All articles from July 22, 2020


News

Opinion

Blogs

Episodes

Video

  • Nothing is published in Video on July 22, 2020.

The Pulse

  • Nothing is published in The Pulse on July 22, 2020.

News

Abortion appointments stop after priest makes Sign of Cross with Blessed Sacrament over killing center

'Fri and Sat without abortion appointments hasn't happened since I've been doing sidewalk advocacy there, 3 years.  Praise God'
Wed Jul 22, 2020 - 5:22 pm EST
Featured Image
Fr. Michael Voithofer makes the sign of the Cross with the Blessed Sacrament over the Carhart Abortion center in Bellevue, Nebraska, July 16, 2020. Grace Castle
Clare Marie Merkowsky
By

URGENT PETITION: Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade! Sign the petition here.

BELLEVUE, Nebraska, July 22, 2020, (LifeSiteNews) – Pro-life advocates in Nebraska joined together for a prayer rally across the parking lot of an abortion center that included adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. The prayer rally included a priest making the sign of the cross over the killing center with the Blessed Sacrament.

Pro-lifers on the ground told LifeSiteNews that after the prayer rally, there were no abortion appointments at the center on the usual killing days (Friday and Saturday), something that has not happened since they’ve been doing sidewalk advocacy there. It remains unclear if abortions will resume tomorrow (Thursday).

On July 16, the pro-life group Life Runners sponsored an Ablaze prayer vigil at Carhart abortion facility in Bellevue, known as “Bellevue Health Clinic.” LIFE Runners, a pro-life organization, teamed up with Ablaze, a Catholic ministry program, to organise an evening of prayer, singing, and adoration across from the abortion center. About 75 people gathered for the event. 

Chaplet of Reparation for Priests

Ablaze music and adoration at Carhart's abortion facility. Just before the start, we encouraged a mother to leave the abortion facility and helped her schedule an appointment with a real clinic (Sancta Familia). Fr. Michael led 75 LIFE Runners in Benediction, Litany of the Saints, and Exorcism over abortion facility. Facility was closed the next two days. All In Christ for Pro-Life! #RememberTheUnborn

Posted by Michael Voithofer on Thursday, July 16, 2020

At one point during the prayer event, Fr. Michael Voithofer, the founder and leader of Ablaze, made the sign of the cross over the abortion center with the Blessed Sacrament. He also prayed the St. Michael prayer written by Pope Leo XIII and recited the litany of the saints.

Dr. Patrick Castle, the founder of Life Runners, told LifeSiteNews that their goal is to “end abortion now.” He pointed out how “one in three women in America have had an abortion; one in five conceptions in America end in abortion.”

Image
Pro-lifers pray and sing in front of abortion center in Bellevue, Nebraska, July 16, 2020. SOURCE: Grace Castle

Castle said that abortion takes more lives than all “combat casualties in the history of our country.” He explained that the fight to end abortion is a “spiritual war.”

“We did a holy battle there,” he continued, “to push back the demonic, to claim that space in the Lord’s name.” Castle hopes to “memorialize the unborn that have been slaughtered there (at the abortion center).”

“Abortion is the greatest WMD, weapon of mass destruction,” Castle said. “It is the leading cause of death on the planet.” He said that the Holy Eucharist, “the most powerful spiritual weapon,” was used to fight abortion during the July 16 rally.  

“The ground is blessed now so the mothers that go into the clinic will be walking on blessed ground in their moment of crisis,” he continued.

This was the first known time that the sign of the cross was made over the center with the Blessed Sacrament. Just last month, a Mass was celebrated across from the abortion center.

Image
Pro-lifers lift their hands in prayer in front of abortion center in Bellevue, Nebraska, July 16, 2020. SOURCE: Grace Castle

In an interview with LifeSiteNews, Fr. Michael said the fight to end abortion is a “spiritual battle.” He explained that, “praise is really a weapon we can use to ward off evil.”

“Our battle is not against people; it’s against demons,” he continued. “The devil wants to sacrifice these children.”

Offering prayer to God through singing is like a “blast of light that demons can’t stand,” said the priest.

By making the sign of the Cross with the Blessed Sacrament over the abortion center, Fr. Michael said he fought against “the demons and spirits that are behind this evil of abortion.”

“What perpetuates the abortion industry,” he explained, “is a demonic stronghold” that seeks to “destroy human life.”

“Every pregnant woman is a reminder to Satan that he’s done — he lost — because every pregnant mother reminds Satan of the Blessed Mother.”

The Carhart center is open for abortion usually on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday each week. However, after the prayer rally on Thursday evening, the center did not perform abortions Friday and Saturday, according to pro-life eyewitnesses on the ground. It remains to be seen if the center will resume abortions later this week. 

“They didn't have any abortion appointments on Fri and Sat. We were there. Fri and Sat without abortion appointments hasn't happened since I've been doing sidewalk advocacy there, 3 years.  Praise God!,” Castle told LifeSiteNews. 

Castle encouraged pro-lifers to go to abortion centers to fight with the weapon of prayer.

“We know that that is often enough for a mom to not turn in to that abortion facility,” he said. 

The prayer vigil occurred during the pro-life Across America Relay, sponsored by LIFE Runners. The relay began on July 4 from the north, south, east, and west coasts of the United States. Four groups will walk or run 5359 miles in 5-kilometer legs, meeting in Kansas City on August 9 for a mass celebrated by Archbishop Naumann.  

The only requirement to be a LIFE Runners is to wear a “REMEMBER The Unborn” jersey as “a public witness to impact hearts and minds for saving lives.” LIFE Runners has 14,657 members in 2,553 cities across 39 nations.

Castle explained the importance of wearing these jerseys, “78% of post abortion mothers say that if just one person had encouraged them to choose life of if they saw an encouraging sign to choose life, they would not have aborted their child.”

Castle explained that pro-lifers can sign up to remotely participate by walking or running 5 KM legs while wearing LIFE Runners jerseys anywhere in the world.  


  abortion, carhart, catholic, life runners

News

High-school teacher says he was fired for tweeting ‘Trump is our president’

The Michigan educator said, 'I was told I had the option to either be fired or resign,' but the district denies it was due to his tweets. 
Wed Jul 22, 2020 - 4:35 pm EST
Featured Image
Justin Kucera, Twitter
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

COMMERCE CHARTER TOWNSHIP, Michigan, July 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A well-liked baseball coach and social studies teacher in Michigan is accusing Walled Lake Western High School in Michigan of firing him for tweeting support of President Donald Trump.

“I’m done being silent. @realdonaldtrump is our president. Don’t @ me,” Justin Kucera tweeted on July 6.

He told the Washington Free Beacon that he was called in for a meeting with the school’s principal, superintendent, and human resources department four days later.

"They initially took my statement on why I tweeted those tweets and they told me they would have a decision about my future employment in the upcoming days,” Kucera said. “When they completed the meeting, I was told I had the option to either be fired or resign. 

"I know a lot of people are just rooting for Trump to fail, and I don't think that anybody should do that,” he added. “Agree with him or not, you should want the president to do well. I apologized that (my tweet) brought so much negative attention, but I'm not sorry for what I said."

7 Action News obtained a screenshot from an area parent showing another since-deleted tweet in which Kucera wrote “liberals suck man.” The coach insisted, “I never brought (politics) into the classroom. And that’s the truth. And students and parents will vouch for me on that.”

The school district responded with statements to 7 Action News denying his Trump support was the basis for Kucera’s firing, without offering an alternative explanation.

"Thank you for your inquiry – accurate information is essential,” the district said. “Please know that no disciplinary action was taken as a result of any support of President Trump and we are unable to comment on specific staff discipline and personal matters. … As a matter of policy and practice, Walled Lake Schools does not comment on current and/or former employees as it relates to specific personnel issues.”

The Free Beacon quoted several parents and teachers who vouched for both the quality of Kucera’s teaching and for his nonpartisan posture in the classroom.

"Prior to Mr. Kucera's tweet, I cannot recall an instance where he shared his political affiliations while teaching or coaching," recent graduate Bryant Hixson said. "My political views have no impact on how I feel towards Mr. Kucera. Mr. Kucera has always been supportive of me as my AP World History and student leadership teacher and as my baseball and basketball coach."

"Justin coached my son his entire high school career and also was his AP History teacher and student leadership teacher for two years,” a parent in the district said. “I know Justin very well. If there's one thing that I would commend Justin for is, he always tried to stay apolitical. He always tried to stay right down the middle, avoid (political) conversations, and let the students make their own call based on their own life experiences." 

The Free Beacon also found that two examples of other Walled Lake Western teachers who vocally opposed Trump without facing similar consequences. Paulette Loe, who has since retired, encouraged students to read an Atlantic piece on “how to beat Trump,” and kindergarten teacher Nicole Estes wrote Facebook posts calling Trump a “sociopath” and “narcissist” during the 2016 election.


  commerce charter township, donald trump, education, justin kucera, left-wing intolerance, michigan, public education, public schools, teachers, walled lake western high school

News

Hallmark commits to ‘LGBTQ storylines,’ caves to left-wing pressure

The channel known for its wholesome entertainment is following Hollywood's lead by committing to offer 'woke' content.
Wed Jul 22, 2020 - 3:35 pm EST
Featured Image
YouTube screenshot
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

PETITION: Tell Hallmark No LGBT Christmas movies! Sign the petition here.

