All articles from June 26, 2020






  • Nothing is published in Video on June 26, 2020.

The Pulse

  • Nothing is published in The Pulse on June 26, 2020.


Anglican archbishop of Canterbury: Statues ‘will have to come down…names will have to change’

'We’re going to be looking at them very carefully and putting them into context and seeing if they should be there,' Justin Welby said. 
Fri Jun 26, 2020 - 9:00 pm EST
Featured Image
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

PETITION: Urge U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference to defend Catholic heritage and statues! Sign the petition here.

CANTERBURY, England, June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) ― The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that some statues in England’s principal cathedrals will have to be removed.   

Justin Welby, the leading cleric of the worldwide Anglican Communion, was given an opportunity by BBC Radio 4 this morning to say that the trespasses of historical figures honoured with statues could be forgiven. The Anglican archbishop didn’t take it. 

“Well, we can only (forgive) if we’ve got justice, which means that the statue needs to be put in context,” he said. 

“Some will have to come down. Some names will have to change. I mean, the Church, goodness me. You just go around Canterbury Cathedral: there’s monuments everywhere. Or Westminster Abbey,” he continued.

“We’re looking into all that. Some will have to come down,” he repeated. 

“Yes, there can be forgiveness, I hope and pray as we come together, but only if there’s justice.” 

Welby’s interviewer, Justin Webb, stated that this did not sound like forgiveness.

“You say you’re going to take down statues at Canterbury Cathedral,” Webb exclaimed.

“No, I didn’t  say that,” Welby replied. “I very carefully didn’t say that. It’s not my decision.”

However, the Archbishop of Canterbury again indicated that some monuments might be removed. 

“We’re going to be looking at them very carefully and putting them into context and seeing if they should be there,” he said. 

Welby then compared the removal of monuments to British dignitaries to the removal of Bolshevik Felix Dzerzhinsky, the first head of the Soviet secret police, from outside KGB headquarters in 1991. 

“It’s what people do at times like this,” the archbishop said, “and it’s a good thing.” 

Welby seemed to draw a line, however, at the mass destruction of representations of Jesus Christ as a “white European” called for by Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King, whom the archbishop agreed was “a thinking person.” 

Asked if the way the western church portrays Jesus needed to be rethought, Welby agreed that the “sense that God is white” is wrong. However, he noted that as the leader of the Anglican Communion, he had been all over the world and seen Jesus depicted differently in the churches of many countries.

“You see a black Jesus, or a Chinese Jesus, or a Middle Eastern Jesus, which is, of course, the most accurate,” he said. 

Welby believes the way to correct the impression that God is white is not by destroying sacred art but by emphasizing who Jesus is and is not. 

“You see Jesus portrayed in as many ways as there are cultures, languages and understandings. I don’t think throwing out everything we’ve got (from) the past here does it, but I do think saying ‘That’s not the Jesus who exists, that’s not who we worship,” he said. 

“It is a reminder of the universality of the God who became fully human.” 

It was once customary for tombs and monuments of people or local or national interest, as well as statues of saints and war memorials, to be erected in British and European churches. There is a monument to George Gipps, the first Governor of New Zealand, in Canterbury cathedral. Over 3,300 people have been buried or commemorated in Westminster Abbey, including Sir Isaac Newton and Charles Dickens.  

The iconoclasm raging through the United States, toppling statues of Christopher Columbus, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and St. Junipero Serra, among others, has spread to the United Kingdom, where statues of Winston Churchill and Queen Victoria have been vandalised as well as monuments to noted merchants ― and slave traders ― Robert Coulston and Robert Mulligan. 

The destruction has continued farther afield in Europe, sparing not even images sacred to minority groups. The mayor of the Dutch city of Breda expressed sympathy for the local Polish community when an outdoor shrine to the Black Madonna of Częstochowa was vandalized, the mosaic image disfigured and the altar marked with BLM.

  anglicans, archbishop of canterbury, black lives matter, canterbury cathedral, justin welby, shaun king, statues


UN secretary general calls for ‘global governance’ with ‘teeth’

'We absolutely must come together to reimagine and reinvent the world we share,' says Antonio Guterres.
Fri Jun 26, 2020 - 8:20 pm EST
Featured Image
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres Shutterstock
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence

PETITION: Investigate George Soros' role in funding domestic terrorism! Sign the petition here.

NEW YORK, June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres is calling for a “multilateral” level of governance with the “teeth” to “function as an instrument of global governance where it is needed.”

“The problem is that today’s multilateralism lacks scale, ambition and teeth,” Guterres said during a Thursday press conference on the launch of the UN’s “comprehensive response to COVID-19” — the novel coronavirus that originated in Wuhan, China.

“And some of the instruments that do have teeth, show little or no appetite to bite, as has recently been the case with the difficulties faced by the Security Council.”

In the interdependent world of today, “national interests are not easily separated from the global good,” Guterres said.

Moreover, economic and social upheaval caused by the coronavirus pandemic “has laid bare severe and systemic inequalities” across the world, and underscored its fragility in the face of “climate crisis,” the threat of nuclear war, and “lawlessness in cyberspace,” he warned. 

In the face of such problems, “world leaders need to be humble and recognize the vital importance of unity and solidarity,” he said.

“We must reimagine the way nations cooperate,” Guterres contended. 

“We need a networked multilateralism, bringing together the UN system, regional organizations, international financial institutions and others,” he said.  

“And we need an effective multilateralism that can function as an instrument of global governance where it is needed.”

He reiterated the same message at a virtual press conference on June 26 to mark the 75th anniversary of the adoption of the UN Charter in San Francisco.

To emulate those who seized on the Charter as the opportunity to “plant something new” after the depression and world wars, multilateralism must change, he said.

“We need to reimagine multilateralism, give it teeth to function as the founders intended, and ensure that effective global governance is a reality when it is needed,” Guterres stated.

“We must also bring others to the table in an inclusive and networked multilateralism, since governments are only part of today’s political realities,” he added.

“Civil society, cities, the private sector and young people are essential voices in shaping the world we want.”

To the globe’s “fragilities” he mentioned Thursday, Guterres added further troubles: widespread and increasing distrust of national governments, “inequality, discrimination, corruption and lack of opportunities all over the world – grievances that still need to be addressed, including with a renewed social contract.”

There’s also the possibility of another pandemic of “a new virus transmitted as easily as COVID-19 but as deadly as Ebola,” he warned.

And there is “the plague of misinformation” to be fought.

Guterres is looking forward to discussing these matters at the UN’s annual general assembly in September “in whatever format necessary,” he said Thursday.

“We absolutely must come together to reimagine and reinvent the world we share.”

This is not the first time Guterres, the former president of the Socialist International from 1999 to 2005, has used the coronavirus pandemic to push “global governance” in one form or another.

He proposed in March that 10 percent of the world’s GDP be put into an internationally administered fund and “coordinated stimulus package” to respond to economic and social fallout from the pandemic.

“If countries were to accept the plan, the United Nations or some similar coordinating agency would be given the equivalent of approximately 8.7 trillion USD, an unprecedented amount that would be 2,900 times greater than the UN’s annual budget of 3 billion USD,” LifeSite’s Matthew Cullinan Hoffman wrote at the time.

The plan would also “effectively place a global agency, presumably the UN itself, in charge of propping up the economies of the world during the coronavirus crisis.”

However, Guterres’ proposed international fund dovetails neatly with the “Great Reset” initiative launched by the World Economic Forum, along with Prince Charles of England and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), LifeSite’s Jeanne Smits wrote last month.

Guterres fully supports the “The Great Reset,” which the world’s globalist elites will be discussing in January 2021 in Davos, Switzerland, along with online participants from around the world.

The initiative has the objective of “rebuilding” the world’s economic and social system in order to make it more “sustainable.”

Indeed, the UN took a “giant step” toward global government with their 2015 proposal: “Transforming the World: 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” E. Jeffrey Ludwig pointed out two years ago in the American Thinker.

He noted the similarity between the UN World Commission on Environment and Development’s definition of “sustainable development” as that which “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” and the “Marxist axiom that society should be organized around the idea of ‘from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.’” 

Therefore, “Marxism is implicit in sustainability, but is nuanced by its alliance with seemingly scientific adjustments and goals related to environmentalism,” Ludwig observed.

“The one-worlders of the 1950s and early 1960s are now in the UN driver's seat, and they have made their move. The overlay of Marxist talk about ‘meeting needs’ has moved to center stage. The UN has assigned itself a time frame for moving forward in its plan for planetary hegemony,” he warned.

Guterres is also aggressively pushing a global right to abortion in the context of the coronavirus pandemic. 

The Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam) reported in April that Guterres’ March appeal for $2 billion to help developing countries deal with the novel coronavirus repeatedly highlights “sexual and reproductive health and rights” as a priority area of food security and health policy. 

Moreover, “contradicting U.S. state governors who want to concentrate all medical personnel on the coronavirus emergency, World Health Organization officials and staff are promoting abortion as an ‘essential service,’” C-Fam stated.

  abortion, antonio guterres, coronavirus, covid-19, global governance, international monetary fund, multilateralism, one world government, un world commission on environment and development, united nations, world economic forum


Catholic magazine features top Catholic voices on COVID pandemic in light of Fatima prophesies

Calx Mariae includes in its latest issue talks by Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Fr. Serafino Lanzetta, Fr. Linus Clovis, Prof. Roberto de Mattei, and John-Henry Westen.
Fri Jun 26, 2020 - 7:35 pm EST
Featured Image
Maria Madise Maria Madise
By Maria Madise

June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – LifeSite readers, no doubt, have followed the Rome Life Forum, which this year was hosted online due to the multifaceted crisis we have been experiencing for the past few months. Voice of the Family’s annual Forum is usually held at the Angelicum in Rome, but – perhaps providentially – current circumstances led us to transfer the Forum online. This made it possible to share it with a vastly greater audience of 53,000 worldwide. Starting today, the summer issue of Calx Mariae (Heel of Mary), Voice of the Family’s quarterly magazine that covers the Forum fully, is also available. If you would like to have the talks of the Forum in print and much more, click here to order a copy or to subscribe.

This is a special edition of Calx Mariae, because of its length and the circumstances in which it has been produced. For the past few months, our temporal and spiritual life has been altered as never before. Many questions arising from the current crisis were addressed at our online Forum on the theme “Coronavirus in the light of Fatima: a tragedy and a source of hope.” Are we experiencing the aftermath of leaving Our Lady’s call made in Fatima unanswered? Do her requests still stand today? Is this a chastisement? What can we do to remedy the situation? 

You will find the talks of Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Fr. Serafino Lanzetta, Fr. Linus Clovis, Professor Roberto de Mattei, and John-Henry Westen in this issue, as well as analysis and features produced exclusively for Calx Mariae. These are most helpful insights in moving forward from the current crisis as we continue to spread the truth of our faith, particularly in the areas of life and the family. These are the truths that transcend geographical and national borders even at a time of lockdown, always uniting us in prayer and action for the temporal and spiritual health of our families, our nations and our beloved Church.

In Fatima, on the eve of the Communist Revolution, Our Lady predicted that the errors of Russia would spread throughout the world, causing great suffering, unless Russia was consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart. The evil of atheistic communism, which first seized power in Russia, still spreads today, not least through the influence of the government of China. This ideological virus, of which COVID-19 could act as a symbolic reminder, has truly infected our society. Abortion, first legalised in communist Russia, is now promoted by the United Nations as “essential health care.” The strategic goals of communism also include breaking down all standards of morality by promoting pornography; presenting homosexuality as “normal, natural, healthy”; replacing revealed religion with “social” religion; discrediting the family; encouraging promiscuity and divorce, and “liberating” children from the “negative and suppressive influence of parents.” 

Our Lady also told little Jacinta that more sinners go to hell because of sins of impurity than for any other reason. Today many of these sins are state policy of the most powerful nations. Abortion and so-called same-sex marriage – two of the four sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance – are enshrined in national constitutions of formerly Christian nations. And throughout the world, countless children are being corrupted by school sex education, often with the endorsement of Catholic bishops. And, we might ask, how many of the sacrilegious and irreverent Masses, which Catholics today accept, despite their countless acts of desecration of the body of Christ through the universal practice of Communion in the hand, are really an affront to God that surpasses even the atrocities just mentioned?

What would Our Lady say today? We don’t know that. But we do know what she said in Fatima and that her simple instructions have not been followed – at least not as a society and not with the devotion that corresponds to the seriousness of the offences.

In the fields of Cova da Iria, she gave the three little shepherds instructions to bring about the triumph of Her Immaculate Heart, so that a period of peace might be granted to the world, exhausted by war. First, prayer, particularly devotion to the Holy Rosary and the Brown Scapular; second, reparation for the sins and outrages perpetrated against God’s grace and blasphemies against the Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary through the First Saturday devotions; and third, the consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart.

In this issue of Calx Mariae, leading Catholic thinkers and activists share how we can respond to the coronavirus crisis that has affected us all, and render our Blessed Mother obedience in fulfilling her requests so long overdue. She will keep her promises. The Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph. Let us do our part and earnestly pray for the grace of being instruments of her Triumph.

