LifeSiteNews that his pro-life group will be keeping an eye on the bishops’ charity.

“SPUC will be watching the direction of CAFOD under its Christine Allen’s directorship closely,” he wrote.

“I pray that there has been a sea-change, pun intended, in her capacity to make good judgements in accordance with Catholic teaching on the common good and that that’s why she has been given this important job.”

When asked by the Catholic Herald if her opinions were “compatible with leading a Catholic agency,” and whether she thought abortion was always wrong, Allen replied that she understood the expectations of her in the new role and that her “commitment to Catholic teaching is undimmed.”

Featured Image
He Jiankui used gene-editing technology CRISPR to genetically modify babies.
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin

News, ,

Chinese claim to have created world’s first genetically modified baby

Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

HONG KONG, November 26, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – A Chinese researcher says he’s the first person to successfully “edit” the genes of babies before birth in a practice the United States bans as dangerous and unethical.

Leading a team at Shenzhen’s Southern University of Science and Technology, He Jiankui claims to have altered the embryos of seven couples during fertility treatments, the Associated Press reports, one of which gave birth to twin baby girls this month. The purpose of the experiment was to eliminate a gene (CCR5) in hopes of making the children resistant to diseases such as HIV, smallpox, and cholera.

The scientist announced the alleged feat in an interview with the AP and to organizers of a gene editing conference in Hong Kong. He refused to identify the parents or their location, and no scientific journal has independently verified his claims. An American scientist, Michael Deem of Rice University, also worked on the project.

“I feel a strong responsibility that it’s not just to make a first, but also make it an example,” He told the AP. “Society will decide what to do next” with the technology’s ethical ramifications.

The MIT Technology Review explains that Chinese researchers first modified embryos’ genes in a lab dish in 2015 using the gene-editing tool CRISPR-cas9, but He’s experiments would mark the first case of a successful birth from such experiments, if true.

“Data submitted as part of the trial listing shows that genetic tests have been carried out on fetuses as late as 24 weeks, or six months,” the Review notes. “It’s not known if those pregnancies were terminated, carried to term, or are ongoing.”

The CRISPR tool is a recently developed tool for adding necessary genes or disabling harmful ones to treat diseases in adults, though the U.S. only allows it to be used in lab research. “I think this is justifiable,” Harvard geneticist George Church said, calling HIV “a major and growing public health threat.”

But He’s alleged work traverses uncharted waters that are troubling to many ethicists. Using the new tool on sperm, eggs, or embryos means descendants will also inherit the changes. Some see the whole concept of gene editing as a moral slippery slope that could lead to designer babies and even a new form of eugenics.  

“This is far too premature,” said Dr. Eric Topol of California’s Scripps Research Translational Institute said it was “far too premature” to be “dealing with the operating instructions of a human being.” Gene editing expert Kiran Musunuru of the University of Pennsylvania called it an “unconscionable” experiment and “not morally or ethically defensible.”

Fyodor Urnov, associate director of Seattle’s Altius Institute for Biomedical Sciences, expressed “regret and concern over the fact that gene editing—a powerful and useful technique—was put to use in a setting where it was unnecessary,” He called it a “hard-to-explain foray into human germ-line genetic engineering that may overshadow in the mind of the public a decade of progress in gene editing of adults and children to treat existing disease.”

There are also questions as to whether He’s team properly informed participants of the experiment’s nature, risks, and benefits. The AP says consent forms described it as an “AIDS vaccine development” program. He claims to have fully explained the experiment, and offered insurance coverage to any child conceived via the trials. Neither He nor Deem had prior experience with human clinical trials, however.

“We have not yet enacted any meaningful regulations or laws to guide the technology down safe and ethical paths, and away from those that could prove profoundly destructive both scientifically and culturally,” the Discovery Institute’s Wesley Smith warned Monday at National Review. “It is possible that scientists are creating genetically altered embryos, implanting them for gestation, and then aborting them to see how things worked out. Is everyone okay with that?”

Featured Image
Bishop Robert Morlino.
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy

News, , , ,

US Catholics pay heartfelt tribute to the late Bishop Morlino

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

MADISON, Wisconsin, November 26, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Faithful Catholics throughout the United States are grieving the loss of a champion of orthodoxy, life, marriage, and liturgy.

Scranton-born Bishop Robert Charles Morlino, leader of the Diocese of Madison, Wisconsin, died on Saturday evening at the age of 71. Now Catholics are paying tribute to a man some called “the extraordinary ordinary.”

“Bishop Morlino was a staunch defender of Truth and a genuinely good shepherd to his flock,” Michael Hichborn, director of the Lepanto Institute, told LifeSiteNews via email.

“I remember meeting with Bishop Morlino for the first time in November of 2010. After showing him what I discovered about the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, he compared me with Jack Bauer and told me that the information had confirmed him in his decision to no longer give to the national CCHD collection,” Hichborn continued.  

“The last time I saw him was at the USCCB fall assembly in 2014. I spoke briefly with him about my discoveries concerning the CCHD and CRS [Catholic Relief Services]. In response, he put his hand on my shoulder and said to me, ‘Watch your back,’” he recalled.

Carl Olson, editor of Catholic World Report (CWR), told LifeSiteNews via email that the late bishop was both “uncompromising” and “pastoral.”

“Bishop Morlino was direct and uncompromising in his stand for Church teaching, and he was also deeply pastoral in the best sense of that word,” Olson stated.

“I think a central part of his legacy is the understanding that true doctrine and authentic pastoral ministry go hand-in-hand, and must not be separated or pit against one another.”

Olson recalled an interview Morlino gave to the Wisconsin State Journal in which the bishop stated that “what is pastoral has to be true.”

Dr. Edward Peters, professor of canon law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, praised the late bishop for his expertise in the field.

“Bishop Morlino was not a canon lawyer but I am hard-pressed to name a canonist-bishop who got more canon law issues correct than did Morlino,” Peters told LifeSiteNews via email.

“I am thinking of, for example, his abrogation of out-dated diocesan laws, his provisions for Confirmation candidates who wanted that rite celebrated according to the Missal of 1962, his sound policies in regard to sacraments and sacramentals for those living lives contrary to important Church teachings,” he continued. “I shall miss the example he gave of a bishop respecting and making creative use of the Church's legal system.”   

Beverly Stevens, editor of the Catholic art-loving Regina magazine, praised Morlino for his success at rekindling the Catholic faith in his diocese.

“Bishop Morlino tackled a diocese where heresy and indifferentism had run wild for decades,” she told LifeSiteNews.

“He cultivated reverence, catechism[,] and formation with the result that I have seen with my own eyes [in Madison] strong young homeschooling families, many converts[,] and a bright future for the Faith in a place where once there was only ashes.”

Madison’s Father Robert Heilman told CWR that Morlino was “a saint in our midst” and a “St. Athanasius against the rampart modernism in our times.” The Wisconsin priest said that the bishop was “a dad to me and countless others.”

Heilman praised Morlino’s work towards “returning the sacred to Catholic worship” and celebrated his success in fostering vocations to the priesthood.

“His great mission was vocations to the priesthood,” he told CWR. “He worked very hard at this. When he was named Bishop of Madison, there were six men studying for the priesthood. In the last half of his 15 years, the numbers have hovered around 30 men studying. It’s one of the highest per capita in the country.”

Church insider Rocco Palmo wrote a heartfelt tribute in his “Whispers in the Loggia” blog to the ecclesiastical “provocateur” he described as his “devoted friend.” After cataloguing some of Morlino’s victories as a lionhearted bishop, Palmo revealed the bishop’s home-loving side.

“Ever the son of Scranton – and woe to anyone who forgot it – the bishop once told me that the happiest act of his ministry wasn't any of the scores of ordinations, confirmations or church dedications he performed, no speech he ever gave, but when he was asked to be lead celebrant for the St. Ann's Day Mass at her national shrine in his hometown,” Palmo wrote.

Palmo attributed Morlino’s outspoken episcopate to the marching orders he received from Rome to be a “fighter.”

