All articles from June 10, 2019


News

Opinion

Blogs

The Pulse

  • There are no Pulse articles posted on June 10, 2019.

Featured Image
Massachusetts Citizens for Life
Nancy Flanders

News, ,

Abortion-supporters throw urine, harass pro-lifers at Massachusetts March for Life

Nancy Flanders
By Nancy Flanders

June 10, 2019 (Live Action News) — Seven pro-abortion protestors were arrested on Sunday during the annual Massachusetts March for Life on Boston Common after abortion advocates clashed with pro-life activists.

According to the Boston Police Department, more than 600 pro-lifers attended the March — a record numberThe Boston Globe reports that they were playing music and listening to speakers as pro-abortion protestors interfered with them. C.J. Williams, the community engagement director for Massachusetts Citizens for Life, told the Boston Herald that two pro-abortion men pushed her and shouted expletives at a group of about 25 pro-lifers as they walked up the street. She also said that an abortion supporter threw urine and a slushie on one of the pro-life speakers.

 

"One of our speakers… who is Black and gay, was assaulted by the other side and had urine thrown on him," Williams said. "It got a little bit hectic there; it was not the dialogue I'd hoped for."

The theme for this year's March was "Love in Action," and though the pro-lifers struggled to be heard over the pro-abortion shouts of "pro-life, that's a lie, you don't care if women die," the pro-life speakers shared stories of love and hope that happen when women are able to choose life.

Pro-choice protestors in attendance included members of Boston Feminists for Liberation, who assumed the pro-lifers were holding the rally "to celebrate" the new "heartbeat bills" in states including Georgia, Alabama, and Missouri. In reality, the March is an annual event, and this particular year, pro-lifers were aiming to raise awareness of the concerns they have regarding extreme anti-life bills in Massachusetts. They had hoped to have an "open dialogue" with pro-choicers but that turned out to have been impossible this time.

"The dialogue wasn't as constructive as it really could have been," Myrna Maloney Flynn, the vice president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, said in a statement. "We were hoping to understand their reasoning — it got lost in anti-racism, anti-police language." At a press conference on Wednesday, Flynn announced the results of a poll that showed most Massachusetts voters oppose the state's pro-abortion bill S1209.

The Boston Globe, which severely underreported the number of pro-lifers at the event, said that the abortion supporters carried signs in opposition to the newly passed abortion laws in other parts of the country. Meanwhile, the pro-life activists held signs that said, "Pray to end abortion," and some even fell to their knees to pray during the confrontations.

Police had to split up several fights, but the Boston Globe says they were able to get things under control relatively quickly and made seven arrests for assault and battery along with disorderly conduct. Despite this, no injuries were reported.

After the rally, most abortion supporters left and the pro-lifers were able to continue with the March around the Common to show that everyone in Massachusetts, born and preborn, deserves to be protected from violence.

Published with permission from Live Action News.

Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin

News,

Study claiming abortion lowers crime rate is rooted in racism, pro-life researcher says

Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin
By Martin Barillas

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Dr. Brian Clowes of Human Life International derided a new working paper published by the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research that purports to show legalized abortion has led to a 45 percent decline in crime rates over the past three decades.

In an interview with LifeSiteNews, Clowes countered the claims made last month by economists John Donohue III and Steven Levitt in “The impact of legalized abortion on crime over the last two decades,” which reiterates and expands upon findings they published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2001. Donohue and Levitt asserted that legalized abortion appeared to account for as much as half of the drop in rates of violent crime and property crime since 1973 when the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade to allow abortion nationwide.

In the new paper, Donohue and Levitt used an analytical model nearly identical to their 2001 study, adding abortion and crime data from 1997 to 2014. The original analysis covered 1985 to 1997.

In the interview, Clowes acknowledged that the U.S. crime rate did decline among the poor after 1973, not because fewer people were born but because fewer people in the 25-40 age bracket were committing a crime. This was partly due, he said, to improved police techniques and a reduction in the widespread use of crack cocaine.

Clowes pointed out that statistician David Murray showed that males between ages 17 to 25 commit the majority of violent crimes. Murray told Fox News when the 2001 study was released that if abortion were associated with reduced crime, crime rates would have dropped first in the 17-25 age bracket. They did not. It was among older people that crime rates dropped first.

Clowes agreed with Murray that Donohue and Levitt were engaged in racial profiling when they sought to retroactively identify people as criminals because they fall into social categories that are also likely to be aborted. Murray said in 2001 that homicide rates among young men had dropped, but aggravated assaults among young people had increased. In addition, the rate of homicides committed by young women — which should have been equally affected by abortion among men — had not dropped.

Apparently undeterred, according to Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center, Donohue said recently, “The thing that’s most interesting about the (new) paper is we simply repeated the regression process we went through 20 years ago with more data and the results got even stronger.”

Donohue said he viewed the results as an “interesting and powerful affirmation of the original hypothesis which was initially proposed” in 2001.

Moreover, Clowes said, the assertions that Donohue and Levitt made do not appear to be replicable elsewhere. For example, he said, the United Kingdom legalized abortion in 1968. Eighteen years later, crime was increasing across the country, precisely when Donohue and Levitt’s analysis would have predicted a decline.

This also holds true for Canada and Russia, Clowes said. In the case of Russia, violent crime skyrocketed in the years after the fall of the Soviet Union despite the fact that Russia has one of the highest abortion rates in the world.

Clowes also noted that murder rates among black Americans shot upward by more than 500 percent from 1984 to 1993, despite the fact that black women have abortion rates approximately three times the rate found among white women.

What is reflected in both studies released by Donohue and Levitt, Clowes said, is a “eugenics mentality.” Eugenics is the false science that asserted that some human populations are racially inferior and should and should be eliminated because of their purportedly inherited criminal and intellectually deficient traits. The racism of eugenics and Planned Parenthood advocate Margaret Sanger is revealed in the assumptions found in Donohue and Levitt’s study, said Clowes.

“The unstated assertion behind all of this,” Clowes said, “is that black people supposedly commit more crime than white people.” He cited the example of the Canadian abortionist Henry Morgentaler, who often asserted that unwanted children were one of the root causes of the Holocaust unleashed by Nazi Germany. Morgentaler once wrote an op-ed for Canada’s National Post titled “It’s better for us that they died.”

Levitt was asked in 2006 if crime among white teenagers would increase, given that there was a declining abortion rate among white women. He opined that it is not access to abortion alone that makes for a decline in the crime rate. Echoing Morgentaler, Levitt wrote, “It appears that the 1990s were a time when factors such as AIDS were leading people to, for instance, use condoms or abstain from sex altogether. Not conceiving an unwanted baby is equally effective in reducing unwantedness as having an abortion.”

Clowes told LifeSiteNews that the best way to reduce crime is not by what he called “pre-emptive capital punishment through abortion but by addressing the problem through a humane point of view by helping communities affected by crime.”

Featured Image
Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin

News,

Argentine bishop and friend of Pope Francis charged with sex abuse of seminarians

Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin
By Martin Barillas

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina, June 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Bishop Gustavo Oscar Zanchetta, one of Pope Francis’ first episcopal appointments, has been formally charged with alleged sexual abuse of two seminarians in the Diocese of Oran in northern Argentina.

According to the prosecutor’s office in Oran, Zanchetta was charged with “aggravated continuous sexual abuse committed by a minister of a religious organization.” He has been forbidden to have contact with the seminarians in question or their family members.

In 2015, Zanchetta was accused of engaging in “strange behavior” when a diocesan official discovered pornographic images on the archbishop’s cellphone. Pornographic images of men were found, allegedly sent to unknown parties, as well as Zanchetta’s nude selfies. Reportedly, there were no images of children found.

Vatican authorities have twice stated that they had no knowledge of Zanchetta’s alleged crimes until 2018. However, Fr. Juan José Manzano (the former vicar general of Oran) disagrees, saying he reported the pornographic images in 2015 and again in 2017.

A complaint was raised against Zanchetta in 2016, accusing the archbishop of “problematic behavior” with seminarians. He is alleged to have entered their bedrooms at night and requested massages. Also, he is alleged to have offered alcohol to the seminarians. Internal church documents suggest that Pope Francis knew of accusations against Zanchetta before transferring him to Rome.

In 2017, Zanchetta unexpectedly resigned his see without explanation. However, Pope Francis, a fellow Argentine, gave him a job created for him at the Vatican’s Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA). The latter oversees the financial holdings of the Vatican and serves as a central bank.

Prosecutor Monica Viazzi’s office said Zanchetta was silent during his court appearance on Thursday. Zanchetta’s passport has been confiscated and he is prohibited from leaving Argentina. Also, he has been ordered to obtain a permanent address in the country and attend all future hearings in his case.

On June 12, Zanchetta will be subjected to psychological evaluation as part of the official investigation. He will be jailed if he violates any of these demands. If convicted, Zanchetta could face two or three years in prison.

Oran is a city of about 82,000 in the province of Salta, near Argentina’s border with Bolivia.

Pope Francis recently revealed to a Mexican journalist that Zanchetta is facing a simultaneous canonical trial at the Vatican. “Before I asked for his resignation, there was an accusation, and I immediately made him come over with the person who accused him and explain it,” Pope Francis told Valentina Alazraki.

Zanchetta claimed that his cellphone had been hacked, the Pope said.

“Evidently he had, some say,” Pope Francis said, “despotic treatment of others – he was bossy.”

The Pope said he understood that Zanchetta was “not completely clear in dealing with finances” that have yet to be proved. “But certainly, the clergy didn’t feel well treated by him,” the Pope said. “They complained until they made an allegation as a body to” the Vatican’s embassy in Argentina.

After hearing from the papal diplomatic representative in Argentina that there were “serious” allegations of mistreatment of seminarians in addition to an “abuse of power,” the Pope sent Zanchetta for psychological treatment in Spain while asking for his resignation from his see. As for any allegations of misusing Church money, the Pope denied that there was any substantial evidence.

While Zanchetta was not orderly in handling money, the Pope said, Zanchetta had a “good vision.” Having decided that Zanchetta should be tried in a canonical court, the Pope turned the case over to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Should Zanchetta be found guilty of the abuse of minors or vulnerable adults, he may face laicization.

Featured Image
Calvin Freiburger

News, ,

42 prosecutors in 23 states declare they’ll refuse to enforce state pro-life laws

Calvin Freiburger
By Calvin Freiburger

June 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Attorneys general and district attorneys from nearly two dozen states have declared they will refuse to prosecute violations of duly-enacted laws banning abortion within their jurisdictions, siding with Supreme Court “precedent” over the will of lawmakers and voters in their states.

In a joint statement dated June 2019, a group calling itself Fair and Just Prosecution claimed to represent prosecutors who differed with one another on abortion from both moral and legal perspectives, but were nonetheless united in “our view that as prosecutors we should not and will not criminalize healthcare decisions such as these” (in fact, identifying abortion as “healthcare” is itself a pro-abortion ideological claim, not a statement of fact).

The group invoked the “immense discretion” they reserved to decide which prosecutions to bring with limited resources, and claimed that “resources are better utilized to prevent and address serious crimes that impact our community rather than enforcing laws such as these that divide our community, create untenable choices for women and healthcare providers, and erode trust in the justice system.”

The pro-abortion prosecutors claim Georgia’s heartbeat law in particular has “no explicit prohibition” against “criminalizing women and patients,” when in fact the law is an addition to Georgia’s current criminal code on unlawful abortions, which specifies that the punishable offense is not a woman seeking an abortion, but an abortionist “administer[ing] any medicine, drugs, or other substance whatever” or “us[ing] any instrument or other means whatever upon any woman with intent to produce a miscarriage or abortion.”

They also claim, without evidence or explanation, that enforcing abortion bans would “erode trust in the justice system.” Most remarkably, they claim that abortion bans “ fail to consider the needs and suffering of victims of child molestation, rape, incest, human trafficking, or domestic violence, many of whom experience long-term trauma.” In fact, pro-lifers have long noted that adult child abusers can easily use abortion to destroy the evidence that they’re raping children.

Motivated by near-total abortion bans recently enacted in states such as Georgia and Alabama, the statement was signed by attorneys general and local district attorneys from Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia.

“This group doesn’t look much like a groundswell of resistance from within pro-life jurisdictions, by any stretch,” Conservative Review’s Nate Madden observes. “Of the group of 42 officials listed on the document, only three hold office in Georgia, one holds office in Alabama, and one is from Ohio. Others on the list come from states with far more permissive abortion laws, such as New York and California.”

The statement is largely symbolic for another reason, as well. None of the latest wave of abortion bans have taken effect yet, and all are likely to be blocked by the courts unless and until the U.S. Supreme Court considers them. Pro-lifers hope such a review will lead to the court finally overturning Roe v. Wade, thereby freeing the American people to decide their own abortion laws.

Featured Image
YouTube screenshot
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin

News, ,

Google CEO wants to ‘prevent borderline content’ even if it ‘doesn’t exactly’ break rules

Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

June 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Google CEO Sundar Pichai says he wants the internet giant’s dominant video platform YouTube to further suppress videos the company deems “harmful,” even if by its own admission they don’t actually violate the platform’s stated rules.

Pichai made the comments in an interview with Axios, filmed before YouTube demonetized conservative pundit Steven Crowder but released afterward. That incident set off a firestorm of controversy, with Crowder and his defenders accusing the company of deploying post-hoc rationalizations to punish content from voices it and its allies politically oppose.

“In general, look, I mean all of us, you know, none of us want harmful content on our platforms,” Pichai said. “I think last quarter alone we removed 9 million videos from the platform. More recently, we have introduced, you know just like today we do this in search. We, you know, we rank content based on quality. 

“And so we are bringing that same notion and approach to YouTube, so that we can rank higher quality stuff better and really prevent borderline content,” he continued. “Content which doesn’t exactly violate policies which need to be removed, but which can still cause harm.”

Calling it a hard problem on both technological and societal levels, Pichai added that “we need better frameworks around what is hate speech, what’s not, and how do we as a company make those decisions at scale, and get it right without making mistakes.”

Axios chief technology correspondent Ina Fried followed up by complaining, “I feel like every other week, we’re talking about something really bad, whether it was, you know, with the Notre Dame fires and 9/11 footage showing up,” and asked Pichai to grade YouTube’s current handling of the issue.

“Look, we aren’t quite where we want to be,” the Google chief responded. “But I, I think it’s a genuinely hard problem of how do you, YouTube has the scale of the entire Internet. And I think we’re making a lot of progress, but the thing we are trying to do is to bring more authoritative sources and fact checks on videos, which may be controversial.”

Pichai’s comments appear to have been teasing last week’s announcement that YouTube would be removing “thousands” of “extreme” videos pushing “hate,” as well as a crackdown on “borderline” content. Crowder said the “extreme” videos deleted included “at least a few hundred [of] ours.” Also caught in the dragnet have been history videos on the Nazis and even videos by the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center purporting to expose hate rather than promote it.

Crowder’s demonetization was an escalation of ongoing controversies over bias at Google generally and YouTube in particular. Previous YouTube targets included Dennis Prager’s PragerU educational videos, the pro-life group Live Action, Christian author Dr. Michael Brown, and a recent interview between Catholic evangelist Patrick Coffin and LifeSiteNews co-founder and editor-in-chief John-Henry Westen.

A recent Northwestern University study found that the Google Search engine tilts its news results heavily in favor of left-wing sources. In April, documents revealed that Google manually manipulates search results and even maintains a blacklist of certain conservative sites.

Featured Image
LifeSiteNews staff

News,

Announcing a new daily show: Mother Miriam Live! Launching June 17th

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

June 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – We are excited to announce the launch of Mother Miriam Live, a daily show bringing you inspiration and solutions for life’s many challenges.