Click here to see a preview of the contents page.

Order a copy or subscribe to Calx Mariae here! 


  calx mariae, catholic, covid-19, fatima, immaculate heart of mary, rome life forum 2020, voice of the family


21 doctors tell bishops Communion on tongue ‘safer’ than in hand

‘From the point of view of hygiene, it is absolutely incomprehensible to us why oral communion has been banned in Austria. We also consider this form of distribution safer than hand communion.’
Fri Jun 26, 2020 - 7:14 pm EST
Featured Image
Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
By Jeanne Smits

PETITION: Urge U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference to defend Catholic heritage and statues! Sign the petition here.

June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Twenty-one Austrian doctors have authored a letter appealing their country’s Bishops’ Conference to lift the de facto ban on receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, which has been enforced since Communion in the hand was announced to be the only permitted form of distribution for the consecrated Host.

As COVID-19 lockdown measures are being progressively lifted in Europe and Masses are being cautiously reopened to the public, a number of bishops’ conferences in countries such as Italy and Austria have decided to oblige priests to distribute Holy Communion only in the hand, although Communion kneeling and on the tongue is the traditional practice of the Catholic Church.

For traditionally-minded Catholics, this obligation is the equivalent of a full ban on receiving communion. The lack of respect and risk of profanation of particles from the consecrated Host involved in communion in the hand is unacceptable to them.

The 21 Catholic doctors of Austria who signed the letter (read full letter below) quoted the professional opinion of Professor Filippo Maria Boscia, the president of the Association of Catholic Doctors of Italy who stated in May that “Communion on the tongue is safer than hand Communion.”

They went on to show in substance that in the traditional Catholic liturgy – that is, the Tridentine Rite of the Mass – barrier measures to prevent spreading the coronavirus are even more widely present than in the Novus Ordo, as when the priest is required to hold thumb and forefinger joined together from the moment he has consecrated the bread, only using them to touch the Host from then on until the moment when he once again purifies his hands.

The doctors commented that “the priests who celebrate in the traditional rite are experienced in administering oral communion and practically never have contact with the mouth of the communicant. Should this happen, however, a priest can be credited with such a sense of responsibility that, taking into account the present situation, he will interrupt the giving of communion and clean his hands.”

They also noted that when the faithful kneel to receive Communion, contamination by droplets is less likely because the priest’s face is not at the same level as that of the communicant.

“From the point of view of hygiene, it is absolutely incomprehensible to us why oral communion has been banned in Austria. We also consider this form of distribution safer than hand communion,” the doctors wrote. They also underscored that most contaminations are the result of sullied hands, quoting Dr. Boscia, who wrote in May: “What is certain is that the hands are the parts of the body that are most exposed to pathogens.”

The Catholic Doctors of Austria concluded their letter by recalling that the Congregation for Divine Worship proclaimed the faithful’s “right” to receive Communion on the tongue, with no exceptions.

Here below is LifeSite’s full translation of the Austrian doctors’ letter.


Comments from Catholic doctors in Austria

In the General Regulations of the Austrian Bishops’ Conference for the resumption of the celebration of public services from 15 May 2020, it was stipulated that the distribution of Communion during Holy Mass is now only permitted in the form of Communion in the hand. This regulation was confirmed in the amended version of 27 May 2020.

We, Catholic doctors in Austria, would like to state the following:

1. In May of this year, the President of the Association of Catholic Doctors of Italy – a country that was hit much harder by the Covid-19 pandemic than Austria – Prof. Filippo Maria Boscia made a clear statement on this subject: “As a doctor, I am convinced that Communion in the hand is less hygienic and therefore less safe than Communion in the mouth” and he continued: “What is certain is that the hands are the parts of the body that are most exposed to pathogens.”

2. We agree with this opinion. It is part of the traditional rite that the priest should wash his hands in the sacristy immediately before the beginning of Holy Mass. Only he touches the chalice and ciborium. After the consecration, he keeps his thumb and index finger – which he has ritually washed with water again just before – closed until after Communion, so he does not touch anything with them except the consecrated Host. The priests who celebrate in the traditional rite are experienced in administering communion on the tongue and practically never have contact with the mouth of the communicant. Should this happen, however, a priest can be credited with such a sense of responsibility that, taking into account the present situation, he will interrupt the giving of Communion and clean his hands. It should also be mentioned that it is almost impossible for droplet infection to occur, since the communicant is in a kneeling position, whereas the priest is in a standing position. In this strictly regulated procedure, there is far less risk of infection than when Communion is given in the hand. So from the point of view of hygiene, it is absolutely incomprehensible to us why oral communion has been banned in Austria. We also consider this form of distribution safer than hand communion.

3. Apart from the religious aspect, the Church has certainly also been motivated by hygienic considerations to have practiced the form of Communion on the tongue for such a long period: at least 1,400 years (if not longer). It was well known that people transmit diseases, and since water and soap were not available to the same extent as is now the case, one can assume that people often came to church with unwashed hands. So with communion on the tongue one could effectively address this source of danger.

4. The Swiss Bishops' Conference, in its rules on the resumption of public worship services on 26 May this year, did not comment on the form of giving communion and thus continues to allow communion on the tongue.

5. We would like to mention here that to our knowledge there has not been a single proven transmission of the Covid-19 virus through a smear infection.

6. In a communication of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church of April 3, 1985, we read: “The Apostolic See maintains the traditional method of administering Communion throughout the Church … ” The same Congregation affirmed in 2009 that the faithful always have the right to receive communion on the tongue and that it is not allowed to refuse it. No exception (such as a pandemic) is mentioned here.

The decree of the Austrian Bishops’ Conference brings many priests and faithful into a serious conflict of conscience. According to the valid norms of the Church, the giving of Communion in the hand is still based on an indult, while Communion on the tongue is still the regular form of receiving communion. The faithful, therefore, for whom it is a serious and important concern to receive Communion on the tongue, and who thereby are doing no more than following the Church's norms in this regard, continue to be excluded from receiving Communion, which constitutes a serious prejudice to these faithful.

We, Catholic doctors in Austria, therefore ask the members of the Bishops' Conference, on the basis of the arguments we have mentioned, to correct this regulation so that the giving of Communion is once again permitted, so that all Catholics may be given the opportunity to receive the Body of the Lord and thus partake of all the graces of Holy Mass. We do not consider it justified to exclude them for reasons of hygiene.


  association of catholic doctors of italy, austrian bishops, catholic, catholic doctors of austria, communion in the hand, communion on the tongue, congregation for divine worship, covid-19, filippo maria boscia, novus ordo, tridentine mass


UK university test COVID-19 vaccine derived from aborted fetal cell line in Africa, Brazil

Starting this past Wednesday, approximately 2000 volunteers in South Africa ranging in age from 18 to 65 began to receive the trial vaccine known commercially as AZD1222
Fri Jun 26, 2020 - 6:02 pm EST
Featured Image
Anthony Murdoch
By Anthony Murdoch

PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus! Sign the petition here.

June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) –  The University of Oxford in the UK is conducting a large-scale trial of a COVID-19  vaccine in South Africa, Brazil, and Britain that was made from a fetal cell line harvested from an aborted baby decades ago. 

Starting this past Wednesday, approximately 2000 volunteers in South Africa ranging in age from 18 to 65 began to receive the trial vaccine known commercially as AZD1222, which was developed by the University of Oxford’s Oxford Jenner Institute. 

The technical name of AZD1222 is ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and it is made from a common cold virus called ChAdOx1. It is also a “replication-deficient adenovirus type vaccine” which uses the HEK-293 cell line made from fetal cells harvested from an aborted baby decades ago.

Oxford University scientists worked with AstraZeneca, who has the license to produce AZD1222, on the development and production of the vaccine. In addition to being tested in South Africa, the vaccine is already in trials in the United Kingdom and Brazil. 

Alan Moy, M.D., founder and scientific director of the John Paul II Medical Research Institute and CEO of Cellular Engineering Technologies, told LifeSiteNews that vaccines which use the fetal cell line HEK293, such as the Canadian Ad5-nCoV coronavirus vaccine and AZD1222, are “not a good vaccine solution if pro-life or pro-choice.” 

When asked about AZD1222, Moy confirmed for LifeSiteNews that the vaccine does indeed use an unethical cell line. 

“It’s a chimpanzee adenovirus vector that indeed uses the HEK293 cell lines [derived from aborted baby] to manufacture,” Moy told LifeSiteNews.

“Yes, it’s ethically controversial.” 

LifeSiteNews reported in May that the Canadian government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau teamed up with a Chinese vaccine company to test Ad5-nCoV in Canada. 

Ad5-nCoV uses the aborted fetal cell line HEK293, which is licensed from Canada’s National Research Council (NRC). In May, Health Canada approved human trial testing of Ad5-nCoV. 

The clinical trial of AZD1222 was announced via a “virtual press conference” Tuesday, which was hosted by the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, who is collaborating with the University of Oxford on the trial. 

The South African “Ox1Cov-19 Vaccine VIDA-Trial” is being led by Shabir Madhi, who serves as Professor of Vaccinology at Wits University and Director of the South Africa Medical Research Council Vaccines and Infectious Diseases Analytics Research Unit. 

In Wednesday’s announcement, Madhi called it a “landmark moment for South Africa and Africa at this stage of the Covid-19 pandemic.”

“As we enter winter in South Africa and pressure increases on public hospitals, now more than ever we need a vaccine to prevent infection by Covid-19,” Madhi said in the virtual press conference.  

According to the Oxford University press release regarding AZD1222, it has been engineered to express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The Oxford news release says that in the UK, over 4000 people are enrolled in the clinical trial of the vaccine, with “10,000” more planned. 

As for Canada’s Ad5-nCoV coronavirus vaccine, in May, the NRC announced a collaboration with the Chinese firm CanSino Biologics Inc. (CanSinoBIO) to test and develop Ad5-nCoV in Canada. The trial vaccine Ad5-nCoV was co-developed by the Beijing Institute of Biotechnology and CanSinoBIO and has already been used in initial human trials since mid-March in China. 

The John Paul II Medical Research Institute currently has a "Campaign for Cures" to raise funds to support research for developing an ethical COVID-19 vaccine. They are hoping to raise $325,000 by December 31, 2020.

They also have a page dedicated on their website where one can find information on how to tell whether or not a COVID-19 vaccine was derived from an aborted fetal cell line. 

Vaccine’s potential effectiveness in humans questioned by experts 

A non-peer-reviewed paper whose authors included scientists from Rocky Mountain Laboratories in the U.S. and Oxford Jenner Institute regarding the effectiveness of AZD1222 on rhesus macaques, was posted on bioRxiv in May. The paper shows that the vaccine appeared to prevent pneumonia in the macaques. 

But some immunology experts who read the non-peer-reviewed paper, questioned certain aspects of the vaccine and its potential effectiveness. 

Jonathan Ball, Professor of Molecular Virology, University of Nottingham, said he was concerned that those who receive the vaccine could shed the virus onto vulnerable populations. 

“The fact that the vaccine prevented pneumonia in all, and symptoms in some, of the vaccinated animals is encouraging – we know that many vaccines work because they prevent serious disease rather than preventing virus infection. However, the amount of virus genome detected in the noses of the vaccinated and unvaccinated monkeys was the same and this is concerning,” said Ball in a May Science Media Centre posting.    

“If this represents infectious virus and a similar thing occurs in humans, then vaccinated people can still be infected, shed large amounts of virus which could potentially spread to others in the community.  If the most vulnerable people aren’t protected by the vaccine to the same degree, then this will put them at risk.  Therefore, vaccine efficacy in vulnerable populations and the potential for virus shedding in vaccinated people needs very careful monitoring.”

Eleanor Riley, Professor of Immunology and Infectious Disease at the University of Edinburgh was quoted as saying in response to the paper, that the vaccine was “insufficient” in preventing viral “shedding in nasal secretions” in the test macaques.

“Whilst the vaccine induced neutralising antibodies and vaccinated animals experienced less severe clinical symptoms than unvaccinated animals (good), the neutralising antibody titres were low and insufficient to prevent infection and – importantly – insufficient to prevent viral shedding in nasal secretions (worrying),” Riley was quoted as saying in a May Science Media Centre posting.    

“If similar results were obtained in humans, the vaccine would likely provide partial protection against disease in the vaccine recipient but would be unlikely to reduce transmission in the wider community.”

  azd1222, coronavirus vaccine, hek293, oxford university, vaccine, vaccines


Verizon joins left-wing boycott of Facebook demanding even greater censorship

The telecom giant followed other organizations who believe the social media platform is allowing 'incitement to violence against protesters fighting for racial justice.'
Fri Jun 26, 2020 - 5:05 pm EST
Featured Image
Wikimedia Commons
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

PETITION: Yes to reform. No to riots & revolution! Sign the petition here.

June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Despite mounting evidence of the social network’s left-wing bias, Facebook still isn’t doing enough to censor “hate and misinformation,” according to a coalition of advertisers boycotting the platform that was just joined by telecom giant Verizon.

