All articles from September 30, 2019


News

Opinion

Blogs

The Pulse

Podcasts


Featured Image
President Trump at a November 5, 2018 rally in Missouri
Stephen Kokx Stephen Kokx Follow Stephen

News , ,

President Trump ‘most pro-life president we’ve ever had’: Catholic priest

Stephen Kokx Stephen Kokx Follow Stephen
By Stephen Kokx

GRAND RAPIDS, Michigan, September 30, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Fr. Frank Pavone believes that President Trump is “the most pro-life president we’ve ever had.”

Pavone made his remarks in an exclusive interview with LifeSiteNews an hour before he took the stage at HELP Pregnancy Crisis center’s fall fundraiser in Grand Rapids, Michigan on September 19. Pavone is a Catholic priest who served on President Trump’s pro-life advisory commission in 2016. He has been the national director of Priests for Life since 1993.

Pavone told LifeSite he believes that “a few of the highlights” of Trump’s “many pro-life accomplishments” include his defunding of Planned Parenthood, appointing pro-life judges, and expanding the Mexico City policy.

“Without a doubt, he has fulfilled what somebody told me during the 2016 campaign ... one of his advisers said to me, ‘If he’s elected, he will do everything that past pro-life presidents have done, and more.’ And that has proven true.”

Pavone told LifeSite pro-lifers are “winning” across the United States thanks in part to the president’s pro-life advocacy. He also said the Democratic Party has moved far beyond Bill Clinton’s “safe, legal, and rare” stance on abortion.

Approximately 400 Christians, including many young families, attended Fr. Pavone’s speech at the HELP Pregnancy Crisis center’s fundraiser later in the day. The primary focus of his address was that there is a “war” going on between the abortion industry and pro-lifers and that they cannot coexist. 

Pavone also stressed in his speech the importance of elections, stating that “the civil rights movement of today is the pro-life movement.” If “we want the right kind of laws, we gotta have the right kind of lawmakers.”

Pavone praised his audience for having voting “the right way” in 2016. Before Donald Trump, Michigan had not previously supported a Republican running for president since 1988. Trump held a rally in West Michigan in March of this year.

Featured Image
Facebook
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin

News , , ,

Trump admin supports Church’s freedom to fire teacher in same-sex ‘marriage’

Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

SIGN PETITION: Support Abp. Thompson for stripping Catholic label from dissident Jesuit school Sign the petition here.

INDIANAPOLIS, September 30, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — The Trump administration’s Department of Justice has come out in support of Archdiocese of Indianapolis’s constitutional right to insist that its employees follow the Catholic faith in a statement about the firing of a homosexual teacher in a same-sex “marriage.”

Joshua Payne-Elliott taught for 13 years at Cathedral High School and renewed his contract on May 21, but he was informed on June 23 that the archdiocese was ordering that he be fired because of his 2017 “marriage” to a male teacher at Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School. Payne-Elliott is seeking damages for compensation and emotional distress, as well as a discrimination complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

He has reportedly arrived at a satisfactory and confidential legal settlement with Cathedral High School but not with the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, which has also forbidden Brebeuf from identifying as Catholic for refusing to dismiss the other teacher.

“In our Catholic schools, all teachers, school leaders and guidance counselors are ministers and witnesses of the faith whose ultimate responsibility is to educate and form students,” the archdiocese declares on its website. “Those who act as ministers of the Catholic Church must uphold the teachings of the Church in their daily lives, both in and out of school. We expect all who sign a ministerial contract do so in good faith.”

On Friday, the Justice Department filed a Statement of Interest in the case in Marion County court supporting the archdiocese, the Associated Press reports. The statement explains that the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes religious organizations’ “independence from secular control or manipulation, in short, power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine,” which in this case bars government from “second-guessing the Archdiocese’s interpretation and application of Catholic law.”

“The First Amendment demands that this lawsuit be dismissed,” the department concludes.

“The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of religious institutions and people to decide what their beliefs are, to teach their faith, and to associate with others who share their faith,” Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband said in a press release. “The First Amendment rightly protects the free exercise of religion.” 

“If the First Amendment means anything, it means the government can’t punish the Catholic Church for saying who is Catholic,” Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel of the religious liberty firm Becket, responded. “This lawsuit fails on so many levels; we’re glad to see the Department of Justice weighing in.”

The Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education, meanwhile, temporarily suspended the archdiocese’s revocation of Brebeuf’s Catholic identity pending a review of the case, which the archdiocese says is standard practice.

LifeSiteNews is currently running a petition in support of Archbishop Charles Thompson for “using [his] authority to teach the faithful — both inside and outside of [his] Archdiocese — about the Church’s fidelity to teaching the young the truth about marriage.”

“If ‘Catholic’ is to mean anything at all, it must mean an adherence to Church teaching on core issues, like marriage,” the petition argues.

Featured Image
Tory M.P. Andrew Scheer.
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne

News , ,

Canadian Conservative leader won’t ban funding abortion overseas if elected

Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence

MONTREAL, Quebec, September 30, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Conservative leader Andrew Scheer indicated that he would not ban Canada’s funding of abortion overseas if elected prime minister next month, according to his remarks quoted in Montreal Sept. 26 newspaper Le Devoir.

Under former prime minister Stephen Harper, the Conservatives refused to fund abortion as part of Canada’s international maternal health aid, but Justin Trudeau’s Liberals overturned that policy with a vengeance after their landslide 2015 victory.

In March 2017, Trudeau announced a $650-million three-year commitment to promote and fund abortion as part of Canada’s international aid, and at this June’s Women Deliver Conference, he announced that the Liberals will increase funds for “international sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health” to $1.4 billion annually by 2023.

In fact, the Trudeau Liberals will spend $7.1 billion of public money by 2030 to promote and fund abortion in the developing world if re-elected this October 21, Campaign Life Coalition’s global policy and research coordinator Emily Price wrote in LifeSiteNews.

But Scheer has not said the Conservative Party will do any differently if it wins the election next month and forms the government.

To the contrary, when asked last Thursday in Montreal if he would restore the Harper policy and nix international abortion funding, Le Devoir reported, Scheer said only: “We are not going to reopen this debate at any level.”

Moreover, the Conservative Party “refused to say whether that meant it was formally committed to continuing to fund abortions abroad,” according to Le Devoir.

Neither Scheer’s office nor the Conservative Party responded to multiple requests from LifeSiteNews on whether or not a Tory government would nix international abortion funding as part of its foreign aid.

Georges Buscemi, president of Campagne Québec-Vie, says that while it is “hard to get much out of a single sentence” in the Le Devoir article, he agreed with its conclusion.

“My interpretation of Scheer’s statement would have to be along the lines of that of the Devoir: ‘We’re not going to reopen that debate at any level’ plainly means, given the context of the statement: ‘We’re not going to defund abortion overseas as Harper did’ (and as [U.S. president Donald] Trump did, with the Mexico city policy) — because that would be tantamount to ‘reopening the debate,’” Buscemi told LifeSiteNews.

“But, [Scheer] can safely pretend he didn’t say that, because he actually refused to say whether he would maintain overseas abortion funding,” he added.

When Trudeau announced his global abortion fund in March 2017, Scheer criticized the Liberals for exporting ideology at taxpayers’ expense.

Scheer reiterated that in a statement Alberta Tory M.P. Garnett Genuis read out on Scheer’s behalf at the 2017 March for Life, in which Scheer said he had “spoken clearly and decisively against” Trudeau’s “spending $650 million tax dollars to export his ideological agenda.”

The Catholic father of five who has voted pro-life in the past said in August that if he becomes prime minister in the October election, he will “oppose” any “measures or attempts” to reopen the abortion debate and other “divisive social issues” such as homosexual “marriage.”

“Canadians can have confidence that these issues will not be reopened under a future Conservative government,” Scheer told reporters.

And while M.P.s can “express themselves on matters of conscience,” Scheer said, he would “ensure” that a Conservative government would not reopen “divisive social issues.”

Buscemi commented that “one senses that Scheer is interiorly conflicted, at least about the loss of support from his pro-life base, should he state plainly that he will adopt a pro-abortion position across the board.”

“Here is a man being pulled apart by competing forces: his conscience and/or concern for his pro-life base is pulling him to one side, political expediency and the pro-abortion media-fuelled zeitgeist pulling him in the other direction,” he said.

“By trying to please both sides, he might just end up alienating both. But on the whole, given this statement, a pro-abortion fiscal conservative who is concerned about Trudeau’s fiscal recklessness but can’t stand social conservatism, would probably have no trouble voting for Scheer,” Buscemi observed.

“Because it seems clear to me that Scheer won’t do much of anything to fight cultural decay, except maybe not accelerate it as quickly as Trudeau has,” he said.

Featured Image
Stella Creasy, M.P. Sky News / YouTube
Society for the Protection of Unborn Children

News ,

Over 800 Northern Ireland health care workers rip UK govt imposing abortion

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

September 30, 2019 (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children) — More than 800 health care professionals have written to the secretary of state opposing the imposition of a radical new abortion regime on Northern Ireland.

The letter is addressed to Julian Smith MP, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and permanent health secretary for Northern Ireland, Richard Pengelley. It has been signed by doctors, nurses and midwives, who say "our consciences demand that we not be silent".

Protect The Most Vulnerable

The medics say that they "wish to make known our opposition to the imminent introduction of abortion in Northern Ireland" and that their "concern throughout is for pregnant mothers and their unborn children".

"The concept of taking a human life at any stage is inimical to us, and the concept of taking a human life in the womb especially so," they wrote.

The group also "appeal to the UK government not to impose this unwanted legislation".

"We appeal to our elected representatives to re-establish a functional Northern Ireland government so that democratic process be restored," they state.

"We appeal to the wider society to consider and reflect on the humanity and value of every life, from conception to death, that the weakest and most vulnerable would be protected and cherished by all."

Fears About Conscience Rights

Dr Andrew Cupples told the Belfast Telegraph that many medical professionals were concerned that they would not have a right to conscientious objection. "We have a lot of Christians who very strongly feel that the unborn child is a human being with value and worth. On the same side we have a strong compassion and a real desire to care for woman in crisis pregnancies.

"At the moment Northern Ireland has the best and most protected care for women and unborn children. On October 22 it will have the worst in western Europe. The unborn child in the womb will have no legal rights up to 28 weeks."

Dr Cupples said there would be a gap of five months before any potential legislation will be introduced to protect midwives and nurses who choose not to be involved in an abortion.

Midwives for Both Lives has also written to Mr Pengelly and Mr Smith. In addition, this pro-life group wrote to the Royal College of Midwives, saying there was "currently no conscientious objection in law in NI for midwives... in contrast to our counterparts in mainland UK who are protected under law and under the NMC code".

The Royal College of Midwives said it was "insisting that... the development of interim guidance and regulation safeguard the right to conscientious objection". However, the RCM is a leading supporter of decriminalising abortion in the UK, a stance it took up under former CEO Cathy Warwick, who was also a trustee of abortion provider BPAS.

She Asked For Medical Opinions...We're Giving Them

Dr Cupples also slammed the lack of consultation with the people of Northern Ireland. "We don't want this brought in. We haven't been asked," he said. "Stella Creasy [Labour MP] who tabled this motion said during the debate that she didn't want to ask the people in Northern Ireland, but she wanted the opinion of healthcare professionals. The healthcare professionals are giving her our opinion. I emailed her last night with this letter and I am awaiting a response."

SPUC is running a petition calling on the DUP, as the main pro-life political party, to do all it can to get Stormont up and running again.

