All articles from September 8, 2020






  • Nothing is published in Video on September 8, 2020.

The Pulse

  • Nothing is published in The Pulse on September 8, 2020.


Pro-LGBT priest tells clergy to stop saying ‘voting for Joe Biden is a mortal sin’

Fr. James Martin stated that Catholics should care as much about the LGBT community as they do about abortion.
Tue Sep 8, 2020 - 8:44 pm EST
Featured Image
Fr. James Martin. Cindy Ord / Getty Images for Sheen Center
Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug
By Doug Mainwaring

PETITION: Urge Catholic bishops to refuse Holy Communion to pro-abortion Biden! Sign the petition here.

September 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A Jesuit priest, well known for his pro-LGBT activism and for his recent seamless garment litany benediction at last month’s Democratic National Convention, has told priests to stop claiming that a vote for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is a “mortal sin.” 

Fr. James Martin, S.J. told Newsweek Magazine that Catholics should care as much about the LGBT community, the poor, and the homeless as they do about abortion.

“I’m seeing more priests saying that voting for Joe Biden is a mortal sin. It is not,” insisted Martin in a series of tweets. “It is not a sin to vote for either Mr. Biden or Mr. Trump. Nor is it a sin to be Democrat or Republican. Listen instead to what the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops says in their helpful document Faithful Citizenship about the role of conscience.”

“[We] bishops do not intend to tell Catholics for whom or against whom to vote. Our purpose is to help Catholics form their consciences in accordance with God’s truth,” said Martin, quoting the USCCB’s document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” “We recognize that the responsibility to make choices in political life rests with each individual in light of a properly formed conscience, and that participation goes well beyond casting a vote in a particular election.”

Perhaps more important than the USCCB’s official document is the series of videos the U.S. bishops produced to complement their document. Despite the videos being far more accessible and digestible to Catholics than the USCCB’s 60,000-word print output, the videos have barely been seen by American Catholics: seven months after their publication on YouTube, the videos have had on average about 7,400 views each, a drop in the bucket among America’s 70 million Catholics. 

While the “pre-eminence” of abortion is maintained in the document, it is nowhere to be found in the videos.

Some might dismiss this as having been an oversight, but the omission was a loud declaration that the USCCB has chosen to let abortion fade as a top life issue while quietly embracing the view of a minority — but powerful — cadre of liberal prelates aligned with Pope Francis and papal nuncio Christophe Pierre.  

While he doesn’t mention any names, Fr. Martin’s warning seems to take dead aim at Fr. James Altman’s video, “You cannot be Catholic and be a Democrat,” which went viral, accumulating more than 360,000 views and still climbing. 

The video is a powerful rebuke to the Democratic Party, highlighting the hypocrisy of the Catholic hierarchy, clergy, and laity who support its “platform.”

“When politics and politicians act in an immoral way, we most certainly do have the duty and obligation to speak up about it,” explained Altman, a priest of the Diocese of La Crosse, Wisconsin.

Fr. Altman criticized Fr. James Martin during his video, calling the Jesuit a “hyper-confusion-spreading heretic. ”

“I guess it’s OK for James Martin to spout off for the Democrats on their national stage, but God forbid if a priest speaks out against their godless platform,” declared Altman.

“Fr. Martin, do you accept the Church’s teaching on marriage and the whole concept of sexual sin?” asked Bishop Rick Stika of the Jesuit in a now-deleted tweet.

“How about sex same marriages? Do you think they are sacramental?” continued Bishop Stika. “How about supporting Catholic families who believe in parental choice? Do you support the Little Sisters of the Poor?”

Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas has taken heat from liberal Catholic media after publicly supporting Fr. Altman’s video.

“As the Bishop of Tyler I endorse Fr Altman’s statement in this video,” said Strickland.  

“My shame is that it has taken me so long,” he continued. “Thank you Fr Altman for your COURAGE.

“If you love Jesus & His Church & this nation...please HEED THIS MESSAGE,” Strickland urged his followers.

  2020 presidential election, abortion, catholic, donald trump, homosexuality, james altman, james martin, joe biden


Pope Francis’s new encyclical, due out October, to cover ‘human fraternity’

Entitled 'Fratelli tutti' (Brothers All), the subject matter has stoked alarm about Freemasonry among some Catholic commentators.
Tue Sep 8, 2020 - 8:40 pm EST
Featured Image
Michael Campanella / Getty Images
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

PETITION: Restore Catholic Mass for our Sailors! Sign the petition here.

VATICAN CITY, September 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Pope Francis will promulgate a new encyclical on fraternity on October 3.

The pontiff will sign the encyclical, entitled Fratelli tutti (“Brothers all”), in the city of Assisi, the birthplace of Saint Francis, after celebrating a private Mass at the saint’s tomb. According to the press office of the Holy See, the document will address “fraternity and social friendship.”

The official title of the document is apparently a reference to a passage of a document St. Francis wrote for the brothers of his order. In Admonition 6, “Of the Imitation of the Lord,” the great saint asked his companions to “consider the Good Shepherd”:

Let us all, brothers, consider the Good Shepherd who to save His sheep bore the suffering of the Cross. The sheep of the Lord followed Him in tribulation and persecution and shame, in hunger and thirst, in infirmity and temptations and in all other ways; and for these things they have received everlasting life from the Lord. Wherefore it is a great shame for us, the servants of God, that, whereas the Saints have practised works, we should expect to receive honor and glory for reading and preaching the same.

This will be the third encyclical of Pope Francis’s pontificate.

Vatican News, an official news website of the Holy See, stated that “fraternity” is a“central theme” of the current pontificate.

“On the evening of his election to the papacy on 13 March 2013, Pope Francis first greeted the world with the word ‘brothers,’” Vatican News accurately recalled.

“The theme of fraternity is also present in his constant embrace of migrants, epitomized in his pastoral visit to Lampedusa [in Sicily],” it continued.

“His signing of the Document on Human Fraternity in Abu Dhabi in 2019 marks one more example of Pope Francis' dedication to promoting brotherly love.”

Pope Francis’s support for the illegal migration of Asians and Africans to Italy has not found favor with many Italians, leading to a significant drop in his popularity in Italy: from an 88% approval rating shortly after his election to 71% in 2018. The pontiff’s signing of the Document on Human Fraternity in Abu Dhabi set orthodox theologians’ teeth on edge, as the document claims that a “pluralism and diversity” of religions is “willed by God.” After a backlash from bishops and theologians who argued that this statement contradicts Church teaching, including the First Commandment, Pope Francis informally clarified that God’s “permissive will” had allowed other religions to proliferate.

More than one of Pope Francis’s critics have warned that the “fraternity” enshrined in the Abu Dhabi document more closely aligns with Freemasonry than with the Gospel. Shortly after Pope Francis and Grand Imam Ahmed el-Tayeb signed the document, Professor Roberto de Mattei, the president of the Rome-based Lepanto Foundation, told LifeSiteNews that “fraternity” is a core value of the semi-secret society.

“Fraternity is also a dogma of Freemasonry, which in its ideology and rituals offers a parody of Christian doctrine and liturgy,” De Mattei wrote.

“It is no coincidence that the Grand Lodge of Spain, with this tweet, thanked Pope Francis for his Message of December 25, 2018, ‘Todos los masones del mundo se unen a la petición del Papa por ‘la fraternidad entre personas de diversas religiones’” [“All the Freemasons of the world join the Pope’s request for ‘fraternity between people of different religions’”].

The Spanish Freemasons stated that Pope Francis’s call for the “triumph of universal fraternity among all human beings” demonstrated a “departure from the content of Humanum genus (1884), the last great Catholic condemnation of Freemasonry.”

“In reality Freemasonry continues to be condemned by the Church, even if the men of the Church, at the highest levels, seem to embrace its ideas,” de Mattei wrote.

“But the teaching of the divine Master continues to resound in faithful hearts: there love for one’s neighbor can only be based on love for God. And without reference to the true God, who can only be loved within the Church’s Ark of Salvation, fraternity is only an empty word that conceals hatred of God and neighbor.”

Subsequent to the signing of the Abu Dhabi document, plans for the construction of a monument to “human fraternity” were announced. The “House of the Abrahamic Family” will unite a Christian church, a Jewish synagogue, and an Islamic mosque in one architectural project. At the news, Archbishop Carlo Viganò expressed his dismay.

“In the garden of Abu-Dhabi the Temple of the World Syncretic Neo-Religion is about to arise with its anti-Christic dogmas. Not even the most hopeful of the Freemasons would have imagined so much!" the former papal nuncio wrote

St. Francis of Assisi famously attempted to embrace martyrdom in the 13th century by preaching the Gospel to Muslims. According to St. Bonaventure, the caliph of Egypt was so impressed by St. Francis’s bold attempt to convert him that he offered him “many costly gifts,” which the saint refused. The encounter ended in a draw: St. Francis could not convert the caliph, and the caliph would not execute St. Francis — and so the poverello went back “unto the regions of the faithful.”

  catholic, encyclical, fratelli tutti, freemasonry, pope francis


WATCH: Dancer invokes pagan spirits during ceremony at Australian deacon’s ordination

'I asked for protection from the air, the earth, and then the ocean,' the man said from the ambo after the dance. 'And then that dance to call the spirits of all those animals to look after us all and keep us safe.' 
Tue Sep 8, 2020 - 6:00 pm EST
Featured Image
A man invokes spirits prior to the ordination of a deacon in an Australian parish in Milton, New South Wales, Aug. 28, 2020. Milton Parish / Youtube
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

MILTON, New South Wales, Australia, September 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Pagan spirits were invoked via drumming, chanting, and a ritual dance prior to the ordination Mass of a married deacon in Australia. 