“We have strict content policies in place and have zero tolerance when they are breached. We take action,” Verizon’s chief media officer John Nitti said, CNBC reported. “We’re pausing our advertising until Facebook can create an acceptable solution that makes us comfortable and is consistent with what we’ve done with YouTube and other partners.”

The move comes in response to pressure by a coalition of the groups Anti-Defamation League, NAACP, Sleeping Giants, Color of Change, Free Press, and Common Sense, who – without offering specifics – accuse Facebook of “allow(ing) incitement to violence against protesters fighting for racial justice in America in the wake of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Tony McDade, Ahmaud Arbery, Rayshard Brooks and so many others”; of legitimizing conservative news outlets Breitbart and the Daily Caller; and of “turn(ing) a blind eye to blatant voter suppression on their platform.”

The group calls on Facebook to create new layers of moderation and engagement for targets of “identity-based hate,” to take steps to ensure ad revenue does not support “content labeled as misinformation or hate,” and to more closely monitor “extremism” in private Facebook groups.

The campaign has so far gotten the companies Ben & Jerry’s, Patagonia, and REI to agree to pause their Facebook advertising, with Verizon being its biggest gain so far.

Facebook addressed these developments in the form of a memo from VP of global business Carolyn Everson, who explained that the company does not “make policy changes tied to revenue pressure” and that it sets “policies based on principles rather than business interests.”

“We respect any brand’s decision, and remain focused on the important work of removing hate speech and providing critical voting information,” Everson continued. “Our conversations with marketers and civil rights organizations are about how, together, we can be a force for good.” 

The campaign’s reference to “incitement to violence against protesters fighting for racial justice” is widely understood to be a reference to a social media post by President Donald Trump declaring that “THUGS” among the protesters, who had been filmed engaging in violent acts such as smashing storefronts and setting buildings on fire, were “dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”

Twitter set off a firestorm last month when it placed a warning over the tweet, claiming that it “violated the Twitter rules about glorifying violence.” Pressure quickly mounted for Facebook to do the same, which Zuckerberg initially rejected on the grounds that the “we read (the post) as a warning about state action,” and that “we should enable as much expression as possible unless it will cause imminent risk of specific harms or dangers spelled out in clear policies.”

Many left-wingers within the company did not take kindly to their boss’ stance, with a number of employees publicly declaring it “not acceptable” and several hundred others staging a “virtual walkout” in protest. In response, Zuckerberg followed up with comments teasing that the company’s policy may “evolve” yet again to appease the backlash.

“There is a real question coming out of this, which is whether we want to evolve our policy around the discussion of state use of force,” Zuckerberg said. “Over the coming days, as the National Guard is now deployed, probably the largest one that I would worry about would be excessive use of police or military force. I think there’s a good argument that there should be more bounds around the discussion around that.”

Facebook has a long history of suppressing conservative content under vague or false pretenses. Multiple analyses have found that algorithm changes instituted at the beginning of 2018 disproportionately impacted conservative politicians and websites. Last year, an insider revealed that Facebook “deboosts” traffic to several mainstream conservative sites. 

The capitulation of Verizon and other companies to campaigns like this underscores a warning issued this week by conservative author Ann Coulter, who told Breitbart that “woke corporate America” is currently the top threat facing Republicans and conservatives.

“I have been predicting for years that the internet is too free,” she said. “We can communicate with one another. We can get information that The New York Times, MSNBC, and CNN simply will not report. They’ve got to shut down the internet to conservatives, and what better time to do it than the year of Trump’s re-election.”

Coulter lamented that most Republicans, in her view, are either oblivious or indifferent to the danger. “Republicans just have it in their heads, ‘Ooo, it’s capitalism. We support corporations,’” she said. “As the election gets closer, there are going to be more and more soldiers falling … Where are Republicans on this?”

Earlier this month, the president signed an executive order aimed at tweaking how federal agencies interpret and enforce Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which immunizes websites from potentially being held liable for the third-party content they host. The order directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to propose an administrative rule that would “spell out what it means for the tech giants to carry out their takedown policies ‘in good faith,’” but it remains to be seen whether Republicans will seriously attempt any more comprehensive solution should they regain Congress.

  black lives matter, donald trump, facebook, free speech, hate speech, online censorship, social media censorship, verizon


Facebook whistleblower reveals social network ‘interfering on a global level in elections’

A Project Veritas investigator found posts being deleted and one team leader who considered President Trump in the same category as hate groups.
Fri Jun 26, 2020 - 4:07 pm EST
Featured Image
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

PETITION: Ask Archbishop Gregory to apologize to President Trump and the Knights of Columbus! Sign the petition here.

June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Facebook aggressively discriminates against conservatives on a global scale for the purpose of influencing election outcomes, according to a whistleblower whose account was highlighted this week by the conservative investigative outlet Project Veritas.

“I was seeing them interfering on a global level in elections. I saw a blatant exception that just targeted conservatives or favored liberals — and you know, we're deleting on average 300 posts or actioning 300 posts a day,” said Ryan Hartwig, who was hired by the third-party outfit Cognizant to moderate content for Facebook. “If you magnify that by however many content moderators there are on a global scale, that's a lot of stuff that's getting taken down.”

The social media giant’s treatment of conservative, Republican, and pro-Trump content “was the tipping point. Knowing what I knew about how they were giving exceptions for the policy, I knew that it was likely that it was happening elsewhere on a global scale,” continued Hartwig, who wore a hidden camera to document what he saw. “Just seeing such blatant bias from Facebook really bothered me.”

In two examples, Hartwig filmed Facebook moderator Israel Amparan calling President Donald Trump supporters “f***ing crazy-a** a**holes” whose rhetoric “should scare you more than anything”; and content review team leader Steve Grimmett explaining that he categorizes Trump’s supporters with hate groups.

“One of my projects before now was hate,” Grimmett said. “I've spent quite a bit of time looking at pictures of hate organizations, Hitler, Nazis, MAGA (Make America Great Again, Trump’s campaign slogan), you know, Proud Boys, all that stuff all day long.”

Another content moderator, Kassi Cimo, can be heard calling for Trump to be handed over to the Iranian government for execution (in response to an $80 million bounty declared by an organizer of the funeral for Iranian terror commander Qasem Soleimani). “It’s inhumane, but if it’s gonna save the country, why not do it?” she asked. “We should just hand him over to them. Take the money, as a country. That’s what I’m saying, if we hand him over, our country would be saved. Just saying.”

By contrast, Hartwig revealed that – as a matter of policy – the moderating section to which he belonged made exceptions for clear-cut examples of hate that aligned with the company’s left-wing values.

For Pride Month, Facebook-Cognizant policy and training manager Shawn Browder informed the team that “we're making the exceptions for our policy to favor the LGBT community.” A slideshow accompanying Browder’s presentation explained that manifestly hateful tweets that would normally be deleted could remain if they are “intended to raise awareness for Pride/LGBTQ,” offering as an example the comment, “Straight white males are filth for not fighting more on behalf of LGBTQ.”

Hartwig’s revelations follow another Project Veritas scoop earlier this week, in which another whistleblower provided footage of more Facebook-Cognizant moderators openly discussing how they would like to delete “every Donald Trump post I see on the timeline” and “delete all Republicans...for terrorism” if they so much as post a photo “wearing a MAGA hat.” Cognizant service delivery manager Demian Gordon can also be seen saying he would not hold staff accountable for taking down Trump posts, on the grounds that they “gotta get the Cheeto (Trump) out of the office.”

These reports are only the latest examples of Facebook’s history of suppressing conservative content under vague or false pretenses. Multiple analyses have found that algorithm changes instituted at the beginning of 2018 disproportionately impacted conservative politicians and websites. Last year, an insider revealed that Facebook “deboosts” traffic to several mainstream conservative sites. 

Most recently, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg hinted that the company might change its policies to censor Trump himself, in response to left-wing uproar over the president tweeting that riots and looting could be (though ultimately were not) put down with lethal force.

  big tech, donald trump, facebook, free speech, left-wing hate, online censorship, project veritas, social media bias


Priest who founded Knights of Columbus to be beatified after saving unborn baby

An unborn baby diagnosed with a fatal prenatal condition was miraculously cured after family prayed to Fr. Michael J. McGivney.
Fri Jun 26, 2020 - 1:36 pm EST
Featured Image
Fr. Michael McGivney Wikimedia Commons
Clare Marie Merkowsky

PETITION: Urge U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference to defend Catholic heritage and statues! Sign the petition here.

DICKSON, Tennessee, June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Knights of Columbus founder Father Michael J. McGivney will be beatified after the Vatican approved the inexplicable healing of an unborn baby as a miracle attributable to him.

When Michelle and Daniel Schachle learned of Michelle’s pregnancy, they prepared to welcome their thirteenth child. At an ultrasound on the last day of 2014, Michelle learned that her baby had Down syndrome.

The doctors saw other troubling signs and referred Michelle for more tests. On February 25, 2015, the doctors told the Schachles that their child suffered from a severe case of fetal hydrops, a life-threatening condition of an abnormal buildup of fluids in the tissue around the lungs, heart, or abdomen or under the skin.

Daniel asked the doctor for a percentage on the chances their son would live. The doctor finally admitted that in her 30 years as a doctor, she had never seen anyone survive.

Michelle recalled the doctor telling her that “to have hydrops and a chromosomal diagnosis together, it’s over.” The doctor suggested inducing labor or “letting nature take its course.”

“I didn’t like either one of those decisions,” Daniel said. “It made me mad. My job as a dad is to protect my children, not to kill them.”

Continuing the pregnancy would also cause serious conditions for Michelle. Having previously delivered a stillborn, Michelle was “so afraid of delivering another baby stillborn.”

After hearing the diagnosis, Daniel told Michelle, “Father McGivney needs a miracle. I just prayed that if Father McGivney saves him, I'm naming him Michael.”

As members of the Father McGivney Guild, an organization promoting canonization of the priest since 1997, the family had a long-time devotion to Fr. McGivney. Daniel worked for the Knights of Columbus, founded by Fr. McGivney, and had previously been Grand Knight of his local council. The Schachles named their homeschool the “Fr. McGivney Academy.”

“We’ve worn out his prayer card over the years,” said Daniel. “We knew that [Fr. McGivney] looked out over our family, and we looked to him a lot and asked him to pray for us.”

‘There are so many coincidences, how can you look at this and not know it was Fr. McGivney’

The Schachles travelled to Fatima in March 2015, praying for Fr. McGivney’s intercession for their unborn baby at the shrine. Priests offered Masses for their baby’s recovery from fetal hydrops in Rome and at their home parish, St. Christopher, in Dickson, Tennessee. They also sent emails asking people to pray for Fr. McGivney’s intercession.

Four days after returning from their pilgrimage, Michelle went for an ultrasound. “I was pretty scared,” Michelle said. “The ultrasound technician, she kept looking and looking, she was taking a long time.”

However, when the technician showed Michelle an ultrasound picture of the baby's face, the swelling and fluid buildup, which had been so apparent on the last ultrasound, was gone.

Dr. Mary-Anne Carroll came into the room to discuss the ultrasound with Michelle. The two had never met. Michelle had dealt with other doctors on her previous visits.

“She started talking about this and that, about what we're going to do when the baby is born,” Michelle said. “I said what about the fluid in the lungs? She said, ‘A lot of babies have a little fluid in the lungs. It's called wet lungs.’”

“Wait a minute, I was told there’s no hope,” Michelle asked, stunned.

Carroll, realizing that Michelle and her baby were the patients she had heard about from the other doctors in the practice, consulted her colleagues who confirmed the complete disappearance of fetal hydrops.

While the family had originally planned to name their baby Benedict, when he was healed, they decided to name him Michael in honor of Fr. McGivney.

Michelle delivered Michael McGivney Schachle by emergency c-section after only 31 weeks. On May 15, 2015, Michael was born, weighing only 3 pounds 4 ounces. He was then in the hospital for 10 weeks.

At seven weeks, Michael underwent heart surgery, and, at six months of age, he suffered from a respiratory illness for which he was sent to the hospital for six weeks. However, Michael is now a happy and active five-year-old. There are no signs of conditions related to his prematurity or fetal hydrops.

The Schachles said that having Michael strengthened their prayer lives, and also made a “big impression” on his doctors.

“There were times where [the doctors] were like, ‘We don't know what's going to happen and [if] he's going to make it or not,’” Michelle said. “And I'm like, ‘I don't think you understand, God has big plans for this child.’” 

The family was repeatedly asked why they didn’t pray for Michael to be cured from Down syndrome as well as from the fetal hydrops. They explained that they saw a baby with Down syndrome as a “blessing” and only wanted him to be born alive.

The family was asked how they could be certain that the miracle was caused by Fr. McGivney’s intercession. In addition to praying and asking people to pray specifically for his intercession, Michael and Fr. McGivney share many similarities.

“There are so many coincidences, how can you look at this and not know it was Fr. McGivney,” said Daniel.  

Michael was born on May 15, the date in 1882 when the first Knights of Columbus council was chartered. Additionally, Michelle and Fr. McGivney share a birthday. Fr. McGivney was the oldest of 13 children; Michael is the youngest of 13.