July 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – One of television’s last refuges from identity politics will soon be no more, as the Hallmark Channel announced it will add homosexual and/or transgender stories to its film slate.

“Diversity and inclusion is a top priority for us and we look forward to making some exciting programming announcements in the coming months, including announcements about projects featuring LGBTQ storylines, characters, and actors,” a Hallmark spokesperson revealed to People after receiving online complaints about the lack of obvious LGBT content in its 2020 lineup of holiday movies. “We are committed to creating a Hallmark experience where everyone feels welcome."

For years, the Hallmark Channel’s made-for-TV movies have been a source of wholesome comfort entertainment in contrast to Hollywood’s increasingly “woke” output, which has also made it a target of pro-LGBT activists.

Last fall, the channel temporarily aired a commercial for the wedding planning service Zola, featuring a same-sex “wedding” that ended with two women kissing – an apparent manifestation of a stated interest in “broadening out the demographic” made by Bill Abbott, CEO of Hallmark parent company Crown Media Family Networks. Hallmark pulled the ad following backlash from pro-family groups such as LifeSiteNews and One Million Moms, but soon reinstated it under counter-pressure from LGBT groups and celebrities such as Ellen DeGeneres and William Shatner.

After that victory, LGBT activists pressured and secured from Hallmark a promise to work with the pro-LGBT pressure group GLAAD “to better represent the LGBTQ community across our portfolio of brands.”

Not everyone is thrilled with the Hallmark Channel’s new direction, of course.

“This literally goes against the core demographic of Hallmark Channel, who are mostly straight, white women between 18 and 54,” Billy Usher of One Angry Gamer noted. “26.52 percent of Hallmark’s viewers are 50 and older, according to Statista.”

“It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that it’s the last safe haven from the Rainbow Mafia racket,” Usher lamented. “Every other station, channel, broadcast network and streaming service is filled to the brim with LGBTQIA+ propaganda. There’s nowhere to turn to find wholesome, positive, family-oriented content other than the Hallmark Channel.”

Conservatives have tried to warn Hallmark that attempting to appease LGBT activists will only alienate core audience members in the name of appealing to people who either don’t watch anyway or will never accept their efforts as good enough. “After carefully building an extraordinarily successful niche market, Hallmark just told everyone in it to take a hike,” PJ Media’s Stephen Kruiser wrote last December.

Readers can click here to read, sign, and share LifeSiteNews’ petition urging Hallmark executives to “keep sex and sexual practices – including the promotion of homosexuality, transgenderism, etc. – out of your movies.”


  culture, hallmark, hallmark channel, homosexuality, left-wing pressure, lgbt, lgbt representation, movies, pop culture, television

News

Another Texas town joins growing number of ‘sanctuary cities for the unborn’

Official count: 13 pro-life ‘sanctuary cities for the unborn’ created in Texas since 2019
Wed Jul 22, 2020 - 3:31 pm EST
Featured Image
unsplash
Martin Bürger Martin Bürger Follow Martin
By Martin Bürger

URGENT PETITION: Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade! Sign the petition here.

EAST MOUNTAIN, Texas, July 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The tiny town of East Mountain, Texas is now part of the growing number of “sanctuary cities for the unborn” that have formally banned abortion within city limits. 

“Tonight the City of East Mountain, Texas (Population 797) became the FOURTEENTH CITY in the nation to pass an ordinance outlawing abortion and effectively became a Sanctuary City for the Unborn!” Texas Right to Life celebrated on Facebook.

On Monday, three of the five council members in East Mountain had voted for the ordinance, while the other two abstained from voting.

“We are thankful for the support of the men and women of East Mountain Baptist Church and those from throughout the city who wanted to see this ordinance passed,” Texas Right to Life pointed out. “This could not have happened without their support.”

“May all of our churches and all of the residents of our cities do their part and call upon their leaders to pass good laws that protect the citizens and culture of their communities! As it says in Amos 5:15, may we all ‘Hate evil, and love good, and establish justice in the city gate.’”

Since 2019, Texas Right to Life has been successfully working with local governments across the state to outlaw the killing of babies in their mother’s womb, one small town at a time.

According to the official website of the “sanctuary” movement, there are now 13 “sanctuary cities for the unborn.” In six municipalities, efforts to outlaw abortion have failed. More than two dozen cities are currently listed as potential candidates, with efforts to declare them “sanctuaries” underway.

Texas Right to Life is not simply proposing every city become a “sanctuary city for the unborn,” but creates strategies adapted to each particular place. “When seeking to outlaw abortion in your city many factors have to be taken into consideration,” the website clarifies.

“Are there currently any abortion clinics in your city? Are there any doctors that perform abortions in your city? Does your city have any pharmacies? If yes, do the pharmacies in your city sell the morning after pill? Is the morning after pill sold at any of the retail stores in your area?”

“Every ordinance that we have recommended to cities outlaws abortion and bans surgical and medical abortions,” the organizers of the movement point out. “However, not all ordinances we have recommended bans the sale and distribution of ‘emergency contraception.’ Every city is different.”

As researched by the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute, all emergency contraceptives, which are generally taken after sexual intercourse to prevent a child from coming to be, can also act as abortifacients causing early abortions.

Last June, three pro-abortion organizations – Lilith Fund, The Afiya Center, and the Texas Equal Access (TEA) Fund – sued Right to Life of East Texas activist Mark Lee Dickson, who has been instrumental in the movement to create “sanctuary cities for the unborn,” for defamation. The abortion supporters argued Dickson, as well as Right to Life of East Texas, was wrongly calling them “criminals,” while referring to abortion as “murder.”

On July 16, pro-life Texans responded by filing a lawsuit against the three pro-abortion organizations for “stifling pro-life speech by filing defamation lawsuits against individuals who truthfully state that abortion remains a criminal offense under Texas law.”

One of the attorney involved on the pro-life side of the case, Erick Kaardal, emphasized that a Supreme Court decision like Roe v. Wade, which said any woman can decide to abort her baby, cannot simply cancel “the Texas statutes that outlaw abortion unless the mother’s life is in danger.”

The Supreme Court, Kaardal said, “has no power to erase a statute that it declares to be unconstitutional. Roe v. Wade merely limits the ability of state officials to enforce the State’s abortion statutes against those who violate them. But Roe v. Wade does not veto or repeal the statutes themselves, and the State’s criminal prohibitions on abortion continue to exist as the law of Texas until they are repealed by the legislature that enacted them.”


  abortion, sanctuary cities, sanctuary for the unborn, texas, texas right to life

News

Apple, Google, Amazon, Walmart back BLM cause with multi-million dollar donations

Corporate America has largely embraced the Black Lives Matter movement with public endorsements and massive donations
Wed Jul 22, 2020 - 2:35 pm EST
Featured Image
LOS ANGELES - MAY 30, 2020: Police Car Being Burned During Protest March Against Police Violence Over Death Of George Floyd. Hayk_Shalunts / Shutterstock.com
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

PETITION: Support priest who was suspended for calling out the Black Lives Matter organization! Sign the petition here.

July 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The far-left Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has risen to unprecedented levels of mainstream acceptance over the past few months, thanks in no small part to the overwhelming number of endorsements, at times accompanied by significant donations it has received from major brands and corporations.

Brands endorsing BLM include:

  • Viacom
  • Warner Bros
  • Netflix
  • Hulu
  • HBO
  • NFL
  • NBA 
  • Facebook 
  • Google 
  • Apple 
  • Microsoft 
  • Amazon 
  • Kroger 
  • Walmart 
  • Target 
  • Home Depot 
  • Gap 
  • Levi’s 
  • Warby Parker 
  • Nike 
  • Chick-fil-A 
  • McDonald’s 
  • Wendy’s 
  • Taco Bell 
  • Starbucks 
  • Coca-Cola 
  • UnitedHealth Group 
  • Peloton

The above are just a few of the leading names in entertainment, sports, technology, retail, food, apparel, and more to either endorse BLM by name or issue statements endorsing the group’s central narrative that “systemic racism” permeates American institutions. 

Many of those companies have also pledged millions of dollars in donations to left-wing organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, as well as to BLM itself, in the name of promoting racial equality and “reforming” law enforcement.

How many of these overtures to BLM reflect the aforementioned companies’ true values remains an open question, however. While corporations often adopt viewpoints for public-relations purposes, and companies such as Apple and Google are run by liberal ideologues naturally aligned with BLM, this latest wave of support coincides with a nationwide wave of violence and intimidation from pro-BLM protesters.

“These corporations have tremendous presence in black communities and are in close proximity to the riots. Their exposure is not limited to physical assets that might be looted or damaged; brands themselves may suffer reputational damage,” Grant Baker writes at the American Thinker. “After a black drunk driver who pointed a stolen taser at a police officer was shot dead in a Wendy's parking lot, the restaurant was set ablaze in retaliation. Wendy's, its logo in the frame of every photo of the incident, loudly announced a $500,000 donation to social justice causes and affirmed its support for the BLM movement.”

“Corporations are making these donations as protection money, hoping to bribe officials of BLM-affiliated organizations into steering the mob away from their store,” Baker continues. “The BLM mobs are far from organic; they are well funded corporate entities plucked off the shelf and filled with professional activists to run them. These activists use their platform to target other corporations with exposure to the riots and pressure them into making donations. Corporations are quick to pick up on the implied threat and immediately capitulate, handing money to their extortionists.”