Philip and Bee Butler sang, and Philip danced, a ritual they called a “Welcome to Country” before the August 28 evening Mass in St. Mary Star of the Sea Catholic Parish in Milton, NSW, Australia. 

Beforehand Philip Butler stated that he and his wife are members of the Budawang people of the Yuin nation. 

In an introduction to the aborigional ritual, Philip Butler said that he and his family were proud to welcome Justin Stanwix, the ordinand, into their community. He said that their songs and his dance would ask a number of spirit birds and animals to “look after us all and keep us safe while we’re in country.” 

After the first song, Butler danced before the altar, singing and banging sticks or rattles together. 

“I asked for protection from the air, the earth, and then the ocean,” he explained when he returned to the ambo. 

“And then that dance to call the spirits of all those animals to look after us all and keep us safe.” 

Butler’s short speech was greeted with applause and followed by the entrance hymn, Australian Paul Mason’s “The Power of the Spirit.” 

During the Mass, Bishop Brian G. Mascord of the Diocese of Wollongong invited Butler to join him in purifying the congregation. As the bishop sprinkled the faithful with holy water, Butler followed him with a smoking basket of vegetation. According to traditional Australian aboriginal beliefs, smoke from certain plants can drive away evil spirits.  

The Mass was posted to Youtube, where a number of viewers expressed outrage. 

“Why oh why are the paganistic smoking/cleansing involved in a so-called Holy and Sanctified Church; does not this Bishop believe in God nor His Holy Church?” asked a Fr. Neivandt.

Bishop Mascord told LifeSiteNews via email that the “Welcome to Country” was not a religious ritual, but a cultural ritual of “respect and welcoming visitors to the land of the Traditional Owners.”

“It has been a part of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures for tens of thousands of years. The essential elements of welcoming visitors and offering safe passage remain in place to this day,” Mascord wrote. 

A ‘Welcome to Country’ occurs at the beginning of a formal event and can take many forms including singing, dancing, smoking ceremonies or a speech in traditional language and/or English,” he continued.

The bishop added that the ritual had greeted both Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI when they visited Australia.  

“The understanding of this ancient cultural ritual of hospitality is in keeping with the special care of hospitality enjoined on Christians (cf. Romans 12:13),” Mascord wrote. 

“This leads to and encourages the virtues of charity, fraternity and social friendship in people of every race and tongue, whose faith God alone knows.”

During St. John Paul II’s 1986 visit to Australia, he honored aboriginal culture and told Australia’s first peoples to keep “what is best” of their traditional ways. At the same time, he told them that Jesus Christ was calling them. 

“Jesus calls you to accept his words and his values into your own culture,” he said in a speech well-known to Australian Catholics. 

“To develop in this way will make you more than ever truly Aboriginal.” 

According to Australian Geographic, the “Welcome to Country”, which was indeed celebrated in the past when one aboriginal group wished to travel through the lands of another, has been mainstream in Australia only since 1976. Performed at a Perth Arts festival at the request of a visiting Maori troupe, the concept was eagerly promoted by Australian tourism boards. 

The “Welcome to Country” does not have to follow a prescribed set of words and changes from people to people and event to event. Australian performer Dr. Richard Walley, describing what he did to placate the Maori visitors, stated that he invoked the “good spirits” of his and the visitors ancestors and the land. 

“I asked the good spirits of my ancestors and the good spirits of the ancestors of the land to watch over us and keep our guests safe while they’re in our Country. And then I talked to the spirits of their ancestors, saying that we’re looking after them here and we will send them back to their Country,” he explained.

In December 2019,  a Catholic youth festival organized by the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference (ACBC) also began with a “Welcome to Country” ceremony.  At its conclusion, the speaker said: “May all the gods bless you and may all our spirits give you goosebumps, not just today but for the rest of your lives, and we know then we’re on the right path.”

Afterwards a Catholic commentator told LifeSiteNews that beginning a Catholic youth festival with a blessing from ‘the gods’ should be shocking but isn’t thanks to the appearance of the Andean “Pachamama” at the Vatican.  

“And it can hardly be a surprise when this festival started with a ‘Welcome to Country’ which is really the most central and modern public ritual of the pagan, animist, and pantheistic religion practised before Christianity arrived in Australia,”  said Bernard Gaynor, a Catholic layman and prominent commentator.

“We live in a time of crisis for the Church. The youth need clear teaching and leadership. Instead they are being encouraged to abandon the central tenets of the faith,” he continued.

“It really is a terrible scandal that this Catholic festival opened in the most anti-Catholic way possible.”

  australia, brian mascord, idol worship, idolatry, ordination, pachamama, pagan worship, paganism


Bishop Strickland echoes priest: ‘You cannot be Catholic and be a Democrat’

‘My shame is that it has taken me so long,’ the Bishop of Tyler said.
Tue Sep 8, 2020 - 5:27 pm EST
Featured Image
Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas. Catholic Answers / YouTube
Martin Bürger Martin Bürger Follow Martin
By Martin Bürger

TYLER, Texas, September 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Bishop Joseph Strickland on Saturday endorsed a video by Fr. James Altman in which he argued no Catholic could vote for the Democrat Party in the upcoming election.

“As the Bishop of Tyler I endorse Fr. Altman’s statement in this video,” the bishop wrote on Twitter. “My shame is that it has taken me so long. Thank you Fr Altman for your COURAGE. If you love Jesus & His Church & this nation...pleases (sic) HEED THIS MESSAGE.”

Fr. Altman, pastor of St. James the Less Catholic Church in La Crosse, Wisconsin, had exclaimed in the video, first released at the end of July, “Here is a memo to clueless baptized Catholics: You can not be Catholic and be a Democrat. Period!”

“Their party platform absolutely is against everything the Catholic Church teaches,” he said. “So just quit pretending that you’re Catholic and vote Democrat.” He warned, “Repent of your support of that party and its platform or face the fires of hell.”

Regarding baptized Catholics who voted for Democrat candidates in the past, specifically President Barack Obama, Altman said, “There were a lot of pretenders, a lot of impostors, a lot of people masquerading as Catholics, laity and clergy alike, (but) there were zero faithful Catholics who voted for that godless politician who had the audacity to blaspheme and say, ‘God bless Planned Parenthood,’ the most racist organization on the face of this planet, founded to wipe out black babies.”

Apart from Strickland, several other bishops have spoken out against the Democrat Party, especially its candidate for President, former senator and vice president Joe Biden, and running mate Sen. Kamala Harris.

Bishop Rick Stika of Knoxville, Tennessee, tweeted on September 1, “It really confuses me that both Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi time and time again state that they are faithful Catholics and yet promote unlimited abortion as well as deny so many of the teachings of our faith. Nancy stated that she will no longer support the Hyde Amendment.”

“I guess they think it is OK to say they are faithful but yet support the ultimate child abuse and human rights violation of the death of the unborn,” he added. “I hope someday her portrait will be removed from the Capital as she did of those who supported slavery. No difference.”

Stika also asked, “How can a person say they are a faithful Catholic and yet support those who support the ultimate child abuse and human rights violation of those yet born? Slavery was legal at one time and yet now we look at it with horror. A child yet born is not the property of another.”

“A child not yet born is a total human person that must be protected,” he affirmed. “This nation will continue to decline if abortion continues. Those who love life will never go away and will continue to fight. The cause is just as it is the promotion of the dignity of the human person.”

Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, Rhode Island, simply commented in mid-August, “Biden-Harris. First time in awhile that the Democratic ticket hasn’t had a Catholic on it. Sad.”

In May, and in view of the upcoming election in November, Bishop Strickland himself had issued a series of articles discussing what he called “Morally Coherent Catholic Citizenship.”

“In short, faith and life must come together for Catholics. The full Deposit of Faith must be guarded -- and it must inform every area of our life, including our social and civic participation. That includes our voting,” Strickland wrote.

He quoted from a 2002 doctrinal note on “The Participation of Catholics in Political Life,” published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which at the time was led by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was to become Pope Benedict XVI.

“The social doctrine of the Church is not an intrusion into the government of individual countries. It is a question of the lay Catholic’s duty to be morally coherent, found within one’s conscience, which is one and indivisible. There cannot be two parallel lives in their existence: on the one hand, the so-called ‘spiritual life,’ with its values and demands; and on the other, the so-called ‘secular’ life, that is, life in a family, at work, in social responsibilities, in the responsibilities of public life and in culture. The branch, engrafted to the vine, which is Christ, bears its fruit in every sphere of existence and activity.”

Most fundamentally, Strickland emphasized that the right to life is not negotiable.

“I urge the faithful in this diocese to realize that anyone who directly promotes abortion is not acceptable for leadership in our society,” he wrote. “I realize that eliminates a vast number of potential leaders from our consideration as faithful Catholics, but we must hold firm and do all we can to only support political leaders who respect and protect the fundamental Right to life of the unborn. And, they must listen to our voice.”

The bishop of Tyler, Texas, also talked about religious liberty, respect and protection for marriage and the family, as well as parental choice in education.

A five-part video series, covering the same issues, was subsequently released on YouTube.

  2020 presidential election, barack obama, benedict xvi, catholic, democrat party, diocese of tyler, james altman, joe biden, joseph strickland, kamala harris, planned parenthood, richard stika, thomas tobin


Google, Twitter plotting ‘wholesale suppression’ of Trump supporters, insider claims

The author of a new book by an investigative reporter will detail big tech's movement to steal the election.
Tue Sep 8, 2020 - 4:11 pm EST
Featured Image
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

PETITION: Break up Big Tech tyrants and defend free speech! Sign the petition here.