The show, available in both video and audio format, is co-produced by LifeSite and Station of the Cross Catholic Radio Network.

Starting June 17, you will be able to watch Mother Miriam’s show live on her Facebook page. Afterwards, the recording will be available on LifeSiteNews, on the show's YouTube channel (in video format), and the show's podcast page (in audio format).

Mother Miriam grew up in a Jewish household and later embraced Jesus. Her conversion took her from a successful business career to full-time Evangelical Protestant ministry, earning a Master’s degree from Talbot Theological Seminary, and later brought her to the Catholic Church. 

Listen to this exclusive interview on The John-Henry Westen Show in which Westen and Mother Miriam speak about her journey to Catholicism and discuss the launch of her show, Mother Miriam Live, on LifeSiteNews. We are excited to introduce you to such an inspiring and enlightening woman.

Join Mother Miriam daily as she unwraps timely Old and New Testament passages and common questions about the faith. By listening to Mother Miriam Live you will deepen your understanding of our Catholic faith. You won’t want to miss out on Mother Miriam’s great solutions for life’s many challenges.

The show will kick-off Monday, June 17th at 10 am EST/8 am PST and will continue every weekday from 10 - 11 am EST/8 - 9 am PST.

We’ve created a special email list for the show so that we can notify you every day when we post the recordings. Please sign up now by clicking here. You can also subscribe to the YouTube channel, and you’ll be notified by YouTube when there is new content (make sure to also click the bell to enable notifications). 

Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin

News,

Men taking women’s hormones massively increase risk of breast cancer, study finds

Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

June 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Gender-confused men who take the hormone estrogen to “transition” into a female “identity” are dramatically increasing their risk of breast cancer, according to a recent study by Dutch researchers.

According to the National Breast Cancer Foundation, only one out of every 1,000 men is diagnosed with breast cancer. But the study, published in the British Medical Journal and conducted by researchers at VU University Medical Centre in Amsterdam, found that “trans women” – men – on hormone therapy were more than 46 times more likely to suffer the disease, MedPage Today reports. Gender-confused women taking testosterone to “transition” to men, meanwhile, were nearly 60 times more likely to develop breast cancer.

The study followed adult patients at the VU University Medical Centre’s Amsterdam clinic, which treats over 96 percent of gender-confusion cases in the Netherlands. 2,260 gender-confused men and 1,229 gender-confused women were observed.

“This suggests that hormone treatment alters the risk of breast cancer in transgender people compared with initial risk based on their birth assigned sex,” the researchers stated. While the likelihood dramatically rose, the researchers stressed that the absolute numbers remained small: 18 cases out of 2,260 “trans women,” and four cases out of 1,229 “trans men.” 

Still, they recognized that the study indicated that current cancer screening recommendations are insufficient for the gender-confused.

“Current recommendations suggest that trans women and trans men who have not undergone mastectomy should be biennially screened with mammography from the age of 50 years and if they are using hormone treatment for more than five years,” the researchers said. Mammograms aren’t viable after subcutaneous mastectomies, so they advised that “trans men” conduct self-exams – while warning they had “no evidence for effectiveness.”

Other research indicates that transgender hormone therapy carries other risks, particularly among minors.

Last year, the Annals of Internal Medicine published a study finding that transgender “women” (men) on hormone therapy were 80 to 90 percent more likely to experience a stroke or a heart attack than actual women. Other studies have found that even full so-called gender reassignment surgery often fails to resolve gender-confused individuals’ heightened tendency to engage in self-harm and suicide.

Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin

News,

180 US companies declare new laws banning abortion are ‘bad for business’

Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin
By Martin Barillas

NEW YORK, June 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Twitter/Square CEO Jack Dorsey joined more than 180 other U.S. CEOs in a campaign organized in part by abortion-giant Planned Parenthood to declare that newly enacted abortion restrictions in various states go “against the values of their companies” and are “bad for business.”

Appearing today as a full-page ad in The New York Times under the heading “Don’t Ban Equality,” Dorsey and CEOs from corporations such as Yelp, Slack, Tinder, Ben & Jerry's, H&M, Glossier, and The Body Shop signed a letter stating that laws restricting abortion inhibit “our ability to build diverse and inclusive workforce pipelines, recruit top talent across the states, and protect the well-being of all the people who keep our businesses thriving day in and day out.”

The letter declared that "it's time for companies to stand up for reproductive health care," while arguing that restricting abortion threatens "the health, independence, and economic stability of our employees and customers." Such laws, the letter says, are "against our values, and is bad for business.”

Abortion claims the lives of an estimated 880,000 human lives each year in the U.S. alone. The letter represents an estimated 108,000 workers. This means that for every worker represented by the letter are 8 preborn babies who have been destroyed by abortion. 

The campaign is the brainchild of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Center for Reproductive Rights. They joined with DontBanEquality.com, where business leaders can add their names to the pro-abortion missive. 

In a statement, NARAL president Ilyse Hogue thanked the execs for "taking a stand on behalf of their employees, customers, and communities." She added, "We encourage the entire business community to join us in protecting access to reproductive health care in the critical months and years to come." 

The letter comes on top of a similar full-page ad in The New York Times that asserted that abortion is an essential human right. It was signed by female CEOs of seven companies including Thinx, Sustain Natural, and LOOM. Pressure came from various media giants, including Disney, WarnerMedia, and Netflix after Georgia passed heartbeat legislation, threatening to pull their operations from the state if the law goes into effect. “I think many people who work for us will not want to work there, and we will have to heed their wishes in that regard,” Disney CEO Bob Iger told Reuters. “Right now we are watching it very carefully.”

Less than one month ago, Republican Gov. Kay Ivey of Alabama signed legislation that bans most abortions, while establishing a 99 year sentence for those who commit abortion. Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana and Missouri have passed similar legislation this year. 

Featured Image
Sophie Lewis, author of 'Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family' YouTube screenshot
Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin

News, , ,

Feminist author: Abortion ‘is a form of killing that we need to be able to defend’

Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin
By Martin Barillas

June 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Abortion “is a form of killing that we need to be able to defend,” a leftist author has argued, calling it “acceptable violence.”

Sophie Lewis, who teaches at the Brooklyn Institute for Social Research, touts her book Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family as a radical feminist defense of abortion and maternal surrogacy. She argues that more paid maternal surrogacy is needed.

While calling for the abolishing of the family, she refers to motherhood as “gestational labor.” In videos released by leftist publisher Verso, Lewis said, “We need to move away from the focus on abortion as just a form of healthcare, or arguments around when human life begins, and defend abortion as a right to stop doing gestational work.”

Abortion and the abolition of the family can be used to destroy capitalism, she asserts.

Echoing the concern felt by abortion advocacy groups such as Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the Democratic party, Lewis said, “We're facing a really terrifying attack on abortion.” The publication of her book came just weeks after significant legislation protecting babies with detectable heartbeats was passed in several states, including Georgia and Alabama.

Lewis said that in years past, abortion advocates have tended to use strategies that “included a kind of ceding of ground to our enemies.”

“We tend to say that abortion is ‘indeed very bad, but’ or we say, ‘Luckingly, it's not killing; luckily, it's just a healthcare right.’”

Revealing how concerned abortion advocates are about the possibility of a reversal of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court imposing abortion on demand on the U.S., Lewis said that her side has “very little to lose at the moment when it comes to abortion and I'm interested in winning radically.” Lewis wonders if fellow radical feminists might want to promote abortion by viewing motherhood as “gestational work,” while likening the “acceptable violence” of abortion to workers going on strike.

Lewis goes on to admit, “Abortion is, in my opinion – and I recognize how controversial this is – a form of killing. It is a form of killing that we need to be able to defend. I am not interested in where a human life starts to exist.” She said that a mother’s nurturing of an infant in utero is accompanied by “violence” committed by unborn.

“But looking at the biology of the hemochorial placentation helps me think about the violence that, innocently, a fetus metes out vis-a-vis a gestator,” she said. “That violence is an unacceptable violence for someone who doesn't want to do gestational work. The violence that that gestator metes out to essentially go on strike or exit that workplace is an acceptable violence.”

Surrogacy and the abolition of the family

Identifying the practice of maternal surrogacy (women who are contracted to bear children for others) as a $1 billion industry, Lewis argues that it should not be allowed to continue as it is. Rather, it should be radically transformed. The rights of surrogate “gestators” should be expanded, in her view, to acknowledge that they are more than mere vessels of unborn babies. By doing so, the identity and relationship of children to their biological parents is broken down. According to the publisher, “expanding our idea of who children belong to would be a good thing.” A “collective responsibility for children” in place of the natural family based on DNA would “radically transform notions of kinship” and promote the idea that it “takes a village to raise a child.”

Echoing Karl Marx’s call for the abolition of the family, Lewis said of the place of family in the social order: “Capitalism and capitalist states rely heavily on the family as a unit of social discipline, social order, austerity.” Abolishing the family, Lewis said, is about proliferating “relationships of care” beyond the biological ties in traditional families to “xeno-fam” relationships envisioned by radical feminists that are made on the basis of choice. She said that feminists have identified the family as the site of “the overwhelming majority of the rape and abuse that takes place on earth.”

“Comradeliness” and “xeno-fam,” Lewis said, are better alternatives to the natural family.

Lewis holds a PhD in human geography from the University of Manchester, awarded for a thesis “within the antiwork communist tradition as well as historical materialist geographies concerned with the production of nature.” Titled “Cyborg Labor,” it “examined the semiotic and political economy of the contract pregnancy industry.”

Featured Image
Addison Woosley
Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa

News, ,

WATCH: Adults shout down 13-year-old comparing abortion to slavery, but she keeps going

Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa
By Lisa Bourne

June 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – A 13-year-old girl’s plea to end abortion in her city at a recent city council meeting was met with shouts, jeers, and tears, as citizens reacted to her comparing abortion to slavery.

Addison Woosley, 13, spoke during the June 4 Raleigh, North Carolina city council meeting, at one point having to raise her voice over jeers from the audience, the Charlotte Observer reports, some of whom took issue with her recalling past injustices against African-Americans.

Woosley did not mince words when asking city leaders to make abortion illegal in Raleigh. 

“I strongly believe that abortion is murder,” Woosley said. “I also believe murder is wrong, so I’m here to ask you to make abortion illegal here in Raleigh.”

“Abortion should be illegal because it’s murder,” she said. “The definition of murder is the killing of one human being by another without justification and often with intended malice.”

“When mothers choose to slaughter their innocent babies,” said Woosley, “they already have fingerprints, noses, they can recognize their mom’s voice, they can hiccup, and their heart is beating.”

“There’s no way around it,” the teen stated. “Abortion is murder.”

“So why is it,” she asked, “if an infant is destroyed before birth, there’s no problem, but if killed after birth it’s considered a brutal murder?”

The meeting was at least the third time that pro-life supporters had asked the council to make Raleigh a “sanctuary city for the unborn,” the Observer report said.

Parts of the crowd, some who attended to request extra police oversight, interrupted Woosley and other pro-life speakers, taking issue with their alleged speaking on behalf of black people and women. 

“Abortion reminds me of slavery,” said Woosley. “Owners said that their slaves were their property and they could do whatever they wanted with them, just how moms say about their babies.”

She added, “My hope is that in a few years we’ll look back at abortion and think, ‘That was so cruel, I can’t believe we did that, just how we all look back at slavery.’”

As Woosley continued as the shouts escalated.

“The question is, who will you be, the slave owner, the man nailing the ‘whites only’ sign on the water fountain, Rosa Parks, or Abraham Lincoln?” queried Woosley. “Who are you going to be?”

“Make a choice,” she said. “Are you choosing to be like the plantation worker flogging the little black child or are you going to protest even if it costs your life like Martin Luther King, Jr.?”

“If you think abortion should be legal would you please stand up?” exhorted Woosley. “We need to change the law to change the world, so let’s stand up and do it.”

A woman in the audience repeatedly shouted, “Y’all are so disrespectful. Let black people speak for black people when we are in the room. We can speak for ourselves.”

“You are a black man,” the woman then said to Mayor Pro Tem Corey Branch. “You need to stand up and recognize.” 

Branch called for order continually before the crowd quieted.

“So, yes, I am a black man,” he said. “And, yes, everyone who signs up has a right to speak. That is the rule of the land. I can’t come up here and say you can speak or you can’t speak.”

He cautioned people to address their comments to the council and not others in the audience.

Some of the other pro-life speakers had been shouting back at those interrupting Woosley, according to the Observer.

A man filmed a woman sitting near the pro-lifers with his cell phone. She flipped him off, stating, “right here, pal,” before police removed her out from the room. The woman was later allowed to return. 

There were a number of children with the pro-life speakers, and one boy cried in his seat as people yelled at each other. 

The final pro-life speaker, David Buboltz, wore a shirt with an unborn child on it that read, “I am going to be murdered tomorrow!”

Council member Stef Mendell turned her chair away from Buboltz as he spoke.

As he concluded his comments, she left the room, telling the press after the meeting she didn’t “appreciate being preached to” and that she thinks abortion should be rare, safe, and legal. Outlawing abortion will mean illegal abortions that are more dangerous, Mendell claimed.

“It is a free country and everyone has the right to speak and say what they want to say,” she said. “But by the same token I have the right to not listen to what I don’t want to.”

On April 18, North Carolina Democrat Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed legislation that would have required abortionists to give basic medical care to newborns who survive failed abortions, days after the measure passed the state legislature.

The North Carolina Senate approved Senate Bill 359 on April 15 and the state House approved it the following day.

The law would have required infants born alive after attempted abortions to be guaranteed the “same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility.” Violators would have been guilty of a Class D felony and face a fine of up to $250,000.

Featured Image
United States flag hung at the balcony of US Embassy in Bratislava, Slovakia. Shutterstock.com
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin

News, , ,

Trump admin bans rainbow flags above US embassies, reverses Obama policy

Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

June 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – The Trump administration is denying requests from United States embassies across the world to fly rainbow flags in recognition of LGBT “pride” month. Several embassies, however, are finding other ways to sport rainbow imagery.

Last week, three U.S. diplomats told NBC News that the administration has denied requests from embassies in Brazil, Germany, Israel, and Latvia to raise the rainbow flags on the building’s official flagpole. Diplomats are still allowed to display the flag elsewhere, including on embassy walls and inside buildings.

The rejections came from the office of State Department Undersecretary for Management Brian Bulatao, and the requirement to seek permission first marks a reversal of the Obama administration giving embassies full permission and discretion to fly rainbow flags during June.

Given President Donald Trump’s mixed record on LGBT issues, most recently his endorsement of LGBT Pride Month on May 31, the directive appears to be less about rejecting the homosexual agenda than it is about reserving the official flagpole for the nations being represented.

"The President's recognition of Pride Month and his tweet encouraging our decriminalization campaign gives me even more pride to once again march in the Berlin Pride parade, hang a huge banner on the side of the Embassy recognizing our pride, host multiple events at the Embassy and the residence, and fly the gay pride flag," U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, a homosexual conservative, said Friday. A spokesman for the German embassy added, "the pride flag will be on as many places as it can at the Embassy."

Diplomats at several embassies have found ways to defy or sidestep the directive, the Washington Post reports. Those in South Korea and India have draped LGBT flags over their building facades, the one in New Delhi illuminated the building in rainbow lights, and several others released photos and videos of staffers themselves demonstrating for “pride.”

“This is a category one insurrection,” one unnamed diplomat told the Post.

