All articles from November 7, 2019


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

News , , ,

US paid to tie down, blindfold, sterilize indigenous Peruvian women. Now they’re suing

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

LIMA, Peru, November 7, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – After more than 20 years, women who were forcibly sterilized will have their day in court as prosecutors in Peru intend to charge a former president and government officials with serious human rights abuses.

Former President Alberto Fujimori of Peru (1990-2000) and other former high-ranking government officials will face a court in December for their involvement in forced sterilizations of women, which caused the death of at least one woman in the Andean republic. Fujimori, 81, promoted his Voluntary Chemical Contraception Program in the 1990s to supposedly level the playing field and provide to poor women contraception that they would not be able to afford without government assistance. Contraception services in Peru were subsidized by U.S. taxpayers through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). 

This was despite a 1978 amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 that prohibits the use of U.S. dollars “to pay for the performance of involuntary sterilizations as a method of family planning or to coerce or provide any financial incentive to any person to undergo sterilizations.”

The Congressional Research Service reports that as a result of the forced sterilizations in Peru, “In October 1998, Congress enacted an amendment introduced by Representative Todd Tiahrt as part of the FY1999 Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act that directs voluntary family planning projects supported by the United States to comply with five specific requirements.”

Those requirements lay out stricter guidelines that are supposed to prevent funding from going to coerced sterilizations.

This amendment, “which became known as the Tiahrt amendment, has been included in foreign operations appropriations in each subsequent fiscal year,” the Congressional Research Service reports.

‘They cut me up like a hog’

According to Spanish website LaRazon, Gloria Basilio, 46, recalled that government nurses came to her home in the 1990s, telling her that because she already had three children, she should not bear any more.

“They explained to me ‘in the future, we will privatize schools and hospitals and there won’t be any money.’ My children wouldn’t have an education, so it was obligatory to tie my [Fallopian] tubes. They didn’t pay me anything, so I told them, ‘I'll think about it.’” Two days later, she said, the nurses returned and told her that she should take advantage of the government program because sterilization would soon become expensive. 

She says they told her, “Women in the countryside multiply like guinea pigs, like rabbits.”

When the nurses returned for a third visit while Basilio’s husband was travelling, Basilio agreed to the procedure. 

“They came for us at five in the afternoon, then they tied down our arms, blindfolded us, and without any machines. Through the blindfold, I could see the surgical saws and how the blood sprayed on the doctors from my abdomen. But I couldn’t move because I was anesthetized. They cut me up like a hog.” 

Basilio and thousands of other poverty-stricken Peruvian women are demanding justice and a hearing of their concerns.

Another of the victims of the contraceptive program was María Mamérita Mestanza Chávez, a woman from an indigenous community in the mountainous Cajamarca region of Peru. According to various media reports, she agreed to demands for sterilization after 10 threatening visits from government medical personnel. On March 27, 1998, personnel of the Peruvian Ministry of Health operated on and sterilized her without a doctor present. The officials did not offer any information about the risks and consequences of the operation or any further medical assistance. In less than two weeks, on April 4 of that year, Mestanza Chávez died as a result of an infection. 

Besides Mestanza Chávez, Peruvian prosecutors have identified four other women who died as a result of forced or involuntary sterilizations: Alejandra Aguirre Auccapina, Reynalda Betallaluz Aguilar, Marían Espinola Otiniano, and Celia Ramos Durand. The number of victims of Fujimori’s sterilization campaign range as high as 300,000. Of these, 272,000 were female and 22,000 were male. Of these, 2,166 have presented complaints before prosecutors. Approximately 1,316 victims of sterilization have been added to the case so far. There are 5,758 women whose names appear on the National Victims Registry that is maintained by the Ministry of Justice.

Some women were sterilized unknowingly when government medical personnel performed caesarean deliveries for them. Many of the victims are illiterate and are non-native speakers of Spanish. The indigenous people of Peru speak the pre-Columbian Aymara or Quechua languages. According to Adolfo Castañeda of Human Life International, many of these women agreed to be sterilized only after being offered food for themselves and their hungry children.

Peruvian feminist Giulia Tamayo told the Peruvian website LaMadre that she observed in the poorest districts of her country that government agencies had quotas to fulfill for sterilizations among women. Many of these districts are heavily populated by indigenous people. Some of these districts were targeted, she said, because the government judged them to be under the control of narcotraffickers and armed leftist insurgents.

USAID was funding Peru’s health system during the period that sterilizations were widespread. Other organizations involved in the campaign were the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the nonprofit Japanese NIPPON Foundation. 

According to the pro-life Population Research Institute (PRI), USAID files show that Project 2000, an accord reached by the U.S. with Peru in 1993, put the agency at the forefront of Peru’s health ministry during the years that the abuses took place. UNFPA donated $10 million for the forced-sterilization campaign, bolstering the millions spent by American taxpayers.

Concerning the Peruvian victims, in an email to LifeSiteNews, PRI President Steven Mosher wrote: “These women not only deserve compensation, the government needs to apologize to them for violating their human rights.” 

In his book Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits, Mosher wrote:

“President Alberto Fujimori, elected to a second term in mid-1995, had wasted no time in legalizing sterilization as a method of birth control. He ordered the country’s Ministry of Health, headed by Dr. Eduardo Yong Motta, to focus its efforts on family planning, specifically, on tubal ligations. To train Peruvian doctors and officials in how to structure and run a sterilization campaign, Dr. Motta brought in Chinese, Indian and Colombian doctors who had carried out such campaigns in their own countries. To monitor the success of the campaign, Fujimori himself set national targets for the numbers of sterilizations to be performed—100,000 in 1997 alone—and demanded weekly progress reports.

Mobile sterilization teams, a fixture of such campaigns, were soon being assembled in the capital city of Lima. These teams of doctors and nurses, who often had no prior training in obstetrics or gynecology, were hurriedly taught how to do tubal ligations, and then sent to the countryside to conduct a series of one- or two-week ‘ligation festivals.’ Prior to a team’s arrival in an area local Ministry of Health employees would hang banners announcing the forthcoming ‘Ligation Festival,’ and fan out across the countryside to captar [ ‘bring in’ or ‘capture’ in English] women for tubal ligations. The effort was focused on the poorer provinces, home to a high percentage of Peruvians of Indian descent.”

In 1974, during the Nixon administration, bearing the title “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests, National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM-200 or so-called Kissinger Memorandum, which bore the name of erstwhile Secretary of State Henry Kissinger) set out the American foreign policy goals for demographic collapse of Latin America and other regions of the world. The secret document was declassified in 1989.

Dr. Brian Clowes of Human Life International analyzed the document, noting, “In order to protect U.S. commercial interests, NSSM-200 cited a number of factors that could interrupt the smooth flow of materials from lesser-developed countries...to the United States, including a large population of anti-imperialist youth, who must...be limited by population control.” 

As for former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori, he remains in prison after the country’s supreme court overturned a presidential pardon in 2018. He was sentenced in 2005 to a 25-year sentence for human rights violations involved in using death squads to fight leftist insurgents in his country. 

Featured Image
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne

News ,

Student: School suspended me for ‘hate speech’ when I protested wearing LGBT rainbow poppy

Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence

BLACK RIVER, Manitoba, November 7, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — A 17-year-old Canadian high school student is sticking to her story that a Manitoba school suspended her for “hate speech” after she posted objections to wearing a rainbow-colored poppy.

The Interlake School Division will neither confirm nor deny reports that the Stonewall Collegiate student has been suspended until after Remembrance Day.

“In the interests of maintaining confidentiality, we would not publicly comment on any student matter whatsoever,” board chair Alan Campbell told LifeSiteNews in a phone call.

“But what I can tell you is that at no point did a staff member of Stonewall Collegiate or Interlake School Division direct, mandate or suggest that any student should have to wear a rainbow poppy,” Campbell said.

However, the student, identified only as Natalie, provided a statement Thursday to the Post Millennial, which broke the story Wednesday.

“It all started when teachers, counselors, and some students said we should wear the rainbow poppy … ” Natalie said, adding that she disagreed. “I typed up papers on a computer, printed them off, and taped them up in the halls.”

According to a photo in the Post Millennial, the poster said: 

Never seen something so disrespectful in all my days. What does LGBTQ have to do with the war? Red represents Blood, Black represents widows and loved ones, green represents land the blood was spilled on. NEVER change the poppy.

Way to un-do centuries of blood sweat and tears all because you needed to do the dishes. 

Keep it in your pants nobody wants or needs to see it.

You’ve got a whole month dedicated to the LGBTQ community, but the people who legitimately made a difference and died so that we could live decent lives get one day. You don’t need a poppy, you just clearly want attention. One day to celebrate the real hero’s how about we don’t make it about your sexuality for once?

If you didn’t make such a big deal about it and force people to make it a part of their lives it would be no problem. 

“As I was putting them up, teachers were taking them down. I watched as they took them to the office and gave them to the secretary,” Natalie told the Post Millennial.

Natalie said she then went to class but was soon called to the office and confronted by Principal Jason Cassils and Vice Principal Bryce Baldwin, who, she alleges, began yelling at her to the point where she became afraid and was on the verge of tears.

“They accused me of hate speech and endangering the physical safety of the group of individuals (LGBT students),” Natalie said.

“They asked me what I was thinking, and I told them everything … I said I was just voicing my beliefs and morals,” she told the Post Millennial.

“I got to the point of almost crying, but I didn’t. I had to be the voice for all those families who were greatly disrespected and offended.”

Natalie also alleged that when she tried to record the conversation, the administrators confiscated her phone and suspended her until after Remembrance Day.

“So I asked why? Why am I being suspended and punished for expressing my feelings? And they said everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, opinions, and way of life. So I asked, why am I not?”

Natalie said the school administrators notified her parents after they gave the suspension order.

Her father told the Post Millennial he saw school staff return Natalie’s phone to her when he came to pick her up, and that she cannot return to school until Tuesday. 

He said the school administrators stated the reason for suspension was “hate speech,” not a refusal to wear the rainbow poppy.

The Interlake School District issued a statement Thursday morning: “In light of misinformation which has been widely spread on social media, we will share that at no point did any staff member of Stonewall Collegiate or Interlake School Division direct, nor mandate, any student to wear a ‘rainbow poppy.’”

The story erupted on social media and was reported in the Post Millennial after Cyara Bird of the Black River First Nation, a former Conservative Party candidate for Churchill-Keewatinook Aski riding of northern Manitoba, tweeted Wednesday: 

“There was no forcing of wearing a multicolor poppy it was a strong suggestion that Natalie was strongly against and when she put her feeling on paper she was suspended for hate speech,” tweeted Bird.

Bird also tweeted that the school administrators told her cousin not to go public:

“The pride we have because of our grandfather fighting in World War II is strong,” Bird told the Post Millennial. “We all wear poppies. (Natalie) was not opposing wearing one — she just did not want to wear one she felt was disrespectful to the veterans.”

Bird tweeted that the traditional red poppy is truly inclusive.

Bird’s Twitter account is replete with outrage at the suspension and suggestions that her cousin sue the school board.

Featured Image
Fr. Cor Mennen. Omroep Brabant / YouTube
Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent

News

Dutch priest on pope post–Amazon Synod: ‘On good grounds I think he is a heretic’

Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
By Jeanne Smits

November 7, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – A retired Dutch priest, Cor Mennen, has been slammed by his bishop for having expressed criticism of Pope Francis after the Amazon Synod and the idolatrous cult of Mother Earth, the Pachamama. But the auxiliary bishop of his diocese, Robert Mutsaerts, supported Mennen by publishing the priest’s latest blog post on fortesinfide.nl on his own “episcopal” blog, “Paarse Pepers” (“Purple Peppers”).

The support of Mutsaerts, who has himself been very outspoken about the lack of Catholic identity of the Amazon synod and the presence of figures of Mother Earth, “Pachamama,” in a number of paganized ceremonies in the presence of the pope or in the church of Santa Maria in Traspontina in Rome, is a sign of the courage of members of the Dutch clergy who will not be intimidated by episcopal and media threats.