September 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Google and Twitter has been preparing its artificial intelligence systems to silence conservatives as “abusive,” according to an insider from both companies interviewed for an upcoming book.

Breitbart reported that the individual spoke with investigative reporter Allum Bokhari for his book #DELETED: Big Tech’s Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal the Election, which will be released September 22. The insider, who worked at both companies and observed their inner workings, says the tech giants assign a “quality ranking” to users that determines whether they are an asset or detriment to the platforms.

Detrimental users would be those deemed “abusive,” defined by posting whatever tech companies consider to be “hate speech,” “misinformation,” or “conspiracy theories,” as well as merely following or retweeting accounts considered “abusive.”

Social media companies are allegedly training their AI algorithms to act on this criteria – and, Breitbart warned, “will result in the wholesale suppression of the Trump movement — just in time for the election.”

Further details on these latest claims will have to wait for #DELETED’s release on September 22, but the insider’s claims are consistent with a body of evidence accumulated in recent years regarding Big Tech’s anti-conservative bias.

One Facebook insider provided footage recently of content moderators openly discussing how they would like to delete “every Donald Trump post I see on the timeline” and “delete all Republicans ... for terrorism” if they so much as post a photo “wearing a MAGA hat.” Cognizant service delivery manager Demian Gordon can also be seen saying he would not hold staff accountable for taking down Trump posts on the grounds that they “gotta get the Cheeto (Trump) out of the office.”

Another Facebook whistleblower described witnessing moderators “deleting on average 300 posts or actioning 300 posts a day” in a way “that just targeted conservatives or favored liberals,” with personnel equating Trump supporters with violent hate groups, while expressly making an exception for overtly-hateful posts by the moderators’ LGBT allies in the name of supporting Pride Month.

Twitter set off a firestorm in May when it placed a “fact-check” on a Trump tweet pertaining to the fraud potential of mail-in voting, then censored another Trump tweet warning that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts,” pertaining to the Minneapolis riots, for supposedly “glorifying violence.” 

As for YouTube and its parent company, numerous leaked private conversations show that Google is willing to enforce its far-left ideology through its ostensibly neutral services and platforms. Psychologist and technology researcher Dr. Robert Epstein warned that Google could use its vast power over search results for news and video to shift as much as a 10th of the vote toward former vice president Joe Biden in the fall’s presidential election.

  2020 presidential election, big tech, breitbart, donald trump, free speech, google, social media bias, social media censorship, trump supporters, twitter


Left-wing Gates Foundation spent $250 million on favorable press coverage: report

Money went to news outlets such as NPR, BBC, NBC and USA Today owner Gannett, according to Columbia Journalism Review, that in some cases defended the billionaire.
Tue Sep 8, 2020 - 3:28 pm EST
Featured Image
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

PETITION: Demand CBS management stop Stephen Colbert's mockery of Jesus! Sign the petition here.

September 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Numerous prominent media outlets and journalistic organizations holding up the left-wing Gates Foundation as an authority on public health are in fact partially funded by that foundation, according to a report in the Columbia Journalism Review

CJR’s Tim Schwab wrote that he “examined nearly 20,000 charitable grants the Gates Foundation had made through the end of June and found more than $250 million going toward journalism,” with recipients including National Public Radio, the BBC, NBC, the National Journal, the Guardian, Gannett (which owns USA Today and various major regional newspapers), the National Press Foundation, and other publications, media companies, journalism foundations, and charitable organizations related to media.

And while a 2016 report from the American Press Institute (also a Gates recipient) insisted “there is little evidence that funders insist on or have any editorial review,” CJR’s review identified several indicators to the contrary.

Schwab says he found “hundreds” of NPR articles favorably covering the Gates Foundation and Gates projects, with one particular example of a story in which “every quoted expert is connected to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation” (the article did notify readers of the financial support, and NPR insisted it “was not a factor in why or how we did the story”).

The foundation’s money can most strongly be felt, however, in the mainstream media’s elevation of the Gates Foundation as an authoritative voice on COVID-19, despite software giant Bill Gates’ lack of a background in medical science.

“PolitiFact and USA Today (run by the Poynter Institute and Gannett, respectively — both of which have received funds from the Gates Foundation) have even used their fact-checking platforms to defend Gates from ‘false conspiracy theories’ and ‘misinformation,’” Schwab noted, “like the idea that the foundation has financial investments in companies developing covid vaccines and therapies. In fact, the foundation’s website and most recent tax forms clearly show investments in such companies, including Gilead and CureVac.”

Without addressing CJR’s specifics, the Gates Foundation responded to the publication by simply declaring that they “strongly dispute” any suggestion that the “most respected journalism outlets in the world” have “compromised their integrity and independence.”

Nevertheless, concern remains in light of the Gates Foundation’s forays into climate change activism, contraception and population control, education “reform,” and coronavirus punditry. In June, Bill Gates blasted the Trump administration for withdrawing from the World Health Organization (WHO) over its initial response to the coronavirus outbreak, despite the WHO legitimizing early misinformation from the Chinese government and opposing measures that could have better contained the coronavirus at the outset, such as banning travel from China.

  bill and melinda gates foundation, bill gates, columbia journalism review, coronavirus, covid-19, fake news, gates foundation, mainstream media


Kamala Harris: Trump can’t be trusted with COVID-19 vaccine

The Democrat vice presidential candidate claimed that Trump is 'grasping to get whatever he can to pretend he has been a leader on this issue when he is not.'
Tue Sep 8, 2020 - 2:06 pm EST
Featured Image
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.). Scott Olson / Getty Images
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

September 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The mainstream media traditionally paint conservatives as “anti-science” over criticism of certain vaccines and mandatory vaccination policies, but Democrat vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris just flipped that narrative on its head by suggesting an upcoming COVID-19 vaccine should be distrusted because President Donald Trump presided over its development.

“I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about,” Harris told CNN Sunday, when asked whether she would take a coronavirus vaccine approved and released by the Trump administration prior to the November election.

Harris further claimed that medical professionals who want to slow down development out of safety concerns will “be muzzled, they'll be suppressed, they will be sidelined," because Trump is “looking at an election coming up in less than 60 days and he's grasping to get whatever he can to pretend he has been a leader on this issue when he is not.”

Public health officials, including Food & Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner Stephen Hahn and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) director Dr. Robert Redfield have publicly discussed expediting the normal vaccine development process by seeking that certain permit requirements be waived and possibly skipping “Phase III” testing for “emergency use authorization” use instead of full approval, but they insist safety will not be compromised.

Immunologist Moncef Slaoui, leader of the COVID-19 vaccine development initiative, told Science Magazine “there has been absolutely no interference” with his work so far. He claimed that he would resign if an emergency use authorization was demanded without the science warranting it.

In the United States, COVID-19 has infected an estimated 6.4 million people and killed an estimated 193,000, disproportionately affecting those aged 64 and above. 

While the public has yearned for a cure, voices on both sides have expressed concern about a vaccine being rushed to the public, followed by compulsory vaccination before any potential complications are ironed out. Various state officials and academic institutions across the country have discussed mandating an eventual COVID-19 vaccine, and Yale University is currently studying what messages have the most potential to shame people into submitting.

“Fear of a disease – which we know very little about, relative to other similar diseases – must not lead to knee-jerk reactions regarding public health, nor can it justify supporting the hidden agenda of governmental as well as non-governmental bodies that have apparent conflicts of interest in plans to restrict personal freedoms,” says LifeSiteNews’ ongoing petition against mandatory COVID-19 vaccination, which has gathered more than 860,000 signatures.

  2020 presidential election, coronavirus, coronavirus vaccine, covid-19, democrats, donald trump, joe biden, kamala harris


Pro-life leaders thank Trump for keeping pro-life promises of first term

Tue Sep 8, 2020 - 12:30 pm EST
Featured Image
Michael Candelori /
Calvin Freiburger
Calvin Freiburger

September 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A coalition of pro-life leaders has written to President Donald Trump to thank him for upholding the pro-life promises of his first term, and expressing hope that they can continue to work with him in a second.

“As a candidate, on January 23, 2016, you stated, ‘Let me be clear – I am pro-life.’” As President, you have lived up to that statement in standing up for women and the unborn,” reads the letter, which was signed by Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, Marjorie Dannenfelser of Susan B. Anthony List, Alveda King of Civil Rights for the Unborn, David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress, and dozens of other pro-life leaders.

It goes on to list the numerous pro-life actions Trump has taken in office, from restoring and expanding the Mexico City Policy that bars foreign aid to abortion groups, to disqualifying abortion groups from family planning grants, to opposing a “right” to abortion at the United Nations.

“As we move forward we look forward to further building a culture of life together,” the letter concludes.

If he wins reelection in November, the president says he will “continue our transformation of the federal judiciary” via conservative Supreme Court appointees, to “overcome Democratic filibusters in Congress to finally pass and sign into law” legislation banning late-term abortion and taxpayer funding of abortion, and strengthening protections for infants born alive after failed abortions; and to “fully defund the big abortion industry such as Planned Parenthood of our tax dollars.”

Trump’s Democrat opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, is campaigning on a plan to enshrine effectively unlimited abortion on demand into federal law, at taxpayer expense, and even to use the federal Justice Department to tie the hands of states that try to enact any pro-life restrictions.

  2020 presidential election, abortion, culture of life, donald trump, republicans


Experts lament collapse of marriage in America, warn of deadly consequences

The number of children born out of wedlock grew from just 5 percent in 1960 to 40 percent in 2019. This can't continue, experts insist.
Tue Sep 8, 2020 - 10:04 am EST
Featured Image
Jack Frog /
Virginia Allen
By Virginia Allen

September 8, 2020 (Daily Signal) — American civil society is facing a serious domestic threat: Marriage is declining and family stability with it. 