Whatever their motivations, the deluge of brands boosting BLM across traditional and social media has clearly influenced the general public. An ABC News/Langer Research Associates poll released Tuesday finds that 63% of Americans support Black Lives Matter, including 28% of self-described Republicans and 34% of self-described conservatives (though that support has not yet translated to majority support for policies such as defunding police departments or removing Confederate statues).

It’s doubtful that those numbers would remain as high, or that as many companies would have endorsed it, if the full scope of Black Lives Matter’s true views were more widely known. 

While popularly framed in the media as simply a movement to promote racial equality and end police brutality, BLM declares among its official goals “disrupt(ng) the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another”; and fostering “a queer‐affirming network … with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking.”

It also officially supports “reproductive justice,” a euphemism for abortion. An estimated 40 percent of all U.S. abortions are sought by black women, meaning that Black Lives Matter supports the annual elimination of more than 344,800 black lives every year.

As for the claims that ignited this latest wave of BLM fervor, the Minnesota killing of George Floyd was instantly and unanimously condemned, and the police officers involved have been charged with murder. As to BLM’s broader claim of “systemic racism” in law enforcement, research actually shows that police are not disproportionately likely to use excessive lethal force against black suspects, but may in fact be less likely due to fear of racism claims.


  big business, black lives matter, corporate america, corporate pressure, corporations, public opinion, race, racism, systemic racism

News

Google ‘disappeared’ conservative websites for hours, claims to have ‘since fixed the bug’

Google's search engine 'bug' stoked fears that the tech giant was essentially censoring conservative free speech
Wed Jul 22, 2020 - 1:49 pm EST
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Martin Bürger Martin Bürger Follow Martin
By Martin Bürger

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

July 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Conservative websites, including The Daily Caller and Breitbart, did not show up during Google searches for some time yesterday, stoking fears that the tech giant was essentially censoring conservative free speech.

Google later stated that it had “investigated & have since fixed the bug.” 

Charlie Nash of news and opinion website Mediaite saved several screenshots of Google’s alleged censorship of conservative outlets and posted them on his Twitter account. While a search for “daily caller,” for instance, turned up the conservative website’s Wikipedia page and Twitter account, the actual website did not appear.

Nash also noted that some websites “providing a left-wing perspective are also affected. MintPress News has a small link in the Wiki info bubble, but no links to the website (or any of its articles) in 8 pages of search results.”

The blog of conservative commentator Rod Dreher, author of “The Benedict Option,” was also suppressed in Google search results. In an update to his original article, Dreher acknowledged that Google had fixed the issue. At the same time, he said “this shows you how easy it is to effectively unperson an entire category of news and commentary sources.”

In its brief statement on Twitter, Google acknowledged the “issue” of websites not being displayed in the search results. The company stressed that “sites representing a range of content and different viewpoints” were affected. The tech giant said its “ranking systems don’t index, rank or classify content based on political lean.”

Nevertheless, Mediaite speculated, based on comments by former Google engineer Mike Wacker, that the issue with search results “may have inadvertently exposed an internal list aimed at suppressing certain news outlets.”

“It appears to have revealed the existence of another blacklist that disproportionately targets conservatives,” Wacker said. “The glitch is that sites on this blacklist disappeared from Google search results, but the existence of the list is very much by design. And that raises a major question: Why was this blacklist created in the first place, and what else is it used for?”

Mediaite also quoted researcher Dr. Robert Epstein as saying, “It’s likely that a person or algorithm at Google added ‘breitbart.com’ and other URLs to one or more of the company’s blacklists,” Epstein said. “Then, perhaps after some pushback, someone pulled those URLs off the blacklists.”

In fact, The Daily Caller had reported on internal Google documents proving the tech giant does potentially manipulate search results to filter out certain kinds of content. “The deceptive_news domain blacklist is going to be used by many search features to filter problematic sites that violate the good neighbor and misrepresentation policies,” one document stated.

“The purpose of the blacklist will be to bar the sites from surfacing in any Search feature or news product. It will not cause a demotion in the organic search results or de-index them altogether,” the document continued.

According to the Daily Caller, “targeted sites will not be removed from the ‘ten blue links’ portion of search results, but the blacklist applies to most of the other search features, like ‘top news,’ ‘videos’ or the various sidebars that are returned as search results.

In yesterday’s case, however, some websites did not even appear in the traditional section displaying the “ten blue links.”

A number of large tech companies have been called out by free speech advocates for their attempts to censor, or at least influence, content hosted on their services, for instance Twitter or Facebook.

In May, President Donald Trump even signed an executive order suggesting the federal government would begin to interpret much more narrowly the legal immunities social media companies currently enjoy.

With services like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube attaching fact-checking labels or boxes to some user-generated content, they should be treated not as platforms, but as publishers, Trump argued. Accordingly, the immunity of tech giants “should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.”

Twitter announced earlier in May that it was starting to attach warning labels to “some tweets containing disputed or misleading information” in the context of the coronavirus pandemic.

“In serving the public conversation, our goal is to make it easy to find credible information on Twitter and to limit the spread of potentially harmful and misleading content,” Twitter said in a statement. The company introduced “new labels and warning messages that will provide additional context and information.”

Twitter also indicated that in the future, “we may use these labels and warning messages to provide additional explanations or clarifications in situations where the risks of harm associated with a tweet are less severe but where people may still be confused or misled by the content.”

Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg said during an interview in mid-April that he considers protests against stay-at-home orders, which are often planned via Facebook, to be “harmful misinformation” that must be deleted.

While claiming that “it’s important that people can debate policies,” Zuckerberg indicated that there is a limit to how much freedom he will allow Facebook’s users to do this.

And YouTube, which is owned by Google, started using fact-check information panels for viewers in the United States in late April, flagging, among other things, what the company deems to be “misinformation” regarding the coronavirus pandemic. The company claimed the fact-check information panels are necessary in order “for viewers to get accurate information during fast-moving events.”


  breitbart, censorship, conservative media, daily caller, free speech, google, google censoring, google search, rod dreher

News

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson promises to ban therapy for unwanted gay attractions

Helping people overcome their unwanted sexual desires is 'absolutely abhorrent and has no place in a civilized society,' said Johnson.
Wed Jul 22, 2020 - 1:24 pm EST
Featured Image
Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the United Kingdom. shutterstock.com
Paul Smeaton Paul Smeaton Follow Paul
By Paul Smeaton

PETITION: Hold UN accountable for babies killed by sex-selection abortion! Sign the petition here.

LONDON, United Kingdom, July 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said that the government will move to ban “gay conversion therapy,” while failing to define how this might impact those seeking help with unwanted same-sex attraction.

In an interview with Sky News earlier this week, Johnson said: “on the gay conversion therapy thing, I think that's absolutely abhorrent and has no place in a civilized society, has no place in in this country – what we're going to do is a study right now on, you know, where is this actually happening? How prevalent is it? And we will then bring forward plans to ban it.”

Last month, a United Nations “Report on Conversion Therapy” encouraged governments to outlaw doctors from offering and patients from seeking assistance in overcoming unwanted feelings of homosexual attraction or confusion about their gender identity.

U.K. lobby group Christian Concern has pointed out in response to Johnson’s comments this week that “nowhere has the government or the UN offered any real definition of ‘conversion therapy’, and any ban would likely involve sacrificing the freedom of Christian counsellors and ministries to offer talking therapies, counselling and even prayer to those who want to turn away from LGBT attractions and practices.”

Some social conservatives celebrated the resounding general election victory in November last year for Johnson and the Conservative Party, with the other major parties having made the decriminalization of abortion and the promotion of LGBT causes prominent aspects of their election manifestos. However, it was a Conservative-led government which in 2013 introduced same-sex “marriage” without it having appeared in their manifesto, with Johnson a vocal supporter of the legislation.

In 2012 Johnson, then an MP and mayor of London, famously said of same-sex “marriage” on Sky News in December 2012, “Let’s whack it through [Parliament].” While Johnson was mayor of London he led the city’s homosexual “pride” march, wearing a pink diamante cowboy hat. 

Following last year’s general election U.K. media reported that the United Kingdom now has the “gayest parliament in the world,” with eight percent of all MPs and almost seven percent of the Conservatives’ 365 elected MPs identifying as homosexual or bisexual. The U.K.’s Office for National Statistics released a study last year which suggested that homosexuals or bisexuals made up just two percent of the U.K.’s population in 2017.

Johnson’s comments are in line with moves around the world to ban so-called “conversion therapy.” Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is currently pushing legislation that would prohibit parents from seeking to help their son or daughter overcome gender confusion or unwanted homosexual attraction. In Germany, a bill was launched earlier this year that would ban all therapies “aimed at changing or suppressing sexual orientation or self-perceived gender identity,” and the recently formed Irish coalition government has made it a part of their Programme for Government to “ban conversion therapy.”

In New York, an Orthodox Jewish psychotherapist who for more than 50 years has regularly seen patients asking for help in overcoming same-sex attraction, has successfully fought back against a law that would have banned his conversation-based therapy. The city of New York was first forced to repeal the law and subsequently agreed to pay $100,000 in lawyers’ fees and damages after Dr. Dovid Schwartz of the Chabad Lubavitch Orthodox Jewish Community launched his legal challenge last year, arguing that the law violated the First Amendment’s guaranteed right to free speech.