Speaking of a recent blog post of Fr. Cor Mennen, Bishop Gerard de Korte of ’s-Hertogenbosch (Den Bosch, Netherlands), told the Catholic weekly Katholiek Nieuwsblad on October 31 that he had been obliged to “whistle back” Fr. Mennen: “Calling the pope a heretic, that really doesn’t do,” he said.

Three days earlier, Mennen had criticized the excessive respect shown by many Catholics to the papacy because they do not take into account that while Peter is the “rock” on which Jesus Christ founded His Church, He also ordered Peter back: “Get thee behind me, Satan!”

In the Gospel of Matthew, recalled Mennen, Our Lord established Peter as the head of the Church, but it was only moments later that Peter suggested that He should refrain from going to Jerusalem so as to escape His passion and his death, upon which Jesus immediately rebuked him.

“Does not the Gospel make clear to us that it is only the profession of faith of Peter (and the professing Peter) that is the rock upon which Christ builds His Church, but that the same Peter is a danger for the Church when he lets himself be led by human considerations and not by the will of God?” wrote Mennen.

“That is clearly the case with Francis,” he continued, quoting the “idolatrous ceremony” in the Vatican Gardens as the “summit of deviation from the will of God.”

Mennen recalled how many Catholics had been “horrified” by that and other ceremonies involving the Pachamama statues, and rightly so, given the clarity of the First Commandment: “I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt not bow down to graven images.”

Underscoring Pope Francis’s own description of the statuettes as “Pachamama,” Mennen added that this was no “superficial error” on the part of the pope because he had signed the Abu Dhabi document stating that the “diversity of religions” is “willed by God.”

Among other errors and bowing down to the spirit of the world, Mennen also noted that Pope Francis “actively promotes Liberation Theology” and always prefers socialist and communist politicians to others.

He finally quoted an answer to a confused priest saying he was tempted not to name the pope during Mass. Mennen said he considered the pope to be “harmful” to the Church and added: “On good grounds I think he is a heretic, but at this time no one in the Church is entitled to declare this officially, thus provoking his excommunication.” “So for the time being we are stuck with a pope who is formally the head of the Church and at the same time harmful to the Church. We can only hope that the next conclave will make a wiser choice. In the meantime, we just name him in the canon. It is not otherwise. But it is not forbidden at that same moment mentally to say a rapid prayer for the conversion of the pope,” he concluded.

Cor Mennen, who will be 75 next year, has not been canonically sanctioned in any way. The former parish priest of Oss, in the diocese of Den Bosch, now does replacements in a number of parishes, celebrating Sunday Mass; preaching; and giving lectures in the local seminary, particularly on canonical matters.

However, Bishop de Korte did seek to distance himself from Mennen, while avoiding open support for the innovations to the priesthood and the liturgy promoted by the Amazon Synod.

Underscoring that the Synod Fathers have no power of decision, de Korte did say he was happy that the synod had taken place in order to see how “pre-Christian” religions of the Amazon could be “linked to Catholicism:” “So, how can we integrate what is true, good, and beautiful in their culture into our evangelization? How can that become part of the expression of our faith?” he asked.

“God is there already before the missionary comes,” he added, glossing over the fact that primitive, pagan religions idolize demons.

De Korte was questioned on his auxiliary bishop’s criticism about the synod and replied that he favors “the liberty to express one’s opinion.” It was at this point he said there was “one priest” he had to “whistle back” because he had “qualified the pope as a heretic.” He added that “the pope would not want systematic applause” and that with such a tone, “dialogue is excluded.”

Speaking with LifeSite in a short interview, Mennen made clear that there was no particular “problem” with his bishop and that the statement sounded more like “publicity.”

“I am obliged to say that the pope does not have the slightest interest in dialogue,” he remarked.

According to Mennen, there is little public interest in the Netherlands for the Amazon Synod, but he is of the opinion that “many priests” think the same as he “but do not know what to do.” Underscoring that the Netherlands has mostly good bishops, he regretted that “they all remain silent; it seems as if they were all afraid.” He called the support of Bishop Mutsaerts for his writings “important,” in order to “make more Catholics aware of the situation.”

He added that “people are so used to have respect for the pope that they think things can not be that bad: they just believe it’s fake news.”

Mennen paid homage to Alexander Tschugguel, who threw the Pachamama idols into the Tiber, adding that the news coming from Rome at present is “not good, be it on the doctrinal, the moral or the financial” place, “something that this pope appears in a way to favor.”

When asked by LifeSite what people should do in the present, he answered: “The classic reply is to pray, but it is also important that lay people ask their bishops to speak out forcefully.”

Below is the full translation by LifeSite of Fr. Mennen’s latest blog post that was republished by Bishop Mutsaerts on his website. His text expands on the points Bishop de Korte was unhappy about.


On the occasion of the Amazon Synod, Bishop de Korte told Katholiek Nieuwsblad that there are two approaches: “Within the Church there is a synthetic line and an anti-synthetic line. The synthetic line tries to integrate the truth, goodness, and beauty of the other culture into the expression of Faith. In the case of the anti-synthetic line, that is precisely what is rejected.” It is further said that de Korte himself is of the synthetic line and his auxiliary bishop of the anti-synthetic line.

This seems to me, frankly, to be real nonsense. It’s not that simple at all. The Catholic Church has always tried in its missionary work to integrate the true, the good, and the beautiful contained in a culture receiving the mission. Thus, from the beginning, Christianity was linked to Greco-Roman civilisation, and thus the Church became the bearer of the unique Christian Western culture. In doing so, the Church adopted all the beautiful things of the Greco-Roman culture: visual art, architecture, and great philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, which it  Christianized, but it also radically rejected all pagan elements that do not correspond to the Christian faith, such as the subordination of women, abortion, infanticide, obscene plays, and bloody gladiatorial battles. The temples were gradually transformed into churches, but no one would have dreamed of showing any respect for the Roman idols. On the contrary, the early Christians would rather have died than do so. Throughout history, missionaries of the existing culture have incorporated what was appropriate to the gospel and rejected what was contrary to it. This is the true synthetic line that no one in the Church will object to, including Bishop Mutsaerts.

For the first time in Church history, the central authority in the Church now deviates from this synthetic approach (normal inculturation) and proclaims syncretistic (arbitrary mixing of real pagan elements with Christian) views. It is not the case that some confused bishop or some old Liberation Theologian said some strange things on the Amazon Synod; no, the pope-approved working document of the synod contains all kinds of syncretic elements: the concept of Mother Earth already appears in it; the Amazon is called a locus of theology alongside the Bible; we need to get a better understanding of the ecological importance of the Amazonian worship of the spirits. According to the synod document and many synod fathers, this should be included in the Catholic Amazonian faith. And the fact that I’m not talking nonsense is proven in the whole Pachamama thing, where under the watchful and approving eye of the pope (something unheard of in 2,000 years), pagan rituals took place in the Vatican gardens around the goddess Pachamama. This idolatrous lady was later solemnly carried in a procession with the pope into Saint Peter’s, and she was given a place in the synod aula. Is this part of Bishop de Korte’s synthetic vision? I suppose so, because it is only against this that the remarks of his auxiliary bishop, who, according to Katholiek Nieuwsblad, is anti-synthetic, are directed.

The goddess in Saint Peter’s

This whole issue is not about synthetic or anti-synthetic or modern or old-fashioned. We can discuss those things, but we can all live with them. This is about the Catholic faith itself. At the highest level of the Church, there is a deviation from the Catholic faith itself. In the Church we have a clear word for important deviations from Catholic doctrine: heresy. This is one of the most important sins against the Church. The authority in the Church is called to act against it, as all the popes and councils have done in the past of the Church. The present pope and “his” synods do not do this. They proclaim or at the very least promote certain heresies, also by deliberately using unclear language or by expressing opposing opinions. The Pachama event goes beyond heresy: it is apostasy (apostasy) by agreeing to worship idols, which radically violates the First Commandment of the Decalogue.

The bishop told K.N. that he whistled me back because I called the pope a heretic. Well, as regards the whistling back, it wasn’t that bad: at a chapter meeting, he told me that such an accusation was really not possible and put an end to all dialogue. Well, I don’t know what “dialogue” one should have with heretics. Faced with the Church’s constant doctrine, they can either agree or reject it. If they agree with the doctrine, there is nothing wrong. If they don’t, they are heretics. Moreover, I have never seen the pope’s willingness to engage in dialogue during his entire pontificate. The dubia cardinals are still waiting...

It goes farther and farther, by the way. The role of the pope in the Pachama affair could tempt me to give the pope an even more serious qualification than “heretic.” I won’t do that now, but everyone can draw his own honest conclusions.

Featured Image
Pope Francis. Francois Nel / Getty Images
Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin

News ,

Pope Francis denounces Amazon Synod critics as racist

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

ROME, November 7, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Offering his thoughts on the Amazon Synod, Pope Francis excoriated certain “circles and sectors” who allegedly consider much of humanity a “lower-class entity” with scant “spiritual and intellectual life.” These unnamed individuals, the pope opined, hope out of racism or bigotry to withhold the Gospel.

Pope Francis spoke with Italian journalist Gianni Valente during interviews conducted during the recent Amazon Synod. In talks gathered into a book in Italian titled Without Him We Can Do Nothing, the pontiff described his vision for the Church to embrace a missionary spirit, even while he blasted unnamed groups for mischaracterizing others as “lower-class.”

In the interview, the pope said, “There are circles and sectors that present themselves as ilustrados [enlightened] — they sequester the proclamation of the gospel through a distorted reasoning that divides the world between ‘civilization’ and ‘barbarism.'”

Pope Francis said, “The idea that the Lord has among his favorites many dark-complexioned people irritates them, it puts them in a bad mood. They consider a large part of the human family as a lower-class entity, incapable, according to their standards, of achieving decent levels in spiritual and intellectual life. On this basis, contempt can develop for people considered to be second-rate,” he said, adding that “all this also emerged during the Synod of Bishops for the Amazon.”

Perhaps signaling to his native country, the pope referred to “cabecitas negras” (literally, “little black heads”) — an Argentine slang term deriding people of dark complexion. When reports emerged from the synod that there were alleged aspersions cast at the feather headdresses used by some of the indigenous participants in the conference, Pope Francis deplored the “sarcastic words” directed at indigenous people wearing feathers. He said, “Tell me: what’s the difference between having feathers on your head and the three-peaked hat [birettas] worn by certain officials in our dicasteries?”

The book was released on November 5 and coincided with the close of Extraordinary Missionary Month in October. During October, the Vatican hosted the Amazon Synod, which had the ostensible goal of discussing how the Gospel can be proclaimed in the remote regions of South America, issues of inculturation, and ordination of mature married men to the priesthood in the Latin Rite. Even before the synod’s outset, controversy was stirred by the instrumentum laboris — the working document that offered points of discussion and goals to be met at the synod. Critics of the document included Cardinals Raymond Burke, Walter Brandmüller, and Gerhard Müller. Cardinal Brandmüller called the document “heretical” and an “apostasy” from Divine Revelation.

A tree-planting ceremony attended by Pope Francis at the outset of the synod immediately became controversial because of pagan rituals it incorporated and pagan effigies that were gifted to the pontiff. The very same idols, variously described as “Our Lady of the Amazon” and the “Pachamama” fertility goddess — the latter by the pope himself — showed up at a church not far from the Vatican, causing further controversy and comment. Then, on Oct. 21, a young Austrian entered the church, removed the effigies, and threw them into the Tiber River. His acts were recorded on video, which was then widely circulated on social media. Identifying himself as “Alexander,” the English-speaking Austrian man said in a later video that he was “very upset” when he saw people bowing before the idols at the church in Rome. He explained: “There are some laymen, and we stand up because we don’t want things like that happening in the Catholic Church.” After the incident, Pope Francis apologized to the synod organizers and even suggested that the idols would be returned to the church.

Author Valente told Religion News Service that the pope’s interview is a riposte to “to all the closed- and narrow-minded points of view that we witnessed” during the synod. He said “certain powerful ecclesiastical circles” in the United States show hostility toward the pope.