While Trump’s pro-life record has largely pleased conservatives, his record on LGBT issues is more mixed. He has defended religious adoption agencies, opposed gender ideology in the military, public schools, and homeless shelters, and staffed his administration with various pro-family leaders.

On the other hand, Trump has nominated a variety of pro-LGBT figures to judgeships and other government posts, and continued a number of Obama-era pro-LGBT policies, such as an executive order on “gender identity nondiscrimination.” He also declared after the 2016 election that the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling forcing all fifty states to recognize same-sex “marriage” was “settled law.”

Featured Image
Nick Bell
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire

News, ,

Meet the pro-life maverick running for Virginia office on an anti-infanticide platform

Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire
By Claire Chretien
Image
Screenshot of Vivian Watts' website saying she believes 'when life begins' is a 'decision' people can make (www.vivianwatts.com/views/Human%20Services, accessed June 10, 2019 at 12:01 p.m. EST)
Image
Screenshot of Vivian Watts' website with her late-term abortion support highlighted (www.vivianwatts.com/views/Human%20Services, accessed June 10, 2019 at 12:01 p.m. EST)

FAIRFAX COUNTY, Virginia, June 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Horrified by a narrowly defeated infanticide bill the governor of Virginia infamously defended, 32-year-old Nick Bell is running for the commonwealth’s 39th House District as an “unrelenting opponent” of “efforts to normalize infanticide and abortion up until the moment of dilation.”

“We’re basically ancient Sparta, leaving kids to die,” Bell said.

“When that infanticide bill was considered and barely overturned this year, that’s when I thought, ‘Wow, this is messed up. How did my delegate vote?’ And so, that’s when I saw that she was one of three people in the subcommittee who voted for it, and so that’s what got everything started,” Bell told LifeSiteNews.

So, he quit his job working for the federal government and began campaigning full-time on an aggressively pro-life platform.

The infanticide bill was introduced by Delegate Kathy Tran and would have allowed abortion even as a woman was in labor – something she admitted during a subcommittee hearing.

Gov. Ralph Northam, a former pediatric neurologist, then defended the bill.

“So in this particular example, if the mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen: The infant would be delivered; the infant would be kept comfortable; the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desire, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” he said.

Bell’s opponent, incumbent Del. Vivian Watts, supported Tran’s infanticide bill when it was in subcommittee and has a long history of supporting abortion.

“She voted against every single version” of Virginia’s Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, a law passed in 2003 that prohibits killing babies born alive after failed abortions.

“That bill says, ‘okay, if a baby is born alive, you…can’t kill it. You can’t make a positive act to kill it,’” Bell explained. “Now, that allows for some loopholes because when Governor Northam [basically] said ‘oh, you let the baby die. Let it be comfortable and let it die’ – he knows the law…the law says you can’t make a positive act to kill the baby.”

Bell wants Virginia to enact a law mandating “the doctor has to take steps to save the baby” if a baby survives an abortion.

Constituents in the 39th district have “responded amazingly,” Bell told LifeSiteNews. “A lot of people are stoked and fired up…I think the grassroots is very upset.”

“Once people find out how extreme the Democrats are on this, then…it’s gonna be hard for them” to maintain voters’ support.

Watts was elected to the General Assembly in 1982; she served until 1985. She was elected again in 1996.  

“I believe the very complex decision of when life begins should be a personal choice,” Watts declares on her website. “I will continue to defend that position in all of the challenging and complex ways that it comes before the Virginia General Assembly...I believe the very complex decision of when life begins is deeply personal, moral decision.”

Watts also promises on her website she “will continue to vote against bills to bar late term abortions.”

Watts promises on her website she “will continue to vote against bills to bar late term abortions.”

“To stop state sponsored infanticide, the pro-life movement must remove Democrats, like Vivian Watts, who support infanticide from office,” Sean Fieler, Chairman of the American Principles Project, told LifeSiteNews. “Nick Bell [clearly] understands this and has made Vivian's support of infanticide the focal point of his campaign against her. If Nick wins this fall, we can expect both state and federal candidates to challenge pro-infanticide Democrats in 2020.”

Late-term abortions usually involve injecting babies who could survive outside the womb with digoxin, which causes a heart attack, and then delivering them stillborn. Abortions committed on babies between 13 and 24 weeks old usually are done by dismembering the child in the womb. First trimester abortions are done by giving a mother a pill that blocks the baby from getting progesterone, the hormone that allows her to receive nutrition and hydration from her mother. Another pill then causes contractions and then the baby is expelled from the womb. Other first trimester abortions vacuuming the preborn baby from the womb.

Bell says although no debate has been planned yet, he’s open to one. He also noted his pro-life beliefs come from the science of embryology.

“The science is extremely on our side,” he said. “At 10 weeks there’s a fetal heartbeat. The baby can feel pain as early as 10 weeks. It has all the genetic material from conception.”

And even though Bell’s primary issue is stopping infanticide and abortion – “the motivator [to run] was the extremism of the Democrats on this issue” – he says if elected he is ready to address other issues, too.

“I have a solid transportation plan. I’m going to be talking about education.”

Another position he’s taken is opposing corporate political donations.

“I don’t think that’s right,” he said.

‘It’s smart politically to focus on this issue’

Soft-spoken and easygoing, Bell grew up in his district. He attended W.T. Woodson High School and then The College of William and Mary.

“I went to the Dominican Republic as a missionary for six months in 2010,” he told LifeSiteNews. He also lived in Spain “teaching English as a day job” and playing semi-professional basketball at night.

The person who’s had the biggest impact on his life is his dad, Jeff Bell, who was also involved in politics. He was “a very strong Catholic,” Nick, who is the second-born out of four, recalled. When his father died in February 2018, it “was really tough, unexpected. He didn’t have any signs of heart problems.”

“It’s been really tough but I think he’s helping me from heaven with this campaign,” said Nick.

Bell has raised $40,000 for his campaign. He has raised another $20,000 in pledges. He is collecting an army of volunteers.

“I think this race is important because a lot of the other delegates in Virginia are not speaking out on this issue,” he said. “The typical orthodoxy is, ‘let’s not talk about abortion. Stay away from it.’”

But “whatever your views on abortion, this is about killing babies that are literally already born or about to be born…it’s smart politically to focus on this issue.”

“To see if I can beat a Democrat in a blue district, running really hard against infanticide and against late-term abortion, it’s gonna be a great test case to see whether this strategy works [for other Republicans] going into 2020,” he said.

Featured Image
antoniomas / Shutterstock
Raymond Ibrahim

News, , , ,

Muslims destroying Christian crosses all over the world, and no one reports it

Raymond Ibrahim
By Raymond Ibrahim

June 10, 2019 (American Thinker) — A Muslim migrant in Rome recently stabbed a Christian man in the throat for wearing a crucifix around his neck. The assailant, a 37-year-old Moroccan, is accused of attempted homicide; "religious hate" is cited as an "aggravating factor" in the crime.

This is hardly the first "religious hate" crime to occur in the context of the cross in Italy. Among others,

What is it about the crucifix that makes some Muslims react violently? Islamic hostility to the cross is an unwavering phenomenon — one that crosses continents and centuries, one that is very much indicative of Islam's innate hostility to Christianity.

For starters, not only is the cross the quintessential symbol of Christianity — for all denominations, including most forms of otherwise iconoclastic Protestantism — but it symbolizes the fundamental disagreement between Christians and Muslims. As Professor Sidney Griffith explains, "[t]he cross and the icons publicly declared those very points of Christian faith which the Koran, in the Muslim view, explicitly denied: that Christ was the Son of God and that he died on the cross." Accordingly, "the Christian practice of venerating the cross ... often aroused the disdain of Muslims," so that from the start of the Muslim conquests of Christian lands there was an ongoing "campaign to erase the public symbols of Christianity, especially the previously ubiquitous sign of the cross."

This "campaign" traces back to the Muslim prophet Muhammad. He reportedly "had such a repugnance to the form of the cross that he broke everything brought into his house with its figure upon it," wrote one historian (Sword and Scimitar, p. 10). Muhammad also claimed that at the end times, Jesus (the Muslim "Isa") himself would make it a point to "break the cross."

Modern-day Muslim clerics confirm this. When asked about Islam's ruling on whether any person — in this case, Christians — is permitted to wear or pray before the cross, Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Tarifi, a Saudi expert on Islamic law, said, "Under no circumstances is a human permitted to wear the cross," nor "is anyone permitted to pray to the cross." Why? "Because the prophet — peace and blessings on him — commanded the breaking of it [the cross]." 

Islamic history is a reflection of these sentiments. For instance, the aforementioned Sheikh al-Tarifi also explained that if it is too difficult to break the cross — for instance, a large concrete statue — Muslims should at least try to disfigure one of its four arms "so that it no longer resembles a cross." Historic and numismatic evidence confirms that, after the Umayyad caliphate seized the Byzantine treasury in the late seventh century, it ordered that one or two arms of the cross on the coins be effaced so that the image no longer resembled a crucifix (Sword and Scimitar, p. 54).

Testimonies from the very earliest invasions into Christian Syria and Egypt of Muslims systematically breaking every crucifix they encountered abound. According to Anastasius of Sinai, who lived during the seventh-century Arab conquests, "the demons name the Saracens [Arabs/Muslims] as their companions. And it is with reason. The latter are perhaps even worse than the demons," for whereas "the demons are frequently much afraid of the mysteries of Christ," among which he mentions the cross, "these demons of flesh trample all that under their feet, mock it, set fire to it, destroy it" (Sword and Scimitar, p. 27).

Reminiscent of the recent drawing of a cross in fecal matter on a French church, in 1147 in Portugal, Muslims displayed "with much derision the symbol of the cross. They spat upon it and wiped the feces from their posteriors with it." Decades earlier in Jerusalem, Muslims "spat on them [crucifixes] and did not even refrain from urinating on them in the sight of all." Even that supposedly "magnanimous" sultan, Saladin, commanded "whoever saw that the outside of a church was white, to cover it with black dirt" and ordered "the removal of every cross from atop the dome of every church in the provinces of Egypt" (Sword and Scimitar, pp. 171, 145, 162).

Lest Muslim hostility to the cross still seem aberrant — limited to some obscure saying of Muhammad or "ancient history" — below is a very partial list of examples of how the crucifix continues to throw even "everyday" Muslims into paroxysms:

Egypt: A young Coptic Christian woman named Mary was mauled to death when her cross identified her as a Christian to Muslim Brotherhood rioters. Similarly, 17-year-old Ayman, a Coptic student, was strangled and beaten to death by his Muslim teacher and fellow students for refusing to obey the teacher's orders to cover his cross.

Pakistan: When a Muslim man saw Julie Aftab, a Christian woman, wearing a cross around her neck, he attacked her, forced battery acid down her throat, and splashed it on her face — permanently damaging her esophagus, blinding her in one eye, and causing her to lose both eyelids and most of her teeth.

Turkey: A 12-year-old boy in Turkey wearing a silver cross necklace in class was spit on and beaten regularly by Muslim classmates and teachers.

Malaysia:Christian cemetery was attacked and desecrated in the middle of the night by unknown persons in the Muslim-majority nation. Several crosses were destroyed, including by the use of "a heavy tool to do the damage." Separately, a Muslim mob rioted against a small Protestant church due to the visible cross atop the building of worship. It was quickly removed.

Maldives: Authorities had to rescue a female Christian teacher after Muslim "parents threatened to tie and drag her off of the island" for "preaching Christianity." Her crime was to draw a compass — which was mistakenly taken for a cross — as part of a geography lesson in class.

As Islam's presence continues to grow in Europe, it should come as no surprise that attacks on crosses are also on the rise. Aside from the aforementioned attacks in Italy, the following occurred either in France and Germany, where attacks on churches and crosses have become endemic:

  • A Muslim man committed major acts of vandalism at two churches, including by twisting a massive bronze cross. 
  • Christian crosses and gravestones in a cemetery were damaged and desecrated by a Muslim.
  • A Muslim man who checked himself into a hospital for treatment went into a sudden frenzy because there were "too many crosses on the wall." He called the nurse a "b----" and "fascist" and became physically aggressive. 
  • After Muslims were granted their own section at a cemetery, and after being allowed to conduct distinctly Islamic ceremonies, these same Muslims began demanding that Christian symbols and crosses in the cemetery be removed or covered up during Islamic funerals.
  • A German-language report notes that in the Alps and in Bavaria alone, some 200 churches have been attacked and many crosses broken: "The perpetrators are often youthful rioters with a migration background."

Such is the history and continuity of Islamic hatred for the cross — that symbol that represents the heart of the Christian faith, namely the death and resurrection of Christ, two events Islam vehemently denies. 

The jihad on the cross began with Muhammad, was carried out by early caliphs, and continues to this day by jihadis of the world, not to mention the occasional "everyday" Muslim.

For more on the long history of jihad on the Christian cross, see the author's recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West.

Published with permission from the American Thinker.

Featured Image
Police carry Will Goodman out of Women's Health Center of Flint Martin Barillas / LifeSiteNews
Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin

News,

UPDATED: 4 pro-lifers facing charges for ‘resisting arrest’ inside abortion center

Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin
By Martin Barillas
Image
Police carry Patrice Woodworth out of Women's Health Center Martin Barillas / LifeSiteNews
Image
Police placed Lauren Handy on hot asphalt Martin Barillas / LifeSiteNews

Update June 10, 2019, 2:19 p.m. EST: The rescuers are being charged with disturbing the peace, trespass, and resisting arrest. Resisting arrest is likely due to the rescuers' practice of passive resistance.

FLINT, Michigan, June 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Four peaceful pro-life activists were jailed Friday and charged after their arrest inside an abortion facility in Michigan, facing a heavy police presence while they sought to counsel women against abortion and offer them red roses and practical help.

They are being charged with, in addition to trespassing and disturbing the peace, a count of resisting arrest. 

This was the latest Red Rose Rescue, a Mary Wagner-inspired revival of the “rescue” tactic that was successful during the early days of the pro-life movement. Before former President Bill Clinton signed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), pro-life activists would refuse to leave abortion facilities, sometimes even chaining themselves to abortion equipment. The FACE Act increased legal penalties for people who block abortion facility entrances, among other things.

This is the first Red Rose Rescue that has resulted in such charges. No Red Rose Rescues have resulted in charges under FACE, however.

At the Women’s Health Center of Flint, four rescuers – Will Goodman, Patrice Woodworth, Lauren Handy, and Matthew Connolly – entered the building at approximately 8:30 a.m. on Friday, bringing informative materials to share with the mothers inside. According to a woman (who did not wish to be identified) who had an appointment at the facility, there were approximately six mothers in the waiting room. She told LifeSiteNews that when the rescuers made themselves known, the abortion staffers whisked the mothers further inside and barred anyone from entering.

The unidentified woman said that a female staff member, who was wearing black scrubs, cursed and shouted at the rescuers in the waiting room. The staffer also touched and shoved the rescuers, according to the witness.

Inside the entrance of Women’s Health Center, LifeSiteNews spoke to Goodman. Wearing a red t-shirt bearing the title “Lifeguard,” Goodman said that he was willing to be arrested while providing information and prayerful witness. A veteran of pro-life action, Goodman said that he was inspired by Canadian pro-life advocate Mary Wagner, who has spent various stints in prison for interrupting the practice of killing unborn babies.

As a woman arrived at the office, Goodman told her, “Love is the solution. God is love. You don’t have to kill your baby. We can help.” Goodman said that, in his experience, giving information to expectant mothers as they come to abortion centers has deterred some of them from going through with the procedure. He offered a rose to one of the staff members, who rejected it.