Between 1962 and 2019, the percentage of women ages 15 to 44 who were married fell by nearly 30%, according to a recent report from the Social Capital Project of the congressional Joint Economic Committee Republicans. 

The number of children born outside of wedlock grew from just 5% in 1960 to 40% in 2019. 

“Stable two-parent families in a community are some of the most powerful predictors of the health of the American Dream for poor kids,” W. Bradford Wilcox, a University of Virginia sociology professor and senior fellow at the Institute for Family Studies, told The Daily Signal in an email. 

The Joint Economic Committee, chaired by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, examined the strength of American families Thursday in the report, “The Demise of the Happy Two-Parent Home.” The committee’s findings reveal a steady decline in stable two-parent households across the nation. 

“It’s important to remember that there is no such thing as ‘parenting,’ Ryan Anderson, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “There is mothering, and there is fathering, and children do best with both.”

Though it’s not possible to know how a child’s life may have been altered if raised in a happy two-parent home, “what is self-evident — without consulting research — is that more children would fare better if more were raised by their married parents within a healthy relationship,” the committee’s report states. 

Children who are raised in a home with two married parents are less likely to live in poverty or experience physical, mental, or sexual abuse, according to the joint committee. They are also more likely to succeed academically and financially. 

Children raised by a mother and father are also less likely to exhibit behavioral issues, such as aggression. 

From 1970 to 2019, the percentage of children living without one or both parents doubled from about 15% to 30%. 

The number of children living with unmarried, cohabiting parents has also increased by more than 10% in the past 50 to 60 years. 

In February, Wilcox, the University of Virginia sociology professor, gave a statement to the Joint Economic Committee, “Family Stability and the American Dream,” in which he addressed concerns over the growing trend of cohabiting couples. 

“Children born to cohabiting couples are almost twice as likely to see their parents break up, compared to children born to married couples, even after controlling for confounding sociodemographic factors, such as parental education,” Wilcox said in his statement

There is a direct link between the stability of a home and a child’s rate of success, Wilcox explained. Children raised in a single-parent home are at least twice as likely to live in poverty compared with children from a two-parent household. 

Family stability is “the most significant factor among blacks — not only for poverty, but also for affluence,” Wilcox said, giving credit to the research of John Iceland, a sociology professor at Penn State University. 

The committee report noted that although marriage rates have declined across racial groups over the past 60 years, the most dramatic decline is within the African American community. 

While the share of married white women between the ages of 15 and 44 has fallen by about 25 percentage points since the 1960s, the decline has been far much more dramatic among black women. 

About 65% of black women between the age of 15 to 44 were married in the 1960s, but by 2019, it had fallen to just 24%. 

The disparity between white and black babies born to single mothers doubled between 1960 and 2018, according to the joint committee’s report. Twenty-nine percent of white children were born to unwed mothers in 2018, while 70% of black children are born to single moms. In 1960, only 1% of white babies and about 20% of black babies were born to single moms. 

Experts cite the broad expansion of welfare programs as part of the reason for the marriage rate decline, especially among African Americans. The fear of losing Medicaid, food stamps, and cash welfare programs discourages marriage, Wilcox said.  

The majority of welfare programs “penalize marriage,” the Joint Economic Committee report agrees.

The committee drew four conclusions with respect to ways in which marriage and family stability can be encouraged in civil society: 

  • “Messaging,” such as through media campaigns, can have positive effects on societal activity. Ads explaining the consequences of teen pregnancies could alter the sexual behavior of young people, for example. 
  • “Social programs” offering education and skill development on how to “build and maintain healthy marriages” may also strengthen families across socioeconomic backgrounds. 
  • “Financial incentives” would “reduce marriage penalties and otherwise discourage family instability, providing additional tax benefits for married couples, and strengthening child support enforcement.” 
  • “Other policies” the committee recommends to increase family stability include “improving career prospects for younger Americans, especially young men,” or even examining the effects of pornography on adult partner relationships. 

A young person’s future is not necessarily doomed to failure because of the lack of family structure. However, children raised by a single parent do face greater adversity when compared with children raised in a happy two-parent home, the Social Capital Project report concludes. 

Published with permission from The Daily Signal.

  divorce, marriage, single mothers, the daily signal, w. bradford wilcox


Texas hospital insists disabled baby must be killed, but she’s opening eyes, moving arms

Baby Tinslee's mother was quoted as saying, 'Why do they want to kill my baby so badly?'
Tue Sep 8, 2020 - 9:55 am EST
Featured Image
ChaiyonS021 /
Drew Belsky
Drew Belsky

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

September 8, 2020 (Live Action News) — Live Action News first shared Tinslee Lewis’ story back in November of 2019. At that time, Tinslee was nine months old and the center of a court battle between her family and the hospital caring for her. She was born prematurely and suffers from a rare congenital heart defect called Ebstein’s Anomaly, which can ultimately lead to enlargement of the heart as well as heart failure. She also has significant lung disease. Tinslee has been on a ventilator in the ICU for most of her 19 months of life.

In September 2019, an ethics committee at Cook Children’s Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas, decided that Tinslee had no chance of improvement and was in pain. Against the wishes of Tinslee’s mother Trinity, the hospital insisted that Tinslee’s life support should be removed and that she should be allowed to die naturally.

The hospital attempted to invoke the state’s Texas Advance Directives Act, which allows for hospital ethics committees to serve as a last resort decision maker when doctors and patients cannot agree on medical decisions. The Act includes a “10-Day rule” which requires families who disagree with a hospital’s decision to remove a patient’s life support to find another facility willing to take the patient within 10 days. Critics have pointed out that under the 10-Day Rule, “criminals on death row have more rights than patients at Texas hospitals.”

A September 1 press release from Texas Right to Life shared a video from Tinslee’s mother showing the little girl with her eyes open, waving her arms around in the air. Tinslee’s mother Trinity was quoted as saying, “Why do they want to kill my baby so badly? They [Cook Children’s] are telling the judges that Tinslee cannot move or interact, which is not true. Just watch the video.”

[Video available here.]

Cook Children’s has steadfastly refused to perform a tracheostomy on Tinslee, even though this is the standard medical recommendation for patients who require mechanical ventilation (being on a ventilator) for longer than two weeks. In mid July of this year, a professor in the University of Texas Medical Branch’s division of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery commented on how unusual this refusal is, saying, “Baby T.L. should be treated no differently than any other child who has been on a ventilator this long. Tracheotomies are routinely performed for patients after 14-days on a ventilator. Baby T.L. has been on a ventilator for over 10 months. It is not within the standard realm of care to leave a patient on a ventilator this long and refuse a tracheostomy…. [T]here are very specific patient benefits to performing this procedure.”

In late July, Live Action News reported on the issuance of a temporary injunction against the hospital by the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth, mandating that Tinslee is not to be removed from life support until the full trial is completed. This ruling will also allow her family to legally challenge the constitutionality of the 10-Day Rule.

At this time, Cook Children’s continues to refuse to insert a tracheostomy tube, which prevents Tinslee from being transferred to another medical facility for care. The release read, “Court records reveal that… Cook Children’s continues to refuse to provide Tinslee a trach, indicating they will only acquiesce to her mother’s request if Tinslee is discharged to hospice and her mother agrees to a Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) order. In other words, the hospital will perform the procedure only if they can guarantee Tinslee will die, not if she is afforded care elsewhere.”

Texas Right to Life noted that seven other families have come forward for assistance with the 10-Day Rule in 2020.

  euthanasia, hospitals, live action news, modern medicine, parental rights, tinslee lewis


Michigan citizens launch initiative to dial back governor’s ‘unilateral’ COVID powers

Michiganders are pushing to reopen their state.
Tue Sep 8, 2020 - 9:45 am EST
Featured Image
Elaine Cromie / Getty Images
Drew Belsky
Drew Belsky

September 8, 2020 (Daily Signal) — Some Michiganders say the law that Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is using to keep their state under COVID-19 lockdown is being abused, and they are pushing to reopen their state. 

“Gov. Whitmer’s interpretation and use of the [Emergency Powers of Governor Act] is completely novel,” said Michael Van Beek, director of research at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a Midland, Michigan-based free market think tank.

The Emergency Powers of Governor Act, enacted in 1945, has been used only a handful of times before now, according to a new report from the Mackinac Center. 

Specifically, according to the report, the act was used “in response to five emergency situations: labor unrest in Hillsdale in 1964, urban riots in 1967 and again in 1968, and twice in 1970, once for high mercury levels in Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie, and a second for a minor riot in Ypsilanti.”

“Constitutional concerns followed previous uses of these powers, but Gov. Whitmer has taken these to a new level,” Van Beek said. “No other governor has attempted to use the [law] to gain unilateral control over an emergency for an indefinite period.” 

The push to open the state can be found at Unlock, where Michiganders are circulating petitions for a proposal that would repeal the Emergency Powers of Governor Act. The group says the law enables Whitmer to “govern by decree, without end, and without accountability.”

On its website, UnlockMichigan says, “Using this obscure, antiquated law, Governor Whitmer has issued a blizzard of over 100 executive decrees, with ... no public input — and no end in sight,” adding:

… We believe Whitmer’s crushing lockdown of life and business across Michigan is a dangerous threat to our livelihoods and constitutional liberties.

The initiative would repeal the Emergency Powers of Governor Act of 1945, which says the governor “has misused ... to assume sweeping, permanent powers the legislature never intended a governor to have, in violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine.”