Pope Francis advocated for a revival of a missionary spirit in the Church. He said that nowadays, Catholics must “bear in mind that the revealed message is not identified with a particular culture,” the pope said. “And when meeting new cultures, or cultures that have not accepted the Christian proclamation, we must try not to impose a determined cultural form together with the evangelical proposition.” Proselytism “is always violent by nature,” he said, and “cuts out Christ” and grace from the Holy Spirit. Without aid from the Holy Spirit, mission work is but “a religious, or perhaps an ideological conquest, perhaps carried out even with good intentions.”

Being moved by the Holy Spirit, said the pope, produces an “attraction” for those who want to follow the path of missionaries. Missionaries should work in “facilitating, making easy, without placing obstacles to Jesus’s desire to embrace everyone, to heal everyone, to save everyone.” They should not be selective, impose “pastoral tariffs,” or be guards who control “who has the right to enter.”

Featured Image
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy

News

EWTN’s Fr. Mitch Pacwa condemns Pachamama ‘worship’ at Amazon Synod

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

PETITION: Call on Vatican to keep out all "pagan" symbols from St. Peter's and Vatican Property! Sign the petition here.

NEW YORK, November 7, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – An American Jesuit priest and EWTN host condemned the “worship” of the Pachamama pagan statue that took place in the context of the recently concluded Amazon Synod in Rome. 

Fr. Mitch Pacwa, SJ, the host of EWTN’s “Scripture and Tradition” show, blasted the use of the carved wooden figures representing the fertility goddess as a “major scandal.” 

“The introduction of the Pachamama into the Synod on the Amazon is something that is a major scandal,” he said.  

“We are forbidden to have idols. We are forbidden to worship other gods.”  

Last month, prior to the opening of the Amazon Synod, a pagan ceremony took place in the Vatican Gardens where people bowed down to the ground and worshiped Pachamama idols as Pope Francis and other top-ranking prelates looked on. The October 4 ritual, captured on video, shows Pope Francis blessing the pagan statue before receiving it as a gift. 

Pacwa, who is familiar with Pachamama worship from his work in Peru, was not impressed by the attempts of the Vatican’s Communications team to spin the figures as mere symbols of fertility and motherhood.

“Knock it off,” he said with uncharacteristic anger. “We’re not stupid. We’re not. This is an idol.”

One fruit of syncretistic Catholic interest in Pachamama has the appearance of a prayer to the pagan goddess published by the Mission Office of the Italian Bishops’ Conference. 

Pacwa went on to read part of a “prayer” to Pachamama that was published by the Mission Office of the Italian Bishops’ Conference in the leadup to the Amazon Synod: “Pachamama of these places, drink and eat as much as you like of these offerings, so that this land may be fruitful. Pachamama, good Mother, be propitious!”

“Stop,” Pacwa shouted. “You’re talking about making an offering to a goddess that the people of the Andes put higher than Jesus and his Blessed Mother.”

The priest told his audience that “Pachamama was still adored and worshipped in Peru, especially in the mountains.  

“She was part of a hierarchy of deities,” Pacwa explained.  

“The gods of the mountains were the chief deities. Pachamama, or Mother Earth, was under them. Below Pachamama were Jesus, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the saints. And then the rest of us. So they had integrated Pachamama into a pseudo-Catholic view of the world.”

Pacwa stressed that there is only one God, one God in three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 

“There is no other god!” he proclaimed. 

The priest said he hoped that the Conference of Italian Bishops had no idea the prayer had been published in their name. 

“But there’s some apparatchik in the Mission Office who said, ‘Oh, this is kind of cool,’” Pacwa suggested. “That kind of goofy, superficial, New-Age-like thinking that goes back to the 1970s.”

“This is something that is unacceptable.”

Making it even worse, he said, was that an entrance song sung at Mass in the cathedral in Lima, Peru was a hymn to Pachamama. 

“At Holy Mass!” he said.  

The priest said he had seen the video of the young men taking the images of Pachamama out of the Church of Santa Maria in Traspontina and remarked that the church is dedicated to Our Lady of Mount Carmel. Underscoring that nobody is permitted to worship the Blessed Virgin Mary, he suggested that honoring her Divine Son through the brown scapular would be a good reparation for the sins committed regarding syncretistic worship of Pachamama.

“Here’s the choice,” Pacwa said. “Do you accept this idol, naked with the big breasts, or do you take a look at Our Lady of Mount Carmel, the mountain where the prophet Elijah destroyed the prophets of Baal and Astarte, the mother goddess of the Canaanite people?”

“Do we accept from Our Lady the scapular she offers, or do we look to Pachamama to give her sacrifices, something we may not do to the Blessed Mother! We cannot offer her sacrifices! Sacrifices are offered to God and to God alone!” he continued.

“This other nonsense has to stop. And it’s spreading.” 

Wearing the brown scapular, he said, would be a way of symbolically putting on Christ and the yoke of Christ. 

“That will be a start of many other things we have to do to make sure that this nonsense stops now,” he said.

In 1970 on the Feast of Corpus Christi, there was an earthquake in Peru measured at 7.9 on the Richter scale. A resulting landslide buried the city of Yungay, killing more than 20,000 people. Pacwa visited the mass graveyard when he was in Peru in 1975, and what he saw there made his studio audience gasp. 

“The only thing to survive was a statue of Jesus Christ at the local cemetery,” Pacwa said.  

“One of the most amazing things about this is that at the base of it … (survivors) had written, ‘Such is the fate of those who worship Pachamama instead of the true Christ.’ That was their response.”

Featured Image
La Repubblica founder Eugenio Scalfari Francesca Marchi / Flickr
Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin

News

Pope’s go-to interviewer now claims Francis denies Jesus’ bodily resurrection

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

ROME, November 7, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis’ favored Italian interviewer Eugenio Scalfari is now claiming that the Pope told him that Jesus did not have a bodily resurrection after His passion and death on the cross, but that the man “disappeared” and he came forth from the tomb “in the semblance of a spirit.”

The Pope has granted numerous interviews to Scalfari that have stirred confusion and questions about the Pope’s beliefs. So far, the Pope himself has not issued any personal denial or clarification in the wake of Scalfari’s claims and has not said he will stop granting interviews to the atheist journalist.

Scalfari is a founder of La Repubblica, which has long been critical of the Vatican and the Catholic Church. The octogenarian journalist does not have the practice of recording his conversations with the Pope, as is the journalistic standard in interviews of this importance, but apparently relies on his memory to present his interpretation of the meetings.

Writing in the Italian daily La Repubblica on Tuesday (see full Italian text here), Scalfari related what Pope Francis allegedly told him about the Resurrection of Jesus. 

“He was a man until he was placed in the tomb by the women who recomposed his body. That night, in the tomb, the man disappeared and came forth from the grotto in the semblance of a spirit that met the women and the Apostles while still preserving the shadow of the person, and then he definitely disappeared.”

The bodily resurrection of Christ from the dead is a central tenet of the Christian faith. St. Paul told the Corinthians that "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" (1 Cor. 15:14).

The above quote attributed to the Pope appears in Scalfari’s new book Il Dio unico e la società moderna: Incontri con papa Francesco e il cardinale Carlo Maria Martini ("The One God and Modern Society: Meetings With Pope Francis and Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini").

Last month, Scalfari claimed that Pope Francis had denied the divinity of Jesus. Scalfari claimed that the Pope “conceives Christ as Jesus of Nazareth, a man, not God incarnate. Once incarnated, Jesus ceases to be a God and becomes a man until his death on the cross.” 

The journalist continued, saying: “When I happened to discuss these phrases, Pope Francis told me: ‘They are the definite proof that Jesus of Nazareth, once he became a man, even if he was a man of exceptional virtue, was not God at all.’” 

This prompted Matteo Bruni of the Vatican press office to issue a clarification: “As already stated on other occasions, the words that Dr. Eugenio Scalfari attributes in quotation marks to the Holy Father during conversations with him cannot be considered as a faithful account of what has actually been said, but rather represent a personal and free interpretation of what he has heard, as is quite evident from what has been written today about the divinity of Jesus Christ.”

Italian journalist Antonio Socci expressed shock about the comments about Jesus' Ressurection attributed to the Pope: “Scalfari continues to attribute to Bergoglio quotes that contain unheard-of theological enormities and no one from the Vatican cares in the least of denying, nor do they tell Scalfari to stop. Catholics think: those who keep silent agree.” 

Last month, after the claim about Pope Francis' remarks on Christ as Son of God, both Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Cardinal Gerhard Müller called on the Pope to personally address Scalfari's claims.

“Christians expect a clear answer from the Pope himself. The thing is too important; it is essential: Yes, I believe that Christ is the Son of God made Man, the only Savior and Lord,” Archbishop Viganò told LifeSite. 

“All Christians await this clarification from him, not from others, and by virtue of their baptism have the right to have this response.”

Featured Image
YouTube screenshot
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin

News ,

Leaked video reveals Google exploring ‘power to re-engineer humanity,’ top researcher explains

Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

November 7, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Google laid out its desire to use its vast influence to “re-engineer humanity” in “one of the creepiest videos you’ll ever see,” a prominent tech researcher explained last month in an interview on The Bill Walton Show.

On October 7, Walton had on American Institute for Behavioral Research psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein and Women’s Rights Without Frontiers founder and president Reggie Littlejohn for a wide-ranging discussion on the influencing of thought from the United States to China.

Among the topics raised was The Selfish Ledger, an internal Google video that leaked last year (and can be viewed here), and details how Google could use “total data collection” to transform society by influencing the individual decisions of millions of people.

“User-centered design principles have dominated the world of computing for many decades, but what if we looked at things a little differently?” it asked. “What if the ledger (the video’s term for the profile created by an individual’s data usage) could be given a volition or purpose rather than simply acting as a historical reference? What if we focused on creating a richer ledger by introducing more sources of information? What if we thought of ourselves not as the owners of this information, but as custodians, transient carriers, or caretakers?”

“These are Google employees explaining this to other people at Google,” Epstein explained. "This explains that we have the power to re-engineer humanity. And the phrase ‘using company values’ is actually in this film. And, in fact, they do have that power. And what this video shows is they actually discuss using this power.”

In The Selfish Ledger, Google X design chief and Near Future Laboratory co-founder Nick Foster envisions a system in which users select a personal goal or value – one that “reflect(s) Google’s values as an organization” – such as environmental friendliness, and Google recommends products or services that align with it. 

From there, the system would retain data on users’ goals and choices to, in Foster’s words, “refine” a “model of human behavior” that will shape future generations’ choices and eventually “develop a species-level understanding of complex issues such as depression, health, and poverty.”

When the video was originally revealed in 2018, Google X acknowledged to The Verge that the video was “disturbing,” but maintained it was merely a “thought-experiment” intended to “explore uncomfortable ideas and concepts in order to provoke discussion and debate,” and was “not related to any current or future products.” But Epstein maintains that The Selfish Ledger accurately depicts Google’s true objectives.

“In the United States with companies like Google, we're talking about control that's completely invisible to people,” he said. “And it's not control that's in the hands of, you know, some responsible agencies and very diverse groups of people who are discussing what's best for everybody. We're talking about control by mainly one and to a lesser extent a couple of other private companies ... it's terrifying to me. And the more I've learned about it over the years, the more concerned I've become.”

“There are much bigger issues here than whether or not, you know, they suppressed conservative content in the United States,” Epstein told Walton. “Google is impacting the beliefs, attitudes, purchases, the votes of 2 1/2 billion people around the world, they’re impacting people in almost every country in the world at the moment except China. And that could change any day.”

Epstein is the researcher behind estimates that Google may have swung as many as 2.6 million votes to Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016. In July, he told the Senate that he has identified “nine different blacklists Google maintains to suppress information worldwide,” encompassing Google’s search results, autocomplete feature, Google Maps, YouTube searches, Google News, AdWords and AdSense, banned user accounts, and website quarantines.