Defenders of bans on “reparative” or “conversion” therapy, such as Zack Ford of the American left-wing ThinkProgress, claim that “every major medical organization has condemned the practice as ineffective and harmful.” But many former homosexuals, such as Angel Colon and Drew Berryessa, attest to the treatments’ success in improving their lives. They say they want others currently struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction to have the same options that benefited them.


  boris johnson, conversion therapy, conversion therapy bans, freedom of speech, homosexuality, reparative therapy, same-sex 'marriage', therapy ban, transgenderism, united kingdom

News

Turkey invites pope to visit former Catholic cathedral Hagia Sophia made mosque

It’s not known if Pope Francis, who holds that God wills a diversity of religions, will accept the invitation.
Wed Jul 22, 2020 - 12:37 pm EST
Featured Image
Turks cheering the decision to make Hagia Sophia back into a mosque. Chris McGrath / Getty Images
Martin Bürger Martin Bürger Follow Martin
By Martin Bürger

PETITION: Ask bishop to remove 'Catholic' from the University of Notre Dame if they refuse to rescind Pete Buttigieg's fellowship! Sign the petition here.

ISTANBUL, Turkey, July 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Following the announcement of the Turkish government that it would turn the Hagia Sophia museum, once the most important church in Eastern Christianity, into a mosque, presidential spokesman İbrahim Kalın invited Pope Francis to visit.

On July 12, the Holy Father had criticized the decision to convert the Hagia Sophia, which was announced two days earlier. “I think of Hagia Sophia,” the pope said during his Angelus address, “and I am very saddened.”

Contrary to some media reports, Kalın had not explicitly invited Pope Francis to attend the opening of Hagia Sophia as a mosque this Friday, July 24, but only extended a general invitation. “We invite all,” he told CNN, “including the Pope, who said he’s sad about this. Come and visit Hagia Sophia as a mosque.”

Originally built in the 6th century, Hagia Sophia was the largest church of the Byzantine Empire. In 1453, when Muslim invaders attacked and took over the city of Constantinople, it was converted into a mosque. Kemal Atatürk, as the first president of the Republic of Turkey, turned the mosque into a museum.

In talking to CNN, Kalın withheld this information from viewers. He simply said Pope Francis should not be saddened “because it’s been turned into a house of worship where the name of God will be invoked, rather than being a place for visits for tourists. The place was turned not from a church to a mosque, but from a museum to a mosque.”

Meanwhile, Greek president Katerina Sakellaropoulou announced on Twitter that she had asked the pope “to use his influence to raise the awareness of the international community about the conversion of [Hagia Sophia] into a mosque. I stressed that this decision by Turkey undermines the foundations of tolerance and deepens the rift between cultures and religions.”

Religious leaders in the United States also condemned Turkey’s move to convert Hagia Sophia into a mosque. Greek Orthodox archbishop Elpidophoros and the Catholic archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, issued a joint statement to “lament and decry” the Turkish government’s decision.

“The Hagia Sophia was for nearly a millennium not only the greatest Church in the world, but the greatest edifice as well,” they pointed out. “Its purpose was to be a place of Christian worship par excellence. When the Roman Empire came to a conclusion by conquest, and the Great Church was converted into a mosque, this was an era when human events were advanced through violence. But this is not the way we live today.”

Instead, they continued, the creation of the modern Turkish state “is synonymous with a secular ideal of inclusivity. By changing the status of Hagia Sophia from a mosque to a museum, President Atatürk manifested this global monument to be a sign of transition from a theocratic empire, to a secular state that valued the equality of all its citizens.”

Dolan and Elpidophoros argued that the former church should remain a museum, “a symbol of encounter, history, spiritual aspiration, and human achievement of the highest order, glorifying the One God Who has made us all to be sisters and brothers of one human family.”

The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America even designated next Friday, July 24, as a “day of mourning and of manifest grief.”

“We ask that every Church toll its bells in lamentation on this day. We call for every flag of every kind that is raised on the Church property be lowered to half-mast on this day. And we enjoin every Church in our Holy Archdiocese to chant the Akathist Hymn in the evening of this day, just as we chant it on the Fifth Friday of the Great and Holy Fast,” wrote the Greek Orthodox bishops in the United States.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), while not explicitly joining in this call, tweeted approvingly about it.

Both Pope Benedict XVI (in 2006) and Pope Francis (in 2014) visited the Hagia Sophia museum during their visits to Istanbul. Neither of them gave a speech at the museum.

Pope John Paul II was the first pope to pray inside a mosque when he visited the Syrian capital of Damascus in 2001. The mosque had been built on the site of a Catholic cathedral dedicated to St. John the Baptist.

Pope Benedict prayed in the Blue Mosque of Istanbul, right next to the Hagia Sophia, in 2006, even removing his shoes.

In 2014, Pope Francis also went to the Blue Mosque of Istanbul to pray. During his 2019 visit to Abu Dhabi, he visited the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque and subsequently signed the so-called Abu Dhabi Declaration. The document states, among other things, that the “diversity of religions” is “willed by God” — a sentence criticized by numerous bishops, including Cardinal Raymond Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider.

When Pope Francis called the mass murder of Armenians in Turkey a genocide in 2015,  Professor Mefail Hızlı, a top Muslim official in the Turkish capital of Ankara, countered, “Frankly, I believe that the pope’s remarks will only accelerate the process for Hagia Sophia to be re-opened for [Muslim] worship.”

Hızlı also claimed that Pope Francis’s remarks had “reflected a modern color of the crusader wars launched in these lands for centuries.”

Turkish presidential spokesman İbrahim Kalın said during his conversation with CNN that Christian mosaics and imagery within Hagia Sophia will be preserved. “They’re part of our cultural heritage, these beautiful mosaics describing Jesus Christ, Virgin Mary, and other Christian personalities,” he emphasized.

“They will be preserved untouched. We’re making some arrangements that during Muslim prayer times, they will be covered, but not touched, so that they will not be eroded or affected by light or by anything else,” Kalın said, pointing out that Hagia Sophia will remain accessible to tourists and visitors.


  catholic, hagia sophia, islam, jihad, pope francis, recep tayyip erdogan, turkey

News

Florida govt official refuses pro-life org previously public 911 records on abortion injury

'This just shows increasing bias of 911 records custodians across the country to our efforts to obtain public records to which we should all be entitled,' said Troy Newman of Operation Rescue.
Wed Jul 22, 2020 - 12:12 pm EST
Featured Image
releon8211 / Shutterstock.com
Cheryl Sullenger
By Cheryl Sullenger

JACKSONVILLE, Florida, July 22, 2020 (Operation Rescue) — An ambulance and fire unit responded to a call for help with a woman suffering an abortion-related medical emergency on July 10, 2020, at A Woman’s Choice of Jacksonville, an abortion facility located in Jacksonville, Florida. 

Although 911 records were available for the previous four emergencies at this abortion facility, the current records custodian at the Jacksonville Fire Department showed open hostility to Operation Rescue’s public records request for documents and the audio file related to this incident. He twice denied the request even for redacted documents, which were public as late as last September.

“While we don’t know the nature of this woman’s injuries, they had to be serious, or else an ambulance would not have been called,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “This just shows increasing bias of 911 records custodians across the country to our efforts to obtain public records to which we should all be entitled. This stonewalling of previously public information only serves to protect the abortion business and makes abortions more dangerous. This is because when abortionists realize that agencies will protect them from public scrutiny, they tend to corners cut on safety.”

According to a pro-life activist named Trudy, who notified Operation Rescue of this emergency, A Woman’s Choice begins second trimester abortion procedures on Thursdays and usually completes them on Fridays. The past two emergencies took place on Fridays.

She noted that because pro-life activists usually leave the clinic at noon, the photographs taken on July 10, 2020, and September 24, 2019, were taken by chance passersby.

“Probably, there are more emergencies that we do not know of,” Trudy said.

“It is reasonable to think that these past two botched abortions were both second trimester procedures that carry more risks and dangers to women. This clinic is obviously not equipped to handle such complications when they occur,” said Newman.

Newman has evidence to support that statement. A deficiency report obtained by Operation Rescue showed that A Woman’s Choice was cited on December 16, 2019, for failing to report an injury to a patient undergoing a second trimester abortion procedure. Florida law requires that incidents involving injury or death to women undergoing second trimester abortions be reported within 10 days. 

That woman suffered at least two major complications during the second trimester dismemberment abortion that were so severe that the abortionist halted the procedure before its completion and immediately had someone call 911.

This failure to report citation was likely related to a woman who was hospitalized on September 24, 2019, after suffering a redacted, but obviously serious, “traumatic injury” during an abortion, according to 911 records obtained by Operation Rescue. The call for help appeared so desperate that the 911 dispatcher tried to reassure the clinic’s caller by saying, “We’re coming as fast as we can.”

“The dangers to women and their babies at abortion facilities must be made available to the public. Women need access to full information,” said Newman. “Concealing the truth of abortion dangers is a deceptive tactic that leaves women in the dark.”

To learn more about medical emergencies at abortion facilities and documented patient deaths, visit Operation Rescue’s website dedicated to these incidents at www.Abortion911.com.

Published with permission from Operation Rescue.


  911, abortion, florida, operation rescue

News

24 AGs sue Trump admin for protecting doctors from being forced to do abortions, ‘trans’ surgeries

The Trump administration reversed an Obama administration rule that would have forced doctors to participate in abortions and 'gender transition' surgeries.
Wed Jul 22, 2020 - 11:40 am EST
Featured Image
shutterstock.com
Paul Smeaton Paul Smeaton Follow Paul
By Paul Smeaton

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

UNITED STATES, July 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — 24 Democratic state attorneys general have launched a lawsuit against the Trump’s administration’s recent move to reverse a 2016 “anti-discrimination” rule which would have forced healthcare workers to commit abortions and perform “gender transition” operations. 