David Guenthner, senior strategist for state affairs at the Mackinac Center, told The Daily Signal in an email that Michiganders are well on their way to putting Whitmer, a Democrat elected in 2018, in check. 

“The petition needs 340,000 validated signatures in order to start the 40-day clock for legislative action,” Guenthner said. “If the legislature fails to pass the initiated legislation as proposed within the 40 days, it automatically goes on the next general election ballot in 2022.”

Unlock Michigan said earlier this week it had already garnered 300,000 signatures, with the third hundred thousand being collected in just 10 days.

A request for comment from Whitmer’s office was not returned Wednesday.

Meanwhile, a similar effort is underway in neighboring Ohio, where Ohio Stands Up! has filed a lawsuit against Ohio Republican Gov. Mike DeWine’s March 9 emergency health order, which is still in effect. 

“We believe that the response to COVID-19 has been the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public,” Thomas Renz, a lawyer, said Monday in a press release for Ohio Stand Up!  

“The objective of this legal action is to force the state to honor the Constitution and to stop the lies, manipulation and fear-mongering intentionally being promoted by public health officials and elected officials.”

Published with permission from The Daily Signal.

  big brother, coronavirus, gretchen whitmer, michigan, petition, police state


Alaska’s Catholic hospital offers transgender hormones, refers to radical LGBT groups

Providence Alaska Medical Center has deviated from its Christian roots over the past few decades.
Tue Sep 8, 2020 - 9:29 am EST
Featured Image
Florin Deperin /
Alaska Watchman
By Alaska Watchman

September 8, 2020 (Alaska Watchman) — Alaska’s flagship Catholic hospital, which claims to operate in accord with Catholic ethical guidelines, offers powerful hormones to assist Alaskans in “transitioning” to the opposite sex.

Screen capture image from Providence Health & Services website.

Providence Alaska Medical Center in Anchorage openly advertises “hormone therapy for patients who are transitioning.” This commonly results in permanent sterilization and increases the risk of stroke and blood clotting in men who wish to appear as women.

In addition to providing hormones that alter a person’s biological features so they can appear as the opposite sex, Providence’s website also offers references to the most radical LGBTQ groups in Alaska, including Identity, which organizes drag queen shows for young children at the Loussac Library.

Additionally, Providence’s website directs people to the Pride Foundation, PFLAG, Alaskans Together for Equality and Covenant House Alaska as local resources for LGBTQ services.

Identity’s website lists Providence as one of several health providers that serve the LGBTQ population. It also highlights three doctors with offices at Providence who provide LGBTQ medical services. This include two pediatric physicians who work with children.

Children and teens who undergo hormonal treatments fail to biologically mature. They can also suffer from seizures, bone deterioration, heart failure and permanent damage to reproductive organs.

While Providence has historic ties to the Catholic faith, and still maintains a chapel and a large statue of Christ outside its main entrance, the institution has deviated from its Christian roots over the past few decades. Founded by the Sisters of Providence to serve the medical needs of Alaskans, the hospital website now states that it strives to “recruit, retain and support an LGBTQI inclusive workforce.”

The administration of transgender hormones is not the first time Providence has strayed from Catholic ethical principles for healthcare. Since 2011 it has been home to the Alaska Women’s Health Center, which refers women for abortions and provides contraceptive pills known to cause early abortion. These services are in direct violation of the Ethical and Religious Directives (ERDs) for Catholic hospitals as established by U.S. Catholic bishops. The ERDs give specific instructions to hospitals on how to operate in harmony with Catholic moral and ethical teachings, which Providence claims to follow.

According to the Ethical and Religious Directives, “If it is discovered that a Catholic health care institution might be wrongly cooperating with immoral procedures, the local diocesan bishop should be informed immediately,” and “the leaders of the institution should resolve the situation as soon as reasonably possible.”

Anchorage Bishop Andrew Bellisario is head of the Anchorage Archdiocese and charged with shepherding area parishes and Catholic outreaches.


  • Click here to contact Anchorage Bishop Andrew Bellisario.
  • Providence Alaska Region Board provides leadership in operational performance, strategic development, and oversight of ministries within Providence Health & Services Alaska. Click hereto contact the board.

Published with permission from the Alaska Watchman.

  abortion, alaska, catholic, catholic hospitals, hospitals, lgbt tyranny, sex change, transgenderism


Democrats preparing three-tiered vote fraud scheme to destroy election integrity

No rational observer could view this as anything but a promise to destroy the legitimacy of the 2020 election.
Tue Sep 8, 2020 - 9:11 am EST
Featured Image
3dfoto /
J.B. Shurk
By J.B. Shurk

September 8, 2020 (American Thinker) — Now that a top Democrat data analytics firm has finally confirmed that Democrats plan to claim victory weeks after the presidential election once enough of their “votes” show up in the mail to be counted, I don’t think any rational observer could view this as anything but a promise to destroy the legitimacy of the 2020 election. The Democrats’ mission to fracture America permanently should be codenamed “Operation Chaos,” because it is chaos they are preparing to unleash.

It was not a few thousand dollars’ worth of Russian Facebook posts and online internet trolls that nearly destroyed the Union after the 2016 election. It was the way the Obama White House and an intelligence–law enforcement cabal run by the Democratic Party maliciously and intentionally magnified Russia’s limited hijinks into the greatest political hoax in American history. The Democrats preferred to drag the United States through four years of nonsensical conspiracy theories, needless investigations, and cries of high treason rather than to acknowledge that President Trump had legitimately defeated Hillary Clinton. The Democrats chose an unprecedented campaign of sabotage against an American president, and in doing so, they accomplished what Putin’s Russia could never have dreamed: they succeeded in convincing half of America that the 2016 election was stolen from them. The Democrats and the Deep State that has aided and abetted their cause have sold bitter acrimony for four years and birthed our precarious pre-civil war tinderbox today.

With American peace now hanging in the balance, will Democrats choose country over socialism and temper passions already overinflamed? Of course not. If four years of the Russia hoax has brought our nation to the brink of civil strife, the Democrats’ Operation Chaos will make it nearly impossible for wisdom and reason to succeed in the months ahead. This fact alone should disqualify Democrats from office in 2020. A party that is driving the country to civil war cannot be trusted to have the country’s best interest at heart.

Most Republicans (except the “useful idiots” who will look past corruption and fraud for the chance to remove President Trump) understand how the Democrats plan to use “cheat-by-mail” chaos to elevate a man who can’t remember his opponent’s name (or even his running mate’s) to commander in chief. They have a three-tailed con in play: (1) attempt to win swing states fast and declare victory before fraudulent ballots can be scrutinized; (2) harvest loose ballots after election day until Trump vote leads disappear; (3) throw the whole mess into state and federal courts until a Democrat-leaning judge gives them a Democrat lead. At any time that one of these tails secures a Democrat victory, the “useful idiot” NeverTrumps and hacks in the press will aid the Democrats in quickly declaring the election over and calling for President Trump’s concession. (When executing a good con, it’s always best to have “disinterested” third parties move the con along.) By that point, offending ballots will be “disappeared” before they can ever be scrutinized again. And at any stage of this dangerous game, if President Trump and his supporters fight the outcome, our efforts — not Democrat vote fraud — will be framed as “threats to democracy.”

All the chaos lying ahead was preventable, of course. In the most modern and technically advanced nation in the history of the planet, the idea that the United States cannot vouchsafe the results of a democratic election is absurd. All over the world, successful elections take place without high-tech voting booths or sophisticated methods for tallying votes, but in America, we are plagued with so much uncertainty as to whether our elections are the outcomes of massive fraud that election integrity is impossible. You can’t have fair and equitable elections when every single American believes the vote is already rigged.

Obviously, if our constitutional republic is to utilize democratic elections to decide whether we choose Donald Trump’s “America First” policies or Bernie Sanders’s Green New Deal, then safeguarding the American vote is paramount over any other responsibility of our federal and state governments. Instead, because the political establishment in America routinely ignores the wishes of American voters, it has turned a blind eye to the corruption and inaccuracy of American elections.

Democrats (and “Republican” enablers like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan) argue that election fraud is a myth when it is, in fact, well documented. They argue that non-citizen voting occurs in such low numbers as to be meaningless when meaningful elections every year are decided by a few hundred votes. They argue that election judges can be trusted when many have been prosecuted for altering votes and stuffing ballots. They argue that sensible voter identification laws are unnecessary (and racist) when votes routinely show up from dead votersnon-voters, and voters who long ago left the jurisdictions in which they’re now cast. They argue that ballot-harvesting is nothing to worry about when the outcomes of elections are overturned days and weeks after election day. They argue that the same U.S. Postal Service that just endorsed the Democratic Party can be trusted to impartially handle Republican votes. 

By never letting a crisis go to waste, Democrats have so effectively guaranteed “cheat by mail” in swing states this year that stacks of ballots can go out with coupon mailers and come back without proper signatures or any other voter authentications and go right into the ballot box. A recent election in New Jersey was just thrown out after it was determined that mail-in vote fraud had tainted 22% of the total vote, while twenty-eight million mail-in ballots have gone missing in the last four elections. And a top Democrat operative revealed last week how he and others have been committing voter fraud on a “grand scale” for decades.

Gone are the days when the United States recognized the solemnity of the vote by securing for each citizen a private and uncoerced secret ballot. Now Democrat election operatives can simply go from hospital bed to hospital bed in nursing homes around the country “collecting” votes or swallow up entire mail drops at apartment buildings before residents even hold them in their hands. Operation Chaos will test the limits of our country’s bonds.