Featured Image
pexels
Madeleine Jacob Madeleine Jacob Follow

News , ,

State legislators vow to ban trans drugs for kids after case of mom ‘transitioning’ 7-yr-old goes viral

Madeleine Jacob Madeleine Jacob Follow
By

November 7, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – State legislators have responded to the national outcry over the mom seeking a gender “transition” for her seven-year-old, promising to introduce legislation to ban puberty blockers for minors. 

Legislators in Georgia, Kentucky, and Texas have proposed legislation that would prevent medical gender “transitions” for minors. 

Georgia State Rep. Ginny Ehrhart (R-36) is drafting a bill that would make it a felony for medical providers to facilitate a medical “transition,” for example, by prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.

Ehrhart noted that these children are being given drugs with lifelong effects at an age when the government has deemed them too young to smoke, drink, or make other semi-permanent decisions such as getting a tattoo. 

“We’re talking about children that can’t get a tattoo or smoke a cigar or a cigarette in the state of Georgia, but can be castrated and get sterilized,” Ehrhart told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

In 2018, Ehrhart defeated Democrat Jen Slipakoff, who is raising her son as “transgender” because at two years old he showed an interest in pink pajamas and cupcakes.

In Kentucky, Rep. Savannah Maddox (R-61) says she has begun drafting a bill to prevent medical “transitions.” 

Maddox’s bill would “protect children under the age of 18 from gender reassignment surgery or from receiving drug treatments designed to alter their natal gender.”

On Facebook, Maddox pointed out that children’s brains aren’t developed enough to understand the lifelong decision they are making about their “gender.”

“I am a strong advocate for parent's rights- but it is not the right of a parent to permanently alter a child's gender or identity, even when based upon certain behaviors or the perceptions of a child's mind which has not yet had time to fully develop,” Maddox wrote.

The CDC cites “changes in brain development that may have life-long effects” as a reason for establishing a minimum drinking age of 21. According to neuroscientists, the brain doesn’t finish developing until somewhere around 25 years old. Of note, the prefrontal cortex – the portion of the brain responsible for decision making, planning, and risk analysis – does not fully develop until 18 to 20 years of age. 

Texas Rep. Matt Krause (R-93) announced via Twitter that he will introduce legislation to prohibit the use of puberty blockers for children under 18.

Dr. Stephen Levine, one of the pioneers in transgender research, testified during the James Younger trial that “an ideal outcome of trans youth is to desist” back to the child’s real sex, due to the psychological and social difficulties faced by transgender individuals. Dr. Levine testified that the medical community views the transgender population as an at-risk population. 

Dr. Levine was the chair for the fifth edition of the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association Standards of Care, but left the organization due to its over politicization.

Dr. Levine emphasized the fact that over 85 percent of children experiencing gender identity issues will desist, or return to identifying with their natal gender, if they are acknowledged, but not socially affirmed in their gender identity issue. 

A widely cited study conducted in Sweden, one of the most liberal and pro-LGBT countries in the world, followed transgender individuals who underwent sex “reassignement” surgery over 30 years. It found that the suicide rate was 19 times higher for transgender individuals who “transitioned” versus the standard population. 

Dr. Michelle Cretella, Executive Director for the American College of Pediatricians (not to be confused with the left-wing American Academy of Pediatrics), told LifeSiteNews that it is important for physicians to “first, do no harm.”

“Many of us hope that this case will usher in a return to sanity, science, and medical ethics rooted in ‘first, do no harm.’”

Dr. Cretella has spoken out repeatedly about the harms of subjecting children to transgender drugs and procedures.

Dr. Andre Van Mol, the co-chair of the American College of Pediatricians’ Committee on Adolescent Sexuality, stressed that gender dysphoria is a “mental health diagnosis” and “transgenderism” is “an overarching ideology.”

“Any thought of ‘gender affirmation therapy’ for a minor is entirely experimental,” Van Mol told LifeSiteNews. 

Featured Image
Fr. Hugo Valdemar Romero burned an effigy of Pachamama in Mexico City, Nov. 3, 2019.
Bree A. Dail Bree A. Dail

News

EXCLUSIVE: Catholic priest defends burning Pachamama effigy as within ‘law of God’

Bree A. Dail Bree A. Dail
By
Image
Fr. Hugo Valdemar burning Pachamama effigy in Mexico City, Nov. 3, 2019.
Image
Fr. Hugo Valdemar burns Pachamama effigy in Mexico City, Nov. 3, 2019.
Image
Effigy of Pachamama burning in Mexico City, Nov. 3, 2019.

MEXICO CITY, Mexico, November 7, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – A Catholic priest in the Archdiocese of Mexico City, whose video posted over the weekend went viral after he burned effigies of the pagan “Pachamama” statues in atonement for the sin of idolatry at the Amazon Synod, is defending his actions, saying that they fall within the “law of God.”

Fr. Hugo Valdemar Romero, the former spokesman of the Archdiocese of Mexico City, told LifeSiteNews in an exclusive interview (read full interview below) that he was motivated to lead his congregation in prayers of reparation, burning the effigies of the Pachamama, because of the “scandal and the pain caused by the serious acts of idolatry, carried out in the Vatican with Amazonian idols during the Synod of the Amazon.”

“Many very wounded and angry faithful looked to me, asking us (clergy) to do something to show our repudiation of idolatry and to ask God for forgiveness for so many sacrileges and profanations, so I decided to do these acts of reparation,” he said. 

When asked if he had received retaliation from members of the hierarchy for burning the Pachamama effigies, Fr. Valdemar Romero replied that so far, he had not, but that he was willing to “answer for my actions.”

“I have not yet received any censorship, and of course I am willing to answer for my actions. These actions, however, are not outside the law of God or canon law. I am not afraid because I feel protected by God and especially by Our Lady of Guadalupe—I will always defend Her Honor.”

The priest contrasted the idol Pachamama with the Virgin Mary under the title of “Our Lady of Guadalupe,” who appeared to Juan Diego on Tepeyac Hill in Mexico in 1531. 

“I spoke to an exorcist from Mexico City who told me that the figure of the Pachamama was a parody of the Virgin of Guadalupe,” Fr Valdemar Romero explained. 

“Our Lady, Santa Maria de Guadalupe appears in Her holy image as a pregnant woman. She came to give birth to Jesus, Light of the World and the only True God, the sole purpose of our life. She came as The Woman of the Apocalypse, clothed with the sun with the moon at Her feet,” he said.

“This Pachamama, in contrast, is about to give birth to a red creature, demon colored, and that creature is nothing less than a ‘new church.’ This ‘church’ was born by the synod that has just ended— this so-called ‘church with an Amazonian face’ that pretends to have orthodox rites, but is promoting (the notion of) female deacons and married priests, all contrary to Catholic doctrine and the tradition of the (Roman) Church.” 

Fr. Hugo Valdemar Romero provided LifeSite with the prayers (see below) that he used in leading the congregation to make reparation for the worshiping of Pachamama in Rome during the Amazon Synod. 

***

Fr. Hugo Valdemar Romero full interview wiht LifeSiteNews (LSN)

LSN: What inspired you to lead your congregation in prayers of reparation, and then burn the effigies of the Pachamama?

Fr. Hugo Valdemar Romero: The scandal and the pain caused by the serious acts of idolatry, carried out in the Vatican with Amazonian idols during the Synod of the Amazon. Many very wounded and angry faithful looked to me, asking us (clergy) to do something to show our repudiation of idolatry and to ask God for forgiveness for so many sacrileges and profanations, so I decided to do these acts of reparation.

Have you spoken with exorcists in Latin America, and do you believe that demonic influence was involved in these rituals?

Yes, I spoke to an exorcist from Mexico City who told me that the figure of the Pachamama was a parody of the Virgin of Guadalupe. Our Lady, Santa Maria de Guadalupe appears in Her holy image as a pregnant woman. She came to give birth to Jesus, Light of the World and the only True God, the sole purpose of our life. She came as The Woman of the Apocalypse, clothed with the sun with the moon at Her feet. This Pachamama, in contrast, is about to give birth to a red creature, demon colored, and that creature is nothing less than a “new church”. This “church” was born by the synod that has just ended— this so-called “church with an Amazonian face” that pretends to have orthodox rites, but is promoting (the notion of) female deacons and married priests, all contrary to Catholic doctrine and the tradition of the (Roman) Church.

In your video, we see you speaking about Our Lady of Guadalupe. In S. Maria in Traspontina, the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was seen, pushed aside by one of the side altars—where the Pachamamas were placed. Do you believe this is significant?

Of course, it is the great imposture of the satanic goddess Pachamama. It seeks to usurp the place of Our Lady of Guadalupe, to remove from the Catholic faith, She Who is the Mother of the True God— to put in Our Lady’s place Mother Earth, which in reality is idolatry, pantheism and superstition.

How was Our Lady’s apparition at Guadalupe significant to counter paganism in Latin America?

It was fundamental, because — as St. John Paul II said — it was the perfect model of inculturation. That is to say, Our Lady took elements of the culture of the indigenous world, not in order to create syncretism with paganism, but to purify certain symbols and give them a Christian sense. Meanwhile, with the Pachamama, the intention is not authentic inculturation but a diabolical usurpation to restore idolatry.

There seems to have been a rise of the occult in Mexico, including Santeria. Do you believe the rituals in the Vatican were similar synchronism, and why?

Unfortunately, where Faith is weakened, paganism and superstition return. This is what we see, not only in Mexico but throughout the Western world, which has abandoned Christianity, supplementing it with superstitions, New Age and Satanism.

Critics have said you disrespected indigenous culture by burning the effigies of the Pachamama. Speak to how Latin American history, including in Mexico, supports your acts of reparation and prayer.

Those who demand respect must also respect. No one would have said anything if the Amazonian idols had been exhibited in the Vatican museums or in some exhibition hall, but what they did was a real abomination and sacrilege. We watched, stunned, as the idols were worshipped in front of the Pope himself, in the Vatican gardens—and witnessed daily rituals of worship in the church of Santa Maria Traspontina. In addition to being a crime against Divine Law, it was an offense to Catholics who reject idolatry and who do not want to witness the desecration of our churches.

We have seen, in recent months, a Colombian Bishop exorcising his diocese (because of the high-level of drugs, violence and occultism), along with violent pro-abortion feminists trying to burn the Cathedral in Mexico City. News of escalating cartel violence is being reported, from Mexico. Do you think these are related? What is the remedy?

Behind all that destroys human life, such as abortion and the crimes of narcotics, is Satan. He is "the liar and murderer from the beginning," as Jesus calls him—and we may say that these two attributes are the demon's preferred practices. We'll always find his influence when we see these.

Many, after seeing your video, are calling for their priests and bishops to stand up and do similar acts of reparation. Still more are concerned that you will receive retaliation by certain members of the hierarchy, and that their clergy are afraid of this. What do you say to all of this?

Unfortunately, the tolerance, dialogue and mercy so often exhorted by this pontificate seems only for those outside (the Church), while for those inside there is censorship, silence and reprisals. Yes, there is a lot of fear, and especially a fear that a schism will result. A de facto schism, unfortunately, is already here. In my case, however, I have not yet received any censorship, and of course I am willing to answer for my actions. These actions, however, are not outside the law of God or canon law. I am not afraid because I feel protected by God and especially by Our Lady of Guadalupe—I will always defend Her Honor.

Any other messages?

Only that we must not lose Faith! Faith is what overcomes the world. Do not fail to love Christ with all of your soul. Do not fail to love His Holy Mother and the Church, which is going through a great tribulation but in which, in the end, Christ will triumph—have no doubt about it.

***

Prayers used by Fr. Hugo Valdemar Romero during the burning of the Pachamama effigies

Prayers of Reparation

Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, receive from the hands of the Immaculata, Mother of God, Virgin Mary of Guadalupe, from our contrite heart, a sincere act of reparation for the acts of worship of idols and satanic fetishes that occurred in Rome, the Eternal City and the heart of the Catholic world, during the Synod for the Amazon.

Pour into the hearts of cardinals, bishops, priests, and religious men and women your Spirit, Who will expel the darkness of minds, so that they may recognize the impiety of such acts, which offended Your Divine Majesty and offer acts of reparation and relief.