Woodworth told LifeSiteNews that she wants to rescue women and babies from abortion, having experienced an abortion when she was 14 years old. She said that she felt abandoned at the time by family members, but now wants to offer help and her presence to women who feel lost.

“Some of them don’t know what to do,” said Woodworth, referring to women seeking abortion. Sharing information about the risks of abortion, and providing alternatives, is what her group wants to do, said Woodworth. “But I’d like to talk about Mother Theresa, who went anywhere to show love to the unwanted before they died. We are doing something similar.”

“We are here to show love for the babies before they die. We are here for them, and to recognize their humanity.”

Through the glass of the locked door of the abortion center, three rescuers could be seen praying and singing hymns. There were two women in the waiting room who had appointments; they subsequently left.

Woodworth was kneeling in prayer when a state police trooper arrived.

“I understand what you’re trying to do here,” the trooper said. “But you’re trespassing and you need to go off private property to protest.” Within 15 minutes, other law enforcement units arrived. Officers from the Michigan state police, Genesee County Sheriff’s office, and Flint Township police arrived. There were approximately 12 officers on the scene. Officer J. Stokes of Flint Township told this LifeSiteNews correspondent to leave the property, ostensibly for his own “protection.” The correspondent left under protest.

Within minutes, officers entered the abortion facility and began lifting the four rescuers out of the office to the waiting vehicles. The first was Goodman, followed by Woodworth and Handy. Handy was carried out by several officers and placed on the hot asphalt pavement while officers prepared to put her in a waiting vehicle. She audibly prayed throughout the ordeal.

In an interview with Monica Miller, also of the Red Rose Rescues, Handy complained that officers grabbed the scarf she was wearing in order to lift her. As for Goodman, he told Miller that officers used an unnecessary hold during the arrest, wrenching and injuring one of his hands. The four rescuers were taken to the city jail in Flint. They are prepared to refuse bail when they face arraignment in court.

Miller told LifeSiteNews that the four rescuers were taken to the Genesee County jail and were arraigned Sunday before Magistrate Rhonda Carey on trespass charges. On Monday, Miller told LifeSiteNews that Woodworth was bonded out over the weekend. She said that Handy, for reasons she does not yet know, was divested of her clothing and given a blanket to cover herself in a solitary cell. Handy may be bonded out of jail on Monday. The two men, Goodman and Connolly, remain in jail for the time being. The four rescuers will face a pre-trial hearing in the 67th District Court of Genesee County.

Miller explained that in addition to taking action at abortion facilities, her group has offered assistance to mothers that has included adoption referral, diapers, food, and housing subsidies. A former professor of theology at Madonna University in Livonia, Michigan, she has long been involved in the pro-life movement. She told LifeSiteNews that she spoke with at least two women outside of the abortion center, giving them her contact information while counseling them on alternatives to ending the lives of their unborn children. Unfortunately, on Monday, Miller encountered one of the two women who had decided after all to abort her baby.

Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Diane Montagna Diane Montagna Follow Diane

News, ,

Vatican releases new doc on ‘gender theory’ in schools, urges ‘path of dialogue’

Diane Montagna Diane Montagna Follow Diane
By Diane Montagna

ROME, June 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — The Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education has released a new document on “gender theory”  in schools, urging a “path of dialogue.”

Published on June 10, the 31-page document is titled “Male and Female He Created Them”: Towards a Path of Dialogue on the Question of Gender theory in Education.

In introducing the new document, the Congregation for Catholic Education says it “wishes to offer ...some reflections which, it is hoped, can guide and support those who work in the education of young people, so as to help them address in a methodical way ... the most debated questions around human sexuality.” 

The methodology it proposes is based on “three guiding principles” which it says appear “best-suited to meet the needs of both individuals and communities: to listen, to reason and to propose.” 

Adopting an approach to gender theory that is “based on the path of dialogue,” the Congregation says the document is “intended for the educational community involved in Catholic schools, and for all who, animated by the Christian vision of life, work in other types of schools.”

It is “offered for use by parents, students, school leaders and personnel, bishops, priests, religious, ecclesial movements, associations of the lay faithful, and other relevant bodies.”

The document provides notable reference to Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI, while also drawing upon the excyclicals and addresses of Pope Francis. It first offers a historical overview of the development of gender theory, highlighting “points of agreement” as well as a “critque” of the ideology. It then offers some “considerations on the issue based on the light of reason.” 

Affirming that “the Church, mother and teacher, does more than simply listen,” the document then presents a series of proposals regarding Christian anthropology, the family, school, society, and forming formators, before offering its conclusions.

The full document may be read in full here. LifeSite will offer fuller analysis shortly.

Featured Image
Cardinal Raymond Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider speak in 2016 at a conference held in Rome by the Lepanto Foundation. Jan Bentz / LifeSiteNews
Diane Montagna Diane Montagna Follow Diane

News,

Cdl Burke, Bp Schneider issue ‘declaration of truths’ to correct rampant ‘doctrinal confusion’ in Church

Diane Montagna Diane Montagna Follow Diane
By Diane Montagna

ROME, June 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Cardinal Raymond Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, together with several other bishops, have issued a public declaration of truths of the faith to remedy the “almost universal doctrinal confusion and disorientation” endangering the spiritual health and eternal salvation of souls in the Church today.

PETITION: Support Senior Cardinals' and Bishops' Declaration of Truths Amid Confusion in Universal Church. Sign the petition here.

Some of the 40 truths which are elucidated in the declaration implicitly reference statements made by Pope Francis, while others relate to points of confusion that have arisen or intensified during the current pontificate. Still others address moral errors in society that are gravely harming lives, as much of the hierarchy stands by.

The eight-page document (see full text below), released in several languages on Pentecost Monday, June 10, is entitled Declaration of the truths relating to some of the most common errors in the life of the Church of our time.

The declaration upholds the Church’s perennial teaching on the Eucharist, marriage and priestly celibacy.

Also included among the truths of the faith is that “hell exists” and that human souls who are “condemned to hell for any unrepented mortal sin” suffer there eternally; that the “only religion positively willed by God” is that born in faith in Jesus Christ; and that “homosexual acts” and gender reassignment surgery are “grave sins” and a “rebellion” against divine and natural law. 

Signatories of the declaration include: Cardinal Raymond Burke, Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta; Cardinal Janis Pujats, Archbishop emeritus of Riga, Latvia; His Excellency Tomash Peta, Archbishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana, Kazakhstan; Jan Pawel Lenga, Archbishop-Bishop emeritus of Karaganda, Kazakhstan; and Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana.

Explanatory note

In an explanatory note replete with references to St. Paul, the Church Fathers and the documents of Vatican II, the Cardinals and Bishops write that the Church is experiencing one of the “greatest spiritual epidemics” in her history, and a “widespread lethargy in the exercise of the Magisterium on different levels of the Church’s hierarchy in our days.”

“Our time is characterized by an acute spiritual hunger of the Catholic faithful all over the world for a reaffirmation of those truths that are obfuscated, undermined, and denied by some of the most dangerous errors of our time,” they say. 

The prelates argue that the faithful feel “abandoned,” finding themselves in a “kind of existential periphery” and that such a situation “urgently demands a concrete remedy.” The public declaration of truths they have signed, they add, cannot be further delayed. 

Aware of their “grave responsibility” as bishops to teach the “fullness of Christ” and “speaking the truth in love,” they say the declaration is being published in a “spirit of fraternal charity” and as a “concrete spiritual help” so that bishops, priests, religious and laity might confess “either privately or publicly” these truths that today are “mostly denied or disfigured.” 

While the signatories do not specify what form such public professions might take, one might reasonably imagine they could include a bishop making a profession in his cathedral, a priest making a profession in his parish, a religious superior making a profession in their monastery or friary, or a lay group making a profession at a public event or on the internet. 

“Before the eyes of the Divine Judge and in his own conscience, each bishop, priest, and lay faithful has the moral duty to give witness unambiguously to those truths that in our days are obfuscated, undermined, and denied,” the signatories write.

Exhorting Catholic bishops and laity to “fight the good fight of the faith” (1 Tim. 6: 12), the signatories say they believe “private and public acts of a declaration of these truths” could be the beginning of “a movement” to confess and defend the truth — and to make reparation for “hidden and open sins of apostasy” committed by clergy and laity alike.

The signatories note, however, that “such a movement will not judge itself according to numbers, but according to the truth.”

“God does not delight in numbers, (Or. 42:7),” they write, quoting St. Gregory of Nazianzus, who lived amid the doctrinal confusion of the Arian crisis.

Released one day after Pentecost, the declaration also stresses the power of the “immutable Catholic Faith” to unite the members of Christ’s Mystical Body across the ages.

It emphasizes that the truths of the faith are not contrary to pastoral practice but are pastoral by their very nature because they unite us with Christ, who is Truth Incarnate. 

The declaration thus implies that disguising the truth or making one’s private opinion to be doctrine is very unpastoral; and that confusing others, scandalizing them by watering down the faith, or seeming to contradict Catholic tradition is not helpful for people’s spiritual or emotional lives.

Taking up the words of St. Augustine, the signatories note that standing on “the pastoral watch-tower”  is the particular task of bishops.

“A common voice of Shepherds and the faithful, through a precise declaration of the truths will be without any doubt an efficient means of a fraternal and filial aid for the Supreme Pontiff in the current extraordinary situation of a general doctrinal confusion and disorientation in the life of the Church,” they write.

The bishops and cardinals emphasize that the declaration is being issued “in the spirit of Christian charity.” Quoting St. Paul, they note that such charity is shown by caring for “the spiritual health both of Shepherds and faithful, i.e., of all the members of Christ’s Body.”

The signatories conclude by entrusting the declaration of truths to “the Immaculate Heart of the Mother of God under the invocation ‘Salus populi Romani’ (‘Salvation of the Roman People’),” given the “privileged spiritual meaning which this icon has for the Roman Church.”

As a sign of this entrustment, the declaration and explanatory note are dated May 31, 2019 — the liturgical feast of the Visitation in the new calendar, the feast of Our Lady Virgin and Queen in the old calendar, and the optional feast of Our Lady Mediatrix of all Graces.

Learn more about Cardinal Burke’s views and past actions by visiting FaithfulShepherds.com. Click here.

The Declaration  

The declaration of truths is composed of four parts: Fundamentals of Faith (1-2), The Creed (3-11), The Law of God (12-29) and The Sacraments (30-40).  

The first part, on the “Fundamentals of Faith,” addresses attacks against the Church’s infallibility and the problem of doctrinal relativism, i.e. belief that the meaning of Catholic doctrine changes or evolves, depending on the historic age or circumstances.

Referencing the First Vatican Council’s dogmatic constitution on the Catholic Faith, Dei Filius, it states that the “right meaning” of expressions like “living Magisterium,” “hermeneutic of continuity,” and “development of doctrine” includes the truth that “whatever new insights may be expressed regarding the deposit of faith, nevertheless they cannot be contrary to what the Church has always proposed in the same dogma, in the same sense, and in the same meaning” (1).

Quoting a document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it adds that “the meaning of dogmatic formulas remains ever true and constant in the Church, even when it is expressed with greater clarity or more developed.” It adds that the faithful must therefore “shun” the opinion that dogmatic formulations cannot “signify truth in a determinate way” or that these dogmatic formulas are only indeterminate “approximations” of truth (2).

The second part, on “The Creed,” dispels the error that “God is glorified principally by the very fact of the progress in the temporal and earthly condition of the human race” (3). It also states that Muslims and other non-Christians do not adore God in the same way as Christians, as Christian adoration is a supernatural act of faith (5). It further states the goal of “true ecumenism” is that “non-Catholics should enter that unity which the Catholic Church already indestructibly possesses” (7). 

Part II on the Creed also affirms explicitly that “hell exists and those who are condemned to hell for any unrepented mortal sin are eternally punished there by Divine justice.” It therefore rejects the theory of “annhilism” which claims that the damned will cease to exist after the final judgement rather than suffering everlasting torment in hell. 

In a clear reference to the controversial declaration which Pope Francis signed in Abu Dhabi, stating that the “diversity of religions” is “willed by God,” Part II also states that “The religion born of faith in Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God and the only Savior of humankind, is the only religion positively willed by God.” 

The Pope has said privately and subsequently at a Wednesday general audience that the Abu Dhabi declaration’s controversial statement refers to the “permissive” will of God, but there has been no official correction of the document.

The third part of the declaration, on the “Law of God,” is devoted to truths of the Catholic moral tradition. In this third section, the cardinals and bishops reaffirm the Church’s teaching, as expressed by Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor, that Christians are obliged to “acknowledge and respect the specific moral precepts declared and taught by the Church in the name of God.” Based on the same encyclical, they reject the notion that “deliberate choices of kinds of behavior contrary to the commandments of the Divine and natural” law can somehow be justified as “morally good” (13).

Again, citing John Paul II (Evangelium vitae), the cardinals and bishops reaffirm that divine revelation and natural law include “negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid certain kinds of action, inasmuch as these kinds of action are always gravely unlawful on account of their object” (14), i.e. intrinsically evil acts. They add, therefore, that the opinion is “wrong” that says that “a good intention or a good consequence is or can ever be sufficient to justify the commission of such kinds of action” (15).

In a series of points, the signatories then reiterate the Church’s teaching that abortion is “forbidden by natural and divine law” (16); that “procedures which cause conception to happen outside of the womb are morally unacceptable” (17); and that “euthanasia” is a “grave violation of the law of God,” since it is the “deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person” (18).

The declaration also devotes several points to marriage. It reaffirms that “by divine ordinance and natural law,” marriage is “an indissoluble union of one man and of one woman” which is “ordained for the procreation and education of children” (19-20). 

It reasserts that “by natural and divine law no human being may voluntarily and without sin exercise his sexual powers outside of a valid marriage” (20), e.g. through pre-marital relations, co-habitation. It adds that it is “contrary to Holy Scripture and Tradition to affirm that conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage with each other, can sometimes be morally right or requested or even commanded by God, although one or both persons is sacramentally married to another person (see 1 Cor 7: 11; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 84).

Citing Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae, it reiterates the Church prohibition against contraception, stating that “any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means” (21). 

In a clear reference to confusion arising after the promulgation the summary document on the family synod, Amoris Laetitia, the declaration also reasserts that those who obtain a civil divorce from a spouse to whom they are validly married and enter into a second union, living “in a marital way with the civil partner” with full knowledge and consent, “are in a state of mortal sin and therefore cannot receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity” (22).

Regarding homosexuality, the signatories reaffirm with Scripture and tradition that “two persons of the same sex sin gravely when they seek venereal pleasure from each other (see Lev 18:22; Lev 20:13; Rom 1:24-28; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:10; Jude 7) and that homosexual acts “under no circumstances can be approved” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357) (23). 

It therefore adds that it is “contrary to natural law and Divine Revelation” to say that “as God the Creator has given to some humans a natural disposition to feel sexual desire for persons of the opposite sex, so also He has given to others a natural disposition to feel sexual desire for persons of the same sex, and that God intends that the latter disposition be acted on in some circumstances” (23).

Regarding so-called same-sex “marriage,” the cardinals and bishops state that no “human law” nor “any human power whatsoever,” can “give to two persons of the same sex the right to marry one another or declare two such persons to be married, since this is contrary to natural and Divine law” (24).

Concerning gender theory, the declaration reaffirms that “the male and female sexes, man and woman, are biological realities created by the wise will of God.” It therefore terms gender reassignment surgery a “rebellion against natural and divine law” and a “grave sin.”

Part III of the declaration ends by reasserting the Church’s teaching on the legitimacy of the death penalty (28) and reaffirming her teaching on the social Kingship of Christ (29).