The suit is being led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who in recent months has led legal challenges against state restrictions on abortion during the coronavirus crisis. California, Massachusetts, Washington, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are among the other states joining the suit, which has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Wall Street Journal reported.

“It is never acceptable to deny health care to Americans who need it, but it is especially egregious to do so in the middle of a pandemic,” James said.

In May 2016 the Obama administration redefined “sex discrimination” in section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to include an individual’s “internal sense of gender, which may be male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female.” The 2016 rule also included “termination of pregnancy” in its definition of sex discrimination. 

The Obama-era regulations implied that medical providers would have to commit abortions and treat patients based on their asserted “gender identity” or risk losing federal funding, along with facing a possible referral to the Department of Justice for legal action. 

In December 2016 a federal court issued a nationwide injunction which blocked the enforcement of the Obama regulations on the grounds that they were likely to be contrary to civil rights laws and laws protecting religious freedom. This ruling was subsequently upheld by a second federal court in 2019, which found the regulations to be unlawful.

But last month the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that they will “enforce Section 1557 by returning to the government’s interpretation of sex discrimination according to the plain meaning of the word ‘sex’ as male or female and as determined by biology.”

The HHS said that the move “maintains vigorous enforcement of federal civil rights laws on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age, and sex, and restores the rule of law by revising certain provisions that go beyond the plain meaning of the law as enacted by Congress.”

The ruling was introduced by the HHS just days before the U.S. Supreme Court dealt social conservatives a significant blow by ruling that Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination in employment also outlaws discrimination based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

The HHS ruling was praised by both the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) and pro-life and pro-family groups across the United States.

“These regulations will help restore the rights of health care providers – as well as insurers and employers – who decline to perform or cover abortions or ‘gender transition’ procedures due to ethical or professional objections. Catholic health care providers serve everyone who comes to them, regardless of characteristics or background. However, there are ethical considerations when it comes to procedures. We greatly appreciate [this] important action,” the USCCB said in a statement.

Mary Beth Waddell, who serves as the Senior Legislative Assistant for the Family Research Council, said that the new rule will “protect health care providers from being forced to participate in and perform services that substantially violate their consciences and help protect their patients.”


  abortion, affordable care act, freedom of conscience, healthcare, hhs, hhs transgender mandate, obamacare, transgenderism, trump administration

News

Was America founded on racism—or Christianity?

Professor Mark David Hall argues an emphatic yes in the latest episode of The Jonathon Van Maren Show.
Wed Jul 22, 2020 - 9:27 am EST
Featured Image
LifeSiteNews.com
By LSN

July 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Statues across the United States are being removed, defaced, and even toppled in the name of eliminating racism. It seems that no statue or historical individual is exempt from this rage, including America’s founding fathers and even Abraham Lincoln. These same individuals are calling for a complete re-creation of American government and society to eliminate racism and America’s racist roots.  

In today’s episode of The Van Maren Show, Mark David Hall speaks about America’s Founding Fathers, the ideals upon which our society was established, and what this means for American’s today. Hall is a distinguished professor of politics at George Fox University and author of the book Did America Have a Christian Founding? 

Hall and Van Maren begin by focusing on the Christian tradition upon which the United States was founded. Not only were almost all Americans Christian, Hall says, but the ideas and traditions incorporated into the founding of the United States were Christian ideas and traditions. Hall does note that the founders did not establish America to be an exclusively Christian nation, but to be a nation with freedom of religion.

Watch the full interview here: 

“The founders clearly embraced, for instance, a view of religious liberty that would protect Jews, Catholics, all stripes of Protestants and then eventually Muslims and Sikhs in other people of other faiths,” Hall states. 

Academics will commonly claim that there were numerous deists among the founding fathers, but Hall states that this just wasn’t true. With deism defined in the traditional sense as believing in “a creator God who creates a universe that steps away from it and doesn’t intervene in the affairs of men and nations,” Hall states that there are maybe only two founders who were truly deists: Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen. The other founders commonly claimed to be deists may not have been orthodox Christians, but their statements clearly indicated a belief in a God who was active in the world.  

Somewhere between 50 to 75 percent of the founding fathers were Calvinists, which Hall points out has a robust “resistance ideology.” This foundation may be what is responsible for America rebelling against Great Britain, unlike so many other colonies. 

“So many of the Patriots had been reared within this tradition that when parliament and then the king started infringing upon colonial rights, both natural and constitutional rights, they had the tools available to resist this sort of tyranny,” Hall tells listeners. 

Hall argues that people are calling for the removal and tearing down of statues in the name of defeating racism don’t understand the history of our founding. It’s easy to focus on George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton, but there were over 50 other individuals who shaped our nation’s founding.  

The more popular founders were mainly Anglican, Southern plantation-owners, not representative of the population of founders. Yes, these men owned slaves, and so did many other founders, but Hall argues that there is a difference between owning one house slave to cook and clean and owning hundreds to labor in the hot sun farming all year. In addition, many of the founders who did own slaves freed their slaves upon their deaths.

Listen to the full interview here:

The Founders also recognized that slavery couldn’t go on forever, but to abolish slavery and found a new nation was too much to tackle all at once. The founders risked losing all of the Southern states over the issue of slavery. It is hard to know for certain, but it seems likely that there was a better chance of abolishing slavery by keeping the Southern states in the Union versus allowing them to become a distinct nation.  

Still, people contend that America was established to be a Christian nation and has been run by white Christians for almost two centuries. Hall points out the importance the founders placed on religious freedom and freedom of speech to highlight that America was founded on Christian and moral principles, but not to be a solely Christian nation.

“If you want to have a Republican form of government, you must have moral people,” Hall says.  “The founders would have found it hard to imagine a non-religious people governing itself[, but that] doesn’t mean it's impossible.”  

Hall points to Japan and Taiwan as examples of successful republics in relatively non-religious societies. 

Hall highlights three of the most important points the founders focused on in the creation of the America: the protection of life, religious liberty, and limited national government power. 

“They were indisputably on record saying innocent human life from the womb to its natural end must be protected as a matter of law[.] … So limited national government power, the protection of innocent human life, and religious liberty are three takeaways,” Hall states. 

He continues, “I think any right-thinking person would say the protection of innocent human life has to trump a woman’s right to control her own body[.] … I think for the founders, that would just be a no brainer.” 

You can get Hall’s book, Did America Have A Christian Founding?, at Amazon, or on his website here.

The Van Maren Show is hosted on numerous platforms, including Spotify, SoundCloud, YouTube, iTunes, and Google Play.

For a full listing of episodes, and to subscribe to various channels, visit our Acast webpage here.

To receive weekly emails when a new episode is uploaded, subscribe below: 

Subscribe

* indicates required

By selecting Email below, you agree to receive emails about The Van Maren Show Podcast.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please visit our website.

We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices here.


  founding fathers, history, riots, statues, the van maren show

Opinion

This Indian slum contained a possible COVID-19 disaster with hydroxychloroquine

On July 9, 2020, Asia's biggest and densest slum shocked the world by announcing just one new positive COVID-19 case despite being a cluster and hotspot.
Wed Jul 22, 2020 - 8:01 pm EST
Featured Image
Stock Footage Inc / Shutterstock.com
Vijay Jarayaj
By Vijay Jarayaj

July 22, 2020 (American Thinker) — On July 9, 2020, Asia's biggest and densest slum shocked the world by announcing just one new positive COVID-19 case despite being a cluster and hotspot.

Dharavi is no ordinary slum. It is one of the densest in the world, housing more than a million people. It provided some of the background for the Oscar-winning movie Slumdog Millionaire.

Dharavi contains pockets where as many as 650,000 people are crammed into 2.5 square kilometers. In comparison, New York City has only around 95,605 people for 2.5 square kilometers.

India feared the worst when a cluster outbreak of COVID-19 was reported in Dharavi. It could have become the biggest COVID-19 disaster zone in the world. But by using proactive measures, Dharavi contained the virus.

Media around the world, like the Los Angeles Times, have reported the success. Even the World Health Organization praised Dharavi.

Reports credit the huge turnaround to various factors. Most focused on Dharavi's use of widespread testing and contact tracing. One is the use of an anti-malarial drug. But they ignored the policy most responsible. Indian doctors used hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for prophylaxis (preventive) treatment — the same drug the American media have politicized.

Dharavi's COVID-19 infection rate dropped drastically from April through June. In July, new infections were very low, almost reaching zero on July 9.

Officials have credited this turnaround to "[a] combination of hydroxychloroquine, vitamin D, and zinc tablets along with homeopathic medicines."

HCQ has been widely used across India to treat early-stage COVID-19. It is also prescribed for prophylaxis among those who have come into contact with people who have tested positive.

In India, HCQ has always been legal. The government's official COVID-19 task force, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), highly recommends it for high-risk people like medical practitioners.

The ICMR guidelines recommend prophylactic use of HCQ for the following categories: 

  1. "all asymptomatic healthcare workers involved in containment and treatment of COVID19 and asymptomatic healthcare workers working in non-COVID hospitals/non-COVID areas of COVID hospitals/blocks";
  2. "symptomatic frontline workers, such as surveillance workers deployed in containment zones and paramilitary/police personnel involved in COVID-19 related activities"; and
  3. "symptomatic household contacts of laboratory confirmed cases."