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

Featured Image
Former French President Jacques Chirac's body was received at Saint-Sulpice Church in Paris.
Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent

News , ,

French president who signed abortion law receives public Catholic funeral

Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
By Jeanne Smits

September 30, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Former French President Jacques Chirac, the man who as Prime Minister signed France’s abortion law in 1975, has died at age 86 and received official honors from the French Catholic hierarchy in an official ceremony that took place in Saint-Sulpice, the church being used as a cathedral while Notre-Dame is closed for restoration.

Pope Francis sent an official note of condolences to President Emmanuel Macron, as is customary in these circumstances.

The French bishops’ conference went a step further, adding more personal compliments to the diplomatically inevitable words of sympathy and hope that they must address on the occasion of a former head of state’s death. Its official statement proclaimed:

“President Jacques Chirac left his mark on the French people through his energy, his taste for human contacts, his ability to face adversity. Beyond his political record, throughout his lengthy career, he embodied in a singular fashion a certain French attitude in facing the challenges of the economic crisis, the transformation of the world before and after 1989 in Europe and on other continents, and societal changes made possible and necessary because of technical evolution.

“The French Bishops’ conference will be united to the funeral service of president Chirac, willingly joining his dear ones and all French people in order to commemorate his generous service to his country and to confide him to the light of the God of mercy who sees deep into man’s heart.”

For Catholics in France who are attached to the social and moral teachings of the Church, this was a slap in the face. Chirac’s name will forever be attached with the legalization of abortion, immigrationist measures, the personal and efficacious rejection of having Europe’s Christian roots written into the European constitution, collaboration with socialist politicians, and policies that have left France with a seemingly unsolvable unemployment problem.

As to speaking positively of his energy and his taste for human contacts – and it is true that Chirac had a warm personality, enjoying his talks with the “common people” – the double meaning in those words cannot have escaped the French. A compulsive womanizer, Chirac was commonly nicknamed “Five Minutes, Shower Included.” Unfortunately, the vulgarity of the words describe his reputation.

Chirac was born Catholic but at the beginning of his youthful political career is known to have sold communist papers in the streets. He made his way up in the so-called “center-right” parties, developing a vigorously anti-European Union rhetoric that won him much sympathy in those quarters. When it came to real life, however, he favored the EU with all his might as a prime minister and later as president of the Republic from 1995 to 2007. He gained his second seven-year term thanks to finding himself alone against demonized Jean-Marie Le Pen in 2002, winning the election with more than 80 percent of the vote in the second round.

It was in Chirac’s capacity of prime minister to Valéry Giscard d’Estaing in 1975 that he supported and personally signed the so-called “loi Veil” allowing abortion in France up to eight weeks of gestation under purportedly limited circumstances, but those limits were never imposed. Since then, France has yearly lost between 180,000 and 230,000 of its tiniest citizens to the legal massacre.

This direct cooperation with the evil of abortion objectively led to the automatic excommunication of Chirac, but that point seems to have been widely forgotten, even by the French bishops. He never expressed public regret and was at the end of his life a victim of a neurodegenerative disease that would have prevented him from doing so if he would have wanted to.

Chirac was also president of the republic in 2001 when elections had put socialists in government under the prime-ministership of Martine Aubry, and as such he signed the law legalizing abortion up to 10 weeks of gestation (12 weeks’ pregnancy), the possibility of abortion without parental consent for minors, and obliging doctors with conscientious objections to refer patients demanding abortion to a more complacent colleague. The same law authorized “medical” abortion up to term and did away with the ban on publicity for abortion. At the same time, it set up penalties sanctioning “obstruction” to abortion within abortion units as well as “moral and psychological pressure” on women to dissuade them from aborting.

The same law included several measures promoting contraception and the morning-after pill, including its distribution to minors in state schools, and allowing for voluntary “contraceptive sterilization” for adult women.

Chirac made himself known as an extreme supporter of secularism, going so far as to say: “No to a moral law that would supersede civil law.” This is the plain and overt negation of the existence of natural law or any moral requirement not expressed by a democratically adopted positive law.

France’s abortion laws have allowed the legal killing of more than eight million unborn babies since 1975.

All of this did not prevent Paris Archbishop Michel Aupetit from giving a positive homily at Chirac’s funeral Mass.

“President Jacques Chirac focused his 1995 campaign on the theme of the social divide, thus focusing on those who remain by the roadside,” the archbishop said. “The social divide is an evil that is probably difficult to treat because, even today, some people still feel excluded.

“One of the roles of the Church is to build fraternity, the fraternity which is one of the three pillars of our Republic and which makes it possible to build true unity among us. This fraternity is obvious to Christians since it refers to the one Fatherhood of God. It is in the name of this Fatherhood that God, from the beginning of fractured humanity, asked Cain who had just killed his brother Abel: ‘What have you done with your brother?’”

“Attention to the smallest, the weakest, the forgotten is a characteristic of Christianity,” the archbishop said. “We heard it in this gospel chosen by the family: ‘I was hungry, you gave me food; I was thirsty, you gave me drink; I was naked and you dressed me; I was a stranger, you took me in; I was sick and you visited me; I was in prison and you came to me.’”

He added, speaking of Chirac’s love for his daughter, Laurence, who suffered from mental anorexia:

“This attention to the weakest has an even deeper reason than the delicacy of affection. Jesus said, ‘What you do to the least of my children, you do to me. It is because of the divine spark that resides in our humanity that every person, from the beginning of his life at conception, until his natural death, is called to be loved and respected. This forces us to change our perspective, which must go far beyond the appearances and postures that characterize our human societies. God sees the depths of hearts, it is appropriate to follow His teaching. Indeed, the actions we take towards a brother in humanity go far beyond the environment and the social and political dimension, because they pass through Christ and, through him, reach others to the ends of the earth.”

Was this meant as a sort of pique against the deceased president’s disastrous records? It is possible. But experience proves that subtlety and irony are rarely understood on the part of public speakers.

Archbishop Aupetit took care to thank Chirac for his ecological awareness:

“‘To govern is to foresee:’ this famous quote from Émile de Girardin was illustrated several times by President Jacques Chirac. In September 2002, at the Earth Summit, before today’s strong ecological awareness, he said, ‘Our house is burning and we are looking elsewhere.’”

Aupetit concluded his homily by saying the funeral Mass celebrated at the request of Chirac’s family had a clear objective: “To present this man to the Mercy of God.”

But that does not take away the objective scandal of a public Catholic funeral for a man who so deliberately chose to violate God’s law at the level of the state.

 

Featured Image
A gang of radical feminists attempted to set fire to the metropolitan Catholic cathedral in Mexico City.
Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin

News , ,

WATCH: Pro-abortion radical feminists set fire to Mexico City’s Catholic cathedral

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

MEXICO CITY, September 30, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) -- In coordination with worldwide pro-abortion protests, a gang of radical feminists set fire to the metropolitan Catholic cathedral in Mexico City during a march on Saturday. They also smeared obscene graffiti on the church’s exterior walls and committed other acts of arson.

Hundreds of masked radical feminists dressed in black marched with banners demanding abortion and LGBTQ rights in Mexico City. Television news crews recorded how some of the masked marchers destroyed shelters at bus stops, spray-painted slogans on private and public property, and attacked journalists and police officers.

Resembling so-called antifa leftists in the United States, the black-clad hooligans painted slogans such as “My body,” “legal abortion,” and “God is a woman.” Some wore the green bandanas that have become the symbol of pro-abortion activists throughout Latin America.

When marchers set fires at the entrance gate of the cathedral, firefighters were able to extinguish the flames and prevent them from spreading. Police and members of Guardia Cristera Nacional, a group of Catholics who are dedicated to the Virgin of Guadalupe and are sworn to protect churches, formed a peaceful human cordon to prevent marchers from entering the historic church. They also gathered at other churches in the city to prevent arson and destruction.

The pro-abortion marchers, according to local reports, attacked bystanders on the street.

Seeing that the fire was not spreading at the cathedral, pro-abortion marchers retreated to the center of the Zocalo, the central plaza of the city, where they made a bonfire and continued to chant slogans demanding legal abortion.

Arsonists also set fire to the entrance of the offices of Mexico’s National Council of Merchants and Service Providers (CONACO) and the national Chamber of Commerce in the city center. 

The largely female contingent of municipal police on hand were passive as the marchers smashed public property and set fires. Local media reported that marchers attacked Catholics, members of media recording the event, and police officers. The archbishop of Mexico is expecting an official report from civil authorities about the incident.

 

ACI Prensa reported that Mauricio Alfonso Guizar of Guardia Nacional Cristera said his organization sent out an appeal via social media to Catholics to come to the city center to pray and defend churches from planned attacks.

“Thanks to the reports on Catholic social networks, we were able to defend the churches, and the government sent public safety officers, having realized that churches are not a trifle,” he told the media outlet.

The riot in Mexico City came just days after the legislature of Oaxaca, a poverty-stricken state in southern Mexico, largely decriminalized abortion. While pro-life advocates shouted “Murderer! Murderer!” outside the state legislature on Wednesday, a majority of legislators voted to make Oaxaca the second jurisdiction after Mexico City to liberalize abortion law.

While the new law amends the state’s penal code, it is an apparent contradiction to the state’s constitution. Pro-abortion forces are expecting that the state constitution will be reformed next. The change in the penal code was passed by 24 of the 41 state legislators. A constitutional amendment, however, requires a vote of two-thirds of the chamber. 

The “Green Wave” of pro-abortion advocates that began last year in Argentina was nearly successful in seeing pro-abortion law passed by Argentina’s national senate. All of the political parties currently fielding presidential candidates except one in the South American country support abortion.

In pro-abortion marches in Buenos Aires and other cities in Argentina, pro-abortion protesters have set fires, thrown stones, and launched physical attacks 

The pro-abortion victory in Mexico is being heralded as a success for the movement that began in Argentina.

Archbishop Pedro Vázquez Villalobos of Oaxaca issued a statement that said that people of good will in his region “love life” and do not want laws that continue to deteriorate the respect for life. 

“To make laws that promote the death of the unborn cause grave moral decay, deforms our values, do not defend the defenseless nor defend the weak, he said.

The archbishop pointed out that St. John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae encyclical called on mankind to “respect, protect, love and serve life, all human life!”

“We don’t want brother to kill brother, mother to kill a child, we want (laws) that put value on us,” the archbishop continued “ … We need laws that fight poverty, that support the countryside, and that suppress all forms of violence.”

Oaxaca is known not only for its material poverty but for its wealth of culture. At least a third of its citizens speak indigenous languages such as Mixtec and Zapotec, of which one-half do not speak Spanish. They are known for their colorful weavings and traditional culture. 

Approximately 95 percent of Mexicans identity as Catholics, and Catholics in Brazil amount to about 86 percent of all Brazilians.

This year, the Guardia Nacional Cristera commemorated the 90th anniversary of the date that Mexico’s atheist revolutionary government reopened churches and allowed the faithful to attend Mass. When the revolutionary government began shutting down churches and killing priests, Catholics rose up to defend their faith throughout the country in a counter-revolutionary struggle that became known as the Cristero War.

Cristeros were insurgents whose motto was “Viva Cristo Rey!” (Spanish for Long live Christ the King) and fought the armies of the government to a final stalemate.

Featured Image
Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug

News , ,

Judge rules in favor of adoption agency’s right not to adopt to gay couples, says lesbian AG ‘targeted’ them

Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug
By Doug Mainwaring

GRAND RAPIDS, Michigan, September 30, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction allowing a Catholic adoption agency to continue operating according to its religious beliefs. His decision came just four days before the agency’s contract with the state was set to expire.