Finally, Part IV of the declaration, on the Sacraments, reasserts the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation (30); on the nature of the Holy Mass as “a true and proper sacrifice is offered to the Blessed Trinity and this sacrifice is propitiatory both for men living on earth and for the souls in Purgatory” (32); on the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist; and on the essential difference between the ordained priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful (34).

Regarding the Sacrament of Penance, it reaffirms the teaching of the Council of Trent that this sacrament is “the only ordinary means by which grave sins committed after Baptism may be remitted, and by Divine law all such sins must be confessed by number and by species”  (see Council of Trent, sess. 14, can. 7). It also states that by divine law “the confessor may not violate” the seal of Confession, nor may any “ecclesiastical authority” or “civil power” oblige him to do so (36).

It further specifies that “by virtue of the will of Christ and the unchangeable Tradition of the Church, the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist may not be given to those who are in a public state of objectively grave sin, and sacramental absolution may not be given to those who express their unwillingness to conform to Divine law, even if their unwillingness pertains only to a single grave matter (see Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 4; Pope John Paul II, Message to the Major Penitentiary Cardinal William W. Baum, on March 22, 1996).”

The declaration concludes by reaffirming that priestly celibacy “belongs to immemorial and apostolic tradition according to the constant witness of the Fathers of the Church and of the Roman Pontiffs” (39). In an apparent reference to the upcoming Amazonian Synod, it therefore states that priestly celibacy “should not be abolished in the Roman Church through the innovation of an optional priestly celibacy, either at the regional or the universal level” (39).

Finally, citing Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the declaration of truths concludes by reaffirming the male-only Catholic priesthood: “whether in the episcopacy, the priesthood, or the diaconate.”

Read the full Declaration in PDF form HERE. Read the explanatory note below, or in PDF form HERE. The Declaration first appeared in the National Catholic Register.

 

Explanatory note to the
“Declaration of the truths relating to some of the most common errors
in the life of the Church of our time”

In our time the Church is experiencing one of the greatest spiritual epidemics, that is, an almost universal doctrinal confusion and disorientation, which is a seriously contagious danger for spiritual health and eternal salvation for many souls. At the same time one has to recognize a widespread lethargy in the exercise of the Magisterium on different levels of the Church’s hierarchy in our days. This is largely caused by the non-compliance with the Apostolic duty - as stated also by the Second Vatican Council - to “vigilantly ward off any errors that threaten the flock” (Lumen gentium, 25).

Our time is characterized by an acute spiritual hunger of the Catholic faithful all over the world for a reaffirmation of those truths that are obfuscated, undermined, and denied by some of the most dangerous errors of our time. The faithful who are suffering this spiritual hunger feel themselves abandoned and thus find themselves in a kind of existential periphery. Such a situation urgently demands a concrete remedy. A public declaration of the truths regarding these errors cannot admit a further deferral. Hence we are mindful of the following timeless words of Pope Saint Gregory the Great: “Our tongue may not be slack to exhort, and having undertaken the office of bishops, our silence may not prove our condemnation at the tribunal of the just Judge. (…) The people committed to our care abandon God, and we are silent. They live in sin, and we do not stretch out a hand to correct.” (In Ev. hom. 17: 3. 14)

We are aware of our grave responsibility as Catholic bishops according to the admonition of Saint Paul, who teaches that God gave to His Church “shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love” (Eph. 4: 12-16).

In the spirit of fraternal charity, we publish this Declaration of truths as a concrete spiritual help, so that bishops, priests, parishes, religious convents, lay faithful associations, and private persons as well might have the opportunity to confess either privately or publicly those truths that in our days are mostly denied or disfigured. The following exhortation of the Apostle Paul should be understood as addressed also to each bishop and lay faithful of our time, “Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 6: 12 - 14).

Before the eyes of the Divine Judge and in his own conscience, each bishop, priest, and lay faithful has the moral duty to give witness unambiguously to those truths that in our days are obfuscated, undermined, and denied. Private and public acts of a declaration of these truths could initiate a movement of a confession of the truth, of its defense, and of reparation for the widespread sins against the Faith, for the sins of hidden and open apostasy from Catholic Faith of a not small number both of the clergy and of the lay people. One has to bear in mind, however, that such a movement will not judge itself according to numbers, but according to the truth, as Saint Gregory of Nazianzus said, amidst the general doctrinal confusion of the Arian crisis, that “God does not delight in numbers” (Or. 42:7).

In giving witness to the immutable Catholic Faith, clergy and faithful will remember the truth that “the entire body of the faithful cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural discernment in matters of faith, when from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals” (Second Vatican Council, Lumen gentium, 12).

Saints and great Bishops who lived in times of doctrinal crises may intercede for us and guide us with their teaching, as do the following words of Saint Augustine, with which he addressed Pope Saint Boniface I, “Since the pastoral watch-tower is common to all of us who discharge the office of the episcopate (although you are prominent therein on a loftier height), I do what I can in respect of my small portion of the charge, as the Lord condescends by the aid of your prayers to grant me power” (Contra ep. Pel. I, 2).

A common voice of the Shepherds and the faithful through a precise declaration of the truths will be without any doubt an efficient means of a fraternal and filial aid for the Supreme Pontiff in the current extraordinary situation of a general doctrinal confusion and disorientation in the life of the Church.

We make this public Declaration in the spirit of Christian charity, which manifests itself in the care for the spiritual health both of the Shepherds and of the faithful, i.e., of all the members of Christ’s Body, which is the Church, while being mindful of the following words of Saint Paul in the First Letter to the Corinthians: “That there might be no division in the body, but the members might be mutually careful one for another. If one member suffers any thing, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and individually members of it” (1 Cor. 12: 25 - 27), and in the Letter to the Romans: “As in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office: So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. And having different gifts, according to the grace that is given us, either prophecy, to be used according to the rule of faith; or ministry, in ministering; or he that teaches, in doctrine; he that exhorts, in exhorting; hating that which is evil, cleaving to that which is good. Loving one another with the charity of brotherhood, with honor preventing one another. In carefulness not slothful. In spirit fervent. Serving the Lord” (Rom. 12: 4 - 11).

The Cardinals and Bishops who sign this “Declaration of the truths” entrust it to the Immaculate Heart of the Mother of God under the invocation “Salus populi Romani” (“Salvation of the Roman People”), considering the privileged spiritual meaning which this icon has for the Roman Church. May the entire Catholic Church, under the protection of the Immaculate Virgin and Mother of God, “fight intrepidly the fight of the Faith, persist firmly in the doctrine of the Apostles and proceed safely amidst the storms of the world until she reaches the heavenly city" (Preface of the Mass in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary “Salvation of the Roman people”). 

May 31, 2019

Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta
Cardinal Janis Pujats, Archbishop emeritus of Riga
Tomash Peta, Archbishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana
Jan Pawel Lenga, Archbishop-Bishop emeritus of Karaganda
Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

Featured Image
Sarah Quale

Opinion, , , , ,

How libraries are being used to corrupt children and what you can do about it

Sarah Quale
By

June 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Underneath what the pro-life movement calls “the culture of death” is a dark, tangled mess of spiritual brokenness. The symptoms of this brokenness—whether they present as abortion, euthanasia, fractured families, human trafficking, pornography, homosexuality, or gender dysphoria—reveal to us the presence of a much larger sickness and a much bigger target. They show us the tragic consequences of sin and of rejecting God’s design for the human person. To destroy the human made in the image of God—to destroy inherent value, dignity, and thus, personhood—the Enemy must systematically dismantle each of God’s design elements—life, marriage, family, sexuality, and gender (Genesis 1:26-28). What we are witnessing everywhere in our culture today is a direct assault on these elements. 

PETITION: Tell U.S. libraries to stop pushing 'drag queens' on our kids! Sign the petition here.

Much of this destructive work has been accomplished over the last century in America, but the goal of the new sexual revolution raging around us today is to finish the job. This battle has erupted in a rather unlikely place, at least for those who still view America’s traditional institutions with hope and nostalgia. A small library in a southern Maryland town provides some insight into how this battle has advanced, who’s behind it, how it’s funded, and how local communities can effectively respond.

Discovery and exposure

The Lexington Park Library in St. Mary’s County, Maryland, first came under fire in March of 2017 when local homeschool mom, Georgia Kijesky, discovered that several libraries were planning to host a graphic sex-ed workshop for 12–17-year-old children. The workshop was co-sponsored by the libraries and the Southern Maryland Area Secular Humanists (SMASH). It was promoted as strictly kids-only and led by Bianca Palmisano, a Planned Parenthood-certified sex educator, author of Safer Sex for Trans Bodies, and founder of Intimate Health Consulting. As a result of Kijesky’s efforts to expose the workshop and pressure the county commissioning boards, the St. Mary’s County Library Board of Trustees cancelled the workshop at Lexington Park and issued a press release. However, SMASH later revived the effort, and the workshop was held without official library sponsorship.

Fast forward to September, 2017, when Kijesky discovered the sexually explicit instruction manual, The Little Black Book for Girlz: A Book on Healthy Sexuality, presented alongside similar books in Lexington Park’s teen section. The display was part of Banned Books Week—an annual event organized by the American Library Association to combat censorship. Kijesky again took her concerns to a St. Mary’s County Board of Commissioners public forum, which triggered a larger effort to change the way the library board of trustees is governed and held accountable to the taxpayers. More on that later.

A few years before Kijesky’s exposure of her local library’s involvement in LGBTQ activism, San Francisco was birthing a new phenomenon that she would eventually come face to face with: The drag queen story hour (DQSH). According to Drag Queen Story Hour, the non-profit group that jumpstarted the initiative, bringing costumed drag queens into libraries to read to young children and their parents “captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models.” DQSHs have expanded into Drag 101—workshops that "demonstrate the art of creating a character, costuming, and applying makeup" to tweens and teens. As the movement has grown, serious controversy has erupted in small-town America. 

The backlash and the money trails

DQSHs and Drag 101 events have seen a sustained backlash of petitions and protests from Christian communities, resulting in cancellations in several states, including Ohio, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Kentucky. The events have sometimes served as doorways for sex offenders to gain access to children, made evident by recent reports in Texas and Ohio, where library board officials revealed there were no background checks in place to vet any of the performers.

Some of these events are paid for by the libraries themselves, through funds provided by the American Library Association (which stem from taxpayer-funded federal grants). Libraries also use state and local taxpayer money to host and promote the events. In other instances, the events are privately funded, but most event sponsors take advantage of federal grants from the CDC for comprehensive sex education and HIV prevention. In these cases, community healthcare organizations and LBGTQ-advocacy groups use CDC grant money to bring the events into libraries. An example of this relationship was recently uncovered in Ohio, when Equitas Health used part of its HIV prevention grant from the CDC to support a Drag 101 event at the Licking County Library. The event was promoted as a “safe-sex for teens” workshop by the Newark Ohio Pride Coalition. It was cancelled after a large public outcry led to the Ohio House Speaker’s involvement in shutting it down.

When communities across the United States first became aware of DQSHs, the media reported the backlash surrounding the events, and the events themselves, as isolated and disconnected. Only now are we beginning to see the movement’s intentional progress over time. But missing from this overarching storyline are the deep alliances forged between the LGBTQ community and the American Library Association (ALA), which has received over $20 million in taxpayer money over the past 10 years. 

Not isolated, but organized

The backbone of the LGBTQ community’s alliance with the American library system is firmly structured within the massive ALA organization, including, but not limited to, the:

The roundtable provides tools and resources to promote acceptance of the LGBTQ lifestyle through the American library system and recommends reading lists for libraries with “significant gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or queer/questioning content, aimed at children and youth from birth to age 18.” These reading materials, when challenged by parents like Kijesky, are defended by the other parts of the system, under the banner of anti-censorship. 

To answer the backlash over DQSHs and Drag 101 events, the ALA created its #LibrariesRespond campaign to provide policy materials and resources to “defend pride at the local library.” The ALA also released an FAQ on responding to and preparing for controversial events and speakers.

To help librarians promote acceptance of the LBGTQ lifestyle in resistant communities, the ALA published a blog post on how to be a “secret librarian advocate operative.” Suggestions included “sneakily fitting inclusive messages into current reading programs,” taking careful steps to bring Roundtable-approved materials into the library, and inviting local secular humanist, PFLAG, and GLADD chapters to host programs that distort God-designed sexuality and gender. This under-the-radar work is occurring right now in towns all across America. But in Kijesky’s situation in southern Maryland, the battle there has taken a sharp turn.

Loopholes and lawlessness

After the pushback against the sex-ed workshop and the pornographic book display in 2017—events that were defended by the St. Mary’s County Library Board of Trustees—Kijesky and other local activists urged their elected officials to pass House Bill 136 to bring the library board under the governance of the St. Mary’s County Commissioners. Up to that time, the library board was the only board in the county without any external accountability, even though the library is a taxpayer-funded entity. 

Kijesky and others fought hard, but after intense pressure from the Left, the accountability language in HB 136 was gutted, keeping the power solely in the hands of the board members. The citizens of St. Mary’s County continue to have no say and no control over the decisions made by this ungoverned board.

A direct challenge

The St. Mary’s County Library Board of Trustees has since adopted a meeting room policy, based on published ALA strategies, that provides immunity for controversial speakers and events. This policy makes it impossible for community pressure to result in cancellations. Now, SMASH has “reserved a meeting room according to library policy” to bring DQSH and Drag 101 to the Lexington Park Library on Sunday, June 23rd. As of publication of this article, the event has yet to appear on the library’s public calendar

How can the people of southern Maryland respond?

Georgia Kijesky is now the leader of the Personhood Alliance affiliate Personhood Maryland, whose mission is to “engage in activism that preserves and defends the Family and Christianity—both of which are obviously being heavily persecuted in Maryland,” says Kijesky. Plans are underway for a prayer vigil outside the Lexington Park Library on Sunday, June 23rd, along with other efforts to bring light to what’s happened there. “Even though we can’t get this upcoming event cancelled, we can still stay one step ahead,” says Kijesky. “We can educate people on where this movement is headed, and we can organize watchmen here in Maryland to continue to expose the systems put in place to bring these direct, sustained attacks on God’s design.”

What can the average person do?

We now know that holding DQSHs, sex-ed workshops, and other LBGTQ-promoting events at libraries is part of a much larger, taxpayer-funded agenda. So what can the average person do? Here are some actions you can take in your community:

  • Check the following links to see if your state has a chapter of DQSH, PFLAG, the American Humanist Society, Gay-Straight Alliance Network, and Planned Parenthood Generation Action. Subscribe to their email lists so you have advanced knowledge of what’s coming.
  • Not every library advertises DQSH, so look for promotions on local news websites and in community newspapers. Check for flyers posted on community boards in your local coffee shop or grocery store.
  • Find out how your county library board of trustees is governed according to the laws in your state. Understand the chain of command. Know your rights and theirs.
  • If you discover an event, raise awareness in your community. Speak at public forums and city council meetings, create a petition drive, or write a letter to the editor in your local paper.
  • Contact your mayor's office to see if they are willing to help you. If you do not have a mayor, find out which elected officials are responsible for overseeing the library finances and appointing members to the Library Board of Trustees. Get in touch with those officials.
  • Call the library to voice your concerns. Be respectful but firm, and let them know you are mobilizing the community against the event. 
  • Create and hand out flyers outside the library—a few weeks before the event, if possible.
  • If the event is not cancelled, organize a prayer vigil or peaceful protest on the day of the event and pull in your state or local pro-life/pro-family group to help.

What can the Church as a whole do?