In all the members of the Church, shed the light of the fullness and beauty of the Catholic Faith. Ignite in all the ardent zeal to bring the salvation of Jesus Christ, True God and true man to all men, especially people in the Amazon region, who are still enslaved to the service of idols and superstition, so that all people from that region reach the freedom of the children of God, and have the indescribable happiness of knowing Jesus Christ, and through Him in the life of Your Divine Nature.

Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, you, the only True God, outside Whom there is no other god or salvation, have mercy on your Church. Look especially at the tears, the contrite and humble sighs of your faithful and bless and protect the true Christian heroes, who in their zeal for your glory and in their love for Mother Church prophetically threw the idols of the abomination into the water. 

Have mercy on us: forgive us, Lord! Have mercy on us: Kyrie eleison!

Deprecatory Prayers

1. Forgive us, Lord, for the sacrilegious act of adoration of the Pachamama and the Amazonian idols in the Vatican gardens

Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy.

2. Forgive us, Lord, for the desecration of the basilica and the tomb of the blessed apostle St. Peter, where they prayed and sang to the Amazonian idols.

Lord, have mercy, Christ, have mercy.

3. Forgive us, Lord, for the procession of the cursed canoe with Amazonian fetishes carried by bishops, religious and lay people to the synodal hall.

Lord, have mercy, Christ, have mercy.

4. Forgive us, Lord, for the desecration of the church dedicated to your Blessed Mother, in her invocation Santa María in Traspontina, in Rome, where they housed the diabolical idols of the Pachamama and worshiped her, offending the memory of our Blessed Mother and the holiness of your House.

Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy.

5. Forgive us, Lord, for the desecration of your Holy Via Crucis, the Way of Reconciliation, in Rome, in which they offended your glorious Passion.

Lord, have mercy, Christ, have mercy.

6. Forgive us, Lord, for the prayers to the abominable idol of the Pachamama composed by the Pastoral Agency of the Italian Episcopal Conference and prayed in several churches in Italy.

Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy.

7. Forgive us, Lord, for the desecration of the Cathedral of Lima Peru, in which they praised the idol Pachamama, begotten by and deceived through Satan.

Lord, have mercy, Christ, have mercy.

8. Forgive us, Lord, for all the bishops, priests, religious men and women who have offended your holiness as One God, committing the crime of idolatry and defending, spreading and worshiping Satan in the deceit of Pachamama idol.

Lord, have mercy, Christ, have mercy.

9. Forgive us, Lord, for the Catholics who see and yet do not see, and hear and yet do not hear, and defend these demonic and abominable acts of adoration of the Amazonian idols, deceit of Satan. Do not allow their souls to be lost, give them Your Divine Light to become one with You, the only True God.

Lord, have mercy, Christ, have mercy.

10. Forgive us, Lord, for endorsement of “integral ecology”, contempt for human beings, lack of courage to defend the unborn, abortions and the endless crimes of your children.

Lord have mercy, Christ, have mercy.

Translated in part by Maria Cancel

Featured Image
Video screenshot
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin

News

ABC, CBS hunting down whistleblowers who exposed Jeffrey Epstein coverup

Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

November 7, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – ABC News is currently looking to identify the insiders who leaked video of anchor Amy Robach confirming the network quashed a purportedly devastating report on deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, leading to CBS News firing a former ABC employee.

Epstein allegedly killed himself in his cell at New York’s Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in August. The billionaire was being held on charges of trafficking underaged girls to be raped by himself and wealthy associates, in a high-profile case that was believed to implicate many prominent figures around the world.

This week, Project Veritas released a video of Robach confirming that she had an exclusive interview with alleged Epstein victim Virginia Roberts (now Virginia Guiffre) that included an “unbelievable” amount of evidence implicating numerous figures, including former President Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew of the British royal family. Yet ABC refused to air it.

Robach said that the “Palace” pressured the network not to air the story, and said she thinks Epstein did not commit suicide. 

“So do I think he [Epstein] was killed?” Robach says on the tape. “A hundred percent, yes I do.”

ABC News officially responded to the bombshell by claiming simply that “at the time, not all of our reporting met our standards to air, but we have never stopped investigating the story,” yet has privately taken steps to identify and punish those who leaked the video. 

The network has reportedly identified the individual who accessed the footage of Robach as a former employee who had since moved on to CBS News. ABC relayed their findings to CBS, which in turn fired the individual:

This latest news has further intensified the criticism the mainstream media was already facing for its handling of the Epstein story:

Project Veritas president James O’Keefe has previously said the individual who sent the video is still at ABC, indicating a different person than the one who first accessed the footage within ABC’s system.

Featured Image
Cardinal Camillo Ruini in a Nov., 2016 interview. TG2000 / Youtube screen grab
Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin

News

Italian cardinal: Pope mustn’t confirm Amazon Synod’s ‘wrong choice’ calling for married priests

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

ROME, November 7, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Italian Cardinal Camillo Ruini, a close ally of John Paul II and the previous head of the country’s bishops’ conference, said the Amazon Synod made the “wrong choice” in recommending in its final document that married men be ordained as priests. He added that he hopes and prays Pope Francis will “not confirm” the recommendation. 

Cardinal Ruini, a former Vicar General of Rome, told Italian daily Corriere della Sera in a Nov. 3 interview: “In the Amazon, and also in other parts of the world, there is a serious shortage of priests, and Christian communities often remain deprived of the Mass.” The cardinal went on to say that it is “understandable that there is a push to ordain married deacons as priests,” adding that it is “in this sense most of the synod was in favor of ordaining married deacons to the priesthood.”

“In my opinion, however, this is a wrong choice. And I hope and pray that the Pope, in the upcoming post-synodal apostolic exhortation, will not confirm it,” the cardinal said. 

At 88 years old, the eminent clergyman identified two reasons why it would be a mistake to make an exception in the vast Amazonian region to priestly celibacy in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church. According to Cardinal Ruini, the first reason is that in today’s “eroticized” society, “priestly celibacy is a great sign of total dedication to God and to the service of our brothers.”

The working document, Instrumentum Laboris, that preceded the Amazonia Synod, recommended that so-called viri probati (mature married men) be considered for ordination to the priesthood. Critics of the proposal, including cardinals Walter Brandmuller and Gerhard Muller, have rejected it, stating that it would be a stark departure from millennial Church tradition.

As expected, the Synod’s Final Document calls for the admittance to the priesthood of married men already deacons. 

“[W]e propose to establish criteria and dispositions on the part of the competent authority [...] to ordain as priests men who are apt for it and who are recognized by the community, who are fruitful permanent deacons and who receive an adequate formation for the priesthood, even if they have a legitimately constituted and stable family [...]. With regard to this, some wished that the topic be addressed in a universal way,” the final document states. 

The last proposal about addressing the topic in a “universal way” appears to refer to the ordination of married men outside of the Amazon region.

Relinquishing the discipline of celibacy in even just one region, the Cardinal declared, “would be to yield to the spirit of the world, which always tries to penetrate the Church, and that would hardly stop with exceptional cases like the Amazon.” Another reason to adhere to the requirement for celibacy, said the Cardinal, is that married priests and their wives are not immune to the effects of the crisis in the institution of marriage. 

“Their human and spiritual condition could not fail to be affected,” he said. When asked by the interviewer whether having married priests would create a “mess,” the Cardinal answered affirmatively.

Cardinal Ruini admitted that celibacy was a trial for him, even though “it is a great gift that the Lord gave me.” For him, a consolation has been his close relations with his sister and other family members, as well as his friendship with young people. He said, “And I am fortunate to live with people who are like a family to me.” 

According to Cardinal Ruini, there is “only one decisive answer” to the problem of vocations to the priesthood: “We Christians, and in particular we priests and religious, must be closer to God in our lives, lead a more holy life, and beg God for all this in prayer. Without getting tired.”

Cardinal Ruini was asked by interviewer Aldo Cazzullo whether he agrees with Pope emeritus Benedict XVI that the crisis of Europe is “anthropological: man no longer knows who he is.” The Cardinal affirmed, “The main reason we no longer know who we are is that we no longer believe we are made in the image of God; the consequence is that we no longer have our identity, compared to the rest of nature.”

Featured Image
L’Osservatore Romano featured on its Nov. 1, 2019 cover the mysterious bowl of Pachamama plants that was received by Pope Francis and placed on the altar at the closing Mass of the Amazon Synod. L’Osservatore Romano / screen grab
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy

News

Vatican newspaper features ‘Pachamama’ bowl used at Amazon Synod’s closing Mass

Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean
Image
Pachamama bowl on altar at closing Mass of Amazon Synod, Rome, Oct. 27, 2019. Jim Hale / LifeSiteNews.com
Image
L’Osservatore Romano featured in its Nov. 1, 2019 issue the mysterious bowl of plants that was received by Pope Francis and placed on the altar at the closing Mass of the Amazon Synod. L’Osservatore Romano / screen grab

VATICAN CITY, November 7, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) ― The offering of a mysterious bowl of plants believed to be linked to the pagan goddess Pachamama — that was received by Pope Francis during the closing Mass for the Amazon Synod and placed on the altar — was featured on the cover of the Spanish version of the Vatican’s official newspaper this week. 

The cover of the Spanish edition of L’Osservatore Romano for November 1, 2019 presents a photograph of Marcivana Rodrigues Paiva, a member of the indigenous Satere-Mawe people of Brazil, holding a black bowl containing earth, green plants and red flowers. Rodrigues presented the bowl to Pope Francis during the offertory procession for the last Mass of the Synod on the Amazon on Sunday, October 27. A photograph of this action appears on page 5 of the newsmagazine. 

Pope Francis gave the bowl of plants to Master of Ceremonies Monsignor Guido Marini who, apparently following the pontiff’s instructions, placed the offering on the altar, in violation of liturgical norms.  

At the time, Synod-watchers were relieved that wooden carvings representing a South American fertility goddess called Pachamama did not make an appearance. However, seasoned Vatican reporter Robert Moynihan subsequently discovered that pots of earth, filled with votive offerings which are then covered over with flowers, are associated with the traditional worship of the Pachamama, or Earth Mother. Moynihan linked to a guide to Pachamama worship, which encourages devotees not to leave out something red. 

According to this guide, the cult of Pachamama is still strong in many parts of northern Argentina and the South American Andean region. 

In an interview last week, Brazilian Catholic commentator Bernardo Küster told Dr. Taylor Marshall that the bowl of earth and greenery was itself a substitute for the carvings of the idols. 

“It’s the Mother Earth …. And that vase was full of earth,” Küster said. 

“So for them, it doesn’t matter if it’s an idol made of wood or if it’s a vase full of earth because to them everything is interconnected,” he continued. 

“So it’s a symbol. We don’t know if that vase has been consecrated to I-don’t-know-who, but the pope asked [that] it be put upon the altar.” 

Küster pointed out that liturgical rules forbid the placing of random objects on the altar. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal indicates that during the Offertory, only the bread and wine mixed with water should be placed upon the “Eucharistic table.”

The General Instruction is also clear that flowers and greenery should always “be arranged around the altar rather than on the altar table” (305).  

It is unclear why Pope Francis chose to ignore these rules. 

Robert Moynihan sent a letter to Monsignor Marini asking why the plant had been placed on the altar, what it represented, what was written or marked on the container, and what had happened to the plant and container subsequent to the Mass. The journalist received only a short letter saying that “there is no particular information about the plant.” 

“We only know that it was planted at the beginning of the Synod and delivered to the offertory to adorn the altar.”

The veneration offered to symbols of the Earth Mother during the Synod on the Amazon has been condemned by prelates like Bishop José Luis Azcona Hermoso of Brazil, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, and Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. 

Bishop Azcona called the prostrations of worshippers during an October 4 ceremony in the  Vatican Gardens before wooden carvings of the naked, pregnant fertility goddess “scandalous demonic sacrileges.” 

In a recent interview with LifeSiteNews, Archbishop Viganò said, “The abomination of idolatrous rites has entered the sanctuary of God and has given rise to a new form of apostasy whose seeds, which have been active for a long time, are growing with renewed vigor and effectiveness.”