District Judge Robert Jonker ruled in favor of St. Vincent Catholic Charities and against Michigan’s lesbian Attorney General, Dana Nessel, who before taking office in January had pledged to terminate state contracts with religious foster and adoption agencies that refused to place children in homes with same-sex couples. 

In his ruling, Jonker said that Nessel had “targeted” the Catholic agency and that Nessel “is at the very heart of the case,” having accused proponents of religious exemptions from LGBT household placements as “discriminatory” and “‘hate mongers’ who disliked gay people more than they cared about children.”

“The State’s real goal is not to promote non-discriminatory child placements, but to stamp out St. Vincent’s religious belief and replace it with the State’s own,” declared Judge Jonker. 

Jonker indicated that to continue to allow Nessel’s ban on faith-based agencies who cannot in good conscience work with homosexuals to remain in effect, “would disrupt a carefully balanced and established practice that ensures non-discrimination in child placements while still accommodating traditional Catholic religious beliefs on marriage.”

The law firm Becket (formerly the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty), which represented St. Vincent’s in the court proceeding, welcomed the judge’s ruling, proclaiming, “Foster families win big in Michigan Court.”  

“Our nation is facing a foster care crisis, and we are so glad that Michigan’s foster children will continue having all hands on deck to help them find loving forever homes,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket.

St. Vincent’s was joined in the case by Chad and Melissa Buck, parents of five children with special needs adopted through the Catholic agency.   

“The Bucks and St. Vincent Catholic Charities won a victory in Michigan, but there is still work to be done to ensure that faith-based agencies can contribute to ending our nation’s foster care crisis,” said Windham.  

“St. Vincent brought our family together, and I’m happy to know they can keep doing their great work helping children find homes,” said Melissa Buck. 

In March, Attorney General Nessel had announced that taxpayer-funded adoption agencies with religious objections to placing children in homes of homosexual “married” couples would no longer be able to cite their faith as a legitimate reason to opt out of providing that service.  

The ban was triggered by an agreement between Nessel’s office and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to settle a 2017 lawsuit brought by two lesbian couples.  

Her decision voided a package of bills signed into law by Republican Governor Rick Snyder in 2015 that carved out religious exemptions for faith-based organizations.

Nessel, 49, was elected attorney general in January 2019, making her the first openly gay woman to be elected statewide. “Married” to a woman, she has two sons and a long track record of liberal activism. She was part of the legal team that overturned Michigan’s ban on same-sex “marriage.” In 2016, she founded a pro-“LGBT” nonprofit called Fair Michigan. In January 2019, she came out in support of a lawsuit seeking to reinstate the Obama administration’s contraception mandate

Featured Image
Wikimedia Commons
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin

News ,

Tyler Perry comes out against Georgia heartbeat law, but won’t join Hollywood boycott

Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

ATLANTA, September 30, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Comedian Tyler Perry made clear that he opposes Georgia’s law banning most abortions on babies with detectable heartbeats, but will not uproot his business from the state to join in the Hollywood boycott effort.

Signed into law in May, the Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act forbids abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, except in cases of rape, incest, physical medical emergencies, and pregnancies deemed “medically futile.” If allowed to take effect, it will ban abortions in all other cases as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, starting in January 2020.

A direct challenge to Roe v. Wade’s prohibition against pre-“viability” abortion bans, the law has been a subject of intense national debate, with prosecutors in the state declaring they’ll refuse to enforce it, and pro-abortion groups Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the Center for Reproductive Rights suing to block it from taking effect.

Dozens of celebrities led by actress Alyssa Milano have threatened a boycott to punish Georgia (where the film industry generates substantial jobs and revenue) for enacting the LIFE Act, as have director Ron Howard, Disney CEO Bob Iger, Warner Bros. parent company Warner Media, the streaming service Netflix, and a handful of smaller studios

Pro-abortion activists have been urging Perry, who has a 330-acre studio in Atlanta, to join them. He broke his silence on Friday, Deadline reported, confirming that he would not put his employees out of work for the sake of politics.

“Atlanta has been the dream. It has been the promised land,” he told the Associated Press. “So when I got here, this whole state and city has been amazing to me and I wouldn’t trade that for anything. Also, I put $250 million in the ground here and in the studio. So when you have a quarter of a billion dollars sat down in the ground, you can’t just up and leave.”

Perry did, however, stress that he opposes the LIFE Act because “I don’t believe any man should be able to tell a woman what she can do with her body or reproductive organs,” and that the “94,000-plus or 98,000 people who are in this industry” account for a “lot of votes that can determine an election.”

Pro-lifers across the country hope that the current wave of state heartbeat laws will force a long-awaited Supreme Court review of Roe, and that at least five of the current justices vote to overturn it and finally free states to directly set their own abortion policies. Questions remain as to how Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s newest member, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, will rule on abortion.

Featured Image
Pope Francis meets with LGBT-activist Fr. James Martin in Rome, Sept. 30, 2019. James Martin / Twitter
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy

News ,

Pope Francis meets privately with pro-homosexual celebrity priest James Martin

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

SIGN THE PETITION: Bishops, please stop Fr. Martin's LGBT advocacy Sign the petition here.

VATICAN CITY, September 30, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) ― Pope Francis met privately today with a U.S. Jesuit priest who is one of the top promoters for the normalization of homosexual behavior within the Catholic Church. 

Fr. James Martin, S.J., tweeted about his meeting with the pope.

“Dear friends: Today Pope Francis received me for a private 30-minute audience in the Apostolic Palace, where I shared with him the joys and hopes, and the griefs and anxieties, of LGBT Catholics and LGBT people worldwide,” the pro-homosexual activist wrote. 

“I was so grateful to meet with this wonderful pastor,” he continued. “The only other person in the room during our meeting was his translator.”

According to the Jesuit-run America magazine, of which Martin is “editor-at-large,” this was Martin’s third encounter with Pope Francis, but their first substantial conversation. 

The private audience took place for over 30 minutes in the papal library of the Apostolic Palace, and America magazine interpreted the meeting as a “highly significant public statement of support and encouragement” for the American Jesuit. Martin himself saw it as “a sign of the Holy Father’s care for L.G.B.T. people.” 

Again according to America, Martin had met Pope Francis twice before: once in 2016 briefly after Mass at the Domus Sanctae Marthae, where the pontiff lives, and again last week when the pontiff greeted members of the plenary assembly of the Holy See’s Dicastery for Communications. Martin was appointed as a consultant to this department in 2017. It was during this greeting that the first Jesuit pope invited the American Jesuit to the late-morning meeting in the papal library. 

America quoted an unnamed Vatican source who said that Pope Francis had read Martin’s pro-LGBT book Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter Into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity. Apparently the pontiff is also aware that Martin has received some strong criticism for this book and for his LGBT activism. 

Martin would not comment on the substance of their conversation except to say that both he and the pontiff had both laughed “several times.”

Fr. Martin has been criticized by high-ranking churchmen and respected Catholic lay academics (here and here) for dissenting from Catholic sexual teaching. Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, has called Fr. Martin “one of the most outspoken critics of the church’s message with regard to sexuality.” Cardinal Raymond Burke has called the celebrity priest’s teaching “not coherent with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.” 

Earlier this month, Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia released a statement noting that Fr. Martin’s “statements and activities” have caused confusion.

“A pattern of ambiguity in his teachings tends to undermine his stated aims, alienating people from the very support they need for authentic human flourishing,” Chaput wrote. “Due to the confusion caused by his statements and activities regarding same-sex related (LGBT) issues, I find it necessary to emphasize that Father Martin does not speak with authority on behalf of the Church, and to caution the faithful about some of his claims.”

Bishop Thomas Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois quickly issued a statement supporting Chaput, saying that aspects of Martin’s teachings are “deeply scandalous,” and his “messages create confusion among the faithful and disrupt the unity of the Church.”  

Bishop Stika of Knoxville, Tennessee has also opposed some of Martin’s statements. 

The news of the meeting between the American and the Argentinian Jesuit inspired a fresh wave of criticism from those who believe Martin has, through his activism, misled Christians who experience same-sex attractions, their families, and their friends. Some of that criticism, however, was directed at Pope Francis.

“The Pope’s meeting with Fr James Martin today is intended to taunt the US conservatives that he demonises,” said the UK Spectator’s Damian Thompson on Twitter

“Egged on by Spadaro et al, he is now flirting with conspiracy theories. He’s recklessly partisan and ill-informed. Ordinary American Catholics are the victims.”

OnePeterFive’s Steve Skojec noted that people can no longer credibly believe that the pontiff does not know about Martin’s mission.  

“Any pretense that Francis doesn't know what Martin is about just went out the window,” he tweeted. 

While Martin has repeated several times that his writings and teachings do not contradict Church doctrines, his public utterances, however, suggest otherwise.  

Martin contradicted Church teaching at Fordham University in 2017 when he said, “I have a hard time imagining how even the most traditionalist, homophobic, closed-minded Catholic cannot look at my friend [in a same-sex “marriage”] and say, ‘That is a loving act, and that is a form of love that I don’t understand but that I have to reverence.’”

Also in 2017, Martin wrote on Facebook that it was “a scandal” that a diocese had stipulated that a little boy who wished to attend catechism classes could not do so while presenting as female. 

“The parish and the diocese need to unblock the path between their child and Jesus Christ,” Martin wrote.

In August of that year, after a lecture at Villanova University,  Martin told a young Catholic man who is sexually active with another man that he hoped one day he would be able to kiss his “partner” in church. 

“I hope in ten years you will be able to kiss your partner [in church] or, you know, soon to be your husband.”  

During the lecture, Martin suggested that Church teaching on homosexuality isn’t “authoritative” because it hasn’t been “received” by people who experience same-sex attractions. He also suggested that refusing to accept invitations to same-sex weddings is worse than refusing to accept an invitation to the Jewish wedding of a convert to Judaism.

Catholics refusing to attend same-sex “weddings” are “saying is it’s worse to be a Christian and gay than it is to reject Jesus and be straight,” he claimed.

Martin also insinuated that people who are opposed to same-sex “marriage” are usually motivated by contempt for people who experience same-sex attractions.

“I often find that the people who do oppose those things [same-sex 'marriage'] are very homophobic and that is easily discerned, I mean, just by the way they talk about LGBT people and the language they use and the snottiness they have,” he said. 

The priest also suggested that refusing to go to a same-sex “wedding” ceremony was on par with refusing to celebrate the marriage of an interracial couple. 

The doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, while underscoring that men and women with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” must be “accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity,” declares that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered.” The Church teaches that such acts are  “contrary to the natural law,” “close the sexual act to the gift of life,” and “do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.”

“Under no circumstances can they be approved,” states the Catechism of the Catholic Church. 

Despite popular confusion on the point, the Church does not say that people who struggle with same-sex attraction are themselves disordered, but that their inclination is “objectively disordered.” The Church calls such people to chastity and encourages them to “gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” 

An international apostolate for people with same-sex attractions who wish to remain chaste was founded by a Catholic priest named Fr. John Harvey in 1980. Courage International, which is often under fire from LGBT activists, is approved by the Catholic Church.

Featured Image
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin

News ,

New York Mayor Bloomberg claims China’s Xi Jinping ‘not a dictator,’ listens to ‘constituents’

Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

September 30, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Former New York City Democrat Mayor Michael Bloomberg made a curious claim about the leadership of China recently, claiming that President Xi Jinping is “not a dictator” and the ruling Chinese Communist Party is ultimately accountable to the people living under the regime.

“The Communist Party wants to stay in power in China and they listen to the public,” Bloomberg said during a discussion of global carbon emissions on PBS’ Firing Line. “When the public says, ‘I can't breathe the air,' Xi Jinping is not a dictator. He has to satisfy his constituents, or he's not going to survive."