“A panel of physicians in Rome examined the medical record and a panel of theologians examined the spiritual record of the case before making a recommendation for the pope’s approval,” said Brian Caulfield, the vice postulator of Fr. McGivney’s cause.

On May 27, 2020, Pope Francis confirmed that Michael’s inexplicable healing was a miracle that arose through the intercession of Fr. McGivney. Therefore, Fr. McGivney will be beatified and called Blessed Michael J. McGivney.

  catholic, knights of columbus, michael j. mcgivney


Ex-GOP candidate Carly Fiorina endorses Biden, claims he ‘could lead’ on abortion

The ex-Hewlett-Packard CEO says the Democrat candidate's move toward fewer abortion restrictions is an 'example of an opportunity to lead rather than just playing politics.'
Fri Jun 26, 2020 - 1:34 pm EST
Featured Image
Business leader Carly Fiorina, a possible Republican contender for president in 2016, speaks at the Heritage Foundation on January 20, 2015. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

PETITION: Tell Trump Christians can’t accept SCOTUS ruling imposing LGBT ideology! Sign the petition here.

June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Failed 2016 presidential candidate Carly Fiorina is the latest Republican to declare President Donald Trump so beyond the pale that she’s voting for former Vice President Joe Biden instead, ignoring his wholesale rejection of her own stated values on the sanctity of life.

Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO who was also briefly the running mate for Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) own presidential primary run, told The Atlantic’s Edward-Isaac Dovere on Thursday that she “can’t support Donald Trump” and because “elections are binary choices” she will vote for Biden in November.

“I think we have witnessed, particularly in the era of Trump — but prior to that as well — what George Washington warned us about, which is that the trouble with political parties is people will come to care only about winning, and they’ll forget about values and governing,” she said. By contrast, “I think — I hope — that Biden understands that this moment in history calls for him to be a leader, not a politician.”

Calling Biden a “person of humility and empathy and character,” Fiorina claimed that when the Democrat “talks about the soul of the nation,” he’s talking about “principles like co-equal branches of government, principles like problem-solving should be a collaborative process, a bipartisan process.”

Dovere did question Fiorina on the apparent conflict between her stated pro-life positions and Biden’s pro-abortion platform. 

She first lamented that the “extremes” on both sides of the abortion debate are allegedly impeding progress, and called on Congress to change course by starting with a 20-week abortion ban, then called for expanding the meaning of “pro-life” to encompass “criminal-justice reform” (which is generally code for greater leniency in punishing crimes) and unspecified “police reform.” She also endorsed the left-wing claim that “systemic racism” leads to black Americans being “murdered in broad daylight,” despite evidence to the contrary.

When Dovere pointed out that Biden “has moved toward fewer restrictions (on abortion), not more,” Fiorina responded that it was a “great example of an opportunity to lead rather than just playing politics. He could do that. He could lead. He could problem-solve. He could find common ground on a bipartisan basis.”

In fact, there is no evidence that Biden wants to reduce abortions or find common ground with pro-lifers, and ample evidence to the contrary.

The presidential “healthcare” platform he unveiled last year calls for “codifying” Roe v. Wade in federal law; repealing the Hyde Amendment (which bars direct public funding of most abortions); forcing states to accept Medicare funding for Planned Parenthood, reversing the Mexico City Policy (which bars federal funds from supporting abortion overseas); and directing the Justice Department to “do everything in its power” to block state pro-life laws as modest as parental notification requirements, ultrasound laws, and waiting periods.

During his time in the Senate, Biden generally voted in lockstep with Planned Parenthood and NARAL. As former President Barack Obama’s running mate, he spent eight years in what was arguably the most pro-abortion administration in American history, during which he assured a Chinese audience he “fully understand(s)” and was “not second-guessing” their government’s practice of forcing families into abortion and sterilization.

In the early months of his presidential campaign, Biden formally jettisoned restrictions on federal funding of abortions by disavowing his support for the Hyde Amendment after just a day of pressure from pro-abortion activists. Most recently, he declared abortion to be “essential health care” that had to continue even as the COVID-19 emergency measures suspended many forms of actual health care.

None of the above has deterred Fiorina, however, who went so far as to declare that former running mate Cruz’s support for Trump “disappoints me.” She added that she hasn’t spoken with Cruz in “several years.”

While Trump’s opponents roundly cheered Fiorina’s announcement, she also received broad pushback from numerous voices, including a former campaign worker and the president himself:

As for Cruz, he simply responded, “I very much respect Carly, but I disagree with her on this.”

  2020 presidential election, abortion, carly fiorina, democrats, donald trump, gop, joe biden, liberal republicans, republicans, ted cruz


The ultimate pro-life voting guide to Canada’s Conservative Party leadership race

Pro-life groups are saying there are only two real leadership choices for voters in the Conservative party of Canada: Derek Sloan and Leslyn Lewis
Fri Jun 26, 2020 - 11:21 am EST
Featured Image
Derek Sloan | Leslyn Lewis
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence

TORONTO, June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Card-carrying members of the Conservative party of Canada have only two real choices if they want to see a pro-life candidate become party leader at the fast-approaching conclusion of the leadership race. 

Ballots for the crucial Conservative Party leadership race are expected in members’ hands by mid-July. Pro-life groups such as Campaign Life Coalition and Real Women of Canada are urging pro-life social Conservatives to use the ranked vote — in which voters are allowed to select their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. choice — to send their party a clear message that only a pro-life candidate is worthy of a vote. 

Canada’s pro-life, pro-family national political lobbying group and largest pro-life association, Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) has issued a detailed voter guide advising supporters on how to rank the four candidates, who recently sparred in debates in French and English.

CLC gives Ontario MP Derek Sloan an “A+” and Toronto lawyer Leslyn Lewis an “A” for their pro-life, pro-family policies. And it gives former Nova Scotia MP Peter MacKay, a frontrunner in the early days of the race, and Ontario MP Erin O’Toole a failing grade for pro-abortion, pro-LGBTQ policies.

The pro-life group is asking pro-life Conservatives “to vote for Derek Sloan and Leslyn Lewis in the top ballot positions of number one and number two, in whatever order you prefer,” says director of political operations, Jack Fonseca.

It is also urging pro-life Conservatives to leave MacKay and O’Toole completely off the ballot, even though O’Toole is endorsed by Alberta Premier Jason Kenney and Alberta MP Garnett Genuis.

Real Women of Canada is also urging party members to vote in a similar way. 

REAL Women has now concluded that the following two candidates should be supported as Conservative leader. They are:

  1. MP Derek Sloan should be our first choice as Conservative leader.
  2. Leslyn Lewis should be marked as our second choice.

“REAL Women does not recommend that a vote be cast on the ballot for the two Red Tory candidates Peter MacKay and Erin O'Toole. Neither of them is pro-life/family nor can be trusted to take into consideration the social conservative position when making decisions,” the group stated in a press release. 

O’Toole confirmed in last week’s French-language debate he will defend the “right” of women to choose abortion. 

MacKay reiterated his pro-abortion stand to CBC in March, stating: “I am pro-choice. I am for equal marriage. I am not going to restrict access [to abortion]. I am willing to march in a [Pride] parade.”

O’Toole and MacKay “do not deserve a vote from pro-life, pro-family Conservatives,” emphasized CLC’s Fonseca.

“It would send the wrong message to all Conservative politicians across Canada, essentially telling them that they can earn our support without giving us anything in terms of meaningful policy.”

What makes a candidate rated pro-life, pro-family?

Campaign Life based its voter’s guide ratings on a number of criteria, including if candidates are willing to have a national abortion debate, repeal transgender “rights” Bill C-16; repeal “conversion therapy” ban C-8 if passed; repeal euthanasia expansion bill C-7 if passed; ban “gender-reassignment” surgery for those under 18 years of age, and support conscience rights and free votes.

The Conservative Party’s policy declaration already has things to say on a few of these matters, notably:

  • A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion (70).
  • All votes should be free, except for the budget, main estimates, and core government initiatives. MP should have free votes on issues of moral conscience, such as abortion, the definition of marriage, and euthanasia. (7) (The party has no policy on the definition of marriage since delegates voted in 2016 to delete the policy defining marriage as between one man and one woman.)
  • The party supports conscience rights for doctors, nurses, and others to refuse to participate in, or refer their patients for abortion, assisted suicide, or euthanasia (62).
  • Abortion should be explicitly excluded from Canada’s maternal and child health program in countries where Canadian aid is delivered, since it is extremely divisive – and often illegal (73).
  • The Conservative Party condemns discrimination against girls through gender selection abortions (81).
  • The Conservative Party supports legislation to ensure that individuals who commit violence against a pregnant woman would face additional charges if her unborn child was killed or injured during the commission of a crime against the mother (104).

Derek Sloan:  “A+”

Sloan is a Seventh-Day Adventist and 35-year-old married father of three, former businessman, lawyer and MP for Hastings-Lennox and Addington, a riding in south-east Ontario created in 2013. He’s been a pro-life activist since a young age when he attended a Life Chain event with his family at age 7. 

In response to CLC’s question on what government legislation, regulations or actions he would enact to protect unborn children, Sloan listed a 9-point platform that begins with a promise to support “grassroots efforts” to delete party policy that “a Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.”

The pro-life bills he would enact are: Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a Born Alive Infant Protection Act, a Partial-birth Abortion Ban, an Informed Consent Ultrasound law to require abortion centres to show pregnant women an ultrasound of their baby before proceeding with an abortion, and a law banning sex-selective abortion.

Sloan also promises to eradicate provincial “censorship zones” around abortion facilities and to ensure pro-life student clubs can operate on campuses, and would encourage adoption by raising the existing adoption expense tax credit to 22.5 percent and providing 15-weeks maternity leave to adoptive families.

He would cancel federal funding of overseas abortions in keeping with party policy.

The CLC voter’s guide says Sloan is the only candidate who promises to ban so-called “sex-reassignment surgery” for individuals under the age of 18. He also will raise the legal age for marijuana consumption to 25.

Sloan will repeal “conversion therapy” ban C-8 and euthanasia expansion Bill C-7 if they pass, as well as 2017 transgender “rights” Bill C-16.

Both Sloan and Lewis state they will never march in pro-homosexual “Pride” parades.

Leslyn Lewis: “A”

Lewis, who immigrated from Jamaica at age five, is a 49-year-old Evangelical single mother of two, one-time TV host, and lawyer with multiple degrees, including a master’s in environmental studies and a Ph.D. in law she earned from Osgoode Hall Law School, York University in 2019. She was also vice-chair of Ontario Trillium Foundation, a position she resigned from this spring after the party approved her leadership candidacy.

In response to CLC’s question about what government legislation, regulations or actions she would enact to protect unborn children, Lewis listed two laws and two initiatives: a Sex-Selective Abortion Ban and a law to protect pregnant women from coerced abortions, and increased federal support for pregnancy care centres, and an end to federal funding for international abortions in keeping with party policy.

Lewis told Fonseca in a Virtual March for Life interview in May that most Canadians agree with these policies. She reiterated this in a June 7 interview with Chris Hall on CBC Radio’s The House.

“I have not proposed anything to limit access to abortion. I’ve actually proposed policies that the majority of Canadians agree on,” Lewis told Hall.

“For example, the majority of Canadians agree that a fetus should not be terminated on the sole basis that it’s a girl, so that this is not something that is divisive.”

She added that in a free and democratic society “we have to talk about challenging issues,” but at the same time, “the climate in Parliament is just not conducive to having a full-out abortion debate and as elective officials … we’re not activists,” Lewis said.

“Work has to be done on changing hearts and minds and that was Stephen Harper’s position, that hearts and minds need to be changed before there could be legislative changes, and I agree with him on that.”

CLC states that Lewis will repeal Bill C-8. She says on her website that: “If [C-8] passes without serious amendment it will require a full repeal.” Her campaign manager Steve Outhouse told LifeSiteNews: “She will repeal it *unless* significant changes are made that clearly address the potential criminalization of parents and pastors.”

CLC states Lewis will repeal Bill C-7, the euthanasia expansion law, if it passes, a position she reiterated in her interview with Fonseca. Her campaign website states she “will stop the expansion of new categories for Medically Assisted Death. Outhouse said that Lewis will repeal C-7 if it passes.

In investigating Lewis’ background, LifeSiteNews found some additional information.

Lewis and pro-abortion LEAF controversy

Lewis’s campaign biography states she was a member of the Women’s Legal and Education Action Fund (LEAF) “for a brief three months,” and her Trillium Foundation bio, removed since her resignation, likewise listed her as a LEAF board member.

LEAF is arguably Canada’s most radical feminist pro-abortion and pro-LGTQ legal advocacy group (see an account of LEAF’s record here), and one of the organizations Sloan has vowed to defund. 

Pro-life political activist Tanya Granic Allen, acknowledged kingmaker in the 2016 Ontario Conservative leadership race, sparked controversy in early April when she publicly asked Lewis to explain why she featured her LEAF board membership in her biographies. She stated that she had asked Lewis privately more than two months earlier “to renounce her association with LEAF and condemn their radical activism.”

Lewis “has absolutely no public voting record on life and family issues. We can only assess her as a political candidate by her public statements and her actions, past and present,” Granic Allen wrote. 