“A late-life favorite of John Paul II – with whom he bonded over their shared Polish heritage – the bishop once noted privately of how, upon his transfer to Madison in 2003, he was told that ‘Rome wanted a fighter’ in the secularist mecca, and that’s precisely what they got,” Palmo wrote.

“Absolutely no one agreed with everything he said – he would've found that boring – yet whatever one made of it, the tidal waves of reaction only went to prove how he could never be ignored.”

Featured Image
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin

News, , ,

Twitter bans ‘misgendering, deadnaming’ as ‘hateful conduct’ in updated rules

Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

TELL SOCIAL MEDIA: Stop silencing conservatives! Sign the petition here.

November 26, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Referring to gender-confused individuals by their actual sex is now “hateful” conduct on par with racial slurs, according to new Twitter guidelines defining grounds for banning users from the platform.

The company’s “Hateful conduct policy” says Twitter’s mission is to “give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information, and to express their opinions and beliefs without barriers,” with special concern for “the voices of those who have been historically marginalized.” It also claims to believe “free expression is a human right,” and that public conversation “requires representation of a diverse range of perspectives.”

“We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category,” it now reads. “This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming” of transgender people. Punishment ranges from being asked to remove “violating content” and a “period of time in read-only mode before [violators] can Tweet again,” to “permanent account suspension” for repeat violations.

“Deadnaming” refers to calling someone by his or her given legal name rather than a new opposite-sex name, such as Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner or Bradley “Chelsea” Manning.

The change was officially made in October but is just now gaining notice in the media, The Blaze reports.

The homosexual news site PinkNews reports that pro-LGBT Twitter users are ecstatic about the news, but others are alarmed at the potential to stifle debate on transgenderism, and silencing users who assert the scientific consensus that biological sex is rooted in an individual’s chromosomes and reflected in hundreds of genetic characteristics.  

Earlier this month, Twitter cited Meghan Murphy, a Canadian feminist blogger who has criticized pro-trans efforts for their potential to undermine the rights of actual women, for “harassment” because she tweeted “men aren’t women” and “how are transwomen not men.” She protested “that a multi billion dollar company is censoring BASIC FACTS and silencing people who ask questions about this dogma,” and was subsequently banned.

“In light of my years of negative experiences trying to engage progressives on issues like pornography, prostitution, male violence, and now gender identity, I’ve unfortunately come to see many of them as cowardly, hypocritical, lacking in political and intellectual integrity, and disingenuous,” Murphy wrote in response.

“While of course there are leftists who are critical of the sex trade and trans activism,” she continued, “far too many of those who represent progressives (in North America, in particular) — politicians and leftist political parties, as well as activists and representatives of the labour movement — will not speak out about these issues nor will they defend the women being ripped to shreds for speaking out.”

Like Facebook, Twitter is the subject of numerous ongoing controversies about restricting conservative content and users, including LifeSiteNews.

Featured Image
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy

News, ,

Beloved US Bishop Robert Morlino unexpectedly dies

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

MADISON, Wisconsin, November 25, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) ― Bishop Robert Charles Morlino, leader of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Madison, Wisconsin, has died following a “cardiac event”.

According to the Diocese of Madison, Bishop Morlino passed away on Saturday, Nov. 24 at 9:15 PM at St. Mary's Hospital. He was 71.

An all-night prayer vigil was held for Morlino at Madison’s Holy Name Heights seminary as he lay dying, ending this morning at 8 AM.

The bishop was hospitalized for a “cardiac event” he suffered on Wednesday while undergoing a planned medical examination, and the Diocese turned to social media for prayers. Although the prognosis was originally optimistic, the bishop took “a turn for the worse” on Saturday. The Vicar General of the diocese, Monsignor James Bartylla, wrote to Morlino’s priests, asking them to pray for a miracle.    

“I write with an update of heavy news in regards to our beloved Bishop Robert Morlino,” Barylla said.  

“Whereas yesterday morning held a number of good reasons for hope for the recovery of the bishop, today has been filled with a number of disappointments in that regard. Unfortunately, matters have continued to turn for the worst and it is likely that our hope lays in a miracle at this point,” he continued.

“In particular, we are asking for the miraculous intercession of Ven. Samuel Mazzuchelli. I would ask that in addition to prayers for a miracle, you also pray that if and when the time comes, the Bishop would be given the grace of a happy death and may look soon upon the face of our God, The Vision which shall not disappoint.”

Robert C. Morlino was born on December 31, 1946 in Scranton, Pennsylvania. An only child, he suffered the loss of his father as a schoolboy and was raised by his mother and grandmother.

Morlino felt the call to the priesthood as a child, and never lost it.  Upon graduation from the Jesuit Scranton Preparatory School, Morlino joined the Society of Jesus and studied at Jesuit seminary for the Maryland Province and at the Jesuits’ Fordham University in New York. He earned a M.A. in Philosophy from the University of Notre Dame in 1970, and a Masters in Theology from the Weston Jesuit School of Theology in Cambridge, MA.

Morlino was ordained to the priesthood on June 1, 1974 and taught at several Catholic universities. He left the Jesuits in 1981 and was incardinated in the Diocese of Kalamazoo, MI. In 1990, he earned a doctorate in moral theology from the Gregorian University in Rome and became a theology professor at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit.

His plans to remain a professor were thwarted by St. John Paul II, who appointed Morlino the ninth Bishop of Helena, Montana in 1999. In 2003, he was named Bishop of Madison, Wisconsin by the pontiff.

Robert C. Morlino was an exemplary bishop, firm in his support of orthodox Catholic doctrine and the Gospel of Life. He was a leader in the pro-life movement. In 2011, for example, he led 300 people, including Knights of Columbus in praying the rosary and consecrating a cemetery for babies who died before birth. Morlino gave a homily about chastity and explained how IVF and contraception work against a culture of life.  

Morlino was not afraid to speak out against the politically sensitive issue of the role homosexuality has played in the ongoing clerical sexual abuse crisis. On August 18, 2018, he released a blistering letter demanding that the “depravity of sinners within the Church” be rooted out.

“I am tired of this,” the bishop wrote of the seemingly never ending series of scandals regarding clerical sexual abuse and episcopal cover-up.

“I am tired of people being hurt, gravely hurt! I am tired of the obfuscation of truth. I am tired of sin,” he continued.

“... There must be no room left, no refuge for sin – either within our own lives, or within the lives of our communities. To be a refuge for sinners (which we should be), the Church must be a place where sinners can turn to be reconciled. In this I speak of all sin. But to be clear, in the specific situations at hand, we are talking about deviant sexual – almost exclusively homosexual – acts by clerics. We’re also talking about homosexual propositions and abuses against seminarians and young priests by powerful priests, bishops, and cardinals. We are talking about acts and actions which are not only in violation of the sacred promises made by some, in short, sacrilege, but also are in violation of the natural moral law for all. To call it anything else would be deceitful and would only ignore the problem further.”

In line with his disgust with clerical sexual abuse and episcopal cover-up, Morlino voiced support for Vatican whistleblower Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. In his July testimony, Viganò alleged that senior prelates, including Pope Francis, favored then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick fully knowing he was a sexual predator. Morlino was among the few bishop who publicly stated the the allegations should be seriously examined.

“Archbishop Viganò has offered a number of concrete, real allegations in his recent document, giving names, dates, places, and the location of supporting documentation – either at the Secretariat of State or at the Apostolic Nunciature,” Morlino said. “Thus, the criteria for credible allegations are more than fulfilled, and an investigation, according to proper canonical procedures, is certainly in order.”

Morlino similarly showed courage when he spoke out for the truthful definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. He was heckled by over 300 homosexual activists while praying the Lord’s Prayer at a rally in support of traditional marriage in the USA despite asking his audience to pray for “our fellow human beings who are gay and lesbian, admitting that as Catholics and as Christians there is no place among us for gay-bashing or gay bashers.”

Bishop Morlino discussed the clergy sex abuse crisis with Raymond Arroyo on a very recent, Oct. 4 segment of Arroyo's The World Over. 

Regarding Amoris Laetitia, Morlino defended marriage as an unbreakable, lifelong union and publicly rejected the possibility of allowing couples in irregular unions to receive communion.