Christians must recognize that the gender revolution, like any Progressive social movement, reaches out to remove children from the influence of the Word of God and replace biblical truth with moral relativism.  Relativism is the common thread woven into all efforts to destroy the image of God in the human person. The Witherspoon Institute gives us critical insight here:

Humanity cannot escape the limits inscribed upon it. It is impossible to transgress biological boundaries stamped on human nature without the basic categories of human existence unraveling…There are no boundaries to the sexual and gender revolutions; only the wake of human carnage that results from suppressing the truth.

Some people have a real, painful struggle with their gender and sexuality, not because there is no absolute truth, but because sin has corrupted everything and we must reject it (Romans 6:12). The answer to this struggle with sin is not to suppress the truth and live as we choose. It is to submit to Jesus’s sacrificial act of freeing us from the slavery of sin. It is to bury the old Self and walk transformed into the newness of life (Romans 6:4). It is to walk beside struggling people with both grace and truth, and point them to the only Answer to their pain and confusion.

This is the power of the Gospel.

Sarah Quale is president of Personhood Alliance Education, the educational arm of the Personhood Alliance, and the author of the Foundations online pro-life curriculum. She is a member of the International Christian Visual Media Association and Christian Women in Media and is the founder of Educe® online learning.

Featured Image
Chinese President Xi Jinping. Kaliva / Shutterstock.com
Todd Royal

Opinion,

The West is collapsing, and China and India couldn’t be happier

Todd Royal
By Todd Royal

June 10, 2019 (American Thinker) — China and India will allow the West — led by the United States and the European Union — to destroy themselves through dysfunctional domestic and continent-wide politics. This isn't a Donald Trump or E.U. issue, but electorates having a vague understanding of how societies function, particularly when it comes to energy.

The "Green New Deal" is evident of that fact. The plan has no chance of ever working under current technology and the taxpayer monies available — not to mention that the first "New Deal" was a failure. China and India will allow the U.S., the E.U., NATO, and their Asian allies to "[m]uddle through endemic crises menacing to [their] very existence (e.g., economic stagnation, demographic decline, rising unassimilated Islamic populations in many EU democracies, high taxes, mounting debt and the fiscal unsustainability of Western European social democracy)."

Without energy, you have nothing. China and India understand this better than the West, since their citizenries and leaders view energy through the lens of what will help over two billion combined citizens: join the prosperous, consumer-driven Western world. Most Western, environmentally sensitive nations believe that fossil fuels are evil. Instead, Western countries strive for renewable energy and to be carbon-free. Even if the U.S. were to cut its CO2 emissions "100 percent[,] it would not make a difference in abating global warming."

China and India have never bought into that notion of energy, or economies based on supposedly carbon-free renewables that inspire their nations toward a cleaner world. I wish they would, but that isn't reality. Both countries will continue importing, exporting, and excavating tankers full of coal, oil, and natural gas from countries that are authoritarian human rights–abusers such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Iraq, Nigeria, Angola, and Algeria.

Furthermore, Chinese and Indian politicians, and increasingly African politicians, will never allow lack of pipelines, domestic politics, or sensitivity to Western environmentalists keep them from first-world status enjoyed by the U.S., the E.U., and Asian nations like South Korea and Japan.

Naïve thinking, bordering on Western suicide, reflects that China and India will stop using fossil fuels, led by coal. Each country understands that coal is plentiful ("estimated 1.1 trillion tonnes of proven coal reserves worldwide that at current rates of production will last 150 years"), and it is scalable, reliable, and cost-effective to the end user, with the best energy density of all fossil fuels or renewables available.

China is currently building hundreds of new coal-fired power plants. To counter China, "India has 589 coal-fired power plants, [and it is] building 446 more, bringing [the] total to 1,036." These figures are after both governments signed the Paris Climate Accord and touted their green credentials.

Since the U.S., Russia, China and India have the largest global coal reserves, and each country is vying for geopolitical dominance, they will continue using coal in record amounts. Energy is then a geopolitical weapon. Europe does not understand this fact.

Only Donald Trump seems to have gained clarity on this issue, with the U.S. using its newfound shale oil and natural gas power to its geopolitical and global advantage. Daily global media onslaughts, U.S. Democrats, and NeverTrump Republicans constrain Trump at every turn and facilitate the U.S.'s waning power. China and India sit back and do nothing, knowing that the West is too weak to come to the U.S.'s or Trump's rescue.

Renewable energy advocates can speak, write, and publicly lobby claiming that solar- and wind-produced electricity is the same cost or dropping compared to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear. This claim is false. Renewables cost more to ratepayers and nations compared to fossil fuels or nuclear.

Without having a basic understanding that every single wind turbine and solar panel is intermittent and has to be continually backed -up by fossil fuels, the West is committing environmental degradation and putting itself at risk against China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Based on self-interest rightly understood, India will then choose aligning with countries hostile to Western interests over environmental concerns.

A great power struggle has broken out between the world's largest democracy — India — and the world's largest authoritarian state — China — and whichever country uses the most energy will win Asia for the rest of this century. National security and the competition between them over Asia are at the crux of why they will watch the West destroy its own economies over bad energy policies.

Sure, India and China will use natural gas, nuclear, and oil, but coal is where each economy finds its basic energy resource. Horrible for world emissions, air pollution, and global health, but how do Westerners, the United Nations, and environmental organizations tell both growing countries they cannot have access to the same energy opportunities and growth the West has now had for over seventy years?

It simply won't happen: world health organizations, research universities, think-tanks, and multinational corporations interested in global longevity and clean air should begin working toward clean coal technology.

All great nations, including China and India, view energy as a domain of power. The West already has its power but no longer knows how to use it the way it did during the Cold War. Global warming, abortion, marriage, and renewables versus fossil fuels have overtaken realism in all facets of government, military strategy, and economics, as well as countering the global threats from China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela and North Korea.

Raw, amoral geopolitics that will grow economies, engage realist strategies, house militaries, and feed energy-hungry populations is the new Cold War. Social issues are important, but unless you are talking about the unintended consequences of abortion in the U.S. and China, these issues have no valid correlation within energy geopolitics. Energy and electricity are at the forefront of which ideological viewpoint will win the 21st century.

Accessible energy becomes more important than ever as the competition between China and India heats up. Unless something drastically changes, the West will diminish significantly — ushering in the "Asian century," with China and India biding their time to take over the U.S.-led liberal order that was created after World War II ended.

Published with permission from the American Thinker.

Featured Image
shutterstock.com
Eileen F. Toplansky

Opinion, ,

Going to the movies? You might get jihad propaganda in your previews

Eileen F. Toplansky
By Eileen Toplansky

June 10, 2019 (American Thinker) — Imagine my shock as I sat down in a local movie theater to spend a restful Sunday afternoon, when, during the 15 minutes of coming attractions, the audience was subjected to one of the latest "Secret Life of Muslims" shorts titled, "What is a Hijab?"

The marketing piece is sheer genius. The subtle propaganda was superb — and I sat there realizing that the culture war is being won by the other side, and far too many American people have no idea how they are being readied for dhimmitude.

At the Secret Life of Muslims site, we are told that "one helpful rule for being a Muslim on the internet — [is] don't read the comments." Thus, the viewer is already set up to censor any comments that might be factual about Islam.

The short that I saw features Reza Aslan and Linda Sarsour. This was the first clue as to the insidious nature of this infiltration of American entertainment. 

Reza Aslan was born in Iran on May 3, 1972. His family fled to the United States in 1979, to escape Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian Revolution, and settled in the San Francisco Bay Area. Raised as a Muslim, Aslan converted to evangelical Christianity at the age of 15. After earning B.A. in Religious Studies from Santa Clara University in 1995, he decided to convert back to Islam.

In addition to his academic duties, Aslan serves on the advisory board of the National Iranian American Council, a lobbying group for the theocratic, anti-Semitic government in Tehran. Aslan has exhorted the United States to negotiate with the jihad terror group Hamas; he has praised the Hezbollah as "the most dynamic political and social organization in Lebanon[."]

In September 2015, Aslan told CNN's Anderson Cooper that the modern GOP [Republican Party] today is rife with "xenophobia" and "anti-Muslim bashing."

Aslan has spoken at events sponsored by the Muslim Students Association and at an event co-sponsored by the Los Angeles chapter of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Then there is Linda Sarsour, who is quite comfortable joining with the radical left in the Red-Green alliance of jihadists and left-wing radicals.

Sarsour has condemned the prominent anti-Islamists Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the latter of whom was raised as a Muslim and was subjected to female genital mutilation. 'I wish I could take their vaginas away — they don't deserve to be women,' said Sarsour on March 8, 2011.

In 2013 Sarsour campaigned for New York City mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio. After de Blasio was elected, his office repeatedly featured Sarsour in press releases supporting the mayor's positions on education and other matters. Moreover, his Mayor's Fund pledged $500,000 to Arab American Association of New York (AAANY) in 2016.

In 2013 the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) presented Sarsour with its first "American Muslim of the Year" award. The following year, CAIR invited Sarsour to its 20th Annual Banquet, where she affectionately referred to CAIR executive director Nihad Awad as "Uncle Nihad."

In April 2014, Sarsour celebrated the de Blasio administration's announcement that it was disbanding the NYPD's Demographics Unit, which, in an effort to detect budding terror threats, had been tasked with tracking the daily lives of Muslims and the content of the sermons that were delivered at mosques not only in New York City but in surrounding areas as well (including some mosques in New Jersey).

In a November 2014 tweet, Sarsour derided critics of Sharia Law in Saudi Arabia for "worrying about women driving[.]"

A master of disinformation and misinformation, Linda Sarsour is a media darling.

In a February 2015 appearance on Rachel Maddow's television program, Sarsour lamented that a nationwide epidemic of "Islamophobia" was responsible for "anti-Sharia bills trying to ban [Muslims] from practicing our faith," "mosques being vandalized," and Muslim "kids being executed" in the United States.

In August 2015, Sarsour spoke out in support of the incarcerated Palestinian Islamic Jihad member Muhammad Allan, a known recruiter of suicide bombers, and in October 2015, Sarsour joined Rev. Jeremiah Wright to commemorate anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan's famous Million Man March.

Moreover, "[a]ccording to CounterJihad.com, Sarsour has attended numerous rallies sponsored by Al-Awdapromoted and solicited donations for their events, and ... spoken at their rallies. Sarsour has also solicited donations for the Hamas-affiliated Palestine Children's Relief Fund."

More than once, Sarsour has expressed her support for sharia law and wants it instituted in America. She also claims that modern-day American Muslims suffer much greater hardship and indignity than black slaves ever did in the past.

She has posed with Salah Sarsour, who is closely affiliated with the Holy Land Foundation and was jailed by Israel in the 1990s because of his fundraising activities for Hamas.

In a January 2017 video explaining that the hijab worn by Muslim women is not by any means a symbol of anti-female oppression, Sarsour said: "When I wasn't wearing hijab I was just some ordinary white girl from New York City.' In an April 2017 interview, she identified herself as a woman "of color." She asserts that the root of the problem of terrorism "does not come from within the Muslim community — instead it comes from a politicized foreign policy of war on [her] people."

On August 12, 2017 in Chicago, Sarsour attended a farewell party for Rasmea Odeh, the former Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terrorist who masterminded a 1969 bombing that killed two Jews in a Jerusalem food market, and who was scheduled for imminent deportation from the United States on charges of immigration fraud.

A darling of the Women's March, Sarsour is at the helm of what I call the soft jihadist infiltration of American education and entertainment. These people play on the good nature and open desire of most Americans to be accepting of differences. The only problem is that there is an ugly ulterior motive behind their actions.

Attractive Muslim women are front and center of these entertainment pieces. They cater to the notion of being independent and appeal to the idea of "giving voice to the voiceless." 

But the true "voiceless" are never publicized. The average moviegoer will never know that in sharia-ruled countries, a woman who wishes to dance will be publicly shamed with a televised confession of her alleged crime. The popcorn-eating customer will never learn that Afghanistan publicly lashes women for not being fully veiled; in fact, in April of this year, one woman was so badly beaten that she lost consciousness. An uninformed viewer will never discover that in 2017, Iranian girls and boys were whipped because they had donned Western-style clothing and listened to Western music. Every single girl was whipped with 40 lashes, while the boys each received 50 lashes. 

Despite Muslim representative Ilhan Omar, who asserts that "hijab means power, liberation, beauty and resistance," how many Americans are aware that Aqsa Parvez's Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it? Is the name Amina Muse Ali, a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn't wearing a hijab, known in America? Women in the Islamic Republic of Iran are taking off their hijabs as a sign of resistance to the oppressive sharia regime. At least 29 women have been arrested for doing so.

The hijab is not a sign of anything but oppression and subjugation, and no matter how the organization may prettify this, the Secret Life of Muslims is ultimately devoted to obfuscating this. The goal is to create a global caliphate in America. Moviegoers need to resist this indoctrination and see through the propaganda and lies. 

Eileen can be reached at [email protected].

Published with permission from the American Thinker.

Featured Image
David Horowitz

Opinion,

Democrats want to wreck the Electoral College. That would destroy the USA

David Horowitz
By David Horowitz

June 10, 2019 (American Thinker) — While you were sleeping, the Democrats (abetted by some deviant Republicans) have been working on a plan that would destroy the diversity of the American political system and bring the nation to the brink of civil war. The plan is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and tens of millions of dollars have already been spent over several decades trying to implement it. Fourteen blue states and the District of Columbia have already joined the Compact, which means they are 70% on the way to making their proposal the law of the land.

The Democrats' plan is designed to eliminate the influence of the Electoral College in choosing the nation's president, no doubt because while Hillary won the popular vote, she failed to win the necessary votes in the Electoral College. Eliminating the influence of the Electoral College would end the diversity now embodied in the federal system with its division of powers between Washington and the fifty states. The fact that a party that presents itself as a defender of diversity should be leading the charge to eliminate the nation's most powerful source of diversity should be all that is required to understand the threat its agenda poses to what has been the nation's constitutional way of life for 232 years.

The Electoral College and the division of powers are features of the Constitution. But the National Popular Vote movement does not propose to amend the Constitution because it doesn't have the votes to do that. Instead, in the name of "democracy," it proposes to circumvent the Constitution and its requirement of large national majorities for amending what has been the fundamental law of the land. Think how Orwellian that is, and how concerning it should be for anyone believing that the Founders created the most practical, realistic, democratic, diverse, and successful polity the world has ever seen.

This is how the Democrats' circumvention of the Constitution and its provision for an Electoral College would work. Instead of abolishing the College, which would require the support of two thirds of the states, they are hoping to put together a coalition of states representing 270 electoral votes that would agree to award all their votes to whoever wins the national vote. In other words, if the popular vote is won by 10 votes, every state in the Compact would award 100% of its votes to that party, even if a majority of the voters in the state voted against that party.

The bottom line (and goal) of this devious plan is to eliminate the influence of rural voters or "Middle America" and create an electoral lock for the large urban population centers — e.g., California and New York — which would then decide the direction of the country.

Currently, the Electoral College forces candidates to campaign in states they might otherwise ignore, and thus forces them to compete for diverse constituencies, and therefore to compromise and moderate their positions. It was designed by the Founders to move the country to the center and to prevent an overzealous majority from tyrannizing the minority.

Consider the practical implications of this radical plan to remove an institution that has stabilized our political life for more than 200 years. The urban centers of America, which would become dominant under the plan, are also the centers of America's crime problems and gun homicides, its intractable poverty, its failed public schools, and its political corruption. Do we really want to replicate for all America the failed welfare policies that have created a permanent underclass in cities like Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, and Baltimore?