"He's not a dictator?" host Margaret Hoover incredulously responded. "He doesn't have a vote, he doesn't have a democracy. He's not held accountable by voters. Is the check on him just a revolution?"

"No government survives without the will of the majority of its people,” Bloomberg insisted. “Even (in) governments that aren't what we call a democracy, there are lots of stakeholders who have vested interests and they have an impact.”

China technically holds elections, but most candidates can only “run” if approved by the Chinese Communist Party, which also bars meaningful competition from any other party. “Political positions are directly elected only at the lowest administrative levels,” international watchdog Freedom House wrote. “In practice, however, independent candidates for these posts are often kept off the ballot or out of office through intimidation, harassment, fraud, and in some cases detention.”

The regime takes numerous actions to quash dissenting opinions among the populace, from raiding churches not approved by the state to widespread surveillance efforts to deny internet access to “illegal” information. The regime has also been accused of grotesque human-rights violations such as forced organ harvesting. Its longstanding practice of forced abortions to limit population growth is well known.

Bloomberg’s remarks come weeks after the former mayor announced he is organizing a global economic forum to be hosted in Beijing in November.

Featured Image
German cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Muller attends the Epiphany Mass held by Pope Francis at St. Peter's Basilica on January 6, 2015 in Vatican City, Vatican. Franco Origlia/Getty Images
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

News

Film of Cdl Müller’s ‘Manifesto of Faith’ premieres worldwide October 1

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

Urgent Prayer Pledge: JOIN the 9-Day Novena leading up to the Amazon Synod Sign the petition here.

September 30, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – A film dramatizing Cardinal Gerhard Müller’s Manifesto of Faith will premiere worldwide online October 1.

“Manifesto of Faith: The Movie,” created by Arcadia Films, is a 22-minute cinematic presentation on Cardinal Müller’s February 2019 manifesto that some say reads like a quasi-correction of many of the doctrinal errors that surround the pontificate of Pope Francis.

Cardinal Müller was the head of the Vatican’s doctrinal office until Pope Francis removed him in 2017. The cardinal said he wrote the Manifesto of Faith in the face of a “growing confusion” within the Church.

“In the face of growing confusion about the doctrine of the Faith, many bishops, priests, religious and lay people of the Catholic Church have requested that I make a public testimony about the truth of revelation,” he wrote in the introduction to the text.

The Manifesto touches on various Catholic truths under assault today. These include:

  • That Jesus is “first and foremost the Word that was with God and is God, the Son of the Father, Who assumed our human nature to redeem us” and not merely a “good person, brother and friend, prophet and moralist”;
  • That “Jesus Christ founded the Church as a visible sign and instrument of salvation realized in the Catholic Church”;
  • That the “Church is the universal sacrament of salvation in Jesus Christ”;
  • That “he who dies in mortal sin without repentance will be forever separated from God.”

The Manifesto has been praised by various bishops for its “clear, concise, and ordered approach” and as an “excellent summary of the faith.” Bishop Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan, called the Manifesto “a necessary and a very timely initiative, edifying the Faith and bringing light in the enormous spiritual confusion,” which can bring “to the faithful consolation and encouragement.”

Stephen Payne, the film’s director, said he was “delighted to have had the opportunity to create this new cinematic presentation of Gerhard Cardinal Müller’s magnificent text.”

“In a time of proliferating confusion about the eternal truths of the Catholic faith, which today reaches to the highest levels, its clarity is much needed,” he added.

Arcadia Films produced the award-winning film “A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” (2016). It will host the world premiere of “Manifesto of Faith” on October 1, 2019, at 12:00 p.m. Eastern time here. The organization is extending an invitation to anyone who would like to pre-register to watch the entire film. The film will be aired over the Internet via ManifestoOfFaith.com.

Featured Image
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin

News

Science journal retracts study claiming religious upbringing makes kids less generous

Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

September 30, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – A biology journal has retracted a paper that erroneously claimed that religious upbringing makes children less generous, four years after its original release.

In 2015, Current Biology published a paper by Jean Decety and a team of researchers finding that “children from households identifying as either of the two major world religions (Christianity and Islam) were less altruistic than children from non-religious households.”

Azim Shariff, another researcher on behavior and religiosity, found the findings suspicious, Psychology Today reports, so he requested the data from Decety and performed his own analysis. Shariff found that the original researchers made a coding error in the handling of data from multiple countries. The next year Current Biology published Shariff’s analysis, which found “no significant effect for religious affiliation on generosity.” 

Current Biology finally retracted the original paper last month, and supplemented with a link to Shariff’s work and a note from the original authors.

“When we reanalyzed these data to correct this error, we found that country of origin, rather than religious affiliation, is the primary predictor of several of the outcomes,” it reads. “While our title finding that increased household religiousness predicts less sharing in children remains significant, we feel it necessary to explicitly correct the scientific record, and we are therefore retracting the article. We apologize to the scientific community for any inconvenience caused.”

Despite the correction, Shariff’s paper only received a fraction of the media coverage Decety’s original enjoyed; Psychology Today notes that articles have been published citing the flawed piece as recently as August 2019.

“Our own research on the topic at the Human Flourishing Program at Harvard, published last year in a paper in the American Journal of Epidemiology, has likewise suggested results more in line with Shariff’s meta-analysis,” epidemiologist Tyler VanderWeele of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health writes. “We found that during childhood and adolescence, those who attended religious services regularly were subsequently 29 percent more likely to have high levels of volunteering than those who did not. Those who attended services regularly were also 87 percent more likely to subsequently have high levels of forgiveness; and those who prayed and mediated regularly were 47 percent more likely to have a high sense of mission.”

A wealth of research over the years has found that religious Americans tend to donate more time as well as money to charitable causes than non-religious Americans.

Featured Image
LifeSiteNews staff

News

Remnant Newspaper editor: Catholics must unite for ‘preservation of the old faith’

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

September 30, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Michael Matt says he is "fired up" for Voice of the Family's "Our Church – reformed or deformed?" conference this coming Friday, October 4. Matt, long-time editor of The Remnant newspaper, urged Catholics to unite for the "preservation of the old faith" in a promotional video for the gathering.

Matt will be speaking at the much-anticipated conference alongside some of the top Catholic commentators, theologians, and writers in the world. The event will be held at Hotel Massimo D'Azeglio in Rome and will be live-streamed online at no cost by LifeSiteNews from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m Rome Time (9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon U.S. Eastern Standard Time). 

Click here to register to watch the roundtable online for free!

Matt believes Catholics "have nothing to be afraid of" and that it is an honor to be part of this "history making moment" when the laity defend the Bride of Christ. "If God so wills it, there will be martyrs among us...but first, before we are even called to the great sacrifice of martyrdom, let's go on offense. Let's go to war. Let's become cusaders. Let's become soldiers of Jesus Christ."

Matt participated in the Acia Ordinata protest near the Vatican Sunday along with 200 other Catholics. The protest implored the angels to protect the Church ahead of the Pan-Amazonian Synod, which will take place between October 6 and 27. It is believed that at the synod liberal and modernist clergy will seek to overturn the Church's traditional teachings on clerical celibacy, the nature of the priesthood, and the concept of evangelization itself, among other things. Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, one of the two remaining dubia cardinals, called the synod's working document “heretical” and an “apostasy” from Divine Revelation.

Participants in the roundtable discussion include:

  • John-Henry Westen (LifeSiteNews, Canada)
  • Prof. Roberto de Mattei (Corrispondenza Romana, Italy) 
  • Dr. Taylor Marshall (Author, USA)
  • Michael Matt (The Remnant, USA)
  • Michael Voris (Church Militant, USA) 
  • Jeanne Smits (Journalist, France)
  • Marco Tosatti (Stilum Curiae, Italy)
  • José Antonio Ureta (TFP, France)
  • Riccardo Cascioli (La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, Italy) 

The roundtable will be held in English with simultaneous translation into Italian. 

Featured Image
Fr. Frank Pavone speaking at the 2019 HELP Crisis Pregnancy center fall dinner Stephen Kokx / LifeSiteNews
Stephen Kokx Stephen Kokx Follow Stephen

News

Fr. Pavone: There is a ‘war’ between the abortion industry and pro-lifers

Stephen Kokx Stephen Kokx Follow Stephen
By Stephen Kokx
Image
Image
Image

GRAND RAPIDS, Michigan, September 30, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — There is a “war” going on between the abortion industry and pro-lifers, and the two cannot co-exist. Either “we shut them down or they shut us down…we are dealing with a clash of absolutes.”

That was the message Fr. Frank Pavone had for roughly 400 Christians who attended HELP Pregnancy Crisis center’s annual fall dinner at Thousand Oaks Country Club in Grand Rapids, Michigan on September 19.

Pavone has been the national director of Priests for Life since 1993. His appearance was coordinated by the local Knights of Columbus. A prolific speaker who often appears on television and radio, he is one of the most respected voices on abortion in the world. In 2016, he served on President Trump’s Catholic advisory committee.

Addressing a packed room that included many young families, Pavone passionately explained how the abortion industry wants more unborn babies to be killed so they can “profit” from it. The industry views crisis pregnancy centers as “big threats” to their business model, he said. 

“You succeed, they fail. There is no middle ground. You save moms from abortion, they lose business. There’s no third way. It’s one or the other.”

Mincing no words, Pavone shared gruesome stories about how abortionists play with the bodies of the unborn children they murder as if they were bowling balls and chicken bones being snapped in half. 

“They disrespect the child in life and in death. They never tell the truth about abortion…they never mention the terms 'blood,' 'arms,' 'legs,' 'skull,' 'dismembered.' They only speak about ‘choice.’” In reality, “there is no choice...only the coercive power of despair.” 

Pavone said that the pro-life mission “is to replace fear with hope [and] to extend hands of mercy.” The destiny of mother and child are intertwined inextricably, he said. “You can’t hurt one without hurting the other.”

Pavone also told his captivated audience to “be appalled, but don’t be surprised” by recent revelations that deceased abortionist Ulrich Klopfer hoarded over 2,200 aborted babies at his home. “Once your conscience is so corrupted that you will tear a child apart with your hands…anything goes after that.”

Among those attending the dinner were faculty and students from nearby West Catholic High School. Several teachers from the school told LifeSiteNews that pro-lifers simply cannot be anti-abortion. They need to help the family after the baby’s birth.

Paula Veneklase, executive director of HELP Pregnancy Crisis center, informed LifeSite that roughly 330 women visit them each month. Almost 90 percent choose life. Since last fall, the center has performed 175 pregnancy tests and 62 ultrasounds thanks to the help of 50 volunteers.

“We exist to be with the mother as she goes along this journey. We try to plant some seeds of hope so the women can look beyond today,” Veneklase said.

Throughout the evening Fr. Pavone hammered home what he called the “connection” between the efforts of crisis pregnancy centers and the fight for life in the political arena. “The civil rights movement of today is the pro-life movement,” he exclaimed. “If we want the right kind of laws, we gotta have the right kind of lawmakers.”

Pavone praised Michigan for voting “the right way” in 2016 while also touting President Trump’s judicial nominees. In an interview with LifeSite before his speech, Fr. Pavone called President Trump “the most pro-life president we’ve ever had.”

Aside from his work at Priests for Life, Pavone is the pastoral director of Rachel’s Vineyard, an abortion healing organization. During his remarks at the fundraiser, he predicted Roe v. Wade will be overturned “in the not too distant future.” He also said extreme pro-abortion politicians across the country are “desperate” because they see their control “slipping away.” The industry is “in a state of collapse!” he thundered. “This is a sign of their weakness…they are dying and saying to themselves, ‘we need to grab everything.’”