Morlino was a good friend to those Catholics who love the traditional Latin liturgy of the Church. He himself celebrated Mass according to the usus antiquior, or old rite, and he required his seminarians to learn to say the traditional Latin Mass themselves. In a 2011 letter to his diocese, Morlino stated that the Mass “must be nothing less than beautiful, reflecting the perfect beauty, unity, truth, and goodness of … the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

Featured Image
Tony Perkins Tony Perkins


School shows sex-drenched Planned Parenthood video without parents consent

Tony Perkins Tony Perkins
By Tony Perkins

November 26, 2018 (Family Research Council) – It was supposed to be a video about sexual consent, so why weren't parents asked for their consent to show it? Good question, Breitbart's Susan Berry points out. Pine View High School is scrambling to answer it, but the damage – families say – has already been done. And the culprit is a familiar one: Planned Parenthood.

English Literature doesn't have anything to do with sex education, but that didn't stop teachers from using the class to show a hugely controversial video. The footage, which included a man groping a woman's chest and same-sex couples making out, was dropped into the weekly curriculum without so much as a courtesy letter home. Now, the local Fox affiliate reports, the school board is getting "a flood of e-mails, phone calls and Facebook [comments]."

Eric Robinson, a school board member, understands why moms and dads would be so upset. The content (which you can watch for yourself on Breitbart) is so graphic, he points out, "As an adult it can be hard to watch without being uncomfortable." Imagine, Robinson goes on, how a teenager would respond.

The video, which Planned Parenthood produced, was shown by their partners at the Safe Place and Rape Crisis Center (SPARCC). For now, parents are so outraged that the district is suspending SPARCC from other programs until they can comb through all of the materials. In the meantime, SPARCC has apologized. "The staff member did not follow established protocol regarding the programming presented, and the organization has acted to ensure that this does not happen again."

Unfortunately for SPARCC, the problem is much bigger than a staffer not following protocol. The larger issue is that this kind of material is being shown to kids at all. But what do we expect from Planned Parenthood – who, Dr. Berry warns, hired a former director at the Gay Men's Health Crisis as its vice president of education? That person, Sara Flowers, has made it quite clear that her job isn't discouraging unhealthy life choices, but using Planned Parenthood's platform to encourage them. "Right now, it's more important than ever that we respond to the evolving needs of young people and ensure that they have access to sex education that's inclusive of all people, sex-positive, shame-free, and skills-based."

More than a half-billion tax dollars a year are being funneled to Planned Parenthood, and their idea of teen health is "sex-positive" education? Parents across the country need to be on alert that extremists – including America's biggest abortion business – are co-opting school curricula to put these graphic messages in front of kids. When it comes to sensitive, controversial, or even inappropriate subject matter, parents – not bureaucrats, schools, or any other outside group – should have the final say in what their children are taught. Too many families don't do their homework about what their kids are learning. Don't be one of them!

Published with permission from the Family Research Council.

Featured Image
Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug

Opinion, , ,

Top US cardinal pushes gun control, ignores murder victim’s possible martyrdom

Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug
By Doug Mainwaring

November 26, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – In a letter reeking of liberal political opportunism while displaying barely a whiff of pastoral vision or care, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) head Cardinal Daniel DiNardo ignored the most crucial points about the murder of Jamie Schmidt last week at Catholic Supply store in Missouri.

While offering his condolences to Archbishop Robert Carlson of St. Louis over the murder of a member of his diocese, DiNardo talked only about the need to curb gun violence, saying nothing about the circumstances of Mrs. Schmidt’s killing, and ignoring the heroic nature of her death which some have hailed as martyrdom to preserve sexual purity.

“This senseless attack is a painful reminder of how gun violence can tragically alter the lives of those so precious to us,” wrote Cardinal DiNardo. “The Bishops have continually expressed support for reducing gun violence as it reflects the church’s moral teaching on respect for human life at all stages. It is essential for us to be engaged in efforts that help build a culture of life.”

But as a lesson regarding building “a culture of life,” DiNardo failed to acknowledge that a culture of life is precisely what Jaime Schmidt laid down her life to protect and defend.

“The recent tragedy at Mercy Hospital in Chicago is further evidence of the devaluation of human life in our culture,” added the USCCB head.

Jamie Schmidt, killed because she resisted her attacker’s demands to commit a sexually immoral act, stands as a rebuke to “the devaluation of human life in our culture” of which Cardinal DiNardo speaks. She displayed for the entire world how much she valued the dignity of human life and the human person while at the same time illustrating how much contempt the forces of this world have for Church teaching on sexuality.     

While the killer did indeed use a gun to threaten and commit murder, the underlying cause of the murder was sexual sin against three women, and the brilliant light beaming forth from the event is Jamie Schmidt’s heroic resistance.


Last week, writing for LifeSiteNews, Fr. Brian W. Harrison asked, Will this be the first American-born woman martyr?

He reported:  

A stocky, middle-aged man walked in and noted that only three people were in the store — all women. Two were store workers, one fiftyish, the other in her twenties, and the third was a customer who had just come in. After exchanging a few words, the man said he was going back to his car to get a credit card and would be right back to make a purchase. But when he re-entered, it was not a card, but a revolver that he had in his hand. He immediately herded the three terrified women back into a secluded corner of the store, and insisted that they submit to acts of sexual abuse. 

Two of the distraught women complied at gunpoint with this brute’s demands. But then he came to his third victim, the would-be customer, who according to friends had probably come to purchase some materials for her Rosary-making apostolate. This was Jamie Schmidt, 53, a quiet mother of three who worked as a secretarial assistant at the St. Louis Community College in the western suburb of Wildwood, and was active in her parish church, St. Anthony of Padua at High Ridge in neighboring Jefferson County. There was nothing obviously extraordinary about this lady. But now she did something very extraordinary indeed. Having just been forced to witness in horror the sexual assault of the two women beside her, Mrs. Schmidt was ordered to submit to similar abuse. 

But Mrs. Schmidt — shocked, defenseless, and with the barrel of a loaded gun pointed at her head — Just Said No. 

With death staring her in the face, Jamie quietly refused to allow her purity, her personal dignity, and her marriage covenant to be outraged. She looked him straight in the eye and said, “In the name of God, I will not take my clothes off.” Enraged by this unexpected point-blank rejection of his demand, her assailant responded with a point-blank shot that felled her on the spot. The survivor who gave this testimony added that as Jamie lay there gravely wounded, she could be heard whispering the words of the Our Father. As soon as the man fled the store, a 911 call quickly brought an ambulance, and Jamie was sped to the nearest hospital. But she was pronounced dead later that evening; and again, according to one of her friends I spoke with at her funeral yesterday, the words of the Our Father were on the lips of this valiant woman at her dying breath.

Fr. Harrison continued:

This tale of indomitable resistance to demonic evil calls for deep reflection. Jamie Schmidt’s act of supreme courage and nobility, called forth immediately in a moment of sudden crisis, clearly did not come from nowhere. The action of grace had been evidently working quietly but deeply in the soul of this lady who had outward lived devoutly but unobtrusively, like any number of other good Catholics.

This is the deep reflection overlooked by Cardinal DiNardo in his letter.

Featured Image
Fr. Armand de Malleray, FSSP

Opinion, ,

Abuse crisis is fueled by lack of understanding Christ’s Eucharistic sacrifice and presence

Fr. Armand de Malleray, FSSP
By Armand de Malleray, FSSP

November 26, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – “This body which is His …" What body does Pope St Pius X refer to in his exhortation to Catholic priests, exactly 110 years before last summer’s revelations on clerical sex abuse? (Cf Haerent Animo Part I, St. Pius X, 4th August 1908) Is it the Eucharistic Body of Christ, that is, the sacred Host? No. Is it the Mystical Body of Christ, the gathering of the faithful as one Church? Neither. What is meant in this instance is the physical body of the priest himself, with his lips, tongue and hands. This is what Pope St Pius X, arguably the greatest pope in modern times, calls ‘This body which is His … ’ – Christ’s own Body. Rediscovering the meaning of such physical appropriation of the priest by Christ is essential, we suggest, to understand the present crisis, heal the wounds incurred and obtain overabounding graces. 