Or consider California, a one-party state whose government has defied federal law and proclaimed itself a sanctuary for illegal migrants. What will be the consequences for an already deeply divided nation of having an open-borders policy imposed by leftist states led by California and New York on Middle American states who are already fiercely opposed to flooding the country with millions of illegal aliens whom no government agency has vetted? lf New York has legalized the killing of babies already born, how will that go down in states already banning abortions of babies with fetal heartbeats? All the blue states pushing this agenda are fans of the Green New Deal, which focuses on a problem — global warming — that most of the country doesn't consider urgent and calls for crushing new taxes to finance new social giveaways while programs like Medicare and Social Security are already on the brink of bankruptcy. Or consider the Green plan to remove 250 million gasoline-driven automobiles within ten years and replace them with electric cars. If an incredibly costly and unsettling confiscation scheme like this is imposed on the rest of the country, what can we reasonably expect as a reaction?

The Founders' scheme to produce compromise between competing factions and to put checks and balances on radical adventures was never more needed than now, when the country is divided in a way that it has not been seen since the Civil War. But apparently this is the perfect time for an out-of-touch and increasingly out-of-control Democratic Party to undermine the constitutional foundations of the nation, push a divisive agenda, and move the nation toward a one-party state.

David Horowitz is the author of the newly published book Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America.

Published with permission from the American Thinker.

Featured Image
Justice Harry Blackmun (1908-1999) of the U.S. Supreme Court. City of Saint Paul Communications Services / YouTube.
Daniel John Sobieski

Opinion, , ,

The Supreme Court in 1973 knew personhood could kill Roe v. Wade

Daniel John Sobieski
By

June 10, 2019 (American Thinker) — I have often said that said that if ultrasound pictures of the unborn had been available in 1973, the Roe v. Wade decision would have been quite different. It is hard to talk about "lumps of tissue" and "collections of cells" when one can actually see a leg kicking, a hand reaching, a mouth sucking. Or listening to a heartbeat.

Since then, four decades of medical advances have changed the meaning of the word "viable" when applied to the unborn. They should also have changed the meaning of the word "human." Consider the case of the world's tiniest baby born recently weighing just over eight ounces. As the Atlanta Journal Constitution recently reported:

The world's tiniest surviving baby, weighing just 8.6 ounces when she was born in December, went home this month as a healthy 5-pound infant.

The baby, nicknamed Saybie by medical staffers at Sharp Mary Birch Hospital in San Diego, was born there at just over 23 weeks' gestation. Her mother had developed preeclampsia, and doctors decided to perform an emergency cesarean section, according to hospital officials

Saybie, separated from her mother's body, now enjoys the full constitutional protections of personhood. If her mother had not developed her condition, Saybie could have been legally aborted. The question must be answered of when Saybie became a human being. Our humanity and human rights should not be dependent on technology. Pro-abortion advocates are unwilling or unable to define either when life begins or by what mysterious process merely passing through the birth canal bestows humanity and human rights upon us.

This is why Democrats are apoplectic about bills banning abortion when a heartbeat is detected. They fear such bills as attempts to "roll back" Roe v. Wade. If the Supreme Court ever rules that such bans are constitutional, Roe v. Wade is dead, repealed by the establishment of personhood.

Supreme Court justice Harry Blackmun feared such an eventuality in writing the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." [p. 160]

Man's knowledge has developed in the last four decades to the point where life-saving procedures can be performed on the unborn. We are now at the point where that question of when human life can and must be answered, as Justice Blackmun feared it would be one day, ending Roe:

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [p. 156]

This is why Democrats also oppose requiring that a mother requesting an abortion view an ultrasound of her unborn child, which strips away the pro-abortion myth that abortion is of no more consequence than the removal of a mole. Advances in medical technology have shifted the abortion debate in the pro-life direction, and even the liberal media have started to notice.

As Patrina Mosley, Director of Life, Culture, and Women's Advocacy for the Family Research Council, notes:

What Roe. v Wade [sic] couldn't predict was the advancement of scientific technology capable of detecting the intricate design inherent in the unborn child and the astonishing level of development taking place earlier and earlier in the womb[.] ...

In addition, we are now seeing that early-stage embryos with abnormalities can still develop into healthy babies if given the chance to live. Thanks to 4D ultrasound technology, we can see an unborn child at 14 weeks respond to the sound of music. Previously, many believed a baby in the womb could not hear music until 26 weeks.

At 20 weeks we can scientifically prove that a baby has developed a mature enough nervous system to feel pain. The Marist Poll indicates that 63 percent of Americans now support a ban on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and 17 states have already enacted some form of a "Pain-Capable bill" to protect unborn children who are able to feel pain from the brutal abortion methods used at this stage.

Even MSNBC "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough recently had to admit: "You are seeing poll numbers move on abortion for banning abortions after 20 weeks." He went on:

"Why? Because for the past decade, younger Americans have been going in and they have been seeing 3-D imagery where they can look into the womb. If some activist said, 'Your child is a lump,' I must tell you, I've had four kids, I've never once had a doctor go to me, 'we've got your lump, let me show you your lump, look at your lump's profile.' This is an example of science, technology changing that is going to change the politics of abortion. This is an issue that culturally is going to change. Americans, younger voters are going to become more conservative on abortion because they see their child very early on in the womb."

Science is indeed changing the politics of abortion. Blackmun's fears are being realized. The "suggestion of personhood" is being established, and Roe v. Wade will soon join the Dred Scott decision on the ash heap of bad legal precedent. 

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor's Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

Published with permission from the American Thinker.

Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Peter J. Kennedy

Opinion, ,

America’s failure to stand up to socialism might make us the Stupidest Generation

Peter J. Kennedy
By Peter Kennedy

June 10, 2019 (American Thinker) — Seventy-five years ago, our greatest generation stormed the beaches of Normandy to pound the fetid bile out of socialism.

The Stupidest Generation has been honoring that sacrifice with a politically, historically, and philosophically lazy narcissism. Conspicuous consumption became the surrogate for liberty and personal responsibility. We've shown our respect by allowing our constitutional republic to slip perilously close to the rocky cliffs of socialism.

Yes, that socialism.

Time Magazine acknowledged Hitler's magnificent socialist achievements by honoring him as its 1938 Man of the Year. His more Hegelian approach had him blending a state-controlled capitalism with tyrannical dictatorship. Hitler never did like the dull, gray masses produced by Lenin's more Marxist rendition. He did, however, like Lenin's death camps and stole the idea. 

It amazes me that almost none of our best voices points out the very real danger — at least not with any frequency or clarity. We're so focused on getting justice for the crimes committed by the Deep State that we've lost sight of the gigantic socialist apparatus that ties all of this together. From Clinton, Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, and Baker to Obama, Brennan, Clapper, Ohr, Preistap, Yates, Rice, and Lynch (and far beyond), this has been a seditious conspiracy to overthrow the will of the people. 

But why?

Dictatorship. 

Socialists have murdered well more than 100,000,000 innocent folks in the past 102 years, often in ghastly ways. This same form of socialism is alive and well in American politics. It is lying below the surface — and all they allow us to see are its brightly colored deceits. 

Mayor Pete and his daddy love the socialist Antonio Gramsci, who said, "Socialism is precisely the religion which must overwhelm Christianity[.] ... In the new order, socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media by transforming the consciousness of society."

They could not beat us from without, but they are quietly succeeding from within. We are one fraudulent major Democrat election win away from having real justice slip away. Hannity likes to say "we'll lose the country as we know it" — but what does that even mean? 

The reality is that we are in grave danger. For the socialist left, power makes principles, morality, ethics, the law, and even our constitution irrelevant. When they get that power back, folks are going to pay.

Consider that there are at least two major factors in play here: they lust for absolute power, and they wish to bury very real felonies...forever.

Socialism is a horrific political cancer — and we have it. The symptoms are appearing everywhere, but we carry on as if the body politic might just be suffering a bit of a cold. If we don't wake up soon, surely history will look back and deem us "The Stupidest Generation."

Peter J. Kennedy is an American.

Featured Image
British postage stamp commemorating JRR Tolkien's 'The Hobbit.' neftali / Shutterstock.com
William Kilpatrick

Opinion, , ,

JRR Tolkien would have spoken out against Islam taking over England

William Kilpatrick
By William Kilpatrick

June 10, 2019 (Turning Point Project) — Tolkien, the new biopic about the master storyteller's life, has come under criticism for giving the impression that Tolkien's service in World War I was the decisive influence on his work. In fact, Tolkien was far more influenced by other factors — in particular by his love of mythology, and by his strong Catholic faith. Before her untimely death, Tolkien's widowed mother had appointed Fr. Francis Morgan of the Birmingham Oratory to be the guardian of her two sons. As a result, Tolkien spent many hours during his formative years in the rich Catholic culture of the Oratory. With its deep Catholic themes, The Lord of the Rings owes more to Birmingham than to Tolkien's brief experience of trench warfare in France.

The Lord of the Rings is set in mythical Middle Earth, but, metaphorically speaking, Sauron now seems to be quite active in Middle England. The Midlands of England and its capital Birmingham have caught the attention of his all-seeing eye. The kind of struggles that are depicted in the trilogy now seem to be playing out in Tolkien's boyhood home.

What I have in mind is not the struggle to preserve England's green and pleasant land from environmental despoilers. The Birmingham skyline has changed, of course. It now looks like that of any other large metropolis. And much of the shire lands that surrounded Birmingham in Tolkien's youth have been eaten up by urban sprawl. But urbanization is the least of the city's problems.

The spiritual landscape has also changed, and the change has been dramatic. There are now 175 mosques in the Birmingham area, with five in the Edgbaston section where Tolkien spent his teen years. Muslims make up about 22 percent of the population of the city, and, by some estimates, they will be a majority within 20 years. There are already more Muslim children living in Birmingham than Christian children.

Some of the more impatient members of the Birmingham Muslim community aren't waiting for majority status to roll around before they establish control. An investigation by the London Telegraph in 2014 revealed an extensive plot by Muslim teachers, school governors, and activists to take over 21 city schools and Islamicize them. The plot, which was code-named "Trojan Horse" by the conspirators, involved replacing head teachers with radical Muslim faculty, segregating classrooms by sex, and introducing Islamic prayers.

Birmingham has also been touched by the Muslim rape gang epidemic which has ravaged the English Midlands. A 2017 article in Birmingham Live reported "a worrying escalation of the abuse of young schoolgirls, typically aged around 13 to 14." According to the report, gang members were filming and sharing the rapes. Another report revealed that gang members were using tasers on their schoolgirl victims.

It may seem unfair to use Birmingham as an example. After all, as London Mayor Sadiq Khan observed when asked about rising knife and acid attacks in his city, crime is just a part of life in a big city– and Birmingham is the UK's second largest city. To get a truer picture, perhaps we should look at a smaller city.

What about, say, Oxford? It's only the 52nd largest city in the UK. What's more, Tolkien lived and taught there for most of his adult life. It was there that he wrote The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. "Oxford" — the word conjures up scenes of leafy commons, stately buildings, and, for those familiar with the lives of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, it calls to mind a picture of the Inklings meeting weekly in the Eagle and Child pub.

But what of Oxford today? A Gatestone Institute article, titled "British Girls Raped by Muslim Gangs on 'Industrial Scale,'" refers mainly to Oxford and Oxfordshire. Over a fifteen-year period, nearly 400 girls — some as young as eleven — had been sexually exploited by Muslim "grooming gangs." Some of the sexual abuse was extremely violent, and involved beatings, burnings, knives, and baseball bats. How had the gangs managed to operate for so long without the police knowing? The answer is that the police did know. So did other authorities. According to a March 2017 report, local officials had repeatedly ignored the abuse due to a "culture of denial." There must also have been a culture of denial in the Muslim communities as well. Are we supposed to believe that no one knew about the prostitution rings that had been set up in their midst?

A dark shadow is spreading over England, but — although Islamic ideology does legitimize the rape of infidels — this is not strictly an Islamic problem. Muslims make up only 6 or 7 percent of the UK population. The rapid spread of Islamic ideology could not have taken place without the tacit consent of a large number of the other 93 percent.

Betrayal Facilitated by the Ruling Class
The Islamization of England is being facilitated by the usual crowd of politically correct academics and members of the media, as well as by the cowardly compliance of local officials and police. Some of these PC people dimly sense that what they are doing is wrong, but rather than change course, they have adopted a defensive stance and ringed themselves with simple-minded slogans: their critics are "bigots"; the gang members are only a few "bad apples," and, besides, what they do has "nothing to do with Islam"; moreover, the "vast majority" of Muslims are decent, solid citizens, and so on. The point they are trying to make — that not all members of a group think and act alike — is not an especially profound one. But to reassure them that the point is understood, let me add the usual disclaimer: the great majority of Muslims are not rapists or terrorists. By the same token, I should also add that not all British civil servants are cowardly time-servers who hope to retire to Malta before the deluge hits. Still, in both cases there seem to be enough "bad apples" to potentially rot the whole barrel.

The usual response to criticism of Islam is to call such criticism "racist" and "Islamophobic." But, as the bien pensants have not yet figured out, Islam is not a race. It's a religion. The idea that Sauron has come to Middle England is not meant to imply that Muslims are an evil people. It's meant to imply that there is something wrong with their religion as well as with the British authorities who facilitate its spread.

I think Tolkien would have agreed. Although he was an avowed anti-racist, he did believe in evil, and he did not hesitate to condemn the evil ideologies of Nazis and communists. Unlike today's academics, he would also have understood that Islam has been a perennial enemy of Christianity. Indeed, the battles and sieges he describes in his trilogy bear more resemblance to the warfare conducted by Crusaders and Saracens than to the battles fought in the two world wars.

Am I saying that The Lord of the Rings is an allegory about the civilizational struggle between Christianity and Islam? Absolutely not. Tolkien maintained that The Lord of the Rings was not an allegory about anything — not the First World War, nor the Second World War, nor the H-bomb. The struggle that mainly concerned Tolkien was the one "against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Eph. 6:12).

There's no point in trying to make a one-to-one comparison between the events in The Lord of the Rings and ancient battles between Muslims and Christians. It's not that kind of story. This doesn't mean, however, that Tolkien's mythology has no application to the present situation. Since his themes are timeless, it is worth thinking about what they say to all men in all times.

One of the most prominent themes in The Lord of the Rings is betrayal. Among the more important treacheries are the betrayal of Gandalf by Saruman, the betrayal of the Fellowship by Boromir, and the betrayal of Frodo by Gollum.

The story of the Islamization of England has also been one of betrayal. The most obvious example is the betrayal of the many thousands of victims of Muslim rape gangs in the Midlands and other parts of England. In almost all cases, authorities knew about the ongoing exploitation, but did nothing to stop it. Officials in Rotherham ignored the abuse of 1,400 young girls for over a decade, and later explained that they had been afraid of being accused of "racism" and "Islamophobia" had they targeted Pakistani gang members. It's not surprising that when the scandals finally broke, people began to speak openly of the "betrayal" of the girls.

But there was also a larger betrayal. For years, government authorities had winked at forced marriages, polygamy, female genital mutilation, and sharia law courts. For years, they did nothing to stem the flow of Muslim migrants. And for years, Britain's teachers had whitewashed Islam and demonized Christianity. Meanwhile, those who spoke out about the dangers of Islamization — most notably Tommy Robinson — were threatened and even jailed. The betrayal of English values and of ordinary British citizens became so widespread that Paul Weston, a former chairman of the Liberty GB party, began referring to Britain's leaders as the "traitor" class.