How does a free country governed by the people destroy itself? When elected representatives make it impossible for the people to believe they are still governing.

If we had a functioning free press in this country that hadn’t thrown out objectivity and professionalism for partisan entanglements and personal vendettas, the two biggest stories of the last four years would both center on the efforts of the Democratic Party to undermine American elections so completely that the breakup of the Union is not only a real possibility, but the Democrats’ likely objective. They sabotaged the peaceful transition of power in 2016 with the Russia hoax. In 2020, whether they can eke out victory or not, they have implemented a “cheat by mail” voting catastrophe that will render the 2020 election outcome unavoidably illegitimate to the losing side. It is a strategy intended to damage the country. It is an operation meant to unleash chaos.

Published with permission from the American Thinker.

  2020 presidential election, democratic party, vote fraud, voting


Did California legislators just vote to protect (gay) adults who have sex with minors?

Senate Bill 145 reduces the penalty for a 24-year-old having had sex with someone as young as age 14.
Tue Sep 8, 2020 - 7:08 pm EST
Featured Image
Michael L. Brown Michael L. Brown Follow Dr. Michael
By Dr. Michael Brown

September 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) -- If there was one thing we could all agree on, you would think it would be this: Minors should be protected from sexually aggressive adults. Yet, with a nod to “equality” under the law for the gay community, the California Assembly voted to lessen the potential penalty for 24-year-olds who have sex with children as young as 14. Shockingly – or should I say, revoltingly – this is one of two similar bills that have just been passed by these legislators.

As explained by Greg Burt of the California Family Council, “The California legislature finished its 2020 session on Monday by passing a controversial bill that reduces the penalties on some adults who have consensual sex with minors as young as 14 years of age.”

Why on earth would they pass something like this? Why would they want to potentially reduce these penalties?  

I understand that the sexual acts are allegedly “consensual” and that the difference in age can be no more than 10 years. And I understand that some people end up having to register as sex offenders who really do not fit the bill.

But that’s the whole issue when it comes to children. Can a child that young make a truly informed, consensual decision? And is not the adult required to take responsibility and not engage in sexual acts with a child, no matter how willing that child may be? Isn’t this the difference between adults and children under the law?

Burt explains that “Senate Bill 145’s author, LGBT Caucus Leader Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), said the bill was necessary because current law is harsher if the crime involved homosexual sex between an adult and a minor as opposed to heterosexual sex. All the Republicans and even some prominent and powerful Democrats did not buy that argument.”

As detailed by Equality California (which celebrated the bill), “Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 14 to 17 and a partner within 10 years of age, ‘sexual intercourse’ (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not mandate that the offender go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge has discretion to decide, based on the facts of the case, whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for all other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and anal intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion.”

Gay activists thought this was unfair, sponsoring SB 145, which allows the judge to have the same discretion with “all other forms of intercourse.” In other words, men who have gay sex with boys shouldn’t be punished any more strictly than men who have heterosexual sex with girls.

And this leads to two very serious (and revealing) questions. First, why would we want to protect an adult who commits a sexual act with a minor as young as 14? Second, how prevalent is adult-minor sex in the gay community? (For the answer to that question, see here. Or just read more about the life of gay icon Harvey Milk. Note also that I’m not talking about pedophilia but rather so-called “consensual” acts between adults and teens as young as 14.)

The real focus should have been on the protection of the children rather than on lessening the penalty for certain sexual acts. With that in mind, a bill could have been passed calling for equal penalties for any of these sex acts, be they “heterosexual” or “homosexual” acts. Instead, gay activists pushed to lessen penalties for sexual acts even more common in the homosexual community. How telling.

Among those opposing the bill was Democrat Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez. “Any sex is sex,” she said. “I don't care who it is between or what sex act it is. That being said, I cannot in my mind as a mother understand how sex between a 24-year-old and a 14-year-old could ever be consensual, how it could ever NOT be a registerable offense.”

She continued, “We should never give up on this idea that children are not, should be in any way subject to a predator. And that is what it is.”

But there’s more. Burt reported that the Senate also passed “AB 1145, a bill to lower the mandated reporting requirements for some statutory rape cases. The bill was sponsored by Equality California. The bill was approved 25-10, with the Republicans voting no.”

Is it any surprise that Equality California was elated about this bill as well? And does this not confirm what conservative activists have argued for years, namely, that many in the gay community want to lower the age of consent? (Almost 50 years ago, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform called for “Repeal of all state laws governing the age of sexual consent.”) 

As Burt noted, “This means high school teachers or counselors who know or suspect one of their 16-year-old students or counselees is having sex with a 20-year-old, they are no longer required to report it to authorities. This bill is especially concerning in light of how many LGBT organizations are sponsoring social events between young teenagers and young adults. See the following fliers for LGBT social events.”

Groups like Mass Resistance have pointed out for years that many a young person got initiated into homosexual acts through their teachers and “mentors.”

Now, California legislators have voted to protect the abusers.

Let the outcry begin.

  california assembly, california family council, california legislature, consensual sex, democrats, equality california, greg burt, harvey milk, homosexuality, lgbt, lorena gonzalez, scott wiener, senate bill 145, sex offender


Is it a virtuous act of obedience to receive Communion in hand at bishop’s command? 

The argument that reception of Holy Communion in the hand is an exercise of the virtue of obedience, and therefore a source of graces, is problematic.
Tue Sep 8, 2020 - 5:18 pm EST
Featured Image
By Dr. Joseph Shaw

September 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – J.D. Flynn, editor at Catholic News Service, has told his Twitter followers:

Every time I go to Mass it is hard for me to receive in the hand.

Every time I go to Mass, I have to say consciously, “He is the bishop, and you’re not, Flynn.”

That’s been an incredible source of grace. Obedience has been more fruitful for me than any devotion could be.

Mr. Flynn’s argument here is that his reception of Holy Communion in the hand is an exercise of the virtue of obedience, and therefore a source of graces. This is problematic for a number of reasons.

Most obviously, no bishop’s guidelines say that Catholics are obliged to receive at all. Catholics are, in normal times, obliged to receive Holy Communion once a year. Frequent reception of Holy Communion is recommended by the Church for Catholics in a state of grace, but here and now other factors are in play. Some Catholics in this situation have chosen not to receive at all for this period of time. Others have found priests, perhaps on the other side of diocesan boundaries, willing to distribute on the tongue, which of course is perfectly legal.

Consider a parallel. Mr. Flynn finds himself in a place for an extended period of time where Holy Communion is available only from priests who are not in Communion with the Pope. It is available, but there is this other factor in play. Would it be ridiculous to abstain? Of course not. The reception of Holy Communion is not obligatory, and it not immediately necessary to our salvation. Many of our Catholic predecessors received only once a year, and I don’t think the present generation is going to be so terribly superior to them on the Day of Judgment. If one can only receive under the condition that one do something it would be better one not do, then that is a serious consideration. Readers may like to consider other examples. Suppose Nazis insisted we kiss a copy of Mein Kampf before going up. Suppose pagans insisted we trample on a crucifix. What do you do? It’s not a terrible dilemma. You don’t go up to Communion, but sit tight in your pew.

I can hear Mr. Flynn and his supporters say these are silly parallels, and it’s not like that at all. They must however argue for this: they must argue that reception in the hand is no big deal. That’s something Mr. Flynn is extremely reluctant to do, and I’m not going to help him out here. But even if he comes up with an argument, it is not going to be an argument about obedience. Obedience has got nothing to do with it.

Let’s think some more about those episcopal guidelines. Do they actually impose any kind of obligation on Catholics in a diocese? No, they do not, for two reasons. One is that such documents are only binding as a matter of Church law if they are framed as a proper decree, something which bishops very rarely bother to do. The other is that even if they did do this, they would fail to bind anyone in this case, because they do not have the power to forbid the reception of Holy Communion on the Tongue. The right to receive on the tongue is explicitly guaranteed by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (for the reformed Mass) in §160. Bishops simply do not have the authority to overturn this.

Is it an exercise of the virtue of obedience to obey a directive which exceeds the authority of the person giving it? No, because this would not be a genuine law. One can’t preen oneself on one’s obedience to fake laws. Obeying them is not a way to build up a virtue pertaining to respect for real authority.

There is scope for obedience here, however. What many Catholics have decided on this issue is that there is a precept with normative force at issue here. It is the force of the uninterrupted tradition of the Western Church for more than a thousand years. This is telling us that to receive on the tongue is more reverent and fitting. We need not insist that this custom creates a strict legal obligation, but just that it has some weight. 

This is not an argument about canon law, but the Church is more than canon law. Traditions like this one convey to us the wisdom of centuries of Catholic practice. They are normative, action-guiding, in a deep sense, and command respect even from law more narrowly defined. As a matter of fact, that Holy Communion should only be received on the tongue remains the law of the Church: it can be permitted in the hand only by a dispensation, an exception to the law: see Memoriale Domini (1968).

Our question is whether to exercise the virtue of obedience in maintaining that tradition and law, perhaps in difficult circumstances, perhaps heroically. This would truly be an exercise of the virtue of obedience.

  catholic, communion in the hand, holy communion

Blogs aims to ‘help eliminate heterosexual bias in language’ with ‘biggest update ever’

Those who control language control the culture.
Tue Sep 8, 2020 - 2:22 pm EST
Featured Image
Michael L. Brown Michael L. Brown Follow Dr. Michael
By Dr. Michael Brown

September 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Speaking of Orwell’s 1984, a blog post noted that, “By controlling the language, Big Brother controls the way that the people think. With a limited vocabulary, the people are limited in how much they can think, as well as, what they think about.”