The Church still reels following the revelations of sexual abuse of unprecedented magnitude. It was perpetrated by numerous priests, by bishops and even by a cardinal, over decades and against hundreds of victims, not only in America but also in Europe and on other continents. Sexual abuse is a crime. It is also a grave scandal when it stains the Christian name. Of all Christians, when those appointed pastors of souls betray their mission to such an extent, the harm is greater even. 

Most of the crimes uncovered occurred over the past 50 years, against young men. We ask ourselves how, since the late 1960s, so many priests have indulged in the vice of ephebophilia, or “lust for young men.” Ephebophilia pertains to homosexuality as distinct from sexual attraction to children, known as paedophilia. How can a man, consecrated to God in the most solemn and public manner according to Catholic doctrine, break his vow of chastity, with the aggravating circumstances of acting 1) against nature (the victim is of his own sex) and 2) against his mission (as a trusted protector rather than a predator)? 

Abstinent for God’s sake

These abusive clerics had been consecrated body and soul to God, so as to consecrate the Body and Blood of God made Man, Jesus Christ, in the Most Holy Eucharist. According to the traditional discipline prevailing in the Western Church, (And in the Eastern Churches, at least for bishops) they had committed themselves to celibacy. They had renounced the good of marriage and family so as to be integrally configured to Christ the Sovereign High Priest, celibate and Spouse to His mystical Bride the Church. But after a while, if not from the start, they craved other bodies. They lusted after human flesh. 

The fact that their victims were of the same sex is an aggravating circumstance. But it should be borne in mind that any deliberate sexual activity would have been a betrayal of their commitment to chastity. In fact, it might be timely to observe that sexual activity is fully legitimate for any man and woman only when open to procreation with the view to raising children as saints, which only Christian marriage fully guarantees. Put simply, sex is for [the purpose of making] families, not for self or for partners. Sex is given to increase the number of the elect through building up domestic churches. Sex is for pro-creating new rational human beings to worship the Most Holy Trinity for eternity. The Creator of the human race embedded sexual pleasure in the marital act as a generous incentive for the pro-creation of more human worshippers. The marital act is like a plane bound for blissful eternity. Lust in every form hijacks it.  

Spiritual fatherhood

Priests pursue this noble procreative end through spiritual fatherhood, when begetting a soul to divine grace through Holy Baptism, when nourishing it through Holy Communion, and fostering it through the other sacraments, sacred actions and Church teaching. Priests are not angels, though. They are men of flesh and blood. Like any man (and woman) they rely on divine grace to master their sexual desires and to channel them according to God’s law of life. For celibate clergy, this means offering up sexual pleasure as a sacrifice to God, to affirm the reality of the invisible fecundity embedded in them by God at their ordination through the sacramental character of the priesthood. Spiritual fatherhood is no mere substitute for biological fatherhood, like a consolation prize. Rather, it expresses the essence of the divine fatherhood, after ‘the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named’ (Ephesians 3:14-15).

The divine powers granted to the priest are objective and permanent. They remain, even though their use might be hindered through sickness or imprisonment; even though the clerical state might be lost; and regardless of the priest’s personal merits or demerits. These powers essentially consist in making Christ present under the externals of bread and wine at Holy Mass, and in absolving souls from their sins in Confession. The more one believes these truths, the more one will value priestly celibacy. Why? Because priestly celibacy points to the reality of Christ’s saving presence in the sacraments of the Church. Fallen men hold sexual activity as a fundamental “need.” “We cannot do,” they think, “without a body to hold.” The celibate priesthood does not frustrate this aspiration – it elevates it. Priestly celibacy implies that the Eucharistic Body of Christ is real enough to reward man’s chastity. Priestly celibacy suggests that absolving penitents is a genuine outpouring of divine life throughout the mystical Body of Christ, His Church.

Habeas Corpus

Thus, faith in and love for the Eucharistic Body of Christ, and for His Mystical Body the Church, should grow in inverse proportion with lust for human bodies. The priests and bishops who committed sexual abuse got hold of the wrong body. Neglecting the Savior’s Body, they craved the creatures’ bodies, and clung to them. To take a comparison, they are like a state officer hearing the words Habeas Corpus, and not listening further. Habeas Corpus is the 14th century English law stating that a person can only be kept in prison following a court’s decision. Instead of hearing: ‘By what right do you hold this body?’ – clerical abusers wrongly understand Habeas corpus as: ‘You should have the body – and keep it!’ 

To keep the body? They did receive such a mandate though, at their ordination. They were once appointed “keepers of the Body.” On that most solemn occasion, kneeling before the bishop, their hands touching the host on the paten, they were told: “Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Masses for the living and the dead, in the name of the Lord.” Priests are entrusted with the Lord’s Eucharistic Body (and Precious Blood), for the benefit of the Lord’s Mystical Body (His Church). Thus, the problem is not for celibate clerics to handle Someone else’s Body, but to handle the wrong body. Priests have a right to a Body – with a capital B. 

Aiming for God’s Body

Significantly, handling God’s Body requires purity of mind and body for the priests, as the bishop admonishes them: “Be holy as you deal with holy things. When you celebrate the mystery of the Lord’s death, see to it that by mortifying your bodies you rid yourselves of all vice and concupiscence.” So does Holy Mother Church remind her priests when, vesting for Holy Mass daily, She teaches them to recite the following prayer as they tie the cincture around their waist, over the alb: “Gird me, O Lord, with the cincture of purity, and quench in my loins the fire of concupiscence, that the virtue of continence and chastity may abide in me.” A mysterious swap is happening from one body to another. The priest renounces access to any created body, thus mortifying his own body, so as to handle Christ’s Eucharistic Body and feed It to Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church.

A similar swap occurs in Holy Matrimony according to traditional Church teaching. The Code of Canon Law written under Pope St Pius X described matrimonial consent as an act of the will “by which each party gives and accepts a perpetual and exclusive right over the body (of the spouse), for acts which are of themselves suitable for the generation of children’ (c. 1081, § 2). Matrimonial consent involves a transfer of rights: the object of consent is the handing over of an essential right – the ius in corpus, or ‘right over the body’. 

Could this shed light on the priestly state and prerogative, analogically? A consecrated celibate and a bishop, St Paul once wrote: ‘With Christ I am nailed to the cross. I live, now not I; but Christ liveth in me. And that I live now in the flesh: I live in the faith of the Son of God’ (Gal 2:19-20). Here, we see how sacrificial union between Christ and His ordained minister induces an existential swap, whereby Christ lives in His priest, and the priest in Christ. Generally speaking, this applies to any Christian, since we are all called to surrender body and soul to Christ, that God may dwell in us as in His temple: “... reckon that you are dead to sin, but alive unto God, in Christ Jesus our Lord. Let no sin therefore reign in your mortal body, so as to obey the lusts thereof” (Romans 6: 11-12). But it applies more fully to priests, by virtue of the priestly character. 

A loving exchange

The divine powers to transubstantiate matter and absolve souls are embedded in the priest, and only in the priest, at his ordination. These powers remain forever, even after death. Such abiding divine capacity is activated every time the priest knowingly and wilfully acts in persona Christi, e.g. when praying, blessing, teaching. Never greater is this activation than during Holy Mass. When at Consecration the priest – let’s call him "Fr. Jim" – says: “This is my body,” the word “my” essentially refers to Christ, not to Fr. Jim’s body. And yet, the words are uttered, physically, through Fr. Jim’s mouth, and intellectually understood by Fr. Jim’s brain, and willed by him at the same time. Simultaneously, in Fr. Jim’s hands, the bread becomes Christ’s Body. In other words, an existential swap occurs, whereby Fr. Jim surrenders his body (and soul) to Christ, so that Christ might now lie in Fr. Jim’s hands. Christ receives Fr. Jim’s body through appropriation; Fr. Jim receives Christ’s Body through transubstantiation. The consecrated Host is the Eucharistic Body of Christ, because Fr. Jim’s body has become the “ministerial” Body of Christ.   