Lutheran pastor Christopher Thoma attended the dinner as well. Thoma runs Our Savior Evangelical Lutheran Church in Hartland, Michigan. He agreed with Fr. Pavone’s sentiments. On Saturday, October 12, his church will host “The Body of Christ and the Public Square” conference. Dinesh D’Souza, Jack Phillips, Charlie Kirk, and Rafael Cruz, Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s father, are scheduled to appear.

Fr. Pavone said that crisis pregnancy centers would still be needed even if legal protections were extended to the unborn because there are always going to be moms who are afraid. He also explained how abortion is unlike other social justice issues. 

“To save children’s lives from the violence of abortion is a cause so great and so urgent that if all the effort and resources of the thousands of pregnancy centers around this country…were organized and carried out just for the purpose of saving one human life, it would all be more than worth it.” The “value of an individual human life is inestimable. There is no price tag on it!”

Featured Image
Former U.S. speaker of the House Paul Ryan.
Peter Skurkiss

Opinion

Blame Paul Ryan for today’s Democrat frenzy to impeach Trump

Peter Skurkiss
By Peter Skurkiss

September 30, 2019 (American Thinker) — Who is responsible for the current overhyped impeachment frenzy? The culprits are many. There's the radical Left that, although small in number, is extremely vocal and influential in the media, the entertainment world, and beyond. Then there are the Democrats. As a group, they driven by an unbridled lust for political power, and there's no length they won't go to in trying to destroy the president. The media certainly play a major role. They take Democrat talking points, dresses them up as objective reporting, and presents them to the public, many of whom are unfortunately still oblivious to the propaganda being feed them.

But none of this would matter if it weren't for one man: Republican Paul Ryan.

Paul Ryan was speaker of the House from October 2015 to January 2019. He was also the 2012 vice presidential nominee for the Republican Party, running with the hapless Mitt Romney. When Donald Trump became president, this gave the Republicans control of the presidency, the House, and the Senate. This was a golden opportunity to move the Trump agenda forward.

And it would have been accomplished — except for Ryan. As leader of the GOP in the House of Representatives, he engaged in ankle-biting the president and dragging his feet otherwise. Trump has thundered that Ryan was "weak, ineffective, and stupid" as House speaker. Ryan was all that only if one assumes he was on the same team supporting the president and the American middle class. But if Ryan was instead serving big moneyed globalists and Wall Street, then he was smart and highly effective — as a saboteur.

In the 2018 election, the Republicans lost control of the House. Contrary to media spin, this was not a repudiation of Donald Trump, nor was it preordained. It was a judgment on an inept House of Representatives headed by Paul Ryan. Whether it was out of sheer incompetence or duplicitous design on Ryan's part, it doesn't matter. The fact is the Democrats took the House from under the nose of Ryan. 

With control of the House go the committee chairmanships. Without that, all the intemperate calls for impeachment and fallacious investigations of the president would just be background noise, and instead investigations would be focused where they belong: the Deep State's attempted coup.

When it comes to placing blame for what is happening in Washington, j'accuse Paul Ryan, demonstrating that the enemy within is more dangerous than the one outside the walls.

Ryan may not be through. According to Vanity Fair, he will be joining the seven-member board of the Fox Corporation, which will be run by Rupert Murdoch's eldest son, Lachlan. In this position, Ryan will have a role in, among other things, overseeing Fox News. That is unfortunate. For realize that the purveyors of fake news whom the Trump-nation loves to hate (Jim Acosta of CNN, Rachael Maddow of MSNBC, and Chuck Todd at NBC, and all the rest) are not independent journalists. They are more like puppets whose strings are pulled by corporate higher-ups from behind the scenes and out of public view. With his position on the board of Fox Corporation, Ryan will now, to some degree, be one of those puppet masters in shadows. Now, that's a sobering thought.

Update from Thomas Lifson:

According to Vanity Fair:

Among the powerful voices advising Lachlan that Fox should decisively break with the president is former House speaker Paul Ryan, who joined the Fox board in March. "Paul is embarrassed about Trump and now he has the power to do something about it," an executive who's spoken with Ryan told me. (Ryan did not return a call seeking comment.) But a person more sympathetic to Trump has told Lachlan that Fox should remain loyal to Trump's supporters, even if the network has to break from the man. "We need to represent our viewers," the source said. "Fox is about defending our viewers from the people who hate them. That's where our power comes from. It's not about Trump."

Published with permission from the American Thinker.

Featured Image
ESB Professional / Shutterstock.com
Jack Hellner

Opinion , , , ,

It’s cruel to terrify kids with fake global warming doom predictions

Jack Hellner
By Jack Hellner
Image

September 30, 2019 (American Thinker) — It is dangerous when teenagers who have been indoctrinated their entire lives are treated as if they have knowledge on climate change and fossil fuels. They are just repeating talking points when trotted out on media outlets and before Congress as if they were experts. They have been discouraged from doing research and critically thinking because they have been told the science is settled. They know that anyone who says the climate is changing and has always changed naturally is de a climate change denier; to get good grades, they need to repeat what they are told.

It is more dangerous when almost all journalists and other Democrats repeat the same talking points instead of doing research and asking questions. Instead of pointing out to the teenagers that temperatures, sea levels, storm activity, droughts and floods have always fluctuated naturally, and previous dire predictions have been 100% wrong, they just go along.

A high percentage of high school students don't have basic math, reading, or science skills, yet yesterday they were let out of school by the millions to push the Democrat agenda on climate as if they somehow have knowledge on that. They are being denied genuine education on the basics and cynically exploited as pawns for a government power-grab.

D.C. Climate Strike, 09-20-19 (YouTube screen grab, cropped).

Myron Ebell and Steven J. Milloy of the Competitive Enterprise Institute have produced a landmark listing of projections of projections of doom that have gone bust. Here are some of the previous predictions on the climate that have been 100% wrong:

In 1922, the AP, the WaPo, and other news outlets said coastal cities would soon be gone along with the Arctic ice because of warming.

In 1970, on the first Earth Day, billions would starve to death soon because of cooling.

In 1975, a Newsweek headline "Global Cooling is Coming." Maybe the teens should be asked a simple question: if rising CO2, fossil fuel use, and rising populations cause warming how did the world cool so much for over 25 years that a large number of people were predicting problems because of cooling?

1989: The U.N. predicted we only had ten years left to fix the warming problem.

2008: ABC predicted New York City would be under water by June 2015. They also predicted that milk would be $12.99 per gallon and gas would be $9 per gallon. They were so close.

2008: Nancy Pelosi said on Meet the Press that we have to get away from fossil fuels and go to natural gas. Do we really want people making our laws who seemed to be so confused over a decade ago?

2009: Al Gore predicted that the Arctic ice cap would be gone by 2014. It actually increased in 2014.

November 12, 2009: Al Gore said on The Conan O'Brien Show that the Earth was several million degrees a few feet below the surface. Gore is treated as an expert, and he was only several million degrees off.

After Hurricane Katrina hit, we were told hurricanes would be more severe and more frequent than ever, and we had over a ten-year lull in serious hurricanes hitting our shores.

We have repeatedly been told that because of global warming, we would have snowless winters. In 2018–2019, there were record snowfalls in California and elsewhere. The drought, which was supposedly caused by humans and fossil fuels in California, ended because of the record snows.

For decades, we were told that the reason we needed alternative fuels like wind and solar was because we were going to run out of oil soon. Now that we know there is plenty of oil, we are told that it is destroying the Earth and we have to outlaw it.

Here is a list of dire predictions that have been right on the climate the last 100 years:

 

I couldn't find any.

Instead of telling children they are going to die soon because of fossil fuels and scaring them into pledging not to have children, they should be taught that fossil fuels have increased the quality and length of life the last 150 years, and temperatures rise and fall naturally, as they always have. They should also be told the truth that CO2 is a clear, innocuous, non-pollutant gas that makes plants thrive and allows the world to be fed.

Every policy solution the Democrats propose, on whatever their dire predictions of the day are, involves transferring massive amounts of freedom, power, and money to the bureaucrats and politicians. That is the greatest existential threat to the survival of the United States as a great country — not the continued use of fossil fuels. 

Published with permission from the American Thinker.

Featured Image
Greta Thunberg. Per Grunditz / Shutterstock.com
Deana Chadwell

Opinion , , , , ,

Greta Thunberg is a victim of her own parents, not global warming

Deana Chadwell
By Deana Chadwell

September 30, 2019 (American Thinker) — Those who are befuddled and beleaguered by climate nonsense look to Greta Thunberg as if she were another Joan of Arc. Those of us who live in reality see her as being hopelessly mired in the arrogance of untruth. Yes, Greta's childhood has been stolen from her, but it isn't America that's done that – it's her parents, who have allowed her to be prostituted in this manner. It is the leftist politicians and their ilk, who are milking her youth and gullibility and her hunger for acceptance, who have stuck her up on a tilting pedestal. I'm as uncomfortable watching her as I am seeing a parent mistreat a child in public. Humiliation is coming at her like a locomotive, and no one is yanking her off the tracks.

Let's explore this comparison with the French teenager who was martyred in her attempt to free France from English control. She was a devout, if untutored and illiterate, Christian. She was, from the age of 13 until her death at 19, sure she saw visions of saints who told her what she must do. She was amazingly successful. Her followers, who included King Charles VII, believed in her — a young girl in the 15th century! — and allowed her to command their troops in battle.

One of the first non-fiction books I read as a child was entitled Candle in the Sky, a biography of Joan of Arc. I read it over and over, completely astounded. Something very unusual was going on with her, and after 50 years of intense Bible study and further reading about the Maid of Orléans, I am still mystified. She believed so strongly in the divinity of her mission that she let them burn her at the stake, and yet I am unsure what concern God had in France maintaining its sovereignty, but God is the only way to even begin to grasp what happened there. He does, after all, control history.

Now look at Greta. If God had anything to do with what she's up to, she'd understand that He has everything planned and that, in spite of human free will, the world will continue as long as He wants it to. She would know that saving the world is not a job for mere humans and that we can't possibly be important or powerful enough to alter the carefully tuned workings of this astounding machine we call Earth.

But, alas, she knows very little, and what she thinks she knows makes her very angry. She shouts, "How dare you!" at her audience as if merely staying alive in this world is something we've all done to offend her. She shouts about "mass extinction" as if a half a degree of warming over a century will have us all choking to death in the streets. She moans about losing her childhood and missing school. Joan once said she would rather be "spinning wool at her mother's side" than commanding armies, but she screamed no accusations at the French people. She merely cited her divine mission and went off to war. Even when she was burning to death, she said only two words: "Blessed Jesus."

Joan actually accomplished what she set out to do. She wanted Charles VII recognized as the legitimate heir to the throne. She wanted the English tossed out of France. This was at the end of the Hundred Years' War, which had followed close on the devastation of the Black Plague, and France was nearly destroyed by those two horrors. Historians generally credit Joan with saving France.

Will Greta of Thunberg be credited with anything so grand? Unlike the Maid, Greta hasn't done anything concrete. She has expressed no tenable suggestions about what we should do or undo, let alone set anything substantial in motion.

Young people can make a difference –- look at what Boyan Slat, the Dutch boy who has been working now for several years to design a system that will clean our oceans and who appears to be succeeding. He has screamed at no one, accused no one, nor has he attempted to change the way his fellow humans live. He just went to work — as Joan did.