That’s why we should be concerned with’s “biggest update ever.”

Yes, in addition to the many new words added “are the deeper revisions that document what drives us here at the ways language is constantly evolving. A great many of these entries we’ve updated address topics that touch all of us on the most personal levels: race and ethnicity, gender and sexuality, health and wellness.”

The revisions are intended to “help eliminate heterosexual bias in language,” and they were “informed” by the gay activist (or, gay activist-driven) organizations GLAAD and the American Psychological Association. No wonder LGBTQ websites like are celebrating the changes. 

What, then, were some of these major revisions?

First, references to the words homosexual and homosexuality were removed from references within the dictionary. Why? wants “to put people, not practices, first, and ensure our definitions reflect—and respect—how people use language.”

As for the “homosexual” and “homosexuality,” they “originated as clinical language, and dictionaries have historically perceived such language as scientific and unbiased. But homosexual and homosexuality are now associated with pathology, mental illness, and criminality, and so imply that being gay—a normal way of being—is sick, diseased, or wrong.”

So, because there is nothing wrong with being homosexual practice – thus says! – and because “homosexuality” implies that something is wrong, references to the word must be removed from definitions and descriptions.

Practically speaking, this means that “gayness” is now defined as “‘gay or lesbian sexual orientation or behavior’ compared to the outmoded gloss of ‘homosexuality.’”

And in keeping with’s new wokeness, reflected in capitalizing the B in Black when it comes to race, the website has also capitalized the P in Pride when it comes to gay “pride.”

This entry has a twofold definition: 1) recognition of LGBTQ identity, affirmation of equal rights, and celebration of visibility, dignity, and diversity in the LGBTQ community (formerly referred to as Gay Pride); 2) events or organizations that celebrate the LGBTQ community and its members (often used attributively). 

You can even sign up to receive “LGBTQIA Language Updates Every Week”! This way, you’ll be able to “keep up with the growing language of the LGBTQIA community, right in your inbox.” (Will we also be appraised of new letters being added to LGBTQIA?)

To be sure I didn’t miss any of these exciting updates, I clicked on the link and signed up, after which I received an email allowing me to pick my preferences for future emails. These included: Word of the Day; Word Games & Quizzes; LGBTQIA Language from; Synonym of the Day from; Slang Decoder; Parent Portal; Language Lovers; In Other Words from

So, the one and only lexical category that is specific to the culture is LGBTQIA Language. No updates on any other specific subject are offered. Nothing about animal or plant life. Nothing about the environment. Nothing about politics. Nothing about sports. Nothing about anything specific other than LGBTQIA Language. (The Parental Portal is designed to help parents teach vocabulary to their kids.)

Talk about the hijacking of a dictionary by sexual and ideological activists. This is beyond woke.

In 1984, the Orwellian character named Syme was a philologist who specialized in Newspeak. According to Syme, “By 2050, earlier, probably – all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron – they’ll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be.”

In addition, “Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like ‘freedom is slavery’ when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking – not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

Orwell wrote his classic book in 1948, meaning that he “predicted” this scenario almost 70 years ago. Today, there is an increasing attack on studying the classics, reflected in articles like Rebecca Futo Kennedy’s “We Condone It by Our Silence. Confronting Classics’ Complicity in White Supremacy.” Who needs to rewrite the classics in Newspeak when they can simply be eliminated? (For a good response, see “Are the Classics Complicit in White Supremacy?”)

We already have had to deal with the growing practice of banning the sale of books that confront PC positions, along with banning ads for such books. (Most recently, Amazon banned sales of the well-documented, fact-filled book The Health Hazards of Homosexuality while banning ads for the important new book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters.)

But that was not enough. Now, we are told how to speak and how to think. The implications of this are massive.

When I type in the phrase “he who controls language” on my browser, the following sentences come up: “He who controls language controls the conversation”; “controls thought”; “controls the argument”; “controls the debate”; “controls the masses.”

My advice is simple. Refuse to be controlled by LGBTQ activists and their allies. Speak wisely. Speak graciously. But speak truthfully, without compromise.

If you don’t do that today, then come tomorrow, you won’t be able to speak the truth at all.

  censorship, dictionary,, homosexuality, transgenderism


Archbishop Viganò leads launch rosary for 54-day US election novena

The 54-day rosary novena is made up of six successive traditional rosary novenas consisting of nine days each. The first three novenas are a petition for our request, and the latter three thank God for answering our prayer.
Tue Sep 8, 2020 - 9:11 am EST
Featured Image
John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry
By John-Henry Westen

September 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Today at 12pm EST, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò joined LifeSite to lead a Holy Rosary to pray for the Lord’s holy will to be accomplished in the November U.S. presidential election. He gave a short reflection before the rosary and his blessing at the end.

We were also joined by special guests Dr. Taylor Marshall and Michael Matt of The Remnant, who prayed along with His Excellency.

Today is the launch for a 54-day rosary novena leading up to the election. The novena begins today, September 8, the birthday of Our Lady, and ends just a couple of days before the November 3 election.

For all of you who usually come to pray Fr. Tony Pillari’s daily rosary, don’t worry — you’re in the right place. And rest assured that Fr. Pillari will be leading this rosary for the rest of the 53 days. But Archbishop Vigano has agreed to lead the launch rosary for us today. And this special rosary with Archbishop Viganò is also taking the place of this week’s episode of The John-Henry Westen Show.

The 54-day rosary novena is made up of six successive traditional rosary novenas consisting of nine days each. The first three novenas are a petition for our request, and the latter three thank God for answering our prayer — knowing that the Good Lord always hears us.

Please pray earnestly every day for this election. Commit to getting out to vote yourself and ensuring the same of your friends and family. Your future, and that of your children, even the future of the whole world, will be greatly affected by this election, likely to be the most important election of our lives, no matter what country we live in. It’s time to pick up our weapon of choice — the most holy rosary — and storm Heaven with our prayers.

On behalf of LifeSiteNews, Dr. Taylor Marshall, Michael Matt, and all of you, I want to thank Archbishop Viganò for leading us in this holy rosary. Remember to tune in each day for the rest of this 54-day rosary novena for the election. Share this rosary video now so that many, many more may join in this prayer effort. May God bless you!

Below are Archbishop Vigano’s opening remarks.


A brief introduction to the recitation of the Holy Rosary for America and the whole world

Anyone who believes he can merit the glory of Paradise by living a mediocre life knows he is on the wrong track: Regnum caelorum vim patitur et violenti rapiunt illud [The kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force](Mt 11:12). In these strong words of the Gospel we understand that only the violent can in some way conquer the Justice of God and obtain its reward thanks to His infinite Mercy. A violence, a force, that is certainly not that of the world but that consists above all in recognizing our own unworthiness – as mortal creatures before the Uncreated and Eternal Being, and as sinners before the Holy of Holies – and also the Omnipotence of God, who deigned to redeem us by the Passion and Death of His Divine Son. I would also say that the first act of this sublime violence to conquer the Kingdom of God was accomplished by Our Lord, who in the eternity of time wanted to restore the Fall of Adam by offering himself to the Father to redeem us from sin and death: Tunc dixi: Ecce venio. In capite libri scriptum est de me, ut faciam Deusvoluntatem tuam [Then I said: Behold, I come. In the scroll of the book it is written of me, that I should do your will, O God](Ps 39:8-10). Similarly, Our Lady also responds to the Archangel Gabriel: Ecce ancilla Domini: fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum [Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it done to me according to your word](Lk 1: 38). 

This is the violencethat shakes the gates of Heaven: the power of humility and sacrifice, following the example of Christ and His Most Holy Mother. She, the Mediatrix of all graces, knew how to obtain from the Mercy of God that which His Justice would have refused. And it is to Her, Our Advocate, that we raise our fervent prayer, certain of being heard: Memorare, o piissima Virgo Maria, non esse auditum a saeculo quemquam ad tua currentem praesidia, tua implorantem auxilia, tua petentem suffragiaesse derelictum [Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thy intercession was left unaided.]

In the recitation of the Rosary we invoke the Most Blessed Virgin with three very simple prayers, so easy that even a child can recite them: the Pater noster, the Ave Maria and the Gloria Patri. And while we repeat these prayers we meditate on the Joyful, Sorrowful, and Glorious Mysteries, concentrating our mind on the sweet words that our lips pronounce. All of Catholic doctrine is contained in these three prayers; all of Marian doctrine is proclaimed in the Ave Maria. And at these words, which rise to the glorious throne on which Our Mother sits as Queen, the entire Heavenly Court is moved, the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus is touched with compassion, and the arm of Divine Justice is stopped. 

Let us therefore have recourse to the recitation of the Holy Rosary, dear brothers and sisters, in this moment of tribulation and of total crisis. Let us also make violence in heaven, by means of the infallible weapon of prayer that the Most Blessed Virgin taught Saint Dominic and that over the centuries has obtained the conversion of sinners, the salvation of the nations, and the defeat of the Enemy.

Saint Pius V ordered the faithful to recite the Rosary to impetrate victory from God in the epic battle of the Christian Armada against the Turk in the waters of Lepanto: still today, at noon each day, the bells ring in our cities to recall October 7, 1571. The Senate of the Republic of Venice wanted to honor the Queen of Victories by having these words engraved on the Doges’ Palace: Not valor, not arms, not leaders, but Our Lady of the Holy Rosary made us victors. We too, who fight an even more bloody battle without a deployed army against an even more terrible enemy, ought to have recourse to the Rosary, with the same faith that strengthened the arm of the valiant leaders of Lepanto.