The word “ministerial” here does not mean a temporary Church function, however helpful, like being appointed sacristan or collection counter for a year. Rather, only a priest’s body can be termed Christ’s “ministerial” Body, by virtue of the ontological modification the priest undergoes at ordination, when the priestly character embeds in him divine powers forever. What encouragement for priests to realize that their body (as animated by a soul) is not theirs anymore, but Christ’s. When rising in the morning and shaving, when eating their breakfast, when cycling to visit his flock or for leisure, as well as on any other occasion, the priest can think of his body as Christ’s ministerial body. 

“All whatsoever you do in word or in work, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, giving thanks to God and the Father by him” (Col 3:17). This lofty call to every Christian is fulfilled in the priest not only spiritually but ontologically, every time he acts in persona Christi, and supremely during Holy Mass, at Consecration. Then, the ius in corpus essential to the sacrament of Holy Matrimony is activated, analogically, when the priest surrenders his body to Christ, for His words to make His Body present in the hands of His priest. 

To give the sacred

Notably, as for Christian spouses, this exchange of rights upon each other’s body is meant to benefit others, namely, the family. By its nature indeed, Eucharistic Consecration is not a private prayer or initiative of the priest, but a cultic glorification of God and a public service to all the faithful, within and without the pews, alive and deceased. At the same time, the sacramental intimacy between the priest and Christ the Sovereign High priest is traditionally secured during Consecration through the use of low voice rather than loud speaking, and through the priest’s posture. The congregation kneeling behind him, the priest whispers the sacred formulas while his elbows rest upon the altar, the tabernacle and altar card in front of him screening off the corporal and the oblates during the double transubstantiation.

This intimacy is by no means selfish. It is ordered to the service of the flock. Immediately after Consecration (and his first genuflection), the priest rises and elevates the Sacred Body for the congregation to see and adore. Soon after, he will feed the people with the immaculate Flesh of the Lamb of God. The etymology of the word "sacerdotal," i.e. "priestly," is "sacer-dos," or to "give the sacred." Thus, there is essential continuity between Consecration and Communion. The same "sacer-dos," that is, the priest, makes Christ present upon the altar, and communicates Him to the people. 


Understanding better the faith of the Church about the Eucharistic sacrifice and presence, as well as about the ministerial priesthood, is the best antidote to clerical immorality. This requires teaching sound philosophy and theology at seminary, as well as respect for the letter and the spirit of the Eucharistic liturgy. The more a priest understands the reality of his sacramental configuration to Christ, setting him apart from other baptised people to channel to them the life of grace, the safer his soul will be, and those of the flock. 

Intellectual persuasion does not suffice though. It must flower into moments of daily intimacy with Christ in prayer, and in a devout offering of Holy Mass. In that respect, priests should be encouraged to offer Holy Mass daily, even without concelebrants, (Often, priests are denied the right to offer Holy Mass individually while on pilgrimage or on holiday. This contradicts the law of the Church stating that: ‘Each priest shall always retain his right to celebrate Mass individually...’ Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium 57,2) and to use their anointed hands to communicate Christ’s Body to the faithful (“Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present … ” cf Instruction On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful In the Sacred Ministry As Priest, Article 8 § 2 – 15th August 1997). Recalling Pope St. Pius X’s words: “This body which is His … ,” the priest will know himself to be Christ’s in a real, physical sense. He will give thanks for such intimacy, as fecund as it is chaste. In Holy Communion, lending his limbs as Christ’s ministerial Body, the priest will give the Eucharistic Body of Christ to His Mystical Body, the Church – a sacramental fulfilment of the doxology at Mass: “through Him, with Him and in Him” ... 

May the Virgin Mother of God, Mother of priests, St. John Mary Vianney and St. Pio of Pietrelcina intercede for all priests.

Fr. Armand de Malleray, FSSP is the author of Ego Eimi, It is I – Falling In Eucharistic Love, published by Lumen Fidei, with a foreword by Bishop Athanasius Schneider. He is also the editor of Dowry, the magazine of the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter in the United Kingdom.

Featured Image
Justin Trudeau at Gay Pride parade. Shutterstock
Jonathon Van Maren Jonathon Van Maren Follow Jonathon

Blogs, ,

Will Trudeau demand news organizations support abortion, LGBT agenda to receive tax breaks?

Jonathon Van Maren Jonathon Van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon Van Maren

November 26, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – After several years of consistent lobbying, the Canadian mainstream press has finally managed to persuade the Trudeau government to give their failing industry precisely what they desperately wanted: A bailout. And not just any bailout, either: A bailout of $595 million, which, if you’re counting the cash that our government gives to the press tasked with covering our government, is in addition to the $1.5 billion that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation already receives.

The legacy media has been slowly imploding for some time, seemingly incapable of adjusting to the Digital Age. A few newspapers have monetized their content online, but others have found consumers unwilling to pay monthly fees to access their coverage. And so the press began to demand that the government give them our money. Since people were not willing to pay for their content, the media decided they could get the government to take people’s tax dollars and thus still fund the content. If you’re a Canadian taxpayer, you’re no longer just funding the CBC. You’re funding an entire failing media industry.

To be fair, plenty of journalists have expressed outrage over this decision, noting that an already-growing distrust of media will in all likelihood explode with the news that the Liberal government is now handing their organizations hundreds of millions of dollars. Chris Selley of the National Post has expressed his dismay at the outcome in emphatic terms. Paul Wells of Maclean’s noted his opposition to government bailouts of media organizations. And Andrew Coyne wrote a column noting that this decision would destroy the flagging credibility of the media entirely:

Consider: In an election year, after months of angry demands, petulant coverage (does anyone think Melanie Joly, the former Heritage minister, would have been treated quite so fiercely had she delivered the goods?) and promises of good behaviour, the Liberal government has agreed to supply the nation’s news media with pots of cash.

This, at a time of maximum suspicion among much of the public about our credibility, or our good faith. You wonder what went on in all those closed-doors meetings? What undertakings were given? What threats were made? Relax. It’s probably nothing. No, really. You can take our word for it.

Of course, no one would be so crude as to attach any explicit quid pro quo. No government would be so foolish as to take a direct hand in doling out the money, or to demand favourable coverage in return. On the other hand, you can’t just give out tax credits to everybody — not in a world where anyone can post to the web and call himself a publisher. So someone has to choose. But who?

The government’s blackly brilliant answer: an “independent panel” of journalists will determine who is eligible to receive the government’s cash. Of course! Make the inmates fight among themselves! Let decisions about which journalists get to keep their jobs be made by other journalists! Who can blame the government then?

So while one group of journalists is scrambling to stay onside with the panel’s government-mandated definition of “core journalism standards” and “professional journalism,” another group will be angling to be appointed to this panel. Since that’s where the real power will lie.

Just so we’re clear: I don’t actually think the government will appoint a group of card-carrying Liberal hacks to this “independent panel.” They won’t need to. If the example of the Liberal-appointed “independent” senators is any guide, they will be scrupulously non-partisan, of unimpeachable respectability, and dependably progressive.

“Dependably progressive.” In other words, conservatives—especially social conservatives—will be treated like unCanadian bigots, and will consistently receive the sort of coverage we’ve come to expect from the CBC. It is virtually impossible that this move will not further politicize the media: Trudeau’s advisor and best friend Gerald Butts is already on Twitter, portraying the Liberals as the party of the free {read: government-funded) press while the Conservatives are, well, something else. Again, to be fair, plenty of journalists have asked him to please shut up and pointed out that he was making things worse.

If you’re wondering what an “independent panel” set up by a Liberal government might look like and what sort of standards they might create to determine who gets access to the slush fund, look no further than the attestation they inserted into the requirements for the Canada Summer Jobs Program. Nobody who opposed abortion or the LGBT ideology, they announced, would be eligible to receive funding. Those Canadians and their organizations, Trudeau and his obedient parrots stated, are fundamentally unCanadian. 