In response, Lewis stated that LEAF “knew I held strong pro-life beliefs, and I hoped to be a balancing influence on the Board” when she joined in 2010.

“After a few months of earnestly trying to make a difference, it was clear that it wasn’t the best fit all around, and we wished each other well, and I chose to conclude my term early with the Board,” she said.

Her “main purpose of joining LEAF was to help plan the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of First Nations women receiving the vote,” and her time on the LEAF board “ended shortly after that event,” Lewis told LifeSiteNews in an email.

Both as an appointee to the Trillium Foundation and to apply as a Conservative leadership candidate, she had to disclose her board memberships, and “it would be dishonest to hide my past involvement with LEAF, or any other organization,” she told LifeSiteNews.

As for publicly renouncing her association with LEAF, “I hope one day that I can change the hearts and minds of women who don’t share my beliefs, but I don’t believe the way to do that is through condemnation,” she added.

Fonseca said Campaign Life defended Lewis at the time of the controversy and that hasn’t changed.

“We have no reason to doubt her many, many statements in public, in interviews, on her website, and in her communications and face-to-face with us and many, many conversations at CLC that she is pro-life and she is pro-family,” he told LifeSiteNews.

“We’d welcome the denunciation of any pro-abortion organization, but the most important thing is that she is championing our pro-life and pro-family values through the campaign and through her policy platform,” added Fonseca.

Lewis is listed as a member of the LEAF Fund Development Committee in its 2009-2010 Annual General report, and LEAF’s tax filings with Canada Revenue Agency list her as a board member in both 2010 and 2011. 

In response to LifeSite questioning this seeming discrepancy with Lewis’s statement on her campaign biography that she was on the board for three months, Outhouse reiterated that her term with LEAF “was scheduled to be three full years, but she served actively only during 2010,” when she was organizing the 50th-anniversary event, after which she resigned. 

“She, of course, did fundraising for this event,” he said. “It’s up to the not-for-profit organization to complete the proper paperwork, which obviously was processed at a later date.”

The party is mailing out the ballots in early July. With a ranked ballot, a member’s first choice is the member’s vote until that candidate is eliminated, at which point the member’s second choice becomes his or her vote. 

The ballots must be returned to the Conservative Party no later than August 21, when it will tabulate the results and announce the new leader.

To view CLC’s official Voter’s Guide, click here.

  abortion, campaign life coalition, canada, conservative party of canada, derek sloan, erin otoole, leadership race, leslyn lewis, peter mackay, real women of canada, voter guide


Pro-lifers call on Conservative party to stop Trudeau’s billion-dollar global abortion agenda

'The silence by the pro-life members of the opposition is deafening.'
Fri Jun 26, 2020 - 11:05 am EST
Featured Image
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Lianne Laurence / LifeSiteNews
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence

PETITION: Demand Planned Parenthood return $80M improperly taken from coronavirus emergency fund! Sign the petition here.

OTTAWA, June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Canada’s national pro-life lobby group is calling on the Conservative Party to live up to its policy declaration and oppose the Liberal government spending millions in tax dollars to fund abortion internationally.

“Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s global abortion funding agenda needs to be stopped. For five years the Official Opposition has failed to do so,” Jeff Gunnarson, Campaign Life Coalition president, told LifeSiteNews.

Gunnarson’s comment comes days after Liberal Minister of International Development Karina Gould made yet another announcement regarding the Liberals’ bankrolling of global access to abortion.

Gould said during a June 22 #SheDecidesNow Virtual Round Table that Canada is spending $93.7 million to support “sexual and reproductive health and rights” (SRHR), which she alleges are at risk in developing countries because of coronavirus pandemic restrictions.

The phrase “sexual and reproductive health and rights” is highly controversial because it implies a “right” to abortion as well as to contraception and “comprehensive sex education.” Abortion advocates have been pushing for years to include the phrase in international agreements, but it has never been agreed to by global consensus, as the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-FAM) recently reported.

According to Gould’s press secretary Guillaume Dumas, the $93.7 million is not new money but allocates some of the funds Trudeau pledged in 2017 and 2019, which increased the Liberals’ projected global funding of abortion and other “sexual and reproductive health and rights” to a staggering $7.1 billion by 2030.

In 2017, Trudeau promised that Canada would spend $650 million over three years to fund the promotion and provision of abortion as part of its international aid — including bankrolling campaigns to overturn national laws protecting the child in the womb.

In 2019, he announced at the Vancouver She Decides conference that Canada would spend $1.4 billion annually for 10 years beginning in 2023 to support “women and girls’ health around the world.” Half of this would fund “sexual and reproductive health rights,” his office stated at the time.

Moreover, Gould announced two weeks earlier that Canada was giving an additional $8.9 million to international abortion organizations, with $4.9 million going to Marie Stopes International, “a global organization that provides contraception and abortions in 37 countries,” Canadian Press reported at the time.

Marie Stopes International was expelled from Zambia in 2012 for committing illegal abortions. In 2018, Niger ordered the closure of two Marie Stopes clinics because they were committing abortions illegally. 

In the face of the Liberals’ aggressive global abortion agenda, the Conservative caucus must speak out, particularly given that their party condemns the funding of abortion as part of international aid, emphasized Gunnarson.

“Abortion should be explicitly excluded from Canada’s maternal and child health program in countries where Canadian aid is delivered, since it is extremely divisive – and often illegal,” states the Conservative Party’s 2020 policy declaration on maternal health.

Conservatives “lose their minds about Trudeau’s other spending policies, which are a lot smaller in amount, and yet remain silent on the $700 million annually that Trudeau is committing towards abortion, including this latest commitment of almost $100 million,” Gunnarson told LifeSiteNews.

“The silence by the pro-life members of the opposition is deafening,” he said, but added there are notable exceptions.

Two of the four Conservative Party leadership candidates, Ontario Member of Parliament Derek Sloan and Toronto lawyer Leslyn Lewis, have promised that as leader, they will end international funding for abortion.

“Luckily we have two CPC leadership candidates who will put an end to this ideological spending of Canadian tax dollars: Sloan and Lewis,” Gunnarson.

“Defunding abortion should also be a priority for fiscal conservatives and those angered by Trudeau’s management of Canadian taxpayer dollars,” he added.

According to Gould’s press secretary, the $93.7 million the Liberals announced this week has been allocated as follows:

  • Better Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights for All in Indonesia
    United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
    $8 million (2018 to 2022)
  • Improving SRHR of Women in Humanitarian Contexts
    Ipas (which is, according to its website, “the only international organization solely focused on expanding access to safe abortion and contraceptive care”)
    $1.2 million (2020 to 2021)
  • My Health, My Choice
    United Kingdom Department for International Development
    $50 million (2019 to 2021)
  • Girls’ Reproductive Rights, Empowerment Accelerated in Tanzania
    UNICEF and UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund)
    $20 million (2019 to 2023)
  • Empowering Women and Girls in SRHR and Gender-Based Violence
    $4.5 million (2019 to 2024)
  • Strengthening SRHR through Midwives in Somalia
    $10 million (2020 to 2025)

In May, Trudeau Liberals issued a “Statement on Protecting Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights and Promoting Gender-Responsiveness in the COVID-19 Crisis” along with 58 other countries that called “on governments around the world to ensure full and unimpeded access to all sexual and reproductive health services for all women and girls.”

In April, they included abortion funding in their pledge of almost $160 million to combat the coronavirus pandemic in developing countries.

To contact your M.P., visit Campaign Life’s website, here, or the Parliament of Canada website, here.

  abortion, conservatives, trudeau liberals


Last Call - Can you donate just $10?

We need your help to meet our minimum fundraising goal by the end of today! Every gift helps!
Fri Jun 26, 2020 - 10:04 am EST
Featured Image
LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Today is the last day of our Summer fundraising campaign. With just hours left to go, there is still time for you to help us raise the remaining funds needed to help us maintain our current level of reporting this quarter.  

As we experience attacks on every front, our pro-life and pro-family news reporting is only possible with your support. Without the generosity of readers like you, impacting the culture by spreading the truth simply wouldn’t be possible.  

Without the mission of LifeSite challenging the narrative of mainstream media and proclaiming the truth, the culture of death will continue to threaten every fabric of our lives. People around the world, young and old, will continue to be brainwashed by the incessant manipulation and lies of the mainstream media.  

I hope you will join the LifeSite giving family with a gift of support today. 

Please consider standing for life and family through supporting our efforts and providing the tools our reporters need to keep up with the breaking news cycle, challenge the agenda of the mainstream media, and speak truth amidst the chaos. Use this secure link to make your donation today: 

The stakes are high, which is precisely why we need you to help us reach this fundraising goal. We have a responsibility to reach even more people with the truth about life and the family, especially in the times we are living in now.  

LifeSite is 100% committed to doing everything in our power to spread the truth and promote a Culture of Life, no matter how heavily the odds are stacked against us! Our team is dedicated to do even more reporting on critical life and family issues, and I pray as a reader of LifeSite that your generosity will help us maintain this very level of dedication. 

We’ve always depended on readers like you to provide, and you have never let us down! We are grateful to be able to help you to stay informed on these critical issues through reading our daily news reports.  

I hope you will consider helping us reach our goal.  

Of the hundreds of thousands of readers that will visit our site today, it wouldn’t take much if everyone pitched in a little! Whatever you can give, whether it's just $5, or $5,000 - every donation counts towards our goal. 

It’s all in your hands now, and we thank you for considering helping us continue our mission.  

We will leave the thermometer up on our site for a few more days as we collect mail-in donations. Don’t forget you can also make a donation by phone, toll free, at 888-678-6008.  

On behalf of our team at LifeSite, thank you so much for your generosity and continued readership.  

  fundraising campaign, summer fundraising, summer fundraising 2020


It’s ‘child abuse’ for scientists to gene-edit human embryos and then destroy them: Ethicist

‘Child abuse is an offense reportable by health care providers. Yet scientific journals publish such research as if it represents a good’
Fri Jun 26, 2020 - 6:30 am EST
Featured Image
Martin Bürger Follow Martin
By Martin Bürger

PETITION: Urge U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference to defend Catholic heritage and statues! Sign the petition here.

LONDON, England, June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A Catholic ethicist has characterized as “child abuse” the embryonic research of a team of UK scientists after they destroyed over a dozen tiny humans following extensive manipulation of their DNA using a gene-editing technique known as CRISPR. The scientists published their findings in a paper. 

“Child abuse is an offense reportable by health care providers. Yet scientific journals publish such research as if it represents a good,” Catholic ethicist Dr. Marie Hilliard told LifeSiteNews in an interview. 

According to OneZero, which summarized the findings described by the scientists in a June 5, 2020 paper that has not yet been peer-reviewed, several of the little babies had “abnormalities across a particular chromosome.”

The team of scientists “started with 25 human embryos and used CRISPR to snip out a gene known as POU5F1 in 18 of them. The other seven embryos acted as controls.”

“The researchers then used sophisticated computational methods to analyze all of the embryos,” OneZero reported. “What they found was that of the edited embryos, 10 looked normal but eight had abnormalities across a particular chromosome. Of those, four contained inadvertent deletions or additions of DNA directly adjacent to the edited gene.”

While CRISPR has been known for the possibility for “off-target” effects, “which can happen if the CRISPR machinery doesn’t edit the intended gene and mistakenly edits someplace else in the genome,” the London team of scientists, led by Kathy K. Niakan, “sounds the alarm for so-called ‘on-target’ edits, which result from edits to the right place in the genome but have unintended consequences.”

In other words, not only the particular gene is edited that was intended to be edited in the first place, but other parts of the DNA around that particular gene are also affected, which can cause problems.

Hilliard told LifeSiteNews that the methods described by the team of scientists in their paper, “while intending to demonstrate if on-target gene editing of human embryos is possible, constitute the most egregious abuse of the most helpless of human beings, who are then destroyed.”

Dr. Marie Hilliard is co-chair of the Ethics Committee of the Catholic Medical Association and works with The National Catholic Bioethics Center. She holds graduate degrees in maternal-child health nursing, religious studies, canon law, and professional higher education administration.

Even if the embryos were to develop into adults, Hilliard pointed out, reproductive cells could have been altered, which could then impact the human race if these human beings reproduced just like human beings whose DNA had not been altered. This is why the scientists have opted to destroy the embryos.

According to Dr. Hilliard, the team of scientists, in their paper, represented “the ultimate cannibalization of human beings, conceived through in-vitro fertility treatments (IVF), purportedly because they were desired by loving parents, then abandoned by them to science. In reality, these offspring are treated by their unknowing parents as commodities, after their brothers or sisters, who were allowed to live, were deemed to be more desirable.”

Hilliard explained that parents “erroneously are told that a human being does not exist until the embryo is implanted in the mother’s womb. Thus, parents often mistakenly intend to do a good by donating their conceived human embryos to science.”

“Yet a grave evil is imposed upon their sons and daughters, who are experimented upon and then destroyed,” she continued. “Ethical principles of research not only demand informed consent of the subject, but also that the research will benefit the subject, or at least have a neutral effect. In this case, the embryos were mutilated before they were destroyed.”