Featured Image
Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Tom Brenner / Getty Images
Bob Marshall

Opinion , , , ,

Leftists resurrecting ‘Equal Rights Amendment’ to make US Constitution pro-abortion

Bob Marshall
By Bob Marshall

November 7, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) proponents have been misleading the public about the purpose and consequences of the ERA for close to 50 years!

Their current three-state ERA ratification ruse is a revolutionary act on the part of progressives to place the legal authority for the killing of unborn children into our Constitution, and not to simply rely on the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton Supreme Court decisions. In fact, at a shadow hearing on the ERA on June 6, 2018, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chair of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, said:

We cannot trust the Supreme Court not to go back. What the Supreme Court giveth, the Supreme can taketh away[.] ... [W]e are worried now that another Supreme Court nominee might overturn Roe v. Wade.

Further, state and federal courts have concluded that state ERAs or similar “equal treatment” provisions of state constitutions require tax-paid abortions in Connecticut, Alaska, Arizona, Indiana, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Colorado [Doe v. Maher, Conn., 1986; State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska, 2001; Simat Corp. v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., 2002; Humphreys v. Clinic for Women, (Indiana 2003); Right to Choose v. Byrne, (N.J. 1982). New Mexico Right to Choose — NARAL v. Johnson, (1998); Colorado Civil Rights Commission v. Travelers Insurance Co. (1988)].

The ERA failed in 1982 because 35, not 38 states, as required by Article V of our U.S. Constitution, ratified the ERA by its ratification deadline. Undeterred by a simple thing like our Constitution, in 2019, Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) introduced H.J. Res. 38, pretending the congressionally established 1982 ERA ratification deadline could simply be scrapped almost four decades later! This maneuver would fraudulently count the 35 almost 40-year-old state ratifications of the ERA secured before 1979 toward adoption of the ERA now and permit only three additional states to ultimately “ratify” the ERA. If you can believe this, ERA advocates also claim that Nevada ratified the long expired ERA in 2017 and Illinois in 2018.

This pie-in-the-sky maneuver has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with political machinations, but in the Left’s handbook, the ends justify the means. Thus, ERA proponents now claim that with House and Senate passage of H.J. Res. 38, only three more state “ratifications” will add the ERA to our Constitution!

The ERA has been sold to Americans as promoting simple “equality” and “putting women into the Constitution,” and mandating “equal pay for equal work” but this explanation is far from the truth!

The ERA’s basic language reads, “Equality of rights under law shall not be denied or abridged ... on account of sex.” The ERA was sent to the states on March 22, 1972 and would become, in the words of the ERA resolution, “part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years of its submission by the Congress.”

When ERA advocates realized they would not gain enough states to ratify by the deadline, they convinced Congress in 1978 to extend the ratification deadline three additional years and three months. Despite the extension, the ERA failed to gain the required state ratifications.

A review of the ERA hearings in Congress, floor debate, court cases, law review articles, and written goals of pro-ERA organizations proves that at least the following legal consequences would follow if the ERA were to be adopted licitly or illicitly:

The ERA would:

  • prohibit any restrictions on abortion or its tax funding;
  • compel women/girls to compete against men/boys in sports;
  • abolish female privacy in prisons, locker rooms, women’s shelters, nursing homes, hospitals;
  • subject women to selective service registration and front-line ground combat;
  • end all incentives for women-owned businesses;
  • end female scholarships;
  • end women-only sports programs;
  • abolish alimony guidelines;
  • end lower auto and other insurance rates for women;
  • treat any legal distinction based on sex the same as racial discrimination.

Another serious issue that was not specifically addressed during consideration of the ERA in the 1970s was “transgenderism.” Surely, adoption of the ERA would cement same-sex “marriage” and “transgender rights” into our Constitution to provide a much firmer foundation than court opinions.

The ERA Means Identical, Not Equal, Treatment of Men and Women

ERA proponents insist they want men and women to be treated identically. However, sexual differences flowing from the Creator’s handiwork cannot be changed by human laws.

At a September 15, 1970 Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, Yale Law professor Thomas Emerson, the legal “brain trust” for ERA proponents, affirmed this ERA thesis:

The proposed amendment states clearly and simply the fundamental objective: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. ... The term ‘equality,’ as used in the amendment ... means that women must be treated by the law in the same way as other persons, that is, their rights must be determined on the basis of the same factors that apply to men. The factor of femaleness or maleness is irrelevant. ... [F]or much the same reasons as in the racial area, the clause would not sanction ‘separate but equal’ treatment. Power to deny equality of rights on account of sex is wholly foreclosed.

In March 1971, ERA-supporter Congresswoman Bella Abzug (D-N.Y.) testified before a House of Representatives Judiciary subcommittee that “the amendment itself ... would wipe the slate clean ... eliminate all present legal distinctions based on sex, and would reject the presumption that sex is ever a reasonable legal classification.”

A month later, in April 1971, William Rehnquist, later chief justice of the Supreme Court, also testified before the House Judiciary subcommittee on behalf of President Nixon’s Justice Department. He said the ERA’s “broad general language ... would ... add substantial uncertainties in this area of constitutional law which would probably require extensive and protracted litigation to dispel[.] ... We would have some doubt as to whether there is a national consensus for compelling all levels of government to treat men and women across the board as if they were identical human beings.”

The next day, Harvard Law professor Paul Freund told the same House Judiciary subcommittee that for more than forty years, ERA absolutists had pursued the strict scrutiny ERA but that many women’s rights organizations had opposed the ERA as strictly interpreted. Freund pointed out: “This course has been opposed by individuals and groups whose commitment to civil rights and women’s rights is not in question: groups that include the National Council of Negro Women, the National Council of Catholic Women, the National Council of Jewish Women, the Association of University Women, and the Commission on the Status of Women, appointed by President Kennedy and chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt.”

University of Chicago Law professor Philip Kurland noted that the controversy surrounding the ERA “derives from the fact that the movement for ‘women’s rights’ is Janus-faced. The proposed amendment presented one aspect, while much of it was voiced in terms of its other visage. The first would command the treatment of men and women as if there were no differences between them[.] ... It was a demand for legal ‘unisex’ by constitutional mandate[.] ...

The second attitude towards ‘women’s rights’ would only seek the elimination of discrimination against women, a ban on treating females as a disabled class[.] ... The debate ... is seriously hampered by its supporters’ indecisiveness about its effects and duplicity about its meaning” (Harvard Civil Rights — Civil Liberties Law Review, Vol. 6, 1971).

The “indecisiveness” mentioned by Kurlund was over not what the pro-ERA feminists wanted, but how candid they would be with the general public about the legal effects of the ERA as they did not want to generate organized opposition in states that were yet to consider ERA ratification. Thus, as Professor Kurlund noted, ERA proponents resorted to duplicity, a tactic that continues to this day.

All Proposed Amendments to the ERA Fail

In both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, all amendments to blunt the radical legal effects of the ERA failed.

Sen. Samuel Ervin (D-N.C.) offered amendments that would have prevented the ERA from being applied to state and federal laws. His amendments sought to exempt women from compulsory military service and assignments to combat; exempt wives, mothers, and widows from being treated in the law as men; continue to require child support by fathers; protect personal privacy for men, women, boys, and girls; and keep on the books sexual crimes such as rape, seduction, and other sexual offenses. All of these amendments failed in the U.S. Senate by wide margins.

Amendments in the U.S. House of Representatives met with a similar fate. Congressman Charles Wiggins (R-Calif.) offered an amendment: “This article shall not impair the validity of any law of the United States which exempts a person from compulsory military service or any other law of the United States or of any State which reasonably promotes the health and safety of the people.”

Congressman Wiggins gave his reasons for the modified ERA as follows:

“This recommendation of the committee does two things. One, it makes it clear that Congress may continue to exempt women from compulsory military service; and two, neither Congress nor State legislatures would be paralyzed from taking differences between the sexes into account when necessary and reasonable to promote, in fact, the health and safety of the people” (Congressional Record 10/6/71).

The Wiggins Amendment lost.

The loss of those amendments left the ERA’s radical feminists in complete charge of the future of the ERA. The Senate passed the House-originated ERA on March 22, 1972, and it was sent to the states for ratification, with the seven-year time limit imposed by Congress ending on March 22, 1979. Passage of the ERA seemed inevitable in light of the thirty states that had ratified the ERA within the first year of its passage by Congress.

Attempts to Rescue the ERA from Failure

But the feminists hit a ratification brick wall in Phyllis Schlafly and the women of Eagle Forum, who exposed the real agenda of the ERA, bringing the ERA ratification efforts to a sluggish crawl. Only five states ratified the ERA in the next six years. Mrs. Schlafly and her followers also convinced five states to rescind their prior ratifications: Nebraska in 1973, Tennessee in 1974, Idaho in 1977, Kentucky in 1978, and South Dakota in 1979.

By 1977, the following 15 states had not yet ratified the ERA: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.

With panic rising, ERA groups hit upon a novel ERA rescue effort. They would “extend” the ERA ratification time limit, a tactic that had never been tried. They sought to do so by a simple majority vote, not a two-thirds vote, required for constitutional amendments to pass. Pro-ERA groups demanded seven more years to ratify the ERA.

No amendment added to the Constitution had ever taken more than four years to be ratified by the states at that time. Congress nevertheless held ERA extension hearings in 1978 with pro-ERA leaders as leading witnesses.

Eleanor Smeal, then president of the National Organization of Women (NOW), told a House Judiciary subcommittee in May 1978, “The reason why we are currently in a state of emergency on the ERA in our organization is that we believe the life of the equal rights amendment is indeed in peril. ... So we implore that you do not close the door on constitutional equality for women in this century; and that you vote to extend the time limit[.]”

Smeal also stated, “Congress has the unreviewable authority ... as interpreted by the Supreme Court, to determine in advance the time (emphasis added) within which a proposed amendment must be ratified[.]”

During the 1978 House Judiciary ERA hearings, NOW’s Eleanor Smeal referred to its legal brief prepared by ERA “brain trust” Thomas Emerson of Yale, Lawrence Tribe of Harvard, Ruth Ginsburg (now U.S. Supreme Court justice) of Columbia, and others. The NOW brief cited Dillon v. Gloss (1921) which stated in part:

Congress has the unreviewable authority ... as interpreted by the Supreme Court, to determine in advance the time within which a proposed amendment must be ratified.

Also testifying before the same House Judiciary committee was an associate of Smeal’s, Marjorie Bell Chambers, American Association of University Women president, who said:

We do not ask for unlimited time ... (emphasis added). Failure to extend now the time limit for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment would terminate ... what Congress initiated six years ago.

Today, pro-ERA groups, including NOW, have completely reversed themselves. They now want to remove all time limits on ERA ratification. They no longer believe that Congress must re-pass the ERA with a two-thirds vote and re-submit the ERA to the states for approval by 38 states, as required by Article V of the Constitution. Proponents now claim that the previous state ratifications can be revived decades after expiration, and they refuse to recognize rescissions by states of their prior ERA ratifications.

In short, heads, they win; tails, we lose!

What’s the Constitution among Friends?

This ERA “shortcut” tactic formally surfaced in a 1997 William and Mary Journal of Race, Gender and Social Justice article (Vol. 3, Issue 1, Article 5) that falsely claimed that only three more states were needed to “ratify” the ERA, as 35 other states had already ratified the ERA and their past expired ratifications could be applied without starting over! They based this theory on the adoption of the Madison Amendment affecting congressional pay, introduced in 1789 and not ratified until 1992. However, the Madison Amendment never had a time limit! The ERA had two different time limits set by Congress.

Moreover, during congressional debate certifying the Madison Pay Amendment as part of the Constitution, Congressman Don Edwards (D-Calif.), Chair of the House Judiciary subcommittee that also held hearings on the ERA, stated (emphasis added):

Mr. Speaker ... I will certainly support the [Madison] resolution before us today. ... But there is another, broader issue here that must not be lost sight of, and that is the Constitution itself. The House may decide today to make an exception to the principle of contemporaneous consensus that has been a guiding constitutional principle for most of this century. But it should be clear that this is an exception, not a precedent. (Congressional Record, House of Representatives, 05/20/92, p. 3,397)

This “three-state” ploy was cooked up because the last time pro-ERA forces were able to muster two thirds of Congress to submit the ERA to the states was in 1972, when it first passed Congress.