The mainstream media’s coverage of the Canada Summer Jobs kerfuffle has been remarkably fair, with nearly every major organization stating that Trudeau had gone too far with his abortion attestation. Trudeau, predictably, doubled down. But how will media organizations react to such things when their funding is on the line? If the Trudeau government believes that principled opposition to abortion and certain religious beliefs on marriage and sexuality are fundamentally unCanadian, what sort of standards will this “independent” panel impose on the mainstream media—which now has an enormous financial incentive to ensure continued access to the golden goose?

To put it bluntly: If Trudeau’s Liberals consider allegiance to Canada’s radical abortion regime and the LGBT ideology to be a mandatory prerequisite to receive government funding in one area, what’s to say they won’t demand the same thing for this funding? Keep in mind that the Liberals consider these beliefs to be unacceptable, even hateful. Is it a stretch to say that the Trudeau Liberals will not remain consistent in their pattern of behavior in regard to government funding—and who gets cut out?

I feel a bit sorry for many of the journalists and commentators who seem genuinely angry at the news that the corporations which employ them will soon be taking stacks of cash from the Liberals (so long as the “independent panel” finds them eligible for the government goodies, of course.) They seem to realize that it will irrevocably compromise their credibility. In the meantime, Trudeau’s Liberals have taken one more step to buy off the press and marginalize the voices of those they disagree with. 

Featured Image


Why Political Correctness is insatiable – and a possible solution to stopping it

By Dr. Joseph Shaw

November 26, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – The collection of causes known as “Political Correctness” (PC), which is often described as a sensitivity to the use of offensive language, but in practice includes the wider implications of progressive causes such as feminism, is surely the most successful political movement of modern times. It has changed the way people talk, in formal and informal contexts alike, and it appears to be about to change the very grammar of gendered languages like French. As successive PC demands are met, new ones are made. As PC-influenced speech and behavior have become normal, PC leaders do not declare victory, but demand yet more concessions.

One might expect a movement to correct injustices to enjoy the most support when addressing the worst injustices, and falling levels of support as the injustices in view are less and less indisputable. While a movement will gain credibility and momentum by early successes, increasingly extreme demands will, usually, harden opposition to it, and put potential supporters off. For this reason, many successful political movements never quite complete their agendas: they eventually run out of steam.

This has not happened with PC. Demands routinely made today would shock even the most avid supporter 10 years ago. Implications of PC causes which are ridiculed as scare-mongering one year are then embraced the next: an example would be the promotion of polygamy following the legal enforcement of same-sex “marriage.” (2015: Oh no, it won’t happen; 2017: Oh yes, it just has.)

As Kristian Niemietz of the UK think-tank the Institute of Economic Affairs explains, the key to understanding the movement is the elevated moral status enjoyed by those who embrace it. Being PC or progressive is not about having a reasonable disagreement with university colleagues or fellow citizens: it is about being free from the ancient prejudices to which they are subject. It is about being more enlightened, more advanced, and more virtuous.

The idea of being better than others simply because one uses or does not use certain words or adopts certain views is very attractive, especially to people lacking self-confidence and wanting to fit in, in environments like universities. The problem is that when everyone except a few hold-outs has adopted the language or views which are supposed to mark out the moral elite, they can no longer see themselves as a moral elite. It is impossible to fit 80 or 90 percent of the population into the top 10 percent.

Those determined, not merely to be not left behind by the majority, but to be in the moral elite, must repeatedly re-define what is required to be truly progressive or PC. They can only do this by making their causes more extreme. The moment that even naturally conservative corporations adopt rainbow flag-waving as a way to signal their virtue is the moment when waving a rainbow flag is no longer enough to show that you are more virtuous than everyone else. Advocacy of same-sex “marriage” was cutting-edge once, but not any more. Now, to be ahead of the curve, you need to support sex-change operations on children, or spontaneous “self-identification” as male or female.

It is not at all unusual for people to be motivated, at least in part, by a feeling of superiority over others. It does not normally lead to escalating extremism, however, because normally membership of an elite comes at a serious cost. If status is conferred by having a big house, for example, it doesn’t follow that everyone will buy bigger and bigger houses in order to compete, for the simple reason that most people can’t afford a big house. The same is true if elite status is conferred by climbing Mount Everest, fasting for 40 days on bread and water, or having 10 children. The problem faced by the PC elite is that too many people can adopt PC status too easily.

It is important to grasp the mechanism driving progressive causes in society today. It was not designed by anyone to work like this; it is indeed a source of frustration to PC leaders themselves. The result has been an extraordinary run of success for causes destructive of traditional culture and the family.

One thing which would break the cycle is an alternative way for people to signal their virtue. This is becoming easier to imagine as the demands of Political Correctness have become more extreme. The latest move is to demand that children who defy crude gender stereotypes for their own sex be given puberty-suppressing drugs, which permanently destroy their fertility. This is actually child abuse. This may be the moment when people begin to think that it is the opponents of PC, not proponents, who are morally superior.

If that happens, then more people will jump on the bandwagon, and this particular progressive cause will be defeated. If we could get people to start thinking seriously about the needs of children, then the most popular view of a lot of other issues could change as well.

Featured Image
Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike

Blogs, ,

Dubia Cardinal, bishops defend Cdl. Müller linking abuse crisis and homosexuality

Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike
By Maike Hickson

November 26, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – On 21 November, LifeSiteNews published a wide-ranging interview with Cardinal Gerhard Müller – the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – in which the cardinal spoke about the abuse problem in general as related to the loss of Faith, and he pointed to the high percentage of male victims of clerical sex abuse and likewise to the problem of homosexually active priests. 

READ: Cdl. Müller on abuse crisis and its link to homosexuality in priesthood

These statements have prompted an outcry of indignation in Germany, as may be seen with the German bishops' news website conducting an interview with a German Jesuit, Klaus Mertes. Now, however, does not only Cardinal Müller respond to the criticism, but also Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Bishop Marian Eleganti, and Father Joseph Fessio, S.J, have publicly supported Cardinal Müller and his recent statements.

In his 23 November comments to, Father Klaus Mertes claims that this interview with Cardinal Müller shows that the cardinal “has not yet understood anything.” He explicitly referred here to Cardinal Müller's cautionary words not to destroy the sacramental hierarchy of the Church when giving lay people inordinate supervision over bishops. Mertes calls this statement “clericalism” and a “clerical self-conceit that has turned into a dogma.” This clerical attitude, he adds, lies at the root of the abuse problem. He also calls  Müller's words “unbelievably brazen.”

Mertes strongly contradicts the claim that homosexuality has something to do with the Church's abuse crisis. There is a “faction” in the Church, he explains, that wants to say that “homosexuals are the culprits.” For him, it is rather the taboo that is still placed on this topic of homosexuality that is contributing to the abuse problem. Mertes calls it a “homophobic strategy” to claim that “homosexuals are offenders” and he does not at all think that homosexuals should leave the priesthood. “Of course a homosexual clergyman should be able to say 'I am homosexual,'” Mertes explains. The German Jesuit also comments on the recent Wucherpfennig controversy – during which Wucherpfennig was criticized by the Vatican for his ideas about the blessing of homosexual couples and about the ordaining of women – calling the Vatican's conduct “a scandal” and describing the Vatican's original decision not to support Father Ansgar Wucherpfennig's re-election as the rector of the Jesuit Graduate School in Frankfurt to be an “abuse of power.” 

Cardinal Müller, in a first response to this sharp criticism, calls Mertes' statements “brazen insults” which are the result of a “blind rage” and proceeds to say that Mertes “presents himself unjustly as an expert in questions of the sexual abuse of teenagers.” The work of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the other hand, is “based on a true basis of data.” It is “simply infamous to use the sexual crimes committed against teenagers and young adults in order to advance some aims of Church politics,” the German cardinal adds. It is obvious that this Jesuit “does not know the biblical teaching on homosexual acts and on the absolute atrocity of the violation of an adolescent.” Just as one “cannot further develop a typing machine into a piano, one cannot turn the Word of God into its opposite meaning.”