In other words, HCQ is for anyone with the slightest chance of contracting COVID-19.

Not all are on board with its use. When doctors began using HCQ in Dharavi, anti-HCQ advocates approached the Bombay high court. But the court ruled in favor of HCQ:

Now, in a given case, if abiding by the law stricto sensu and waiting for a clinical trial of a drug would result in loss of valuable time for saving a patient and the choice is between the devil and the deep sea, i.e., no other drug except an HCQ sort of a drug, though not clinically tried for treating the disease, is the last option left for a doctor to save the life of such patient, should the doctor fold his hands and leave the patient to the mercy of the Almighty on the ground that the relevant drug has not been registered for use as prophylaxis? The answer, we are minded to hold, should be in the negative.

The court could have informed the challenger about the track record of efficacy of HCQ. ICMR's observational study of 334 health care workers at AIIMS hospital (10 minutes from my home in Delhi) revealed that 248 who took HCQ prophylaxis had lower incidence of infection than those who didn't. A similar study in three other hospitals in Delhi had similar results.

There have been only 27,497 COVID-19 deaths in India through July 19. With a population of 1.3 billion, that is an extremely low death rate of 19 per million, or 0.002 percent. (That is much lower than for tuberculosis, which kills 440,000 each year in India.)

The use of HCQ could be one reason why India's death rate is dramatically lower than that of some European countries, like Spain, with 607 deaths per million, and France, with 461.

The 139,659 deaths reported by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control by July 19 represent a rate about 20 times India's.

Doctors have shown that HCQ, in combination with zinc and azithromycin, can be very effective in early stages of COVID-19:

Risk stratification-based treatment of COVID-19 outpatients as early as possible after symptom onset with the used triple therapy, including the combination of zinc with low dose hydroxychloroquine, was associated with significantly less hospitalizations and 5 times less all-cause deaths.

HCQ may be saving millions across the globe except in countries where it remains controversial. White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy director Peter Navarro pointed out the same last week:

It's the politicization of this medicine by the mainstream media and portions of the medical community that somehow made this a battle between President Trump and them and created this undue fear and hysteria over a drug, a medicine that has been used for over 60 years relatively safely and is regularly prescribed to pregnant women if they are going to a malaria zone.

India has exported tons of HCQ to the U.S, Canada, and dozens of other countries in the past few months. Despite having stockpiles, these nations have resisted its use. The American media and bureaucracies should move beyond their obsession with politics and honestly consider HCQ's efficacy.

Published with permission from the American Thinker.


  american thinker, coronavirus, hydroxychloroquine, india

Opinion

LGBT bullies target Catholic hospital, demand it offer ‘trans’ surgeries

The left is proving once again that this debate has never been about co-existence or compromise.
Wed Jul 22, 2020 - 6:22 pm EST
Featured Image
S_L / Shutterstock.com
Tony Perkins Tony Perkins
By Tony Perkins

July 22, 2020 (Family Research Council) — The justices predicted a war — and almost one month to the day of their Bostock ruling, they got one. The first shot was fired last Thursday, when the ACLU decided to sue Maryland's St. Joseph Medical Center for refusing to take out a woman's perfectly healthy uterus just because she wanted to live as a man. It goes against the hospital's religious beliefs, St. Joseph argued. But now, thanks to the Supreme Court, it might go against six justices' ridiculous definition of "sex" too.

The last thing anyone should want right now is fewer hospitals. And yet, that may very well be the outcome of lawsuits like this one. If people are worried about the health care system being overwhelmed today — just wait until liberals force the religiously-affiliated groups entirely out of business. Because that's what'll happen if the Left insists on forcing religious facilities to embrace their radical views. Catholic nonprofits have told the country before — in adoption and abortion debates — that choosing between their faith and ministry is no choice at all. They'd rather shut their doors than bend an inch on biblical teachings.

The ACLU, on the other hand, is more than willing to blow a gaping hole in America's medical care just to advance their political goals. And that's all this is about. It's certainly not about justice for Jesse Hammons — she already got her surgery somewhere else. It's about making the nonconformists pay. St. Joseph's refusal, the liberal attorneys insist, was a "discriminatory and unconstitutional application of Catholic religious doctrine." Worse, Jesse said, "I felt like this hospital didn't see any worth in my life and the care that I needed."

On the contrary, St. Joseph's might have been the only one who did see the worth in Jesse — because it, unlike the attorneys exploiting her story, refused to mistake bodily harm for medical "care." Either way, a spokesman insisted, the hospital's decision had nothing to do with Jesse or animus toward people struggling with their gender. It has to do with the hospital's religious code. St. Joseph's has been under the umbrella of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops since it became a hospital in 1864. And those directives are clear: there are limits on the "removal of healthy organs."

At the end of the day, Wesley Smith argues at NRO, the denial actually has nothing to do with Jesse identifying as transgender. If she'd had a cancerous uterus, surgery wouldn't have been a problem. But this procedure would have sterilized her, Wesley explains, and the church has very strong feelings about that. It's their right to say they won't destroy a womb. Just as it was Jesse's right to go elsewhere — which she did, nine days after the Bostock ruling — and have her body changed.

By all accounts, everyone should have been satisfied. Jesse got the surgery she wanted, and the hospital didn't have to violate its conscience. But the ACLU sued anyway — proving, once again, that this debate has never been about co-existence or compromise. Maybe those are possible in a civil society where everyone is adult enough to put aside their hostility and see the value in respecting different viewpoints. If instead of suing people like Aaron and Melissa Klein out of business, couples simply found another bakery. If instead of jeopardizing care for everyone else, Jesse was content with an alternate location and moved on. If instead of preaching tolerance, activists practiced it.

But unfortunately, all of that became even more of a pipe dream once the Supreme Court stepped in to redefine the word "sex," deciding for everyone that millennia of biology, history, and morality no longer applied. Justice Samuel Alito tried to warn where this would lead, but six of his colleagues were too busy legislating to listen. "Healthcare," he wrote in his Bostock dissent, "...may emerge as an intense battleground under the Court's holding." Workers are already suing for sex reassignment surgery under their insurance, Alito pointed out. This sets up another major conflict, since, as he points out, "requiring them to pay for or to perform these procedures will have a severe impact on their ability to honor their deeply held religious beliefs."

The battle that Alito worried about is here. "It is open season on Catholic hospitals," Wesley writes, and anyone else with a biblical view of gender. "Medicine is becoming a major front in the accelerating attacks on religious liberty in this country. The assault against medical conscience can only exacerbate our bitter cultural divisions already at the ripping point."

Six activists on the Supreme Court think they've done Jesse a favor by ordering America to help her live as a man. But what about the hospitals that want to live as Christians? We need justices who will stand up and protect them. And this election is the only way to guarantee we'll get them — or any freedom at all.

Published with permission from the Family Research Council.


  catholic, catholic hospitals, homosexuality, lgbt tyranny, maryland, tolerance, transgenderism

Opinion

Muslim and leftist terrorists will try to intimidate us into abolishing America

Leftism and Islam share many ideological similarities. For example, both incorporate terror into their modus operandi.
Wed Jul 22, 2020 - 11:46 am EST
Featured Image
trekandshoot / Shutterstock.com
William Kilpatrick
By William Kilpatrick

July 22, 2020 (Turning Point Project) — You’ve probably seen Ami Horowitz doing one of his “man-on-the-street” interviews on television. In a recent one, he asked passersby to sign a petition to take down a statue of Washington because “he was a slave owner.” All were happy to sign. He then asked them to sign a petition to take down a statue of Muhammad because he also was a slave owner. But all declined to sign. Take down Muhammad? Not a good idea.

Why the double standard? Unlike Washington, Muhammad not only owned slaves but also engaged in slave trading on a large scale. Why go easy on him? Do people give Muhammad a pass out of respect for religion?

Probably not. “Woke” vandals have torn down statues of Christian figures, including the Virgin Mary, and only a few seem to mind. Muhammad is given special treatment not out of reverence for religion, but out of fear. You don’t have to be a scholar of Islam to know that criticism of Muhammad can have serious consequences.

The truth is, intimidation works. Much of the spread of Islam in the West is due to the fear factor. People are afraid to resist Islamization because they fear being thought Islamophobic (and possibly losing their jobs), but also out of fear plain and simple. The fearful impulse that prompts passersby to give Muhammad a wide berth, is the same impulse that guarantees that Islam’s influence over our society will only increase.

The fear factor seems to have been built into Islam right from the start — not just fear of Allah, but fear of Muslim warriors. As Muhammad advised his followers, “I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers” (Koran 8: 12).

Some recent scholars and politicians have interpreted this to mean that Islam is a religion of peace. Others say that it’s just a typical example of Arab exaggeration. Over the centuries, however, more prudent people, took Islamic injunctions in the literal sense. When they were given the choice to “convert or die,” they didn’t have to think twice about the meaning of those words.

Many people who have entered Islam have entered it out of fear. Likewise, many fear to leave it. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of Sunni Islam’s most respected leaders, has said: “If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the punishment for apostasy, Islam would not exist today.” In case you didn’t know, the usual punishment for apostasy is death, and in most cases that’s enough incentive to stay the course.