Hilliard emphasized that gene-editing as such “is not intrinsically wrong, meaning by its very nature always an evil. In fact, it may constitute a ‘good,’ depending on how it is done and for what purpose.”

However, gene-editing should first be tested on certain animals like mice. “Ethically, the prerequisite animal research must demonstrate effectiveness and safety before applied to human beings,” Hilliard explained. “Studies on animals indicate there is great potential for targeted base-editing, and human success with sickle cell anemia and thalassemia is being demonstrated.”

The ethicist noted the irony of scientists destroying what they know to be human beings while abortion supporters often argue that the embryo in the mother’s womb is not (yet) a human being.

“The very fact that the research is being conducted on human embryos demonstrates what science confirms, the embryos are human beings,” she said. “Since the research is aimed at correcting genetic abnormalities in human beings, researching on embryos demonstrates that these are human beings.”

“Furthermore, destroying them before implantation in a mother, because to let them develop and reproduce could impact the human gene pool, clearly demonstrates that these embryos are human beings,” she added. “How scientists can deny, or at least ignore this truth is unfathomable.”

  bioethics, crispr, embryo, embryo research, embryos, gene-editing, human experiments, marie hilliard


Rising Canadian political star slams UN for showing support for ‘radical leftist’ group Antifa

Conservative leadership candidate Sloan called the UN ‘hopelessly out of touch’ for supporting the anti-government group
Fri Jun 26, 2020 - 6:00 am EST
Featured Image
Derek Sloan. Global News / YouTube
Anthony Murdoch
By Anthony Murdoch

PETITION: Investigate George Soros' role in funding domestic terrorism! Sign the petition here.

ONTARIO, June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) leadership candidate and member of Parliament (MP) Derek Sloan says the United Nations is “hopelessly out of touch” for showing support for Antifa in a social media post last week. 

The United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG) voiced support for Antifa in a June 19 Twitter post, by “expressing profound concern” over the fact the United States government is looking at labeling them a terrorist organization. 

In a June 23 email to his followers, Sloan blasted the UN, saying it was “shockingly inappropriate” for them to show support for Antifa. 

“Incredible but true! The United Nations actually voiced their support for an anti-government, radical leftist organization that has incited violence and rioting in cities across the U.S. during the past three weeks!” said Sloan. 

“Besides being shockingly inappropriate, this is also a profoundly politically ignorant statement….the rights to free expression and peaceful assembly are foundational, but they don’t include burglary, arson, vandalism, and assault.”

Sloan, who identifies as pro-life and pro-family, also said in his email that if elected Prime Minister, he will “designate ANTIFA as a terrorist group.”

“ANTIFA’s aim is nothing less than the destruction of western democracy…Conservatives, in particular, have to be concerned about this, because ANTIFA is well known for singling out conservatives for vicious attacks,” said Sloan in his email. 

“It’s clear that the UN is becoming either hopelessly out of touch, or irredeemably radically leftist in its beliefs and policies. Or perhaps both,” added Sloan in his email. He also said the same thing on Twitter this week

The UN social media post showing support for Antifa caused an uproar from many, which prompted the UNOG to delete the post a few days ago. The deleted post can still be seen on an archive site.  

The now-deleted UN Twitter post showed a photo of the Antifa flag with the following text: “UN Human Rights experts express profound concern over a recent statement by the US Attorney-General describing Antifa and other anti-fascist activists as domestic terrorists, saying it undermines the rights to freedom of expression and of peaceful assembly in the country.”

In an announcement last month, U.S. President Donald Trump said he will declare Antifa a terrorist organization, as the group is suspected to have played a key role in the rioting that followed the death of George Floyd. 

Antifa, which is short for “anti-fascist,” is a political movement that promotes leftist extremism that in recent years has gained strong traction in the U.S. 

The leftist group has no official leader but in recent months, people claiming to be members of it have been active participants in the violent and destructive rioting taking place in the U.S., which were sparked by Floyd’s death. 

Sloan also said in his email that the UN is “anything but the impartial, multi-national body they were intended to be,” and that they have “proven” to be “increasingly influenced by, and to be exporters of, political and social radical leftism.”

Sloan then said that if elected Prime Minister, he will “stop the practice of signing UN treaties that undermine Canadian sovereignty.” 

“Why is the UN trying to normalize the actions of ANTIFA under the false umbrella of ‘peaceful assembly’, when their assembly invariably involves pre-meditated and extreme violence, rioting, and harassment?” said Sloan. 

In his email, Sloan again promised to defund the World Health Organization (WHO) should he be elected prime minister, and added that he is the “only candidate willing to take us out of the UN Paris Agreement.”

Last week, Sloan said that should he become prime minister, he would defund foreign abortions, Planned Parenthood, and “Pride” parades as well as the WHO. 

In last week’s CPC English leaders debate, he said his fellow candidates would “agree with him” that “it’s not right” that Canada has no laws protecting babies from abortion. 

  antifa, canada, derek sloan, leadership race, united nations


Catholics, now is our ‘moment’ to defend our statues, our churches, our faith

The true Catholic moment is never when the world welcomes our faith with cries of ‘Hosannah,’ but when the faith is nailed to the Cross
Fri Jun 26, 2020 - 5:19 pm EST
Featured Image
Jason Scott Jones Jason Scott Jones
By Jason Jones

June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In 2013, the New York Times published a bleak essay titled “The End of a Catholic Moment,” mourning the loss of the prestige and influence Catholics had had in America only a few years earlier.

In 2005, Republicans built their party platform on Catholic social teachings, Democrats anxiously sought the approval of Catholic “values voters,” and the mainstream media broadcasted Pope Saint John Paul II’s splendid funeral with such reverence that it “almost felt like an infomercial for the Catholic faith.”

That “Catholic moment” was over. But another soon came with the election of Pope Francis. Almost immediately, journalists and public figures the world over celebrated a sort of springtime for the Catholic faith, and the dawn of a new golden age.

Just two years later, Pope Francis made history by performing the first-ever canonization of a Catholic saint on U.S. soil: that of St. Junipero Serra. Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner wept on live television during the Pope’s address to Congress. Democratic leaders Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi joined the pontiff in reverencing a statue of the new saint.

As you’ve already learned from the events of the past week, that “Catholic moment” was just as fleeting as the last. But in fact, I would argue that neither was a true Catholic moment at all. 

As Catholics, we need to come to understand that, and to accept with gratitude, with wonder and awe, and with firm conviction, that the true Catholic moment is never when the world welcomes our faith with cries of ‘Hosannah.’ 

No, the Catholic moment is when the faith is nailed to the Cross.

In this Catholic moment—and this truly is the Catholic moment!—we need to have faith in Our Lord’s heroic mission, which was ultimately accomplished almost completely alone, amid darkness and earthquakes, on Good Friday. 

Through the dedication of a few faithful Catholics, He offers to accomplish great things in this world. And if we have the courage to rise to the occasion, He may even help us to preserve this nation for our children.

Another Catholic Moment

In the lead-up to the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, Islamic forces bent on world-domination had killed countless European Christians. Thousands of others had been led away to serve as sex slaves. Muslim forces had demolished and burned churches and committed unspeakable acts of humiliation and torture as a warning against any who would resist.

Just a few decades after the Reformation, Christian Europe was divided and in disarray. It seemed unlikely to the enemy that a united force would ever come against them. Dismayed Catholics and Protestants alike were weak at the knees, unwilling to do anything to draw the Muslim’s attention to their own countries and towns.

But by the grace of God, a few Catholic men had the wisdom to recognize the situation for what it was. This is what the Catholic moment looks like.

These men refused to stand by as their churches were desecrated and their families enslaved. Under the leadership of the young Don Juan of Austria, outnumbered by at least 100 ships, they defended Europe against the violent piracy of her would-be slavemasters.

After the fact, the whole Christian world celebrated. The Battle of Lepanto had changed the course of history. As Catholic scholar Michael Novak once wrote: “The air of Europe that October tasted of liberties preserved.”

Images of God

Today, we see our family and friends in the grip of confusion. We see our Catholic neighbors suffering despair. Some scenes from late nights in American cities are even starting to look like early tremors of violence that began in Mosul just a few short years ago. 

But each of us needs to see our Catholic moment as clearly as Don Juan of Austria and his men saw theirs.

Symbols and monuments like the statue of St Junipero Serra are reminders of the same transcendent moral order our forebears in the Battle of Lepanto defended – the moral order that kept our “liberties preserved.” 

And when Black Lives Matter leaders like Shaun King threaten to tear down statues and stained-glass windows of Jesus Himself, we know it’s time for Catholics to be vigilant.

We must defend our monuments because we know that assaults on these pillars of the transcendent moral order always lead to assaults on the human persons whose dignity they represent--the dignity of creatures made in the image of God.

When I saw the statue of Junipero Serra fall, I thought of my trips to Iraq.

Jason Jones in destroyed Church in Iraq.

I have stood in the rubble of churches that were still smouldering after ISIS set them on fire.

I’ve walked through village after village where every Christian symbol was destroyed. It was a matter of course that, in these places, it wasn’t just the symbols that were destroyed, but thousands of our neighbors as well.

Jason Jones in destroyed Church in Iraq.

We cannot let that happen here.

Don’t be Misled

The evening after the mob tore down the statue of St. Junipero Serra in San Francisco, I searched for responses from Catholic leaders. San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone had issued a powerful statement, and also took to the radio to boldly defend the faith and condemn the desecration.

When I searched for a response from another California prelate, Auxiliary Bishop Robert Barron, I found his most recent social media post about Saint Junipero Serra was from 2015--the year of the grand canonization and papal visit.

Barron is one of those whose cheerful, worldly, and self-comforting idea of the Catholic moment leads to a scattered flock, to panic hatreds and denunciations of the faith, and to the desolation of Our Lord in the true Catholic moment – the moment of His Passion, when He desires most ardently to accomplish His saving work in the world.

  catholic, junipero serra, martyrdom, statues


Catholic prof: Abp Viganò is right in calling for reform, but Church cannot simply repudiate Vatican II

‘All Councils ratified by the Pope become part of the Ordinary Magisterium, and we must take what is good, while clarifying and purifying what is not so’
Fri Jun 26, 2020 - 11:55 am EST
Featured Image
29th September 1963: Pope Paul VI (Giovanni Battista Montini) opened the second session of the Ecumenical Council, at the Vatican. Archbishops and Cardinals from all parts of the world were present. Keystone/Getty Images
John Paul Meenan John Paul Meenan Follow John Paul
By John Paul Meenan

June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Is Vatican II – to use an au courant analogy - a virus within the Body of Christ? Archbishop Vigano in his public letter of June 9th, on the memorial of the great poet, mystic and hymnographer, Saint Ephraim, arrived for many as long-delayed Jeremiad, condemning the alleged errors of the ecclesia moderna, the modern Church, even of the Second Vatican Council, or at least its interpretation, and he exhorts us to reflect, repent and reform. We may share his concerns, and be grateful that someone has the courage to point out in no uncertain terms that something must be done about the Augean mess we’re in. We should all act to help purify the Church, but with that purification beginning in each of our own souls. 

Yet, caveat lector – let the reader beware: It is exactly what should be done that is the rub, and it is with this in mind that the letter of Archbishop requires a clarifying response, so that his words might be understood in light of the same truth that prompted him to write in the first place. We don’t want to be precipitous, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, that would make any subsequent errors worse – perhaps far worse and more insidious – than the first. Things are usually not as simple as they may appear – there are mysteries that will last until the end of time. 

Now, it is not implied that the Archbishop holds any of the errors that may be mentioned here – even though he may now have gone so far as to call for a repudiation of the entire Council, which would be tragic – only that the reader should beware that some of what the Archbishop wrote may be propaedeutic to an erroneous view of the Church’s teachings.  

The Archbishop claims that “it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ.” 

Perhaps, and there is plenty of evidence of such a ‘fifth column’, but we should beware the spectre of a neo-, or even a gnostic-Donatism in an attempt to delineate a ‘pure’ Church within the surrounding morass of an apostate one, superimposed thereon. Donatus, a 4th-century African bishop, against whose errors Saint Augustine did mighty battle, claimed as much, that there were sins that cast one into the outer darkness, and barred one from ever repenting and seeking readmission to the Catholic fold. Furthermore, sacramental grace would only flow through ‘pure’ ministers, and the apostates – adulterers, murderers and those who caved in the face of persecution – were beyond the pale, and could more or less be shunned and ignored. 

His Grace continues: 

for decades we have been led into error, in good faith, by people who, established in authority, have not known how to watch over and guard the flock of Christ: some for the sake of living quietly, some because of having too many commitments, some out of convenience, and finally some in bad faith or even malicious intent. These last ones who have betrayed the Church must be identified, taken aside, invited to amend and, if they do not repent they must be expelled from the sacred enclosure. This is how a true Shepherd acts, who has the well-being of the sheep at heart and who gives his life for them; we have had and still have far too many mercenaries, for whom the consent of the enemies of Christ is more important than fidelity to his Spouse.