When the “extended” ERA also failed to be ratified by enough states by June 1982, proponents had no choice but to reintroduce the ERA in Congress, which it did in 1983 with identical wording from 1972. Amendments offered in the House Judiciary Committee included language to make the ERA abortion-neutral, to exempt women from the military draft and front-line ground combat, to allow different insurance rates for men and women, and others. All of the amendments failed. The ERA was reported by the Judiciary Committee to the House but failed to secure a two-thirds vote in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1983.

The Senate Judiciary Committee did not even bother to report the ERA out of committee to the full Senate in 1983 or 1984. Since then, the ERA has been reintroduced into every Congress but has never passed. Thus, ERA proponents needed a devious, unconstitutional way to advance their agenda.

ERA proponents who lobbied Congress in the late 1970s to extend the ratification deadline, when they feared it would expire, now claim that ratification deadlines do not even exist! Obviously, they do not care about publicly contradicting themselves. Pro-ERA forces actually convinced two state legislatures, Nevada in 2017 and Illinois in 2018, to go through the motions of allegedly “ratifying” the ERA decades after Congress imposed the ratification deadline of June 30, 1982.

Nevada and Illinois passed their meaningless ERA “ratifications” some 35 or 36 years too late to be counted legitimately, and they obviously ignored H.J. Res. 688, introduced in 1978, which purported to add 39 months and a few days to the ERA ratification period. That joint resolution stated that the ERA “shall be part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States not later than June 30, 1982.” The Progressive Left must believe, “What is the Constitution among friends?” Did they think Congress was kidding when it established deadlines?

Justice Ginsburg and the Three-State ERA Ratification Ploy

Some prestigious conservative media appear to be taking a comment made by Justice Ginsburg at Georgetown Law School (9/12/19) as an indication that the justice has expressly rejected the three-state tactic.

Justice Ginsburg simply told Georgetown Law School students: “I hope someday it [ERA] will be put back in the political hopper and we’ll be starting over again collecting the necessary states to ratify it.”

According to press reports, she said nothing for or against the ERA three-state ratification tactic. Nor did she say the only way the ERA can become part of the Constitution is by Congress starting over by reintroducing a new ERA, passing it with a two-thirds vote, and securing ratification by the legislatures of 38 states.

Moreover, while I would like to believe that Justice Ginsburg would indeed respect our Constitution, we have no assurance that she would actually oppose adopting the ERA with three more states “ratifying” after the 1982 deadline expired, should a court dispute arise from a “third” state legislature “ratifying” the ERA.

Has Justice Ginsburg Really Changed Her Mind on ERA Ratification?

Justice Ginsburg has advocated for the ERA over her professional lifetime. In 1971, when she was a law professor at Rutgers, she wrote in support of the ERA to Congressman Don Edwards, who chaired the House Judiciary subcommittee that held hearings on the ERA. She calls the ERA her favorite amendment. In 1977, she co-authored Sex Bias in the US Code based on passage of the ERA. I am just not convinced that she would abandon the ERA “shortcut.”

None of the hard-line ERA proponents or pro-ERA feminist organizations mention Justice Ginsburg’s alleged abandonment of the three-state tactic. None of these pro-ERA organizations or members of Congress has stopped lobbying for the “three-state strategy.” I could be wrong, but my experience from serving 26 years as an elected Virginia state legislator and six years as a congressional aide to both Republican and Democrat members of Congress, gives me no confidence that Justice Ginsburg could be counted upon to reject the three-state tactic should the matter be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

At the Judiciary Committee hearing to confirm Supreme Court justice Ginsburg, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) told then federal Appellate Court judge Ginsburg:

The thing I am worried about is that it appears that your willingness to discuss the established principles of constitutional law may depend somewhat on whether your answer might solicit a favorable response from the committee.

She stated:

The courts don't react to public opinion polls. They do react to what Professor Freund described as, not the weather of the day, but the climate of the age [emphasis added]. I tried to explain that when I talked about the 19th amendment and the 14th amendment.

In Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, co-authored by Justice Ginsburg, she states:

Supporters of the equal rights principle firmly reject draft or combat exemptions for women as congress did when it refused to qualify the Equal Rights Amendment by incorporating any military service exemptions.

At her Supreme Court nomination hearing, Judge Ginsburg responded to a comment from Senator Kohl:

You are right in pointing out that the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is discretionary[.] ... The Justices must look at what issues need to be decided most for the Nation, and that’s the basis on which the judges make their decisions about what to take.

Article III of the Constitution describes and defines federal judicial powers. The Constitution provides federal judges no legal authority to resolve “what issues need to be decided most for the Nation.”

The Supreme Court’s Dred Scott v. Sanford decision did not solve the slavery controversy or prevent the Civil War, and Plessy v. Ferguson established “separate but equal” racial segregation for generations. Federal judges will usurp legislative authority if legislators allow them to do so.

Clear majorities of Americans reject the policies and laws that the ERA would mandate:

80% oppose abortion a day before birth, (You.Gov poll for AUL, February 2019); 54% oppose tax funded abortion, 59% oppose abortion after 20 weeks, 62% oppose abortion for Down Syndrome (Marist Poll, January 2019).

Nevertheless, Justice Ginsburg might consider the “climate of the age” and simply rely upon a June 17, 2016 PR Newswire poll conducted for ERA Coalition/Fund for Women’s Equality that claims that 94% of Americans think the ERA should be ratified. This poll did not mention the actual legal or social consequences of the ERA, which are widely opposed by the public.

Judge Ginsburg specifically told Senator Simon at her hearing:

I can only tell you the code of conduct I would adopt for myself wherever I am, here or abroad, and that is the Constitution of the United States. I would consider it binding on me.

Yet Foreign Policy magazine (2/6/12) published an interview from Al-Hayat TV in which Justice Ginsburg stated:

I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa.

I am not willing to bet my family’s future and that of our grandchildren on a very thin hope regarding what a very liberal justice might or might not decide regarding the ERA.

What if Justice Ginsburg’s statement is a “false flag” aimed at convincing anti-ERA forces to relax their opposition and to stop campaigning against pro-ERA candidates for office at both the state and federal levels?

Justice Ginsburg’s words about “starting over” could simply refer to passing H.J. Res. 38 in the current Congress to eliminate the second ERA ratification deadline of June 30, 1982, thus erasing any deadline for ERA ratification. ERA-supporters continue to claim that the original 35 state ratifications should count, while the five states that rescinded their ERA ratifications should not be recognized.

But Robert Jackson, U.S. solicitor general, argued in the 1938 case of Coleman v. Miller (re: Child Labor Amendment): “It is perhaps enough to say that distinguished authority, can be found for the view that, until an amendment has been adopted by the ratifications of three-fourths of the States, the States do have power to rescind their ratifications” (Brief for the U. S. Amicus Curiae, 10/8/1938).

Robert Jackson later served as U.S. attorney general, justice of the Supreme Court, and chief U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Trials and was the last justice appointed to the Supreme Court who read the law but who never graduated law school.

Perhaps most important, in 1982, then–U.S. solicitor general Lawrence G. Wallace petitioned the Supreme Court to dismiss all ERA cases, including the federal district court case of Idaho v. Freeman, because not a sufficient number of states had ratified the ERA. Idaho v. Freeman actually ruled that the congressional extension of the ERA was unconstitutional. Wallace’s July 1982 memo on behalf of the General Services Administration specifically stated that “the Amendment has failed of adoption no matter what the resolution of the legal issues presented here, and the Administrator informs us that he will not certify to Congress that the Amendment has been adopted.” The cases were dismissed.

John Harmon, assistant A.G. at the Justice Department under President Carter, wrote (10/31/77) to the Hon. Robert Lipshutz, President Carter’s counsel, that “[c]ertainly, if a time limit has expired before an intervening Congress has taken action to extend that limit, a strong argument could be made that the only constitutional means of reviving a proposed amendment would be to propose the amendment anew by two-thirds vote of each House[.]”

For congressional Democrats, most of whom believe that men can “become” women, their disregarding Article V of the U.S. Constitution, and thinking that three instead of 38 states are enough to ratify the ERA, is a snap.

“Ratification” by one more state would clearly trigger a federal court challenge. Exactly how Justice Ginsburg and her progressive colleagues would decide is anyone’s guess. While the Left does not now have a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court thanks to President Trump’s nominees, a Democrat president would certainly appoint “progressive” judges and justices. Recall that liberal former justice Thurgood Marshall, in a 1987 speech, called the Constitution a “Living Document.”

Anyone who doubts such judicial “flexibility” should ponder that the U.S. Supreme Court has reversed its prior decisions more than 230 times since 1790, according to the Library of Congress.

Citizen Action to Stop the ERA

I strongly advise caution in reading too much into Justice Ginsburg’s comments, given her decades of advocacy for the ERA and the ERA’s failure to pass Congress year after year since being “put in the hopper” after it expired in 1982.

Might “conservative” state legislators think it would be “safe” to “ratify” the ERA because it is only a “symbolic vote” at this point? That call for legislators to cast a “symbolic vote” was touted by the Republican state senator and author of the 2019 resolution to “ratify” the ERA in the Virginia General Assembly. I highly doubt that the ERA proponents expected that vote to be merely “symbolic.”

In 1972, everyone understood that the word “sex” meant male and female in their biological aspects. “Sex” had a clear meaning when used in the Nineteenth Amendment securing women’s suffrage. But today the word “sex” has been expanded to include “sexual orientation” or so-called “gender identity.”

Today’s ERA advocates hope to bluff their way to ERA passage, hiding the underlying horrendous policies that would result by adopting the ERA. There are currently 211 co-sponsors of H.J. Res. 38, the legislation that pretends the ERA deadline can be removed after it expired almost 40 years ago.

If you live in any of the states that never ratified the ERA by or after 1982 (Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, or Virginia) you must contact your state legislators and express unequivocal opposition to any version of “ratifying” the ERA by the fraudulent three-state process.

Also, please contact your U S. congressman and U.S. senators and explain your unwavering opposition to the three-state ERA ratification ruse. Your U.S. senators and representative will be voting yes or no on any effort to strip the 1982 deadline. If they do not agree with you, work to defeat them in the next election.

The ERA, if enacted, will further erode efforts to legally protect unborn children for decades. We must act and speak out in the face of this threat. Children’s lives and the future of Judeo-Christian institutions in America are truly at stake.

ERA zealots have made it clear they will not quit pushing their agenda. We must lobby state and federal legislators with the truth about the unconstitutional three-state ratification ruse as well as bring to light the ERA’s legal consequences. If legislators fail to see the light, they need to feel the heat in their next election.

Attorneys general of the states must be contacted and persuaded to oppose all congressional efforts to “legalize” previous state ERA ratifications, which expired decades ago, as part of the bogus three-state process.

These actions are needed because ERA proponents will undoubtedly claim that one more state ratifying the ERA will provide the 38th state needed to adopt the ERA into our Constitution.

There is a phrase in front of the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C., which houses copies of the original Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. It reads, “Eternal Vigilance is the price of Liberty. We must take these words to heart.


Bob Marshall won 13 general elections to serve 26 years in the Virginia House of Delegates. He formerly worked for three members of Congress. He co-authored, with Charles A. Donovan, Blessed Are the Barren, a Social History of Planned Parenthood (Ignatius Press, 1991) and Reclaiming the Republic: How Christians and Other Conservatives Can Win Back America (TAN Books, 2018). He is married 43 years to Cathy (Fonseca), is father of five and grandfather of nine children.

Featured Image
Peter Kwasniewski Peter Kwasniewski Follow Dr. Peter

Blogs ,

If your Mass is defective or abusive, find another one

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

November 7, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — The vernacularization and “options” allowed for in the modern Roman Rite enable a priest and “worshiping community” to “make the liturgy their own.” This was often touted as a great strength of the reform: its elasticity and adaptability to local communities.