Having not yet evolved beyond the fear of dying, people can still be scared into submission by the prospect of sudden death. That’s what terrorism is all about. Take the commuter train bombings in Madrid, Spain in March, 2004. The coordinated bombings which resulted in 191 deaths and 1,800 injuries were timed to take place just before the general election. Up until that point, the ruling Popular Party which was allied with America in Iraq was leading by a substantial margin in the polls. On election day, however, appeasement-minded voters turned the government over to the Socialist Workers Party, which had pledged to take Spanish troops out of Iraq.

Lesson learned? Terrorism works. At least it works in a society that is already half-subdued by demographic decline, welfare dependence, and the imperial demands of the European Union.

We tend to think that America is not that kind of society. We are, after all, the original “don’t tread on me” nation: attack America, and expect speedy retaliation. But in recent months, American cities have been subject to a pummeling which has left them black and blue and tread all-over.

The marauders were not Islamic terrorists, but left-wing true believers inspired by a violent Marxist gospel. They attacked police, looted stores, burned down buildings, destroyed statues, vandalized churches and synagogues, and demanded the virtual abolishment of the American Republic.

They were met with very little resistance from the American establishment. Instead, they were showered with signs of sympathy and solidarity (and not a little cash) by state governors, big-city mayors, city councils, members of Congress, corporate executives, educators, and editors. Even broad-shouldered football stars kneeled in obedience to the new order of things.

Like the passersby interviewed by Ami Horowitz, the elite showed little concern for the tearing down of statues. Columbus? Jefferson? Washington? As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi remarked, “I don’t care that much about statues.”

But, one suspects, she, along with the rest, would have shuddered at the thought of tearing down a statue of Muhammad. Of course, there’s no need to worry about that, since Islamic law prohibits depictions of Muhammad. It’s only a hypothetical question. But if there were such a thing as a Muhammad statue, it seems safe to hypothesize that both the leftist mobs and the left-leaning elites would treat it with deference.

Why? Once again, the answer is fear. Leftism and Islam share many ideological similarities. For example, both incorporate terror into their modus operandi. Each understands that the other means business. Consequently, leftists and Islamists show each other a certain respect, and they often work together toward the same goals. Although many churches and synagogues were vandalized during the riots, mosques were left alone.

Leftists and Islamists aren’t immune from fear, but they are better at keeping their fear in check because both have a cause to believe in. It’s a different story with many in the establishment. They don’t believe in anything beyond status and personal comfort. The idea of risking one’s life in a cause is quite alien to them. They don’t see any point in fighting for intangibles such as freedom of religion and freedom of speech. As long as the mob leaves them in peace, they are willing to appease it.

In short, they are cowards. But no one wants to admit to being one. As Albert Camus observed, “Those who lack the courage will always find a philosophy to justify it.”

What has happened in America is that fear of the mob has been transformed into a virtue. “Whoever said anything about fear,” says the television anchor, the CEO, the archbishop, and the football player, “We just want to sig…er, show our commitment to diversity, our concern for black lives, and our dedication to social justice.”

Nevertheless, at the bottom of all the virtue signaling is the fear of being on the wrong side of the mob — not just the mob in the streets, but the media mob, the academic mob, and the corporate mob.

It’s not the insurrection itself, but the cowardice in the face of it that may spell the end of America. Our situation is, in some respects, reminiscent of the one that Spaniards faced in 2004. A national election was coming up, the popular party led in the polls, then, suddenly, terrorists cast fear into the hearts of the people and to appease the terrorists, the people voted in the left-leaning Socialist Workers Party.

Substitute “left-wing mob” for “terrorists” and “Democratic Party” for “Socialist Workers Party” and you have an eerily similar set up. Just as the train bombings in Madrid were intended to affect the outcome of an election, so too are today’s violent protests in America.

What happened in Spain in 2004 wouldn’t have happened in America in that year. But after 16 more years of hate-your-nation education, safe-space universities and Big Nanny government, America has become a much softer and less resilient culture. As Mark Steyn has observed, the downside of the soft cushioned safety-net culture is that, “by relieving the individual of the need to have ‘private virtues,’ you’ll ensure that they wither away to the edges of society.” One of those withering virtues is, of course, courage. And when it comes to cultural survival, there is no government program or technical solution that can substitute for it.

One can talk about one’s virtuous commitment to this, that, and the other thing. But as C.S. Lewis pointed out, “Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.” When courage fails, all the other virtues fail.

Published with permission from the Turning Point Project.


  2020 presidential election, black lives matter, islam, jihad, riots, terrorism, turning point project

Blogs

Pro-LGBT Jesuit priest: You’re not ‘really pro-life’ unless you wear a COVID mask

'Are you a Christian?' Fr. James Martin asked. 'Are you a Catholic? Are you pro-life? Do you care about people's lives? Then wear a mask.'
Wed Jul 22, 2020 - 7:44 pm EST
Featured Image
Marco Iacobucci Epp / Shutterstock.com
Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug
By Doug Mainwaring

WASHINGTON, DC, July 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Jesuit Father James Martin has intimated that you are neither a Christian nor a Catholic nor pro-life if you fail to wear a mask in public as the COVID-19 pandemic trudges on.

“Are you a Christian? Are you a Catholic? Are you pro-life? Do you care about people’s lives?” asked Martin in a tweet. 

“Then wear a mask,” he commands.

Catholics who see abortion as the pre-eminent life issue facing the Church could be forgiven for feeling belittled, especially considering Fr. Martin’s longstanding promotion Cardinal Bernardin’s “seamless garment,” which assigns equal weight to all important social justice issues.     

Simply put: Martin has sewn the now ubiquitous COVID mask to the seamless garment.  

Through his tweet, Fr. Martin was promoting his most recent America Magazine opinion piece, which begins:

I am pro-life. What does that mean? Simply put, it means I believe that all life is sacred, inviolable and a gift from God. That reverence for life includes a desire to care for the unborn child in the womb, the elderly person in danger of euthanasia, the refugee starving on the border, the L.G.B.T. youth tempted to suicide and the inmate being readied for execution on death row.

Notice how he doesn’t address the millions of Americans made destitute due to the coronavirus lockdowns, not knowing where their family’s next meal will come, but he shines a light on refugees “starving at the border.” Why? Because that is a USCCB/seamless garment talking point.

Likewise, Martin focuses on “L.G.B.T. youth tempted to suicide,” but not the many men who have contemplated or committed suicide because their jobs evaporated or their businesses were destroyed amid the prolonged lockdowns. No longer able to provide for their children, men overwhelmed with shame and hopelessness often see no other way out. 

“The inmate being readied for execution on death row” — also a major narrative woven into the seamless garment — suggests a moral equivalence between those who murder and the thousands of innocent unborn who are murdered daily. Martin subscribes to this.   

Perhaps more significant is what Martin fails to mention. 

He wags his finger at some who don’t wear masks while ignoring the danger that tens of thousands of rioters and anarchists who ignored social distancing regulations in recent weeks in order to protest, loot, and destroy property in America’s Democrat-run cities have exposed their neighbors to. 

Martin cited the “experts” to justify his pro-life mask moralizing, saying that such “precautions have been confirmed over and over again by places like the Centers for Disease Control and Protection [sic — it’s the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], in many university studies and by prestigious medical journals like The Lancet.”

But those “experts” whom Martin insists we should trust and follow blindly have discredited themselves.

“By now, the collapse of government legitimacy is complete. For three months, public officials abdicated their responsibility to balance the costs and benefits of any given policy,” said Heather Mac Donald, the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal, in a lecture delivered for Hillsdale college in June. 

“They put the future of hundreds of millions of Americans in the hands of a narrow set of experts who lack all awareness of the workings of economic and social systems, and whose ‘science’ was built on the ever-shifting sand of speculative models and on extreme risk aversion regarding only one kind of risk,” declared Mac Donald.

“The evidence is hardly strong enough to elevate mask-wearing into the epitome of moral behavior,” wrote Chris von Csefalvay, an epidemiologist and vice president of special projects at Starschema. “Doing so reflects a greater preoccupation with the psychological effect of masks — perhaps as a restoration of control in the face of an unseen and often perplexing enemy with no cure and no prophylaxis — than with their scientific reality.”

“Even in our degenerate age, many people retain enough common sense to see that they are being presented with a false alternative,” wrote Ed Feser, a blogger who teaches philosophy at Pasadena City College. 

Feser was addressing the online fretting about the state of the “American character” by Damon Linker, who, like Fr. Martin, had engaged in selective moralizing.

People “are capable of taking the virus seriously while balking at needlessly extreme measures for dealing with it,” said Feser. “And their skepticism is bound only to increase when it is met, not with dispassionate arguments, but with shrill accusations of being ‘COVID deniers’ or ‘anti-science,’ from people many of whom can for independent reasons be judged to lack common sense.”

“Even if the most dire warnings currently being issued by experts, politicians, and journalists were well-founded — which, at this point, I personally don’t believe for a minute — the latter can only blame themselves if more people don’t heed them,” he added.


  catholic, coronavirus, james martin, seamless garment

Blogs

Jeffrey Epstein sex abuse victim claims she was forced to abort billionaire’s baby as a teen

As is so often the case with sexual crimes, abortion is a part of the horrifying story of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell as well.
Wed Jul 22, 2020 - 6:39 pm EST
Featured Image
Epstein cohort Ghislaine Maxwell in 2003. Mark Mainz / Getty Images
Jonathon Van Maren Jonathon Van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon Van Maren

URGENT PETITION: Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade! Sign the petition here.