In his additional remarks concerning Mertes which he shared with LifeSiteNews, Cardinal Müller furthermore states: “In his arrogance, he seems to think that the Church should today follow the great thinkers Mertes, zu Eltz, and Wucherpfennig, and not Peter, Paul, and John.” Rejecting this newly proposed course, the German cardinal adds: “We are far from having to offer our sacrificium intellectus to the modest house altar of these self-declared idols, that is to say to follow, against one's own better judgment, a dull ideology rather than the bright truth of the Gospels.” “It is only a sad proof of the decline of the Faith, and of reason, in some German ecclesial circles,” Müller explains, “that these effusions of an academic nobody can nonetheless cause the vehement applause of people of his kind.”

The last words here refer to yet another expression of indignation as recently published in Germany. In addition to critical remarks of Father Mertes on the website of the German bishops, Klaus Pfeffer, the general vicar of the Diocese of Essen, leaked on his facebook a few parts of a recent confidential conference organized by the German bishops on sex abuse matters, saying that Cardinal Müller's recent words were met with “indignation.” He adds that during that conference, Professor Dreßing – the head of the recent German sex abuse study which, in its conclusions, proposed to admit homosexuals to the priesthood – claimed that Cardinal Gerhard Müller is “cementing a sexual morality that itself has contributed to sexual violence.” According to Pfeffer, Dreßing's  words were met with “great applause.”

Pfeffer himself calls Müller's words “highly dangerous” (“brandgefährlich”). In this facebook entry, Pfeffer also posted Father Mertes' interview, saying that “I fully and entirely agree with Mertes.” The German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost first reported on this candid facebook entry, and it pointed out that Pfeffer leaked comments made at a conference which was explicitly declared to have been confidential, due to the planned discussion of the sensitive topic of clerical sexual abuse. 

Pfeffer is among those prelates in Germany who is in favor of a loosening – or even an abolishing – of clerical celibacy. His own bishop, Franz-Josef Overbeck, just recently claimed that, in light of the abuse crisis, the Catholic Church should reconsider her teaching on sexual morality.

As one Catholic who wishes not to be named commented: “Cardinal Müller seems to have hit right into the hornets' nest with his recent remarks pointing to the aspect of homosexuality in the abuse crisis.” 

LifeSiteNews reached out to several prelates and priests, asking them to comment on these sharp personal attacks against Cardinal Müller in the wake of his 21 November interview with LifeSiteNews.

Cardinal Walter Brandmüller — one of the dubia signers — comments, saying that this strong reaction “is strange,” since Cardinal Müller “merely repeated what one can read about it in the Catechism. This is the teaching that is always and everywhere valid,” the German cardinal adds. Part of that teaching is that homosexual acts are leading to the loss of sanctifying grace in a soul, the prelate explains. That there is such a strong response to the words of Cardinal Müller is for Brandmüller either a sign of “lack of knowledge” or of “opposition to the Church's teaching.” In any event, he adds, it is “an alarming symptom for the loss of Faith in Germany.” “But he who now thinks that he cannot (anymore) affirm or confess it, should be honest and not any more call himself a Catholic,” he comments. Additionally, Cardinal Brandmüller stresses that his colleague in the cardinalate merely stated the facts when he pointed to the majority of male victims of clerical sex abuse. “For the sake of the victims, we have to take seriously these facts and take accordingly measures” such as it was done in the 1917 Code of Canon Law with regard to canonical penalties imposed upon a homosexually active priest.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider, in his own statement of support, also says that Cardinal Müller merely restated the Church's doctrine on homosexuality and thanks him for it: “We have to thank Cardinal Müller for presenting this opportune and needed reaffirmation of the Divine truth, by which he has provided a valuable spiritual help for so many souls.” In light of these newly aggressive reactions to Cardinal Müller's interview, Bishop Schneider also notices an “embarrassed silence amongst many bishops with regard to the danger of the spread of the homosexual heresy.” Regrettably, Schneider is himself now “observing a growing spread of the homosexual heresy inside the Church.” More and more people are coming out into the light who have been promoting the “homo heresy,” explains the prelate. “They disguise their heresy and apostasy, for instance, with the sophistic and gnostic expression “further development of Catholic moral doctrine” (“Weiterentwicklung der katholischen Morallehre”).”

Bishop Schneider also points to the proper role of Pope Francis in light of this growing problem in the Church when he says: “The tragic and regrettable thing in this situation is the fact that the Holy See, which is the seat of the truth (“cathedra veritatis”), not only does not oppose this advance of the homosexual heresy, but, incredibly, even assigns ecclesiastical tasks to notorious supporters of this homosexual heresy.” And he adds: “Unfortunately, we currently have to notice an eclipse in the Papal exercise of this very task of strengthening the truth regarding homosexuality.” Bishop Schneider therefore sees that, with his recent interview, Cardinal Müller indeed is doing a great service also to the Pope.

Bishop Marian Eleganti discusses in his statement the claim that homosexuality has nothing to do with clerical sex abuse. “This does not easily convince the common sense of the people. And therefore, many do not believe it,” he states. “It is an uncontested fact that 80 % of the abuser priests in the last 70 years have had a preference for adolescent male teenagers and seminarians and that they have found their victims mostly among this group of people (boys aged 12 to 18 years).” Eleganti refers to the recent study of Father Sullins and the link he shows between homosexuality and clerical sex abuse. Bishop Eleganti argues that, since in the overall society most abuse is committed by heterosexuals, nobody would think that they commit these crimes out of a clericalist attitude or for the sake of power. He proposes to use common sense to look at these matters and not to make personal attacks, but, rather remain on the level of argument. But the prelate also points out that such a substantive dialogue is less and less possible when he states:

“General Vicar Klaus Pfeffer called Cardinal Müller's words 'highly dangerous' [“brandgefährlich”]. Yes, in today's debate culture, it is indeed highly dangerous to express deviant views that are not in accordance with the majority, or simply to state the truth which many hold but do not dare to speak out loud because they fear the consequences (on the street there are incendiary devices and paint bombs; in the realms of discussion and dialogue, it involves labeling and pure hatred)!”

Father Joseph Fessio, the founder of Ignatius Press, also supports Cardinal Müller's recent statement in the matter of clerical sexual abuse and its link to homosexuality. He also recommends the Sullins study and comments: “After all, Cardinal Müller is simply stating what any normal person recognizes as obvious: men who are sexually attracted to other men are going to have sex with men, including young boys, more often than men who are not sexually attracted to other men. Even a Jesuit should recognize that, even if he has a PhD in Scripture.” 


Here follow the different statements as sent to LifeSiteNews:

Cardinal Walter Brandmüller:

It is really strange how much indignation Cardinal Müller's statements concerning the problem of homosexuality have caused. After all, he merely repeated what can be read about it in the Catechism. This is the teaching of the Church that is always and everywhere valid – and it is in accordance exactly with that which is written in Holy Scripture, to include the letters of the Apostle Paul. But this teaching already flows out of the nature of human sexuality which is clearly oriented toward the procreation and birth of human life.
The grave sin of a freely chosen homosexual act leads to the loss of sanctifying grace and thereby the loss of being a child of God. Thus, one has clearly judged sin. To judge the sinner, however, is not the place of man. This is God's Who is always ready to forgive when the sinner approaches him with repentance and the resolution not to sin again. Forgiveness is given after the confession in the Sacrament of Penance. This is the substance of the matter.

That its simple presentation causes a storm of indignation is either a sign of lack of knowledge, or even of opposition to the clear teaching of the Church. In any event, it is an alarming symptom for the decline of the Faith in Catholic Germany. But he who now thinks that he cannot (anymore) affirm or confess it, should be honest and not any more call himself a Catholic. It is really astonishing that a problem which at the most affects 0.1 % of the population is dominating the public opinion nearly obsessively. 

It was a prophetic sign that Pope Paul VI canonized in 1964 22 young men from Uganda who, between 1885 and 1887, were martyred because they refused to give in to the [sodomitic] sexual demands of King Mwamga II. This sign was given further strength by the Pope's canonization by Pope Francis.