Both Greta and Joan are different from their contemporaries. Greta suffers from autism/Asperger's and no doubt has to cope with the social rough spots associated with being on the spectrum. Joan had visions — most people don't. Our modern secular viewpoint has historians wondering what sort of schizophrenia haunted Joan — but despite her diagnosis, going off to war at 16 — in the 15th century — had to cause some seriously awkward social situations. In fact, it is said that she requested that Charles supply her with armor partly because she felt it would protect her from sexual attack.

These two young girls — both highly motivated — were set in motion by two very different forces. Greta is terrified. She seems to really believe that she will be dead in 11 years. Her fear is palpable — so much so that she is infecting thousands of other unstable young people, and fear is only useful for fleeing or fighting. Fear never produces tangible improvements — only ill health and anger.

Joan, on the other hand, was motivated by love — love of her savior, love of her country. She was motivated by duty to both. She showed very little fear in her short life, and what fear she felt, she controlled. Just before her immolation, she asked two priests to hold a crucifix up for her to stare at as she died. Such incredible courage. She was so brave that she struck fear in the hearts of her enemies. The English burned her three times to make sure that nothing was left.

Greta will not meet such a fate, but one that is perhaps worse. She will either live long enough to find out what a fool she was and how people used and abused her, or she will never connect with reality and will live out her days as frightened as she is now. There's no happy place on her horizon.

Not unless she too begins seeing divine visions.

Deana Chadwell blogs at www.ASingleWindow.com. She is also an adjunct professor and department head at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. She teaches writing and public speaking.

Published with permission from the American Thinker.

Featured Image
Greta Thunberg. YouTube screenshot
John Eidson

Opinion , , , ,

Marxists hope to take over the world by terrifying children about climate change

John Eidson
By John Eidson
Image

September 30, 2019 (American Thinker) — How do you take over the world? You find a way to terrify the world's children to believe they will die if they don't listen to you.

In what amounts to nothing less than intentional child abuse, the Left has sought since the 1980s to terrify the world's children about global warming. This cabal of socialist elites have preyed, like hyenas, upon the fragile emotions of easily frightened — and easily indoctrinated — young people, the most famous being Swedish teen climate activist Greta Thunberg, who was severely traumatized when she was a little girl by climate hysteria. She is still deeply traumatized, as evidenced by the pained look on her face at her emotional speech at the U.N.

YouTube screen grab (cropped).

The stealth agenda behind climate hysteria

Try telling Al Gore you heard that redistributing (giving away) America's wealth to poor nations of the world is the real agenda behind climate alarmism. Try telling him that, and he will look you squarely in the eye and say this with a straight face: Oh, that's just another right-wing conspiracy theory. All we're trying to do is save the planet.

What Gore and his fellow globalists are attempting is to destroy capitalism in the world's largest capitalist nation to pave the way for a new world order — i.e., global governance. That's a serious charge, so please allow me to justify it by citing the words of two prominent U.N. officials in the thick of the plot to strip away America's sovereignty.

In a frank admission that laid bare the stealth agenda behind climate alarmism, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted during a February 2015 press conference in Brussels that the U.N.'s real purpose in promoting climate fear is to kill off capitalism:

This is the first time in human history that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally changing [getting rid of] the economic development model that has reigned since the Industrial Revolution.

The economic model she referred to is free-market capitalism. A year earlier, Figueres revealed what U.S. capitalism must be replaced with when she complained that America's two-party constitutional democracy is hampering the U.N.'s climate objectives. She went on to cite China's communist system as the kind of government America must have if the U.N. is to do as it pleases. In other words, for the U.N. to have its way, America must become a single-party communist society.

Figueres is not alone. Another high-level U.N. Marxist had comments of his own about the hidden agenda behind "climate change." If you're among those who believe global warming alarmists when they say all they're trying to do is save the planet, what Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer had to say will leave your jaw on the floor.

In a Nov. 14, 2010 interview with Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Edenhofer, co-chair of the U.N. IPCC's Working Group III, made this shocking admission:

One must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. [What we're doing] has almost nothing to do with the climate. We must state clearly that we use climate policy to redistribute de facto the world's wealth.

On the same date, Edenhofer added this:

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with protecting the environment. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which [re]distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated.

Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer, one of the U.N.'s top climate officials, effectively admitted that the organization's public position on climate change is a hoax. The same admission was made earlier this year by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's former chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, who revealed that the Green New Deal is not about "saving the planet:"

It wasn't originally a climate thing at all ... we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.

In other words, the Green New Deal is using climate hysteria as a backdoor way to turn America into a socialist nation.

Figueres, Edenhofer, and Chakrabarti aren't the only prominent communists to recognize the value of using environmental hysteria as a fig leaf to hide the true agenda behind "climate change." In 1996, former Soviet Union president Mikhail Gorbachev advocated climate fear as a means of implementing global communism:

The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.

The "new world order" to which he referred is world governance under the banner of the hammer and sickle. For that to that to happen, America must give up its national sovereignty.

They're coming for your liberty

Powerful progressives in this country feel it's not fair that billions of people in the world sleep on the ground, while Americans sleep on soft mattresses in air-conditioned comfort. The progressive elites who feel that way also believe that America's wealth must therefore be "shared" to an unprecedented extent with poor nations of the world. Wealth redistribution is the foremost tenet of communism.

The stunning pronouncements by Figueres and Edenhofer are all the evidence a rational mind needs to conclude that climate alarmism is being used as a Trojan horse to justify the stratospheric new carbon taxes clamored for by progressive elites like Al Gore, Barack Obama, and John Kerry, none of whom has denounced the profoundly anti-American sentiments of two of the U.N.'s top climate officials.

The words of one of those officials revealed that such taxes would be used not for environmental healing, but to fund the most massive redistribution of wealth in history, literally trillions of dollars extracted under false pretenses from hardworking U.S. taxpayers and given to corrupt governments of every undeveloped nation on Earth, all in the guise of "climate aid."

Progressives in high places are attempting the largest heist in human history, a collusion to plunder unprecedented sums from taxpayers of the world's largest capitalist nation. Why? To implement on a global scale the mandate set forth in The Communist Manifesto: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Outraged that President Trump dealt their plan to redistribute America's wealth a major setback when he withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, the progressive elites who push climate fear would have you believe they're nothing more than environmentally concerned Americans who would never even dream of participating in a subversive attempt to turn their country communist. These Marxist wolves in sheep's clothing have been lying to you, and now you know it.

No rational person can fail to see that the Democratic Party is using climate alarmism as a ruse to fundamentally transform the United States of America. But because the human ego is loath to admit it's been duped, many patriotic Democrats will continue allowing themselves to be led like sheep into the closing noose of the hammer and sickle. By the time they realize what happened, it will be too late.

An engineering graduate of Georgia Tech and now retired, John Eidson is a freelance writer in Atlanta.

Published with permission from the American Thinker.

Featured Image
Alexandros Michailides / Shutterstock.com
Thomas Lifson

Opinion ,

Evidence emerges of foreign collusion to kill Boris Johnson’s Brexit

Thomas Lifson
By Thomas

September 30, 2019 (American Thinker) — "Collusion" with foreign powers may be the hottest political issue of the moment in both the U.K. and the USA, where beleaguered conservative leaders are fighting titanic struggles with their respective Deep States. The struggle over Brexit is every bit as serious in Britain as the struggle over the proclaimed intention to impeach President Trump is in the USA, and both struggles now hinge on charges of collusion with foreign powers.

Breaking yesterday in Britain, The Mail on Sunday, published by the U.K. Daily Mail, revealed what looks like scheming between anti-Brexit Tories and French and E.U. officials to sabotage the "hard Brexit" — without an agreement between the U.K. and the E.U. — that was to happen on October 31 if negotiations continued to be fruitless. Glen Owen, the Daily Mail's political editor, writes:

Downing Street has launched a major investigation into alleged links between foreign governments and the MPs behind the 'Surrender Act' which could force Boris Johnson to delay Brexit, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

Sources said No 10 took the unprecedented action after officials received intelligence that the MPs, including former Cabinet Minister Oliver Letwin, had received help drafting the Bill from members of the French Government and the European Union.

This newspaper has also learned that the rebel MPs have drawn up plans for a second Act which would allow Commons Speaker John Bercow to bypass the Prime Minister if he cannot strike a deal to leave the EU on October 31. 

The new law would allow Mr Bercow to personally ask Brussels for a further delay on behalf of the Commons.

The rebels have even discussed using the legislation to give Mr Bercow the power to appoint a new British commissioner to the EU, with pro-Remain former Home Secretary Amber Rudd mentioned as a candidate.

The Benn Act, passed earlier this month and controversially dubbed the 'Surrender Act' by No 10, states that if Mr Johnson fails to win a deal by the end of the next EU summit on October 18, he must write a letter to Brussels asking for the UK's departure to be delayed until January 31 — something which he says he will refuse to do.

Under the rebel plan, the Commons would sit on October 19 — the first Saturday sitting since the Falklands War in 1982 — to pass a new Bill giving Mr Bercow the power to write the letter. A senior Commons source said: 'The rebels say that, if Boris wants to play with nuclear weapons, then so will they'.

But last night No 10 hit back amid claims from senior sources that Mr Letwin had agreed the January 31 date in the first Benn Act with figures at the French Embassy in London.

Other members of the pro-Remain group — which includes former Chancellor Philip Hammond and ex-Attorney General Dominic Grieve — are suspected by Downing Street of having been assisted in drafting work by members of the European Commission.

These suspicions are political dynamite for the Remainers. The British public is unlikely to approve of secret deals with the French to sabotage the will of the British electorate that voted for Brexit.

Others have noticed that three powerful, conservative leaders are simultaneously under severe attack from the Deep States of their own governments: Trump, Boris Johnson, and Benjamin Netanyahu. All three are fighting back.

This is the most turbulent period of politics that I can remember in my 72 years.

Published with permission from the American Thinker.

Featured Image
Besjunior / Shutterstock.com
Monica Showalter

Opinion

Was the Trump Ukraine ‘whistleblower’ incident a Deep State plot all along?

Monica Showalter
By Monica Showalter

September 30, 2019 (American Thinker) — Well, what a coincidence:

Just before the filing of the "whistleblower" report against President Trump, it turns out the Intelligence Community changed its own rules for filing to Congress to end any need for firsthand knowledge.

Boom. The report they wanted, claiming that President Trump had done something wrong in attempting to get to the bottom of Joe Biden's pocket-lining via his son, suddenly came out of the blue. The flypaper was laid out, and the first fly came.

According to Sean Davis at the Federalist:

Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community's behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting.

The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump's July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only "heard about [wrongdoing] from others."

So some Trump-hating CIA Deep-Stater who nevertheless had his bureaucrat's priority of preserving his bloated pension got this amazing gift in this rules change, enabling him to twist all the things he may have heard around the office of the president he detested, wrap it in a ball, and file an anonymous complaint to topple the president. Better still, unlike Christine Blasey Ford, the accuser would be legally entitled to remain anonymous, free to cook up as many twisted calumnies based on hearsay as desired, getting no scrutiny of motives, paying no price. Zero-cost Trump-toppling, with full pension. Sound like an incentive?

One wonders if this person might just have had something to do with why this rules change happened, too.

Because the fact remains that the Deep State is still out there and plotting against President Trump. These people managed to pin him to the wall for two years on the phony cooked up Steele dossier, and very few of them were held accountable. Where's Steele's penalty for this phony farce? Where's Andrew McCabe's arrest warrant? None of these people paid. Now they don't even have to be in the vicinity of Trump to make their complaints — all they have to do is "hear" something and filter it through their biases. And if they are proven wrong, only Trump has to fight to defend himself; there's no penalty to them for lying or distorting secondhand information through their own biases.