July 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — On July 2, socialite Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested by the FBI in Bradford, New Hampshire. Maxwell was the longtime girlfriend of billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein, who allegedly killed himself in prison last year, where he was awaiting trial on charges of sex-trafficking. Maxwell, who purportedly enabled Epstein’s sexual abuse of minors and procured young girls for him, has now also been charged with having “assisted, facilitated, and contributed” to the sexual abuse of underage girls. Many powerful men — including Prince Andrew, who resigned from royal duties over his relationship with Epstein, and Bill Clinton, who is alleged to have had an affair with Maxwell — are likely very worried about what Maxwell will reveal.

Earlier this month, one anonymous accuser granted an interview to Fox News, alleging that Ghislaine Maxwell sexually assaulted her between the ages of fourteen and sixteen in Florida around 1991. Jane Doe, who is a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against Epstein’s estate, told Fox News that Maxwell was as “evil” as Epstein and that the socialite had raped her “more than 20 or 30 times.” Doe also described how Maxwell was essential to Epstein’s criminal behavior, selecting and grooming girls for him to abuse while posing as a confidante. The girls were later kept silent by a combination of litigation, blackmail, and threats.

And as is so often the case with sexual crimes, abortion is a part of the Epstein-Maxwell story as well. Pimps, rapists, sex-traffickers, and serial sexual abusers rely on abortion to destroy the human evidence that a crime took place, and the abortion industry enables these crimes to continue. Girls are taken (or sent) to abortion facilities, their pre-born babies are killed and removed, and they are returned to their abusers. Often, there are no questions asked. Planned Parenthood in particular has a long track record of failing to report suspected sexual abuse.

According to Jane Doe, she was sexually abused by Maxwell and Epstein for two years, after which she became pregnant with Epstein’s child. After she had an abortion, she alleges that she was again drugged and gang-raped by Epstein, Maxwell, and others as punishment because her tormenters suspected she had told her grandparents about the abortion and feared they would go to the authorities. She says Maxwell ordered her to stay silent about both the abortion and the abuse. “Ms. Maxwell was a participant,” Doe told Fox News, “and she made it very clear that I was to keep my mouth shut or harm would come to my family and myself and harm did come to me.”

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

“I had never been with anyone except for him [Epstein]. The fact that I had to kill my child really affected me and my family,” Doe stated. “Ghislaine was part of it and Jeffrey Epstein was a part of it and I was drugged, gang-raped, and left on the lawn and they put a gun to me. The man that drove me home said I would never, I would never come back alive if I spoke about it.” She dropped out of high school and went into hiding. “I basically kind of vanished.” Maxwell’s lawyer, Lawrence Vogelman, declined to respond to Doe’s allegations.

Abortion has come up in relation to Epstein before. Epstein’s lawyers would dig up dirt on victims during civil lawsuits (there were around two dozen of them), and the lawyers would question the girls about their sexual histories, social media posts, and any drug or alcohol use. One girl in particular was asked about abortions she’d had — and her parents, who were Catholic and were unaware of their daughter’s abortions — were also deposed and grilled.

It is still staggering to consider that the world’s wealthiest power brokers visited Epstein’s “Pedophile Island” while the systemic sexual abuse was an open secret. The sordid tale of Epstein and his celebrity pals would seem the stuff of conspiracy theories but for the fact that so much of it is true. Young girls were preyed upon as a matter of course, and evidence of this — even babies — had to be destroyed. Sexual abuse creates entire categories of victims, and the destruction of innocence often results in the destruction of innocents.

Jonathon’s new podcast, The Van Maren Show, is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement. In his latest episode, Mark David Hall speaks about America’s Founding Fathers, the ideals upon which our society was established, and what this means for Americans today. You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below: 


  abortion, ghislaine maxwell, jeffrey epstein, sex-trafficking

Blogs

Ancient Church Doctor lays out why laity should never touch Holy Communion with bare hands

St. Ephrem the Syriac compares the Blessed Sacrament to the hot burning coal that touched the prophet Isaiah's lips and so purified him
Wed Jul 22, 2020 - 12:18 pm EST
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
By Dr. Joseph Shaw

PETITION: Ask bishop to remove 'Catholic' from the University of Notre Dame if they refuse to rescind Pete Buttigieg's fellowship! Sign the petition here.

July 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – I was honoured to be included in one of the videos created by LifeSite of people affirming their intention to receive the Holy Eucharist only kneeling and on the tongue. There are many ways of approaching the issue. John Henry Westen has approached it with a piece titled 5 reasons why Catholics should only receive Holy Communion on the tongue; also worth reading on this website is Peter Kwasniewski’s response to the suggestion by Fr Dwight Longenecker that reception on the tongue is somehow indicative of self-righteousness. 

I would like to open up another avenue, a historical one. It is constantly reiterated by the proponents of reception in the hand that this is what the early Christians did. This is often put forward as part of a historical narrative that goes like this. As with many doctrines, the early Church had a very basic and common-sense understanding of the Blessed Sacrament, which was turned into something much more elaborate and extreme by the theology and devotional practices of the Middle Ages, which established the term ‘transubstantiation’ and the practice of Eucharistic reservation and adoration. The Protestants reacted against these extreme ideas with some justification, and Vatican II rowed back from them as well in the interests of getting back to the pure doctrine of the earliest Christians.

While it is true that theological terms became more precise, and devotional practice did develop, it is demonstrably false to suggest that Christian authenticity requires us to repudiate the more developed teaching and practice of the Church. 

On the matter of the practice of reception, the earliest reference to the reception of Holy Communion on the Tongue we have is made by the Doctor of the Church St. Ephrem the Syriac, who died in the year 373. He draws a parallel between the Reception of Holy Communion and the vision of Isaiah in the Temple (Is 6:6-7), in which the prophet’s lips are touched with a burning coal by an angel. Christ speaks in St Ephrem’s writings: ‘Isaiah saw Me, as you see Me now extending My right hand and carrying to your mouths the living Bread.’ (Sermones in Hebdomeda Sancta 4, 5).

The parallel with the burning coal is very interesting. In his vision Isaiah had acknowledged his sinfulness, saying that he was ‘a man of unclean lips’. The burning coal symbolises the inner purification which is the necessary preparation to proclaim God’s message to His people. It is an apt parallel. The Blessed Sacrament has a purifying power, but this power is so great that, like a hot coal, we lay Catholics should never touch it with our bare hands. This is something which Christ, in His priest, alone should do.

It is true that other writers in this early period attest to the practice of reception in the hand. The earliest of these is St Cyril of Jerusalem (Mystagogical Catechesis 5, 21f). St Cyril died in the year 386. It is not at all surprising to find different liturgical practices in different parts of the Christian world. What St Cyril writes about the reverence appropriate for the Blessed Sacrament is nevertheless even more emphatic than St Ephrem’s, saying that we should have more care for the tiny fragments of the Blessed Sacrament than we would have for gold dust.

Does he really, then, want the Faithful to pick up the Host in their fingers? Actually, no: that’s not what he says. His instructions are that the Faithful place their left hand under their right hand, because they are not going to pick the Host up with the fingers of their right hand but lift it to their mouths. Furthermore, St Cyril and others discussing Reception in the Hand insist on ritual washing of the hands, and sometimes the use of cloths to be placed over the hands. 

In the same way, they may not have insisted on kneeling, but have a look at what early authorities suggested instead. The liturgical scholar Josef Jüngmann collected examples of instructions to approach Communion barefoot, genuflecting, making a three-fold bow, kissing the ground, or kissing the priest’s foot. 

We might ask those pushing Communion in the hand and standing as an ‘ancient practice’ whether they would like to adopt the other ancient practices which went with it. Perhaps kissing the priest’s foot before reception could make a comeback? 

There is no evidence that reception in the hand is the older practice. What we do see is a process of discussion and development before the present practices in East and West became universal: in the West, the key date is 878, when the Council of Rouen enforced what was by then presumably the dominant practice of reception on the tongue. This discussion and development took place in the context of an enormous respect for the Blessed Sacrament, which is why reception kneeling and on the tongue was, in time, accepted by everyone as the best way to receive with reverence.

All the references cited here and much else on this topic can be found here.


  catholic, communion in the hand, communion on the tongue, cyril of jerusalem, holy communion

Featured Image

Episodes Wed Jul 22, 2020 - 12:46 pm EST

Holy Communion is God and deserves proper reverence

By Mother Miriam
By

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

 

Watch Mother Miriam's Live originally aired on 6.30.2020 and re-aired on 7.21.2020.  In today’s episode, Mother Miriam focuses on the importance of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue.

 

 

You can read more from John-Henry Westen's article about receiving Holy Communion on the tongue here.

 

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

 

Subscribe to Mother Miriam Live here.


Featured Image

Episodes Wed Jul 22, 2020 - 10:51 am EST

Was America founded on racism—or Christianity?

By Jonathon Van Maren   Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon Van Maren

As the far left ramps up their calls for the removal of statues of America's founders over claims of racism, it is important that all citizens truly understand the principles upon which the United States was founded.

In today’s episode of The Van Maren Show, Mark David Hall speaks about America’s Founding Fathers, the ideals upon which our society was established, and what this means for American’s today.

 

Hall is a Distinguished Professor of Politics at George Fox University and author of the book Did America Have A Christian Founding?