This approach suffers, however, from a basic problem: the liturgy is never theirs or yours or mine to begin with; it belongs to Christ as His gift and to the Church as her inheritance. This is why the Church has always insisted that no priest has the right to deviate from the rubrics set down in the liturgical books and that every priest is obliged by his sacred office to conform his conduct to the principles and guidelines established by the Church for her public worship.

Nevertheless, as we know, far too many liberties are taken in the offering of Holy Mass. The moment the Second Vatican Council proposed what sounded like changing everything — whether it meant to tweak everything a little bit or to revamp it from the ground up (interpretations of the Council vary a great deal, indeed as much as, and in the same way as, one parish or liturgy varies from another!) — a momentum of uncontrollable “tinkeritis” has been generated that works against the conservation of many endangered species in the Catholic ecosystem, such as tradition, reverence, humility, sobriety, adoration, and contemplation.

Consequently, the prevalence of clerically driven liturgy produces a situation in which quite a few people attend a certain parish or liturgy because of what might be called a “cult of the personality” of the celebrant. They like “how he does things”; they like his storytelling or humor, his flair, his spontaneity, his singing voice, or what have you. Yet if the Mass is supposed to be the representation of the Sacrifice of Calvary by which we are ushered mystically into the celestial Paradise, the personality of a given priest, although it may have much to do with the quality of the sermon, should have almost nothing to do with the way the Mass as such is celebrated. If we took our venerable tradition of worship more seriously and put our egos off to the side, where they belong, liturgies everywhere would be solemn, dignified, beautiful, and prayerful. All the faithful would give to God the worship He deserves; all would derive from the Mass the benefits it is intended to bestow.

Many good Catholics feel understandable pain about unwarranted liberties, improvisations, distractions, bad music (amplified, no less, in imitation of every secular venue, drowning out interior quiet, reflection, or prayer), extended announcements and intercessions, and other pretenses of authenticity and solicitude. At a certain point, they are sorely tempted to stop attending a liturgy where things are done unworthily and to seek instead to find a true spiritual home. Perhaps, contrary to what Pope Francis thinks about the Lord’s Prayer, this is one of those “temptations” into which the Lord does lead us, and to which He wishes us to succumb.

To put it less cheekily: If you are constantly distracted from the worship of almighty God in the four great acts of adoration, contrition, supplication, and thanksgiving because of antics in the sanctuary, violations of rubrics, heretical homilies, hand-holding or bear-hugging neighbors, the posse of “extraordinary” ministers, or ivories jazzily tickled and strings raucously strummed, then you are not only permitted to seek, but you have an obligation to seek a different parish or liturgy, as long as you or others of similar concerns have tried, to some reasonable extent, to ameliorate the problems. To abandon a sinking ship is not cowardice or heartlessness but legitimate self-love and a desire to please His Heart. For God is the one who must be obeyed and pleased first and foremost.

Sacred liturgy should reflect and befit the Sacred Heart from which it flows in sacramental signs and to which it returns in hallowed prayers, chanted praise, clouds of incense, gestures of awe. If you go away from a disaster in search of a true home, you are not guilty of pursuing a more subtle form of the cult of personality; you are not “parish shopping” or “parish hopping.” Rather, you are rightfully searching for the sacred and for the face of Christ. He is your beloved, your High Priest, the only one who deserves a cult of (divine) personality.

Featured Image
Cardinal Raymond Burke distributes Holy Communion at a traditional Latin Mass in Rome after a LifeSiteNews and Voice of the Family conference (October 2018). Voice of the Family / Flickr
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy

Blogs

A laywoman’s guide to thriving at the Traditional Latin Mass

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

EDINBURGH, Scotland, November 7, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) ― The Traditional Latin Mass, also known as the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, is back in the news, thanks to an unfortunate article in the National Catholic Reporter.

It occurs to me that the abuse heaped on the ancient Catholic rite might inspire others to investigate it for themselves, and thus it would be helpful if an ordinary laywoman supplemented the excellent commentary on the TLM by such experts as Dr. Joseph Shaw and Dr. Peter Kwasniewski with a little homely advice. I am, after all, currently in charge of my TLM community’s After-Mass Coffee Hour. It’s my self-appointed job to make people feel welcome at the TLM.

1. The TLM is about reverent worship of God, not the community. If you go to a TLM, you don’t go to make friends―although you might make friends―or to have your existence acknowledged by the priest―although he certainly prays for you during the Mass―but to worship God through the prayers and profound silence of traditional Catholic worship.

If you have been going to the Ordinary Form all your life, as I did until 11 years ago, you may not realize how strong a role community, and community involvement, has played in your devotional life. Sometimes Mass is like a conversation between the priest and the congregation with funny jokes from the sanctuary when, for example, a child’s cry breaks a solemn silence. It’s warm, it’s friendly―but sometimes it’s not what we need in order to worship God profoundly.  

At a TLM, “community” is a distant second to God. The time to socialize is before Mass, outside the church, and after Mass, perhaps in the parish hall. But the church itself is considered sacred space in which holy silence is kept, so that worshippers can pray with a minimum of distraction. 

2. That said, infants wail. Although the TLM is the same wherever you go in the world, the communities are different. Some TLM congregations have many children. Some do not. In the past 11 years, my own small congregation has gone from no children to 10 children on the average Sunday. We’ve had to learn to adjust to the reality of non-monastic liturgical life. 

That said, the parents of proven weepers tend to sit near the back of our church, so they can whisk the disconsolate ankle-biters outside when mere grizzling escalates to full-throated wailing. This may not be a practical solution for congregations made up chiefly of young families, but if you come to Mass without infants, it would be kind if you left the back pews free for people who do. Meanwhile, make the most of the unbroken silences God grants. 

3. The definition of modest dress changes from place to place. If in doubt, it’s a good idea to err on the side of the conservative when you attend your first Traditional Latin Mass. In some communities, men wear suits and ties and women wear chapel veils and dresses with sleeves. In other TLM communities, especially in France, women go to Mass bare-headed and wear trousers. 

The interest some American Catholics seem to take in women’s Sunday clothing is not shared by the rest of the world of Catholic tradition. In Scotland, the unspoken rule is just to dress in a way that indicates respect and does not distract others from their prayers. To raise an eyebrow at my own TLM, you’d have to wear leggings, a miniskirt, sweatpants, a rock band T-shirt, or a tank top revealing an exercise bra with “SEXY” written on the back in rhinestones. I saw such a bra at Mass about nine years ago, and it is permanently tattooed on my brain. 

4. The TLM is much, much different from the Ordinary Form. It took me three Sundays before I felt comfortable with the Traditional Latin Mass because it was so different from the Mass I grew up with. On Sundays the liturgy usually begins with the Asperges, a rite of purification rarely used at the Ordinary Form, and the Mass itself begins in silence, except for the choir singing the Introit. This takes the place of the good old Entrance Hymn. 

I spent months flipping confusedly from the red pamphlet showing the Latin and English translations for the unchanging parts of the Mass (the “ordinary”)  to the white handout showing the day’s prayers and readings (the “propers”). I figured it all out eventually, and it’s a big plus that the TLM is the same wherever I am in the world. I take my veil and missal, and I’m good to go.    

5. Every Catholic who goes to the TLM is different from the others. I know I have to stress that going to the Traditional Latin Mass is about the worship of God through the ancient rite. It is not about finding like-minded community, let alone a substitute family―although it is possible you will make friends, depending on your age and personality. 

The friendliness or reserve, the political opinions or lack thereof, will be influenced by the wider society in which the church is situated. In Edinburgh, a more reserved city than, for example, Glasgow, old-timers assume that people who go to the TLM want to be left alone unless they come to the After-Mass Coffee Hour. Meanwhile, we currently range in age from one to 90+ and have political opinions from all over the British spectrum. We are all different people, but our differences don’t matter as much as the Mass we attend on Sundays. 

Some Catholics fear that TLM old-timers will sneer at them because they have small families. For what it’s worth, my husband and I have no children, and no one at Mass has ever been so rude as to ask us why not. Occasionally someone very timidly asks if we’ve considered adopting, and most recently I’ve explained that my husband’s health prevents it. 

6. The “priesthood of the laity” is not emphasized at the TLM. Here is a story to illustrate this reality. Some years ago a young man converted to the Catholic faith in part because of blog posts I wrote about the TLM. A TLM priest asked me, therefore, if I would prepare something for the convert’s reception into the faith. 

Now, I do have an M.Div. degree from a Catholic theologate, but I was a little confused at this very untraditional-sounding request from a traditional priest.

“Do you mean a reflection?” I asked. 

“No,” said the priest. “I mean sandwiches.”

I made the sandwiches and later admitted to myself that the partygoers probably enjoyed my sandwiches more than they would have enjoyed my reflection. If you are used to taking on tasks once reserved to the priesthood, you do some dying to self when you join a TLM community. Meanwhile, some of the greatest women saints, including Doctors of the Church, scrubbed convent floors for years.

And as much as I admire St. Edith Stein for her writing, it's the fact she cared for children in a Nazi concentration camp that makes me love her. 

7. That said, the laity do have an important part to play. The Traditional Latin Mass does not need you, but you may need the Traditional Latin Mass, and there are many ways in which laypeople can help priests continue to offer it. 

Perhaps the most important is to raise children to love and respect both the Traditional Latin Mass and the traditional understanding of the ordained priesthood. Sadly, the sex-abuse scandals of the past 30 years have made it clear not all priests can be trusted. However, we can raise our own sons to be good men and to help the ones who feel a call to the priesthood find the seminaries that will help them become good priests. We can also emphasize to our daughters the role the great female saints have played in the history of the Church and explain to them why both physical motherhood and spiritual motherhood are so important to the world. 

Depending on the TLM community in your area, there may be a need for altar servers, who are always male, new choir members, and people to help out with a variety of ancillary tasks, including setting up After-Mass Coffee Hour. The best course of action is to ask one of the priests associated with the community what help is needed. However, I would recommend becoming thoroughly acquainted with the Traditional Latin Mass before taking on any responsibility that may inhibit your ability to worship. My husband sings in our choir, and he always welcomes opportunities to worship in the same manner as the rest of a TLM congregation. This is usually when we are away on holiday – see here for a partial list of TLMs around the world.   

Naturally, you should not stint when the offertory basket comes around. 

I find it very rewarding to be a woman in a TLM community. Paradoxically, only the women of the congregation don liturgical garb: our mantillas. Our local tradition is that married women wear black mantillas, and mine proclaims my spiritually maternal role. I enjoy presiding over the After-Mass tea pot and keeping an eye out for people standing around with no one to talk to. I am also happy to be of service to mothers of children, whether that is assisting with homeschooling or keeping an eye on the Guides. Most of all, though, I am delighted to be married to a man who takes the worship of God so seriously.

8. Take and read. After struggling with the question for years, St. Augustine converted to Christianity after hearing a child-like voice say “Tolle, lege” (Take and read). Opening the Bible, his eye fell on Romans 13:13-14, which instructs us all to choose Christ Jesus instead of sinful desires of the flesh. 

To plumb the vast deeps of the Traditional Latin Mass, you too will have to do some reading. A good primer is Treasure and Tradition: The Ultimate Guide to the Latin Mass by Lisa Bergman for St. Augustine Academy Press. The publishing company has also brought many Catholic classics for children back into print, so if you are a parent interested in traditional Catholic worship and catechesis, you may enjoy browsing its catalogue. 

I hope this little guide to the TLM will be helpful to you. I cannot stress enough that the whole point of this Mass is reverent worship of God, but at the same time I have to admit that I did find community―including friends and even a husband―there. Perhaps if you put God first, everything merely created eventually falls into place.  

Podcast Image

Episodes

God created every one of us to know, love, and serve Him

By Mother Miriam
By

Watch Mother Miriam's Live show from 11.7.2019. Today, Mother speaks about the end of man and reads from Frank Sheed's book Society and Sanity.

**We apologize, some of the segments in the video are frozen, but the audio is clear throughout the show.**

You can tune in daily at 10 am EST/7 am PST on our Facebook Page.

Subscribe to Mother Miriam Live here.


View specific date
Print All Articles