This one is even worse because this so-called whistleblower is doing the whole thing under mask of anonymity, yet his partisan malevolence was known, as the whistleblower report noted.

Why is this rule still in place? If someone wants to be a whistleblower, fine. Have him come out and make their charges in daylight.

The system as it stands is a rigged system, a Petri dish for corruption as Deep-Staters plot ever new means of getting rid of Trump. With this Federalist report, it looks as though they planned it that way.

Published with permission from the American Thinker.

Featured Image
Mississippi abortion facility Jackson Women's Health.
Mississippi Center for Public Policy

Opinion , ,

City council mulls ban on pro-life speech outside Mississippi’s last abortion center

Mississippi Center for Public Policy
By Mississippi Center for Public Policy

September 30, 2019 (Mississippi Center for Public Policy) — The Jackson city council will soon file their official votes on an ordinance targeted at shutting down protests outside the last abortion clinic in Mississippi.

The abortion provider lies in the heart of Fondren, one of Jackson's few thriving neighborhoods, and one with further development incoming, including a new hotel across the street from the clinic.

Protesters and counselors seeking to offer alternatives to abortion regularly coordinate efforts outside of the building. In regard to this ordinance, council members ought to consider whether the current situation truly warrants the curtailing of free speech in this capacity.

The new ordinance would ban individuals from approaching within eight feet of any person, unless that person consents to receiving a leaflet. The proposed rule would also ban people from protesting, congregating, or picketing within fifteen feet of the abortion center and ban any amplified sound.

Proponents of the regulation have cited noise complaints and the potential for heightened conflict as the reasoning behind the legislation. However, opponents of the regulation have noted that the noise is often escalated by the abortion center who will turn up music while sidewalk participants attempt to speak with those around the abortion center and that the regulation curtails their free speech rights.

Local businesses and the new hotel seem to be concerned about the impact that these protests can have on business and seem to be in favor of the ordinance change. However, our right to free speech does not end where business interests begin, and we should be wary of choosing economic development over protections for our constitutional rights.

Perhaps, what the council members are missing is the fact that no matter what they do, protesters and sidewalk counselors who attempt to offer alternatives to abortion, will still find a way to carry out their work. Freedom of speech should rarely be curtailed, and leaders should always seek to err on the side of advancing speech rather than stifling it.

Furthermore, there are better options on the table to solve existing issues than to overregulate free speech en masse. Rather than ban all those seeking to protest or offer counsel, the city ought to better enforce existing noise ordinances, if noise truly is an ongoing issue. If we don't execute the laws on the books, then new ordinances stand meaningless and will be ignored. If people are being assaulted, as some claim, again, we have laws on the books.   

More largely, in regard to ongoing neighborhood development, at the end of the day, the abortion center can paint itself bright pink colors, play music, and attempt to be a part of the more hip, growing Fondren community, but it can't cover up what happens inside its walls, a continued dark stain on the neighborhood and the city.

Mississippi has a tainted history when it comes to the state using its power to stifle free speech and public protests. City leaders should tread cautiously when it comes to regulating speech they don't like.

Published with permission from the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.

Featured Image
Jonathon Van Maren Jonathon Van Maren Follow Jonathon

Blogs ,

Hillary Clinton proves impeaching Trump is all about protecting abortion

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

September 30, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — On Thursday, September 26, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton gave an address to the 50th-anniversary dinner of NARAL Pro-Choice America, one of the most powerful abortion lobby groups in the country. NARAL had put all of its hopes on Hillary during the 2016 election. Her defeat to Donald Trump reduced many top abortion leaders to tears that evening. One photograph of NARAL’s Ilyse Hogue — she had triggered applause at the Democratic National Convention when she declared she’d aborted one of her babies — staring in stunned grief at the election results, which were supposed to be favoring Clinton, went viral.

Clinton, unsurprisingly, announced to a receptive crowd that Trump posed a “clear and present danger” to America’s future and to democracy itself, and she praised Nancy Pelosi for her leadership in initiating an impeachment inquiry. But it was the threat the Trump administration posed to legal abortion, she told Moloch’s top lobbyists, that people everywhere should fear the most. America was at a crossroads in the abortion wars, and feticide advocates everywhere needed to fight like their freedoms depended on it. Pro-life activists, after all, would be fighting like the lives of millions of children depend on it — because they do.

“In the last Democratic debate, there was not one single question about abortion rights,” Clinton complained. “It has to be a critical issue in 2020.” She need not have worried: Democratic candidates fell all over themselves to genuflect at NARAL’s bloody altar on the 50th anniversary of their tireless work to reduce human beings developing in the womb to non-persons unworthy of consideration. Cory Booker congratulated them on their fifty-year fight for abortion and said America is “better” for what they had done (without explaining why the loss of 60 million lives is something to celebrate). Beto O’Rourke took a break from his campaign against firearms to tweet his congratulations as well.

Bernie Sanders, a dyed-in-the-wool socialist who knows you need to break a few eggs to make an omelet (and that some people are more equal than others), also sent the abortion lobbyists his best wishes. Pete Buttigieg, who has been attempting to convince people that Christianity is about an empty womb rather than an empty grave, promised to fight alongside them. Squad member Ilhan Omar, who uses Islam for intersectional points but not for ethics, also praised NARAL’s half-century of abortion advocacy.

But it was Democratic House speaker Nancy Pelosi, who also addressed NARAL’s anniversary dinner, who displayed the most chutzpah. The pro-life laws being passed around the country, she said, “ignore basic morality.” She did not explain how basic morality — or any morality, really — permits the grotesque physical destruction of society’s youngest members. Unperturbed by this reality, Pelosi forged on. “We will fight to defend Roe v. Wade using every tool at our disposal,” she announced. From there, she moved to impeachment. “I say to you with great sorrow and prayerfully,” she said with that sanctimony peculiar to those defending the indefensible, “that we are at a place that I hoped we would never be.”

Perhaps Pelosi and Clinton do not realize it, but their speeches to America’s abortion lobbyists appear to confirm the suspicions of many, many pro-lifers: That regardless of Trump’s very real and very obvious flaws, they are simply awaiting the opportunity to eliminate his administration’s ability to appoint anti-abortion judges to America’s courts. That regardless of his guilt or lack thereof, this is all about Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand. Abortion is not an issue that Americans can agree to disagree on, and so democracy has become an exercise of raw power by one side against the other, with lives hanging in the balance.

Abortion activists will do whatever it takes to protect the fictitious right to feticide — a “right,” it must be said, that would have stunned the Founders and the framers of the Constitution. And so regardless of whether or not Trump violated the law, this battle, at the end of the day, is really about abortion — even if it shouldn’t be.

Jonathon’s new podcast, The Van Maren Show, is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement. In his latest episode, he interviews Douglas Murray, British journalist, author, and political commentator. The two  discuss Murray’s newest book, The Madness of Crowds, and what Murray calls the four biggest hot-button issues in politics today: “gays, women, race, and trans.”  You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below:

Featured Image
Cardinals Schönborn and Marx converse in the Synod Hall. The latter is German. Patrick Craine / LifeSiteNews
Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike

Blogs ,

Canon lawyer: Vatican should, after a warning, punish German bishops, ‘excommunication’ possible

Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike
By Maike Hickson

Watch online for free as lay Catholics from across the world address critical Amazon Synod issues THIS Friday.  Click here to join.

October 2, 2019 update: US canon Lawyer Edward Peters has stated on his Oct. 1 blog that he finds Weishaupt's assertion that prelates should receive a canonical warning who propose ordination of women "quite soundly argued." He stated: "In particular, I agree with Weishaupt that the exclusion of women from priestly ordination was declared infallibly by Pope St. John Paul II in Ordinatio sacerdotalis (1994), that such a ruling must be definitively held by all the faithful as a 'secondary object of infallibility' (1983 CIC 750 § 2), and that opposition to this ruling makes one liable to sanction under Canon 1371 n. 1. A canonical warning to the German bishops on this point is therefore canonically, and pastorally (bishops have souls, too), in order."

September 30, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Father Gero P. Weishaupt, a German priest with a doctorate in canon law, just wrote a commentary in light of the recent fall assembly of the German bishops. At this assembly, they decided to start a “synodal path” questioning the Church's teaching on celibacy, the all-male priesthood, and homosexuality, among others.

Two German prelates – Cardinal Rainer Woelki and Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer – strongly oppose this controversial choice of topics for the “synodal path,” and Voderholzer announced already that he might at some point leave this event.

Dr. Weishaupt entitled his own commentary on the problem of the “synodal path” To Take Seriously the Penal Law, which already indicates the theme of his text.

Weishaupt received his doctorate from the Gregoriana in Rome and since then has served as judge at diocesan tribunals, as a curial secretary in Rome, as a Latin expert for Radio Vatikan (the German section of Vatican Radio), as a professor at the Benedict XVI University Heiligenkreuz (Austria), and as the editor of the Catholic website Kathnews.

Right at the beginning of his article, Weishaupt makes it clear that the discussion about the possibility of “ordaining” female “priests” is a “questioning of a definitive, infallible and unchangeable doctrine of the Church.” The “unending” discussion in Germany on this matter is therefore “a criminal offense.”

“The Apostolic See would now have to admonish the majority of the German Bishops’ Conference and the members of the Central Committee of German Catholics [ZdK, a lay organization that takes a leading role in the ‘synodal path’] and, should there be no revocation, then to sanction them with a penalty.”

Weishaupt makes it clear that, “he who wishes to discuss a topic, puts the object of the discussion into question, otherwise, a discussion would be superfluous.”

After some detailed explanations of a 1998 document by Pope John Paul II as to the nature of different infallible doctrines (those that are part of the deposit of the faith as revealed by God and those which are infallible without the Church saying that they “have been revealed by God”), Dr. Weishaupt explains that Pope John Paul II, for the “protection of these definitive doctrines of the faith which are most intimately connected with the revealed deposit of the faith, in a historical and logical manner,” had also established penal norms.

Those Catholics who reject a doctrine and don’t recant that rejection should be punished. (can. 1371 § 1) Accordingly, can. 750 § 2 explains that everything has to be held “that has been presented by the Magisterium of the Church concerning faith and morals as being definitive.” He who rejects these teachings finds himself in “resistance to the teaching of the Catholic Church.”

Dr. Weishaupt then presents to his readers Pope John Paul II's 1994 document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in which the Pope writes, “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.”

Since the German bishops and some members of the ZdK have already declared that they wish to discuss the matter of female “priests,” Weishaupt continues, this decision is “an act of disobedience toward the Pope and the Church's Magisterium,” to include a “rejection of an infallible, definite doctrine.”

 “Therefore,” he explains, “the criminal offense according to can. 1371 § 1 is fulfilled.”

“It would now be the duty of the Apostolic See first to admonish those bishops of the German Bishops' Conference who wish to discuss this doctrine, as well as the members of the Zdk, according to the precepts of can. 1371 § 1,” Weishaupt states.

“If, on the part of the majority of the German bishops and of the ZdK, there does not follow a recantation,” the canon lawyer continues, “there should be imposed upon them a ‘just penalty,’ which does not exclude the excommunication of the concerned bishops and of the members of the ZdK, as well as, in reference to bishops, the removal from the episcopal office as the highest form and ultima ratio of ecclesial penalties.”

Weishaupt explains that, since the outbreak of the sex abuse crisis in the Church, the Church's penal law has been “rediscovered,” “after it had been gravely neglected in the wake of the Second Vatican Council.” 

“The abuse crisis,” the canon law expert continues, “led to a deepened insight that penalties are necessary.”