The truth of which of the Church’s ministers is in good standing, and by extension who even belongs to the Church, is complex and opaque, yet governed by certain principles and laws. The Church is both an earthly and heavenly reality, historical and transcendent, and we belong, more or less, in both ways: There are the three visible bonds of communion: unity in faith, in ecclesiastical governance and in sacramental worship. Then there are the spiritual bonds of communion, grace and charity. Ultimately, belonging to the Church is the same thing as belonging to the Mystical Body of Christ, but that Church is truly ‘catholic’, universal, in that it is in some sense everywhere, and all in some way either belong or are ordered to the Church. After all, everything true and good is ‘Catholic’, and, this side of eternity, no one is completely outside the Church. 

Union with the Church is, in one sense, a spectrum – we may belong ‘more or less’, for who of us would say that we are united to Christ as much as we might be, either visibly (could not all of us pray more, or immerse ourselves more in the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church?) or, more to the point, spiritually (and woe are we if say we have reached our zenith of charity and grace). 

Yes, there is a Rubicon between being in the state of grace, and not being in this state which, for those old enough to make moral decisions, means being in ‘mortal sin’. Although we have some access to our own interior state, we don’t have access to that of others – being in grace or mortal sin have objective elements, but they are ultimately subjective, determined by the deep decision each of one us makes for truth, for charity and for God, as He speaks to each of us. And even our awareness of our own spiritual condition before God is not infallible. We may achieve some level of moral certainty about ourselves, but we must beware of presumption, answering with Saint Joan of Arc, who replied during her trial whether she was in a state of grace: ‘If I am not, may it please God to put me in it; if I am, may it please God to keep me there’

If there is some uncertainty about ourselves, how much more does this apply to others, and two warnings from the Gospel come to mind. One, where the Apostles ask Christ to send fire from heaven upon the Samaritans (Lk 9:34), who refused to accept them. Christ’s reply was to rebuke His Apostles, a reply which is consistent with Christ’s admonition that the wheat and the tares be allowed to grow together unto harvest time, when God will separate them (Mt 13:24, ff.). For the division between the good and the bad is to some extent external, it is more internal, running through each of our own hearts – even if the state of our souls is expressed to some extent in our actions. At times, the authorities in the Church must act to depose and defrock, but that is not within our own authority. The fact that Christ Himself tolerated Judas, knowing full well the darkness within him, until he hung himself on his own gibbet, so to speak, should be an object lesson.

It is with these distinctions in mind that we should interpret the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus – outside the Church there is no salvation. Here again is the Archbishop, quoting from the ancient Athanasian Creed, which cemented Nicene Trinitarian orthodoxy: “Whosoever wishes to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith; For unless a person shall have kept this faith whole and inviolate, without doubt he shall eternally perish.”

We must beware taking an either too liberal or too restrictive interpretation of the doctrine that outside the Church there is no salvation, which is not a statistical event, but a personal one. Universalism, that everyone (eventually, at least) belongs to the Church and all are in the end saved, does not jibe with the warnings of Christ and the traditional teaching of the Church on the reality of hell and the choice of some for that final ‘self-exclusion’ from God and the blessed. Yet we must also not take too restrictive a view, as Father Leonard Feeney (+1978) did, that one must be a baptized, Roman Catholic with all the three visible bonds of unity to be saved. The Church has never taught this, and Father Feeney was condemned for teaching such. This gets us into murky waters here, but we say for now that one must certainly be in a state of grace and charity to enter heaven, and that the Church and her sacraments are the only revealed, as well as the surest, way to be morally certain we are in a state of grace and charity. It is quite a different matter to be moving towards the fullness of truth by what light and grace are given one, and to knowingly and willingly reject salvific truth once we have accepted it as true.

The Archbishop makes a valid point, that there are signs that some, even at the higher level of the hierarchy, have made this tragic choice, but that ultimately is known only to God Himself. And here is the point, which brings us back to Donatism. In condemning this heresy, the Church taught that regardless of the sins, or even the errors, of a bishop or priest – even of the Vicar of Christ – they are still sacramental ministers, until they are censured, deposed or even defrocked by the proper authorities in the Church. Are we to attempt to depose bishops and priests who are deemed ‘apostates’? Who is to make this distinction, and do the deposing? 

And we should clarify that there is no earthly authority, no canonical process, even in the Church, that can judge or remove a validly elected Pope, whose office ceases only by a voluntary resignation, or death. 

Before we turn to the Council itself, what are we to make of the Archbishop’s implicit claim that all – or almost all - of our current woes are a result of its teachings – which has more than a little of post hoc ergo propter hoc? Things were already unraveling well before the Council, and one could also hold that they would have been worse without it. Of course, this too cannot be proved, but there is historical evidence that a Council was needed for the Church to respond to the modern world. 

No Council is perfect, and some more imperfect than others, but all Councils ratified by the Pope become part of the Ordinary Magisterium, and we must take what is good, while clarifying and purifying what is not so. 

Yes, there are omissions, but this is so for all the Church documents, none of which can say everything. The question is whether these omissions were deliberate, and whether there was an attempt at ‘weaponized ambiguity’. Perhaps. But many Councils had post-conciliar wrangling over terms, including the very first, at Nicaea, in 325: One need only skim all the battles fought over the word ‘homoousios’, defining Christ’s relation to the Father. Anyway, to continue to focus on motives and machinations seems to edge close, ironically enough, to the very ‘spirit of the Council’, of which we are all wary. Instead, we should focus on is the text itself, not the mind and motivations of the Council Fathers, before, during or after the Council, which ultimately, in some way, is the work of the Holy Spirit, even if His work is often bent by fallible and sinful human agents. God writes straight with crooked lines.

Pope John XXIII made it clear from the outset that the Council would not be condemnatory, but emphasize rather the positive aspect of the Church’s teachings. After all, Communism and contraception – to take but two of the bete noirs of those opposed to the Council, claiming these should have been anathematized in no uncertain terms – were already condemned in no uncertain terms, respectively, by Pius XI in 1937 (Divini Redemptoris) and 1931 (Casti Connubii). And the Church was in the midst of responding to the invention and use of the ‘Pill’, which required a clarification on what contraception really is. And even Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae (1968) needs John Paul II’s Theology of the Body to fill out its own teachings. Magisterial teaching, two millennia and counting, and must be taken as an integral whole.

We may debate the modus John XXIII set, which is admittedly unlike previous Councils, but we must admit that it does not make much sense to condemn contraceptive sex if we don’t make the case that the non-contraceptive, life-giving kind is far better, even more enjoyable. And that some sort of free business economy, based on the private initiative and energy of individuals, is a more effective and efficient, and more fun, social model, than staid and stale socialism. The Church cannot always condemn what we shouldn’t do – she must also teach what we should do.  

Anon, we could, and probably will, debate this until Christ returns again and wonders what we were doing with our time, but whatever lacunae and privations there may be in the way truths were expressed, there is no explicit heresy in the conciliar decrees,  and much of the language is even highly conservative – from reaffirming priestly celibacy and chastity, religious orders reaffirming their original rules and the spirit of their founders, the requirement that the laity strive for holiness, devotion to Our Lady, and the supreme primacy of the Pope. I will caution that one must read at least some of the original Latin, for, whatever one thinks of the editio typica, the English translations (which is all most have ever read, if they’ve read the conciliar texts at all) are certainly lacking and tendentious in many places – even the footnotes are different. Further, we should also recall that every document at the Council was vetted and passed by almost every bishop in the world by an overwhelming margin, and promulgated with the full authority of the Pope. If we are to re-assess such conciliar decision a half-century on, then what else might be up for grabs? The entire pontificate of Pope John Paul II?

One could write a book about this, and some have, but for now, we will focus on the three aspects from the Council with which the Archbishop takes issue: 

Thus “Ecclesia Christi subsistit in Ecclesia Catholica” does not specify the identity of the two, but the subsistence of one in the other and, for consistency, also in other churches: here is the opening to interconfessional celebrations, ecumenical prayers, and the inevitable end of any need for the Church in the order of salvation, in her unicity, and in her missionary nature. 

First, the teaching that the Church that Christ founded subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church means that the fullness of what it means to be the Church (see the bonds of unity and such) are found in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Council does not teach that the Church subsists in other religions, but, rather, that elements of what it means to be the Church – signs, prefigurations and even certain realities - may be found outside of her visible boundaries. Protestants have valid baptism and even marriage; their other ceremonies are an adumbration of the Church’s liturgy; and are not any good works in any path of life – fasting, prayer, almsgiving – already ‘Catholic’, which may impel towards unity and the fullness of truth? 

The analogy may be applied to any person (for the Church is ultimately the ‘Person’ of Christ). There is a bronze bust of Pope Saint John Paul II outside our college. If I were walking with a non-believer and he were to ask me ‘who’s that?’, I would reply ‘Pope John Paul’. Of course, it’s not really Pope John Paul, but it is him, in some sense. The same goes, more so, for his writings, the example and memories he left, his good works that ripple through time and so on. But as far as where Pope John Paul ‘is’ in his fullness – where he ‘subsists’ - well, it would, while he was alive, be where his body is, and he now subsists in heaven, awaiting the return of that body in the resurrection.

So too we find elements of Catholicism everywhere – all that is true, good and beautiful, but the Church – recall her fundamental spiritual reality – is found where the visible bonds are most present, not least in the Eucharist, with the faithful gathered around. The Church is more there – more subsistent – than in my living room, or in the midst of a forest, even if the Church be there in some sense. The point is that the Church is not some strictly enclosed, hermetically sealed ‘thing’ that one can say ‘here it is!’. After all, we may ask, where is the Church not?  

Second, these distinctions apply to the declaration Nostra Aetate, on non-Christian religions, which the Archbishop claims is responsible for current deleterious syncretic trends in the church. But this document, while clarifying our relationship to the Jewish people and their own salvific role, simply expresses the truth that there are truths found in other religions, many of whose members are searching for the truth not yet found, as Saint Paul cried to the Athenians, ‘What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you!’ (Acts 17:23). And, with Saint Paul, those truths form a common ground from upon which to commence dialogue, and evangelization. If we pray ‘with’ them – that is, alongside them, in the same place - we distinguish such from praying ‘as’ they do, with an emphasis upon what we do hold in common.

Finally, there is the Archbishop’s claim that “(i)f the pachamama could be adored in a church, we owe it to Dignitatis Humanae”. Many have made exaggerated claims of this admittedly controversial decree, not found in the text itself, in its discussion of some aspects of religious freedom. This, again, is a complex topic, but the basic teaching of the document is that human beings should be free from coercion by the state in matters that are specifically religious. After all, rights always exist in relation and within concrete circumstances, even if they all ultimately come from and are grounded in, God. What we may have a ‘right’ to do or not do in one context, does not necessarily imply that we have the same right in another context. The document does not teach that people have a right before God to practise a false religion. Its very opening paragraph states that it leaves ‘untouched’ (integram) the ‘moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ’. What it does do is reiterate that each one of us must come to the truth, and to the Faith, freely, without external compulsion, especially by the state. Even here, this freedom can only be practised ‘within due limits’, and there is room for the state to intervene in religious matters, as the Church has always taught, to preserve ‘just public order’. One could even apply these principles to maintain the notion of a confessional, Catholic state, which is not expressly proscribed, and which the text implies we still hold as the ideal.

As one who has spent much of his life striving to present the teaching of the Church clearly and precisely, part of me does wish that the conciliar texts were more ‘scholastic’, like, say, those of the Council of Trent. It is ironic, however, that the Vatican Council advocates in the strongest (and clearest) terms the study of Saint Thomas Aquinas, by students, secular and ecclesiastical (one of its many teachings rarely put into effect, more in the breach than in the main). And a scholastic reading of the Council – making clear whatever is ambiguous - would be the one most true to the perennial tradition of the Church. 

And speaking of Thomas, he has a saying that pertains: quidquid recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur – ‘everything received is received according to the mode of the receiver’ - and there is much of our own a priori beliefs and thoughts in what we read. Perhaps a good part of our modern world could only ‘receive’ the Church’s teaching in such a ‘mode’, at least initially, in accord with the dictum of Saint Paul that we – the Church – must be all things to all men. And we should also recall the Apostle’s warning that there will always be those with ‘itching ears’ who will read what they want to read, and ignore what they want to ignore, lacking eyes to see and ears to hear, who have misused and distorted the teachings of the Church, regardless of how they might be presented. 

A final, more personal note: I would respectfully suggest that we customarily refer to Pope Francis by the name he has chosen, and not, or at least not consistently, by his last – and previous – name, Bergoglio. Regardless of our thoughts on the current occupant of Peter’s cathedra – and we all have many - we are the Church militant, a phrase not explicitly used, but still implied by the Council, and one we should maintain. And in the military we salute the rank, not the man. Francis is the Pope, and the Pope is Francis, until God clearly decides and/or manifests otherwise.  