Cardinal Müller has merely quoted the facts when he said in his interview that, in the Church, there exists a connection between homosexuality and sexual abuse. Also, the German bishops' sex abuse study has proven it: nearly two-thirds of the victims were male, that is to say, they were victims of homosexual abuse. For the sake of the victims, we have to take seriously these facts and, accordingly,  concrete measures, as they had already been contained in the Code of Canon Law of 1917; that is to say: the explicit mentioning of homosexuality as one of the priestly offenses against the 6th Commandment which carry canonical penalties.

Bishop Schneider:

In support of Cardinal Müller’s recent statements on homosexuality

In his recent interview with Lifesitenews (November 21, 2018) Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller clearly and explicitly restated the truth of Divine Revelation concerning sexuality, and, in particular, concerning the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts. This doctrine is not so much a doctrine of the Church, but, in the first place, a doctrine revealed by God. The Magisterium of the Church only transmits this doctrine as a faithful administrator of something of which she is not the owner. 

We have to thank Cardinal Müller for presenting this opportune and needed reaffirmation of the Divine truth, by which he has provided a valuable spiritual help for so many souls. Indeed, one has to understand Cardinal Müller’s words as a help, even for those souls who are blinded by the heresy of homosexuality: either through their propagation of this deceitful error now showing itself in the life of the Church and in human society; or through their own personal practice of the homosexual or sodomitic vice. This vice ultimately destroys the inner peace of whoever practices it (since homosexual acts are against human nature and reason) and furthermore puts such a person at the real risk of the loss of eternal salvation. 

There have now suddenly been some aggressive reactions to the affirmations of Cardinal Müller, coming from some offended members of the clergy, whilst, at the same time, one notices an embarrassed silence amongst many bishops with regard to the danger of the spread of the homosexual heresy. 

Indeed, we are observing a growing spread of the homosexual heresy inside the Church. An increasing number of clerics of different ranks are coming out of their hiding places, and who, without blushing, even start advocating for the moral acceptance of homosexual activity. They disguise their heresy and apostasy, for instance, with the sophistic and gnostic expression “further development of Catholic moral doctrine” (“Weiterentwicklung der katholischen Morallehre”).  

Already in sacred history, there has been a disastrous “further development” of the first Commandment of the Decalogue “you shall have no other gods beside me”. It happened when the Hebrew priest Aaron fabricated the Golden Calf, allowing the people thereby to adore an idol. In our days we are witnessing how priests, bishops, and cardinals are allowing people to have the alleged “joy” of the dance around the golden calf of homosexuality. The former historical caste of the Sadducees, who were mostly unbelieving and politically correct clerics, has now revived itself in the new Catholic clerical clan of the propagators of the heresy of homosexuality. Such priests and bishops are nothing else but “regime priests” and “regime bishops”, since, by advocating the legitimacy of homosexuality, they reveal themselves, not as servants of Christ, but, rather, as servants of the networked political and media regime of homosexuality. To be a new “Sadducee,” as well as a “regime bishop,” there is certainly no need for courage. 

The tragic and regrettable thing in this situation is the fact that the Holy See, which is the seat of the truth (“cathedra veritatis”), not only does not oppose this advance of the homosexual heresy, but, incredibly, even assigns ecclesiastical tasks to notorious supporters of this homosexual heresy. 

One of the essential tasks of the Successor of Peter consists in strengthening, primarily, the bishops in the Catholic and Divine Faith (cf. Luke 22: 32). Unfortunately, we currently have to notice an eclipse in the Papal exercise of this very task of strengthening the truth regarding homosexuality.

When bishops and cardinals do not fear being derided or do not fear being put out on the ecclesiastical “periphery” when proclaiming unambiguously the Divine truth about the intrinsic evil of the homosexual activity and by thus bracing themselves against the flood of the homosexual heresy inside the Church, they are actually providing an efficacious and collegial help to the Petrine Ministry of the Pope himself and they are also carrying out at the same time a true work of charity towards the faithful and towards the errant souls as well. This is what Cardinal Müller did in his recent interview with Lifesitenews, and for this his loyalty to Christ we have to be very grateful to His Eminence. 

November 25, 2018

+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

Bishop Marian Eleganti:

For those opponents of the thesis of a correlation between abuse and homosexuality, the obvious and clear homosexual acts, or assaults, do not have to do with homosexuality, but, rather, with excessive power (and the abuse of it). At the most, they say that the offenders were “sexually immature” – a term which, according to Manfred Lütz, is not a diagnosis that has been approved by psychiatry.

This claim does not easily convince the common sense of the people. And therefore, many do not believe it. It is an uncontested fact that 80 % of the abuser priests in the last 70 years had a preference for adolescent male teenagers and seminarians and that they found their victims mostly among this group of people (boys aged 12 to 18 years). 

Andrea Tornielli – himself a journalist who is close to the pope and who defends the proposed clericalism thesis – now even goes so far as to claim that the misdeeds of former Cardinal McCarrick were not homosexual acts. These are daring (protective) claims. Because, after all, which heterosexual clergyman invites young men into his beach-house-bed? Could he not have lived out his purported desire for power over them in a very different manner, let us say in a “generally usual” one? Without doubt, this is so. And should it be, after all, about molesting homosexual acts, then – according to this mantra – it has nothing to do with homosexuality as such. 

Because it is also so that heterosexual people (who are responsible for the majority of abuse cases [in society]) are not forced by nature to abuse children, teenagers, and young adults. The same thus has to apply to homosexuals. 

And this fact has to be affirmed. We are free. Otherwise, we would not have sin. And we speak here in this context about a sin, and a grave one, too. But there remains – like the elephant in the living room – the striking statistics that, in the clergy, 80% homosexually oriented clergymen have created dire facts. Why? Because heterosexuals molest, according to their own preferences, female victims. In the clergy, however, this is not the case in the majority.

It seems that we are asked to abandon common sense in this debate, because it purportedly tends to lead to wrong conclusions. Sexuality, desires, and affective, or even possibly perverse, needs supposedly do not have any role – or only a minor one, but certainly not a decisive one? And the 99.5 percent who, in the rest of the heterosexual society, are responsible for sexual abuse (mostly female victims)? We therefore ought not to refer here to “clericalism” as an explanation [of the current crisis]. 

Up to now, as far as I know, nobody has doubted that these offenders had abused their power, primarily in order to fulfill their sexual needs – the heterosexual offenders and the homosexual offenders each in their own way. Only in the clergy is it now supposedly different. Here, it is supposedly only about power or clericalism. He who believes this, has it easier. So that we understand each other: I do not generally suspect either all heterosexuals, nor all homosexuals, of abuse. But a politically correct head-in-the-sand policy concerning certain striking peculiarities in the clergy is certainly not a solution

As a proof for my claim, I refer here to the study conducted by Father Sullins (Ruth Institute) in the U.S. The debate should, in any case, be conducted with respect, just as Father Sullins has done it. However, the open disdain toward Cardinal Müller as it is to be found in the statement by Father P. Mertes, S.J ( is unfortunately obvious and not a good example. I myself do not expect any better treatment. 

General Vicar Klaus Pfeffer called Cardinal Müller's words “highly dangerous” [“brandgefährlich”]. Yes, in today's debate culture, it is indeed highly dangerous to express deviant views that are not in accordance with the majority, or simply to state the truth which many hold but do not dare to speak out loud because they fear the consequences (on the street there are incendiary devices and paint bombs; in the realms of discussion and dialogue, it involves labeling and pure hatred)!

Father Joseph Fessio, S. J.:

Have you read this: Priest-Sociologist Examines Data on Clergy Sex Abuse? I just finished reading Fr. Mullins’ full report on the correlation between homosexuals bzw [great German contraction, J.F.] a homosexual seminary subculture and sexual abuse by priests.

It seems to me the best way to come to the support of the courageous Cardinal Müller is to make known these wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse [scientific results].

After all, Cardinal Müller is simply stating what any normal person recognizes as obvious: men who are sexually attracted to other men are going to have sex with men, including young boys, more often than men who are not sexually attracted to other men. Even a Jesuit should recognize that, even if he has a PhD in Scripture. Or maybe PhD really means Philosophische Dummheit [philosophical stupidity].

Print All Articles
View specific date