He also draws a connection to the German “synodal path” and its questioning of dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church, saying that such questioning also “damages the Church.”

“It will be seen,” Dr. Weishaupt concludes, “whether the Church will apply in a resolute manner the penal law with regard to the ‘synodal’ discussion of the definitively settled doctrine that the priestly ordination can only be conferred on men.”

Featured Image
Bishop Erwin Kräutler of Xingu, Brazil. GLOBART / YouTube
Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike

Blogs

John Paul II’s ban on female priests ‘not a dogma’: key Amazon Synod organizer

Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike
By Maike Hickson

Watch online for free as lay Catholics from across the world address critical Amazon Synod issues THIS Friday.  Click here to join.

September 30, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – The bishop credited with writing the Amazon Synod’s controversial working document has stated that Pope John Paul II's teaching about the impossibility of female priests is “not a dogma.” 

Urgent Prayer Pledge: JOIN the 9-Day Novena leading up to the Amazon Synod Sign the petition here.

Bishop Erwin Kräutler, the retired bishop of Xingu, Brazil, made this claim in an interview with Blickpunkt Lateinamerika, the journal of the German relief agency Adveniat – a group which heavily funded the preparations for the upcoming Synod happening in Rome October 6-27. 

Making it once more clear that he is in favor of female priests, the Bishop explained that the reason why he never speaks of “viri probati” (morally proven married men who could possibly be ordained), but, rather, of “personae probatae” (proven persons) is because the former is “too much bound to one sex.”

“I know it is not easy to oppose exclusion of women from the ordained priesthood, as it has been cemented [sic] by Pope John Paul II in his 1994 apostolic document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,” he said, adding: “But, even if the Pope explained at the time that 'all the faithful of the Church are definitely to hold this decision,' it is nevertheless not a dogma.”

In 1994, St. John Paul II declared in an apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that the Church has “no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.”

In May of last year, Archbishop Luis Ladaria, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, reaffirmed Pope John Paul II’s teaching, stating that the male-only priesthood is “infallible” teaching. “The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in response to a doubt about the teaching of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, reiterated that it is a truth belonging to the deposit of faith,” he stated at that time. 

Also in 2018, German Cardinal Walter Brandmüller – one of the two remaining dubia cardinals – declared that anyone who calls for female priests in the Catholic Church “fulfills the elements of heresy which has, as its consequence, the exclusion from the Church – excommunication.” He made the case that John Paul II's 1994 declaration “fulfills all the preconditions which are necessary for an infallible – that is to say, an irrevocable – dogmatic decision.”

Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stated in July that not even a pope or a council could change this dogma that excludes women from Holy Orders. He said that “no synod – with or without the Pope – and also no ecumenical council, or the Pope alone, if he spoke ex cathedra, could make possible the ordination of women as bishop, priest, or deacon. They would stand in contradiction to the defined doctrine of the Church.”

The fact that Bishop Kräutler, a key organizer of the upcoming Amazon Synod, can so lightly question settled teaching of the Catholic Church does not bode well for this synod and its outcome. Kräutler also stated in the interview that the Amazon Synod “must admit women to the ordination to the diaconate.”

The Austrian bishop has been involved in preparations for the Amazon Synod since 2014 after he met Pope Francis in a private audience, at which he discussed with the Pope the ideas of Bishop Fritz Lobinger to ordain married priests. Lobinger also proposes to ordain women.

At that audience, Pope Francis told Kräutler to make “bold proposals” for the Amazon region.

In March of 2018, the Pope called the bishop into the pre-synodal council for the Amazon Synod. Different progressivist sources, such as The Tablet and Professor Paul Zulehner, claim that the Austrian bishop is the main author of the synod's working document.

Featured Image
Cardinal Gerhard Müller
Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike

Blogs

Cardinal Müller: John Paul II’s ban on female priestly ordination is a ‘dogma,’ includes diaconate

Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike
By Maike Hickson

September 30, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has provided LifeSiteNews with a statement on why the Church’s teaching of an all-male priesthood is infallible and therefore not up for a corrective discussion.

In his comments, Cardinal Müller refers to Pope John Paul II's authoritative document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994). In this document, the Pope stated at the time that “although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.”

In light of the debates on female “ordination” that were then already taking place, John Paul II makes it clear that this discussion is not possible when he writes: “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.”

Comments Cardinal Müller himself:

“It is certain without doubt, however, that this definitive decision from Pope John Paul II is indeed a dogma of the Faith of the Catholic Church and that this was of course the case already before this Pope defined this truth as contained in Revelation in the year 1994. The impossibility that a woman validly receives the Sacrament of Holy Orders in each of the three degrees is a truth contained in Revelation and it is thus infallibly confirmed by the Church's Magisterium and presented as to be believed.”

Herewith, the German prelate makes it clear that even the female “diaconate” is infallibly ruled out.

In the recent past, there have been in Germany different voices demanding female “ordination” and thereby also questioning Pope John Paul II's 1994 document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

The most recent and prominent example of questioning this authoritative document is Bishop Erwin Kräutler, one of the key organizers of the upcoming October 6 to 27 Synod of Bishops on the Pan-Amazon, and a staunch promoter of the idea of “ordaining” women. He just stated that John Paul II's ban on female “priests” is “not a dogma” and that the female “diaconate” is now a “must.” 

“I know it is not easy to oppose exclusion of women from the ordained priesthood, as it has been cemented [sic] by Pope John Paul II in his 1994 apostolic document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,” he explains. “But, even if the Pope explained at the time that ‘all the faithful of the Church are definitely to hold this decision,’ it is nevertheless not a dogma.”

Kräutler goes on to say that the Amazon Synod “must admit women to the ordination to the diaconate.”

In light of the upcoming Amazon Synod and its discussion of possible “ministerial offices” for women, it seems fitting now to receive from Cardinal Müller some of his illuminating and authoritative comments on the matter.

Another German prelate, Cardinal Rainer Woelki, made a similar statement a few weeks ago. On September 8, he stated that “the question about the priesthood of women is not a question which lies in our power of disposition,” since “priesthood has not been invented by man, but goes back to the mandate of Our Lord.” 

“Pope John Paul II has decided upon this question in a binding manner and for the entire Church already in 1994,” Cardinal Woelki concluded, “and Pope Francis has repeatedly re-enforced this decision of his predecessor.”

In 2018, the German Cardinal Walter Brandmüller – one of the two remaining dubia cardinals – declared that he who call for female “priests” in the Catholic Church “fulfills the elements of heresy which has, as its consequence, the exclusion from the Church – excommunication.” He then also insisted that John Paul II's 1994 declaration “fulfills all the preconditions which are necessary for an infallible – that is to say, an irrevocable – dogmatic decision.” 

Cardinal Müller himself, in an earlier intervention concerning the working document of the Amazon Synod, even went so far as to state that not even a pope or a council could change this dogma. He said that “no synod – with or without the Pope – and also no ecumenical council, or the Pope alone, if he spoke ex cathedra, could make possible the ordination of women as bishop, priest, or deacon. They would stand in contradiction to the defined doctrine of the Church.”

Featured Image
40 Days for Life
Shawn Carney

The Pulse , ,

Over 2 dozen babies saved less than 1 week into latest 40 Days for Life vigil

Shawn Carney
By Shawn Carney
Image
Image
Image
Image

September 30, 2019 (40 Days for Life) — Mondays are the worst...except during a 40 Days for Life campaign!

That's because each Monday we'll update the number of confirmed babies saved from abortion thanks to YOUR prayers.

Less than a week into the vigil, we already know of 26 babies saved!

"Never underestimate the power of body language!" said Susan in Sacramento, California.

The couple entering the abortion facility refused crisis pregnancy support information as they drove into the abortion center parking lot. And once the abortion-bound mom exited her vehicle, she was much too far away to sidewalk counsel.

But the 40 Days for Life prayer warrior in Sacramento didn't give up.

"She put forth the information with one hand, pointed up to the abortion clinic with the other hand and shook her head 'No,'" Susan reported. "Then she hugged her heart and put her hands together as if to pray."

It made a difference. The couple left their abortion appointment, stopping briefly to announce some good news: "We changed our minds! We're going to keep our baby!"

St. Paul, Minnesota

It's only fitting that the first TWO hours of sidewalk counseling in the TWIN Cities resulted in TWO babies saved from abortion!

It was certainly great news for the 100 people who attended the St. Paul kickoff event Wednesday night.

Bournemouth, England

The abortion-bound mother was more than a bit anxious as she arrived for her appointment. Listening to music on her headphones to try to drown out her conscience, she headed for the entrance.

That is until a 40 Days for Life participant approached her and asked her to sit down for coffee — an invitation that was accepted.

"She explained her difficult life and agreed that the abortion was not the right option," reported Fr. Philomeno in Bournemouth. "Later she contacted the helper full of joy in her decision to keep the child."

Remember your Creator before the silver cord is loosed, or the golden bowl is broken, or the pitcher shattered at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the well. Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.

—Ecclesiastes 12:6-7

O God, we too often try to live in ways that ignore our coming death. We forget that our days are numbered by You, that at the end of our days your judgment awaits, that You are the Lord of our destiny. Help us to repent daily, and then to live each day in joyful obedience. Lead us to live in the light and promise of eternity. Prepare us to live fully and sacrificially.

See today's full devotional

If you haven't been able to join us yet, don't forget to look for the 40 Days for Life vigil nearest you:

40daysforlife.com/location

Published with permission from 40 Days for Life.

Featured Image
A 40 Days for Life rally in Bryan, Texas. 40 Days for Life
Shawn Carney and Steven Karlen

The Pulse , ,

The ‘most anti-choice place in the country’ is not a bad place to live

Shawn Carney and Steven Karlen
By Shawn Carney
Image
Image
Image
Image

September 30, 2019 (40 Days for Life) — The city where 40 Days for Life began — Bryan/College Station, Texas — before going to 855 cities in 61 countries was labeled "the most anti-choice place in the country."

It's been six years since that Planned Parenthood facility became the 37th out of 104 abortion facilities to close following a 40 Days for Life campaign. A lot has happened in those six years!

That facility became the headquarters of 40 Days for Life and was recently depicted in the blockbuster film Unplanned.

Today, Bryan/College Station is the largest college town in America that does NOT have an abortion provider...and the community wants to keep it that way!

It's the city's first campaign since Planned Parenthood left and it's off to a good start with a keynote address from 40 Days for Life Director of Medical Affairs & Education Dr. Haywood Robinson.

"We're praying for an end to abortion," Patricia, the local leader, told the Bryan-College Station Eagle. "We're praying for our community's leaders, we're praying for women and men who have been through abortions and need healing — we're just praying."

Schenectady, New York

The 40 Days for Life team in Schenectady has been holding campaigns for a decade. But some participants have been going out since long before 40 Days for Life began.

"A man got out of his car and thanked us for standing up for life because his mother had wanted to abort him before the pro-life message converted her," said Mike from Schenectady. "I wonder if it could have been some of our pro-life people decades ago!"

Portland, Maine

The first-ever campaign in Portland began with a day 1 visit from 40 Days for Life Board Chair and General Counsel Matt Britton. More than a hundred people came out for the launch event.

Not everybody who dropped by was pro-life though. A group of hecklers brought signs that read, "I love abortion."

So much for pretending that abortion is a difficult situation that nobody takes lightly!

The King will answer and say to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me." —Matthew 25:31-46

Gracious and merciful Father, we renew our dedication to defending the unborn and all whose right to life is compromised by our godless society's selfish lack of concern. Free us from our own failures and sins so that we will be truly pro-life in every area of our lives.

Published with permission from 40 Days for Life.

View specific date
Print All Articles