"Traitor class" is actually a quite accurate assessment of the many segments of Western society which have, in effect, taken sides with Sauron — that is, with a determined ideological adversary whose values are the inverse of our own. The traitor class work in universities, foundations, media, business, politics, and even in the Church. They do not, of course, consider themselves as traitors. Rather, they see themselves as the enlightened heralds of continual progress.

Betrayal by the Catholic Hierarchy
The betrayal by the Catholic hierarchy is, perhaps, the unkindest cut of all. For decades, these supposed shepherds have been busily opening the gates of the sheepfold to the wolves. They have whitewashed the crimes of Islam, asked us to accept the nonsensical proposition that Islam is a peaceful religion, and promoted and participated in efforts to flood Western countries with unassimilable Muslim migrants. Meanwhile, they have maintained a discreet silence over the slaughter of Christians by Muslims in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.

Betrayal is a constant temptation, even in the type of close-knit societies depicted by Tolkien. But the temptation is more widespread today. Why? Precisely because close-knit societies have largely unraveled. Edmund Burke observed that we learn loyalty in the first place through the "little platoons" — family, church, and local community:

To love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country and to mankind.

When these links are broken, the temptation is to shift one's loyalties to abstract ideologies, or to powerful protectors, or to a combination of both. For a long time now, secular society — particularly through the schools — has sought to weaken our loyalties to the little platoons, and replace them with a new set of loyalties — to "progress," multiculturalism, and global government.

Even the Church has jumped on the bandwagon. Pope Francis, for example, has given many indications that he favors a one-world government based on the model of the UN. At the same time, he has been quick to condemn "nationalists" such as Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini who, in the eyes of Francis, has committed the unpardonable sin of assuming that the first duty of Italian authorities is to protect Italians. Like Burke, but unlike Francis, Salvini seems to believe that the proper way to learn to love mankind is by first learning to love family and country.

In addition to deliberate attempts to subvert the natural order of things, there are other, more impersonal forces which work to undermine our connections to the little platoons. With its many games and distractions, the Internet becomes for many a sort of virtual community. When a child or teenager spends too much time living in this virtual world, his connection to the immediate world of family, friends, and church can fray and even break, leaving him vulnerable to multiple dangerous influences.

For whatever reason, our society has stopped inculcating the shire-like loyalty to the local and particular that form the basis for other loyalties. Moreover, like an immune response gone haywire, our social elites have begun to attack the healthy cells of the body politic. As a result, many have lost the conviction that their own society is worth defending, or that the advance of an alien culture should be resisted.

A devout Muslim's main loyalty is to the ummah — the worldwide Muslim community. It's understandable, therefore, that many Muslims who live in the shires of England — in Shropshire, Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Oxfordshire — should feel little loyalty to the people or values of the counties they live in. It's less understandable that so many native English have also lost their connection to the "local" values that has long sustained their way of life.

As Tolkien understood, the temptation to betrayal is perennial. But the problem becomes more acute when church and society lose the confidence that they have anything of value to defend and pass on. When that happens, the situation is ripe for an invasion. This is why Sauron has been able to so easily move his operation from Middle Earth to Middle England.

This article originally appeared in the May 27, 2019 edition of Crisis. It is published here with permission from the Turning Point Project.

Featured Image
Archbishop Georg Gänswein July 15, 2017. EWTN katholisches TV / Youtube screen grab
Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike

Blogs,

German archbishop: Church must take ‘stronger and more courageous’ stand for truths of faith

Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike
By Maike Hickson

June 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – In a recent speech in front of representatives of the German legal system and of Catholic and Protestant dignitaries, Archbishop Georg Gänswein – the personal secretary of Pope emeritus Benedict XVI – reminded the state representatives of the Christian roots of the German Constitution. At the same time, he stated that the German state is now in the midst of a “departure” from the “original Christian-humanistic worldview and from the natural law,” as can be seen in “same-sex marriages” and in the state's current insistence that the Church should hire “remarried” divorcees.

The archbishop pointed out that those who are living in homosexual relationships or are themselves “remarried” divorcees – and who now feel supported by the state – will finally also have to “turn old one day” and “stand before the last step” and “face God and the final judgment.”

Gänswein argued that the Church's task – and thus the task of all Christians – is to stand up “stronger and more courageously” for the truth of the Faith which once had helped build the German Federal Republic's legal system that has provided an “unprecedented peace under the law.”

“We can speak with the majority,” he explained, “only when it is about the truth, and otherwise we must witness to the truth while being in contradiction.”

Thus, Christians can make a contribution “for another truth, for another viewpoint, for an alternative concept of the essence of man,” in the midst of “relativism or the rejection of religious truths.”

The Archbishop gave his address on June 4 – the vigil of the Feast of St. Boniface, the Apostle to the Germans – in Karlsruhe to some 200 people, among them high-ranking representatives of the legal system in Germany, such as the President of the German Federal Court of Justice, Bettina Limperg, and Stephan Harbarth, the Vice President of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany.

Gänswein claimed that the German state, more and more “urged by a passing materialistic mainstream in public opinion, deals with accidental matters of human existence.” “We, however,” the prelate continued, “have to remain loyal to the essential things and hope thereby to serve, as Christians, our homeland.” 

While Archbishop Gänswein told the state representatives that they are at a “critical juncture” when leaving the very foundation of the German Constitution – namely the Christian worldview and the natural law – he also called upon the Christian representatives among his listeners to “become more Christian.”

The Church, he explained, “has to rediscover afresh her own self and thus her original salvific mission – also for the sake of the common good and for the whole of the secular society.” But the Church seems often to “have lost herself in a strife within the Church, from which even many bishops do not anymore find a way out” and, rather, act themselves “as if they were but politicians from different political parties who aim at winning the next election.” Such bishops do not act any more like “shepherds of that flock which Christ Himself has entrusted to them.”

For Gänswein, not only the state, but also the Church is finding herself at a “critical juncture.” Christians must remind themselves, he said, that the dignity of man stems from his likeness with God. God is the “Alpha of the human dignity.” That means, he explained, “that we also have to seek the proper goal of our pastoral care.” At the center of this pastoral care is to be found the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, of God truly becoming man and showing Himself to us and telling us about the way to God; but it is also important to remember that He will also return to earth.

The German prelate quoted Matthew 25:31-46 in regard to Christ's second coming, stating that the passage "shakes us to the depth of our being,” namely that God “distributes the goods of His Kingdom, as an inheritance to those whom He has recognized as 'pleasing to God.'”

“What you have done to the least of My brethren, you have done to Me,” will be the principle of discernment as to who is pleasing to God, he said. Here, God identifies Himself with the “lowliest” of all people, as He had done already in the Creche and on the Cross. It is this “unfathomable” humility of God that, in a mysterious way, laid the foundation for a civilization that recognizes the dignity of God's creatures, of man, he added.

In order to understand “why people flee to Europe and not to the Arab Emirates or to China,” the prelate continued, “one has to look upon the Child to whom we owe the most important foundation of our Christian world, which has been built so differently, with its social systems, its will for freedom and with its claim of the inviolable human dignity.”

Gänswein said that Europe's civilization, with its many legal and social advantages, is unthinkable without the Christ child in the crib Who came to die so that men and women might have life.

In this sense, Archbishop Gänswein called upon the Catholic Church “once more to make shine her own inmost light, and not only for her own sake, but for the sake of the common good.” While her charitable works are praiseworthy, he stated, “her final reform cannot succeed by becoming more social, more charitable, or even more adapted to the Zeitgeist,” but, rather, solely by “returning – with all of her experience from 2,000 years and with all the force and imagination – back to the essence of her existence,” that is: “eternal life.” This eternal life, Our Lord has opened up for us by His Death and Resurrection.

During his address, Archbishop Gänswein quoted extensively Pope Benedict XVI's own 2011 speech before the German parliament. The Archbishop ended with the following words: “The Omega and goal of the dignity of man, however, is the sanctification of man – and his being with God in eternity. This is the final horizon, in front of which alone our life can succeed.”

Featured Image
Cardinal Raymond Burke
John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry

Blogs,

VIDEO: Highlights from new ‘Declaration of Truths’ correcting common errors of our time

John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry
By John-Henry Westen
Image

ROME, June 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Here are the highlights via direct quotes from the “Declaration of Truths relating to some of the most common errors in the life of the Church of our time.”

Cardinals Raymond Leo Burke and Janis Pujats, Archbishop emeritus of Riga along with Archbishops Tomash Peta and Jan Pawel Lenga and Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan released the declaration this morning.

They say: “In our time the Church is experiencing one of the greatest spiritual epidemics, that is, an almost universal doctrinal confusion and disorientation, which is a seriously contagious danger for spiritual health and eternal salvation for many souls.”

They hope that “private and public acts of a declaration of these truths could initiate a movement of a confession of the truth, of its defense, and of reparation for the widespread sins against the Faith, for the sins of hidden and open apostasy from Catholic Faith of a not small number both of the clergy and of the lay people.”

The document covers many of the least proclaimed and most distorted teachings of the Catholic faith including the need for evangelization of Jews, Muslims, and Protestants. It states plainly that hell is a reality and that people go there for eternity. That Christianity is the only religion willed by God, that Holy Communion is not permitted for divorced and remarried Catholics without an annulment, nor for pro-abortion politicians, nor for Protestants. It covers capital punishment, the all-male priesthood and diaconate, priestly celibacy, abortion, IVF, contraception, euthanasia, homosexuality, transgenderism and much more.

Watch this special episode of The John-Henry Westen Show:

 

Here are my selection of quotable quotes, but please profess, teach and share the full document. (You can find the full text HERE.)

  • (W)hatever new insights may be expressed regarding the deposit of faith, nevertheless they cannot be contrary to what the Church has always proposed in the same dogma, in the same sense, and in the same meaning
  • After the institution of the New and Everlasting Covenant in Jesus Christ, no one may be saved by obedience to the law of Moses alone without faith in Christ as true God and the only Savior of humankind
  • Muslims and others who lack faith in Jesus Christ, God and man, even monotheists, cannot give to God the same adoration as Christians do, that is to say, supernatural worship in Spirit and in Truth of those who have received the Spirit of filial adoption.
  • Spiritualities and religions that promote any kind of idolatry or pantheism cannot be considered either as “seeds” or as “fruits” of the Divine Word, since they are deceptions that preclude the evangelization and eternal salvation of their adherents,
  • True ecumenism intends that non-Catholics should enter… the Catholic Church
  • Hell exists and those who are condemned to hell for any unrepented mortal sin are eternally punished there by Divine justice (see Mt 25:46). Eternally damned human beings will not be annihilated, since their souls are immortal according to the infallible teaching of the Church
  • The religion born of faith in Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God and the only Savior of humankind, is the only religion positively willed by God. The opinion is, therefore, wrong that says that just as God positively wills the diversity of the male and female sexes and the diversity of nations, so in the same way he also wills the diversity of religions.
  • The gift of free will with which God the Creator endowed the human person grants man the natural right to choose only the good and the true. No human person has, therefore, a natural right to offend God in choosing the moral evil of sin, the religious error of idolatry, blasphemy, or a false religion.
  • All of the commandments of God are equally just and merciful. The opinion is, therefore, wrong that says that a person is able, by obeying a Divine prohibition - for example, the sixth commandment not to commit adultery - to sin against God by this act of obedience, or to morally harm himself, or to sin against another.
  • A woman who has conceived a child within her womb is forbidden by natural and Divine law to kill this human life within her, by herself or by others, whether directly or indirectly
  • Procedures which cause conception to happen outside of the womb “are morally unacceptable, since they separate procreation from the fully human context of the conjugal act”
  • No human being may ever be morally justified to kill himself or to cause himself to be put to death by others, even if the intention is to escape suffering.
  • Marriage is by Divine ordinance and natural law an indissoluble union of one man and of one woman
  • By natural and Divine law no human being may voluntarily and without sin exercise his sexual powers outside of a valid marriage.
  • It is, therefore, contrary to Holy Scripture and Tradition to affirm that conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage with each other, can sometimes be morally right or requested or even commanded by God, although one or both persons is sacramentally married to another person
  • Natural and Divine law prohibits “any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means”
  • Anyone, husband or wife, who has obtained a civil divorce from the spouse to whom he or she is validly married, and has contracted a civil marriage with some other person during the lifetime of his legitimate spouse, and who lives in a marital way with the civil partner, and who chooses to remain in this state with full knowledge of the nature of the act and with full consent of the will to that act, is in a state of mortal sin and therefore can not receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity. Therefore, these Christians, unless they are living as “brother and sister,” cannot receive Holy Communion
  • Two persons of the same sex sin gravely when they seek venereal pleasure from each other. Homosexual acts “under no circumstances can be approved”. Hence, the opinion is contrary to natural law and Divine Revelation that says that, as God the Creator has given to some humans a natural disposition to feel sexual desire for persons of the opposite sex, so also He has given to others a natural disposition to feel sexual desire for persons of the same sex, and that God intends that the latter disposition be acted on in some circumstances.
  • Human law, or any human power whatsoever, cannot give to two persons of the same sex the right to marry one another or declare two such persons to be married, since this is contrary to natural and Divine law.
  • Unions that have the name of marriage without the reality of it, being contrary to natural and Divine law, are not capable of receiving the blessing of the Church.
  • The civil power may not establish civil or legal unions between two persons of the same sex that plainly imitate the union of marriage, even if such unions do not receive the name of marriage, since such unions would encourage grave sin for the individuals who are in them and would be a cause of grave scandal for others
  • The male and female sexes, man and woman, are biological realities created by the wise will of God. It is, therefore, a rebellion against natural and Divine law and a grave sin that a man may attempt to become a woman by mutilating himself, or even by simply declaring himself to be such, or that a woman may in like manner attempt to become a man, or to hold that the civil authority has the duty or the right to act as if such things were or may be possible and legitimate.
  • In accordance with Holy Scripture and the constant tradition of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, the Church did not err in teaching that the civil power may lawfully exercise capital punishment on malefactors where this is truly necessary to preserve the existence or just order of societies.
  • All authority on earth as well as in heaven belongs to Jesus Christ; therefore, civil societies and all other associations of men are subject to his kingship so that “the duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially”
  • In the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, a wonderful change takes place, namely of the whole substance of bread into the body of Christ and the whole substance of wine into His blood, a change which the Catholic Church very fittingly calls transubstantiation
  • The sacrament of Penance is the only ordinary means by which grave sins committed after Baptism may be remitted, and by Divine law all such sins must be confessed by number and by species.
  • By Divine law the confessor may not violate the seal of the sacrament of Penance for any reason whatsoever; no ecclesiastical authority has the power to dispense him from the seal of the sacrament and the civil power is wholly incompetent to oblige him to do so.
  • By virtue of the will of Christ and the unchangeable Tradition of the Church, the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist may not be given to those who are in a public state of objectively grave sin, and sacramental absolution may not be given to those who express their unwillingness to conform to Divine law, even if their unwillingness pertains only to a single grave matter
  • According to the constant Tradition of the Church, the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist may not be given to those who deny any truth of the Catholic faith by formally professing their adherence to a heretical or to an officially schismatic Christian community.
  • The law by which priests are bound to observe perfect continence in celibacy stems from the example of Jesus Christ and belongs to immemorial and apostolic tradition according to the constant witness of the Fathers of the Church and of the Roman Pontiffs.  For this reason, this law should not be abolished in the Roman Church through the innovation of an optional priestly celibacy, either at the regional or the universal level.
  • By the will of Christ and the Divine constitution of the Church, only baptized men (viri) may receive the sacrament of Orders, whether in the episcopacy, the priesthood, or the diaconate.
View specific date
Print All Articles