All in all, we should be with Archbishop Vigano in his call to spiritual arms and to reform, but we must use those arms and carry out that reform in serenity, charity and truth. At the same time, we don’t want to underestimate the Herculean task before us, possible only with the grace of God. What we must not do is lash out, and in some sort of Hegelian antithetical counter-reaction, go too far the other way, rejecting the good along with the bad. There is no going back to a mythical, utopian, antiquarian, ‘pristine’ time, and what the Church is and has taught must be taken in, and assimilated with her Tradition, as it is expressed according to each age and historical epoch. To return to the viral analogy, the Church has her own auto-immune system, if you will, along with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through which any apparent deviations, ambiguities or omissions – one cannot help but think of Pope Francis’ statements and even his encyclicals - are eventually corrected and clarified. Or, to use another metaphor from the Fathers, the Church is a ship, the very barque of Peter, and to sail the sea of orthodoxy we must always be plotting as well as correcting our course, a bit more to starboard or port. We are all on a pilgrimage towards that final culmination of all things, and need to keep our wits, and our souls, about us, grounded in the fullness, and the mystery, of the truth.

John Paul Meenan is a Professor of Theology and Natural Science, and a founding member, at Our Lady Seat of Wisdom College in Barry’s Bay, Ontario. He also edits and writes at Catholic Insight

  carlo maria viganò, catholic, hermeneutic of continuity, vatican ii


Famous black former sheriff exposes mainstream media’s bias in reporting on police

David Clarke emphasizes that the overwhelming majority of police officers are good, decent men and women concerned about law-abiding citizens and the communities they serve and are willing to put their lives on the line to protect them.
Fri Jun 26, 2020 - 7:58 pm EST
Featured Image
Former Sheriff David Clarke during a CNN interview with Don Lemon.
Steve Jalsevac Steve Jalsevac Follow Steve
By Steve Jalsevac

PETITION: Yes to reform. No to riots & revolution! Sign the petition here.

June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) –  The deeply personal story by LifeSite team member Lisa Stover, about the trials of being the wife of a police officer during this frightening time when officers and their families are enduring enormous stress and personal threats, touched many LifeSite readers and was widely read.

Lisa explained how “anti-cop sentiment is fueling people to hate my husband who loves me, our kids, our country.”

She also related a crucial aspect about policing that most of the public is likely not aware of. Lisa wrote, “The mental health and PTSD resources available to law enforcement officers and their families are severely lacking, and there is so much work to be done to prevent injustices like what happened to George Floyd moving forward.”

What police officers see and have to emotionally cope with most days, and still remain caring and very human, is a challenge that most people would not be able to endure. That is why police officers need resources available to them, which most are surprisingly not receiving, to help them cope with the emotional stresses of often seeing the very worst side of humanity or having to assist citizens enduring tragic, heart-breaking events.

Black Former Milwaukee County Sheriff and Fox News personality David Clarke is featured in a Prager U video speaking in defense of the nation’s police officers and countering the anti-cop hate rhetoric of BLM. Clarke reinforces Lisa Stover’s concerns about the danger to police officers’ lives as a result of the Marxist BLM campaign against all law enforcement personnel who are simply performing a greatly needed service for the public.

The video starts with Clarke being interviewed by the typically overbearing and notoriously far-left, gay activist, anti-Christian CNN personality Don Lemon who eventually cuts off the Sheriff who maintains his defensive statements of US most police officers.

In the second segment of the Prager U video, Clarke attempts to give the other side of the story about police officers and the problems caused by politicians and others who have created a massive disrespect of authority. He tells citizens how they should respond to being stopped and questioned by police officers. Clarke says that “the idea that a law-abiding citizen has to fear the police is a destructive lie.”

He asks why BLM, what he says should mean “Black LIES Matter” because the group is “based on the falsehood that the police represent a danger to black people, are celebrated by the media and politicians.” “All of this is taking its toll on cops”, says Clarke, “and even more tragically, in the neighborhoods that most need a strong police presence.”

Clarke ends by emphasizing that the overwhelming majority of police officers are good, decent men and women concerned about law-abiding citizens and the communities they serve and are willing to put their lives on the line to protect them.

After watching the Prager U video, read Lisa’s testimony again with this new perspective. It’s a much-needed story that many should be exposed to.

  black lives matter, david clarke, police, riots


US Catholic charity CEO: Catholic Church is racist because Jesus was ‘white’

McCann went on to praise the pro-abortion and pro-LGBT Black Lives Matter group as a ‘Christ-like’ movement
Fri Jun 26, 2020 - 7:45 pm EST
Featured Image
Rob McCann, President and CEO of Catholic Charities Eastern Washington in a June 19, 2020 Youtube video. Catholic Charities Eastern Washington / Youtube
Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
By Jeanne Smits

PETITION: Urge U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference to defend Catholic heritage and statues! Sign the petition here.

June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Rob McCann, President and CEO of Catholic Charities Eastern Washington, recently declared that the Catholic Church is “racist” because Jesus was ‘white.’

“Our Catholic faith tradition was built on the premise that a baby born in a Manger in the Middle East was a white baby. So how can we be surprised to know that we are a church that must still fight against racism even now,” McCann said in his June 19 youtube “Message to Staff and Clients.”

McCann goes several steps further, however, declaring that the “hard truth” is that every “white person living in America” is a racist. 

“For me as a white person, saying I'm not a racist is like saying fish is not wet,” he went on to say. “My Catholic church and my Catholic Charities organization is racist. How could they not be?”

McCann went on to call the pro-abortion and pro-LGBT Black Lives Matter group a “Christ-like” movement.

“Catholic Charities supports Black Lives Matter. We simply cannot stand outside of something as significant as this movement, even though we know full well there may be a price to pay for walking into it, we must walk in any way now. In its purest nonviolent form, it is a Christ-like movement that honors the Church's teaching,” he said. 

McCann said that his organization will now become aggressive in pursuing its goals that apparently align with the Black Lives Matter movement.

“Only through intentional aggressive assertive action can we truly be an organization that's anti-racist. We must embrace this action and hold ourselves accountable for it if we are to be truly authentic as a voice for human dignity.” 

In the wake of the violent death of George Floyd and the subsequent violent Black Lives Matter protests that are tearing down “white” symbols all over the US, but also in many other “Western” countries across the world, his public “confession” did no less than justify the anger that has been stirred up over the last weeks among a vocal minority of non-Whites who uniformly protest against only one sort of racism, be it real or imaginary.

In a word, Western Whites representing Catholic and Christian civilization are by their very existence oppressors who have under-trodden, enslaved and marginalized natives and people of color all over the world. And even when they did (or still do) good, it was in a racist fashion.

This is how Rob McCann puts it: “Our own Catholic Charities organization that does so much good and fights for so much Justice still has also been unknowingly part of the institutionalization of racism. Here at Catholic Charities we have a staff, a leadership team and a board that is mostly white, even though those we serve are often disproportionately people of colour. We need to be better than that. We at Catholic charities even in our love for serving others are still at the same time part of the problem.”

It is a very revealing point of view, and in fact it truly exemplifies the true nature of the current “antiracist” agitation in so many parts of the world. It rests on the premise that you first must assess people according to their color of skin rather than according to their good or evil actions. It supposes that Blacks – or Afro-Americans as they must now be called – somehow need to be in equal proportions everywhere compared with Whites, and that Whites are by nature to be suspected of conscious or unconscious bias in whatever they do.

McCann said it this way:  “I am a racist. That’s the hard truth. I am a racist. How could I not be as a white person living in America where every institution is geared to advantage people who look like me? It’s seemingly impossible for me to be anything other than a racist. I know that I have routine bias, even if it is unconscious bias, as we all do. But I also believe that my bias is dangerously different. My bias, the bias of white people, supports and feeds into powerfully racist systems in our country.”

That’s the country that elected a colored President, Barack Obama, in 2008, and then re-elected him four years later. It would appear that that doesn’t count.

McCann’s statements are a perfect example of the true nature of anti-racism. It protects only given communities or minorities and accuses others, the “racists,” of being collectively to blame for certain ways of being or acting as a group, whatever the behavior of individuals belonging to the group. In fact, antiracism appears to be “racism in the opposite direction,” as Bernard Antony, co-founder of the revived Chartres pilgrimage in France and of the AGRIF, a legal defense alliance for the French and Christians in France against “racism,” calls it.

Seen from France, which has had “anti-racist” laws and propaganda since 1972 – hate-crime laws that include race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, sex, and now sexual orientation – McCann’s kind of talk is both false and dangerous. These laws have consistently been used by the powers that be against France and the French, Christians and Catholics, and against many kinds of national preference, frequently leading to preference for immigrants over and above the native French.

Many French Catholic thinkers in the 20th century, from Jean Madiran to Jules Monnerot who came from a mixed-race family in Martinique have theorized about this “so-called anti-racism,” that is in fact a mutating virus of communist dialectics in that it sets one part of society up against another. In this case: the oppressed ethnic “minorities,” whatever their size, against the “white Christian majority.”

Monnerot called racism a “mass-deception.” “There is no difference between racism and anti-racism. (…) Anti-racism is racism against racists. The hated group is constructed by the hated group, which selects real traits and even imaginary traits, traits that are the object of rites of execution and collective maledictions in the fashion of the supposedly civilized 20th century – especially maledictions by the media. These are technically the most perfect incitements to hatred known in the history of mankind,” he wrote in 1995, shortly before his death.

Jean Madiran showed that anti-racist ideology was being used not to identify and condemn true racism – which politically means “considering race as the unique or supreme principle of organisation” – but as a tool: “It has become a technique for legal, moral and political assassination.” 

In France, “anti-racism” has served all immigrationist politics and allowed to blame protection of borders and any expression of approval for benefits that French colonists or missionaries may have brought to non-Christian countries – from hospitals, schools and roads to the Catholic faith.

In asking forgiveness for the supposed “racism” that is automatically his, due to his white skin, McCann shows in another way the communist affiliation of his thought. Self-criticism and self-accusation is part and parcel of Marxist-Leninist ideology. Oppressors of the people were expected to “confess” to their (imaginary) crimes in re-education camps, sometimes saving their lives in this way, sometimes not.

McCann also subscribed to the ideology of collective guilt, it was even the conclusion of his talk: “Please forgive us our trespasses and please embrace us. Please lock arms with us and walk with us on this path towards healing and towards a justice that loves,” he proclaimed.

Earlier in his message, he said:

“As a Catholic who believes in reconciliation, I must own my part in that and treat it like any other sin. I must know it, name it, speak it, ask forgiveness for it, while trying to eliminate it from my life.

“For me as a white person, saying I’m not a racist is like saying fish is not wet. In America, racism is no longer a question but rather it’s the toxic water in which we all swim. We are all treading water in this shortcoming, whether we want to know it or not.

“My Catholic Church and my Catholic Charities organisation is racist. How could they not be. Our Catholic faith tradition was built on the premise that a baby born in a Manger in the Middle East was a white baby. So how can we be surprised to know that we are a church that must still fight against racism even now?”

Is the Baby Jesus somehow “responsible” in McCann’s eyes for the supposed “racism” of the Church? Should He have been born black or yellow or brown?  Or is it just our vision of the Christ-Child and his most beautiful Mother, the Virgin Mary that is at fault? But depictions of Our Lady and the Nativity scene have always taken on local traits: there are black, Oriental and Indian representations of them, and they show that Christianity is universal. McCann’s accusations do not hold. But they are loaded guns for the anti-Christian movements so active in the world today.

What he did not realize is that anti-racism today is not about color of skin: in reality it is about calling all cultures equal, and negating the true meaning of civilization and universal values and good. Christian civilization and primitive culture, Islamic culture, animist culture and all the others are deemed to have equal value and absolutely equal rights. As an ideology, anti-racism has already led to the proclamation of cultural rights for all peoples in Europe by the European parliament; that means cultural rights for Islamic immigrants, for instance.

At the same time, this shows that anti-racism is an attack on all missionary efforts. When European missionaries went forth to far-flung, dangerous, hostile countries and populations in order to bring them to Christ, it was not because they considered them inferior, but because they wanted them to share in the true brotherhood of man under the fatherhood of God, and to obtain for them the means to reach eternal happiness together with them.

There have been racist regimes but they certainly were not Catholic, or if Catholics were racist they were not in accordance with their faith.

There were faults, sins and imperfections as in all human endeavors;  but was is now being reproached to these proclaimers of the faith is that they should have wanted to convert non-Christian populations in the first place. In a way, anti-racism is a form of indigenism, or leads to it.

It is conveniently half-blind, putting the blame of all “racism” on only one category of people. When McCann speaks of white bias, this is already biased. It supposes that all Whites are racists. But even those who are – and of course they exist, as racists exist in every human group – are not the only or necessarily the worst racists. There are Arabic or Islamic countries that have been selling black slaves for centuries untold and by the millions, and this still goes on.

  black lives matter, catholic, catholic charities, catholic charities eastern washington, racism, rob mccann

Featured Image

Episodes Fri Jun 26, 2020 - 4:28 pm EST

Why Catholics should receive Holy Communion on the tongue

By Mother Miriam

To help keep this and other programs on the air, please donate here.

Watch Mother Miriam's Live aired on 6.26.2020. In today’s episode, Mother continues to share John-Henry Westen’s recent podcast on the 5 reasons to only receive Holy Communion on the tongue. You can find the full podcast here.

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

Subscribe to Mother Miriam Live here.