Let us pray for the United States of America; let us pray for our President; let us pray for his victory, that the Lord God of Hosts – Dominus Deus Sabaoth –will grant that he may know how to place himself under God’s protection and may desire to make himself the knight who fights for the just and the defender of the oppressed. Let us pray that the snares that the invisible Enemy plots in the shadows may come into the light, and that those who want to promote vice and sin, and rebellion against the Commandments of God and the very laws of nature, may be defeated. Let us pray with the faith of children who run gementes et flentes to their Queen, so that she may intercede for us with her Divine Son and obtain for us the grace to see the beloved American nation protected as well as the whole world, our families defended, and our adversaries defeated. Then we too will be able to write: Not valor, not the power of the media, not economic resources, but Our Lady of the Holy Rosary made us victors. So may it be.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

14 August 2020

Vigil of the Assumption of Mary Most Holy 

Official translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino

The John-Henry Westen Show is available by video on the show’s YouTube channel and right here on my LifeSite blog.

It is also available in audio format on platforms such as SpotifySoundcloud, and ACast. We are awaiting approval for iTunes and Google Play as well. To subscribe to the audio version on various channels, visit the ACast webpage here.

We’ve created a special email list for the show so that we can notify you every week when we post a new episode. Please sign up now by clicking here. You can also subscribe to the YouTube channel, and you’ll be notified by YouTube when there is new content.

You can send me feedback, or ideas for show topics by emailing [email protected].


* indicates required

By clicking subscribe, you are agreeing to receive emails about The John-Henry Westen Show and related emails from LifeSiteNews.

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.

  america, novena, rosary, united states, us election


When arrogant ‘reformers’ tinker with the sacraments, disaster befalls the faithful

The liturgical reformers of the 1960s thoroughly altered every sacrament and sacramental, every office of prayer and penance, everything connected with divine worship. How has it turned out?
Tue Sep 8, 2020 - 8:55 am EST
Featured Image
Traditional Latin Mass Society of San Francisco
Peter Kwasniewski Peter Kwasniewski Follow Dr. Peter
By Dr. Peter Kwasniewski

September 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Fr. Matthew Hood, the Detroit priest who discovered in early August that he had been invalidly baptized — that is, had not been baptized at all, and therefore had to receive all his sacraments over again (with the fallout that resulted for other people who depended on his ministry) — wrote a gentle and sincere article about his situation that was published at First Things on September 3.

Several sentences in his article leapt out at me; I shall comment on them a few at a time.

Throughout the world, with rare exceptions, the sacraments are celebrated validly. If we have clear and irrefutable evidence to the contrary, then we can act to correct the situation swiftly. But the faithful should not be anxious.

“Throughout the world, with rare exceptions, the sacraments are celebrated validly.” To be able to say this in 2020 is indirectly to admit the colossal failure of the liturgical reform to live up to the vision (some would say utopian) that the original Liturgical Movement had, of a Church joyfully and knowledgeably drawing water from the sacramental springs of salvation as bequeathed to us in our Catholic tradition. The reformers felt themselves free to do nearly anything, with rare exceptions, because they had already in their minds equated the “essence” of sacraments with discrete formulas that guaranteed validity — and all else was up for grabs. This neoscholastic reductionism is incapable of seeing the beauty of the whole, the intangible life that animates the organic body; this reductionism murders to dissect, confident that it will find the golden egg once the goose is slaughtered.

This is the low bar to which we have been reduced: most sacraments are valid. I am reminded (again) of C.S. Lewis’s observation that if you seek the higher good, you’ll get the lower good “thrown in,” but if you seek the lower good apart from a higher good, you won’t even obtain the lower one. In the case of the traditional Latin sacramental rites, in which every word and motion is scripted by the rubrics and a minister is like a train engine that stays inflexibly on its tracks as it makes for the station, we obtain not only the bare minimum, validity, but something more than that, opening like a flower: the likelihood of dignity, the preconditions of beauty, the reassurance of order.

Fr. Hood continues:

If anyone should be anxious, it should be the ministers of the Church, that they renew their efforts to celebrate the rites of the Church faithfully. ... The beautiful, powerful gift of the sacraments is obscured when we replace the voice of Christ with our own voices. As “stewards of the mysteries of God” we are proven “trustworthy” when we faithfully administer the sacraments according to the law of Christ and his Church by allowing Christ to speak through us (cf. 1 Cor. 4:2).

Were the liturgical reformers of the 1960s who had been ordained to celebrate the rites faithfully — were they faithful to the immense treasury bestowed upon them, handed down to them by so many generations of believers? Were they worthy of their trust, letting Christ and His Church speak through them? Or did they dare to think themselves wiser than 500, 1,000, 1,500 years of Catholic tradition or even more, stretching back to the temple worship of the Jews — wiser not just on one or two minor points, which might have been granted, but on the shape and substance of the Church’s rites from top to bottom, as they systematically and thoroughly altered every sacrament and sacramental, every office of prayer and penance, everything connected with divine worship?

PETITION: Urge Catholic bishops to refuse Holy Communion to pro-abortion Biden! Sign the petition here.

Then we reach Fr. Hood’s poignant statement:

We would not dare to change the words of Scripture to fit our own whims, so why would we change the words of the sacramental formula so that our own voices are heard?

Last time I checked, this kind of “daring” was par for the course in the liturgical reform. The reform, you might say, was defined by audacity on every level, riding the momentum of an ecumaniacal Council and paid for by the slush fund of papal authority, accumulated over centuries and blown in a decade.

The liturgical reformers changed the sacramental formula for the consecration of the wine by displacing the mysterium fidei — not making the consecration invalid, but still tampering with something that had never been changed in the entire history of the Western Church.

They removed many verses of the Psalms from the Breviary that had always been sung by the Church.

They removed passages of Scripture that used to be read at Mass for as many centuries as we have records, and when they included more of Scripture, they navigated around particular verses they didn’t want to have in there.

The sacramental formulas of almost every sacrament were modified by Paul VI. Did they have to be? Did anyone ever question their legitimacy? Were the ranks of lower clergy and the squadrons of Catholic Action clamoring for urgent sacramental reform? No. Paul VI changed them so that (in Fr. Hood’s words) “our own voices are heard” — that is, modern scholarly up-to-date voices, not the voice of Catholic Tradition.

All of this background establishes the context for why Pope Francis felt free to contradict Scripture in Amoris Laetitia and the death penalty change — why he could effectively dissent from the uniqueness and unicity of the Christian religion as a God-willed path of salvation. Neither sacraments nor Scripture are seen as inviolable anymore. That is the legacy of Paul VI’s liturgical reform, and until we confront the root of the problem head-on, we will be fighting a conflagration with squirt guns.

The solution will not be as simple as “better seminary training.” There will have to be, sooner or later, a wholesale restoration of what we were doing before, successfully, organically, from the beginning of the Church on through the centuries. It will not, it cannot be, something cobbled together by a Vatican committee and atomized into as many varieties as there are “worshiping communities.”

The thought process behind making up supposedly more meaningful or more inculturated rituals for local communities is identical to the thought process behind the creation of the Novus Ordo. The step from Annibale Bugnini to Deacon Mark Springer is not as large as might be imagined. One was clever, the other foolish; one had plenty of training but no scruples, while the other plenty of enthusiasm and no training. Yet they are two peas in a pod.

  baptism, catholic, ordination, sacraments, vatican ii


Why sex education has so successfully increased promiscuity, STDs, abortion

Sex education, in essence, proceeds directly out of that assumption that children are entirely incapable of abstaining from sex outside marriage.
Tue Sep 8, 2020 - 8:19 am EST
Featured Image
Dean Drobot /
Jonathon Van Maren Jonathon Van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon Van Maren

PETITION: Support school choice and call on the U.S. Senate to pass the SCHOOL Act! Sign the petition here.

September 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — How did we get modern sex education — and why? These are questions I frequently get from parents. A few years ago, I decided to pose them to Peter Hitchens, a well known journalist, author, and cultural commentator hailing from Oxford, England. He has had much to say about the idea of modern sex education in his various writings and media interviews. For more insight into how modern sex education in the West came about, I decided to interview him. According to his analysis, the suspicions of many parents are absolutely correct. In his view, the entire concept of sex education fails on its own terms.

“The problem with sex education,” he told me by phone, “is that the ostensible purpose for which it is advocated turns out not to be true. I did a study a few years ago of the development of sex education in my own country, and what I found is that it’s been justified really since the middle part of the Second World War, when of course there were a lot of venereal diseases, on the basis that if people were better educated about it, then it would reduce the amount of sexually transmitted disease and the amount of unwanted pregnancy. And yet if you watch the figures for both sexually transmitted disease and for unwanted pregnancy, and increasingly now for abortion, we find that despite the greater and greater extent of sex education in our society, more and more frankness about sex, and more and more pornography (which is also supposed to end repression), the number of people becoming pregnant when they didn’t want to continues to rise and the number of people contracting sexually transmitted diseases continues to rise.”

This is partially because, as the late National Post columnist George Jonas wrote during one sex education controversy, educating young people in an activity will increase that activity. Thus, the risk of abortion, sexually transmitted disease, and teenage pregnancy will only go up. If sex education’s intent, however, is not simply to prevent these things, but rather to re-educate, then it still can suit the purposes of the State quite nicely.

“It is said,” Hitchens noted, “that Gyorgy Lukas, who was commissar for education in the short-lived Bela Kun Soviet Government in Hungary in 1918, openly said that the purpose of sex education when he introduced it then — I think he was probably the first person to do so — was to debauch the minds and morals of religiously brought up young women particularly. It seems to me to make a certain amount of sense … because the kinds of things that people are taught in sex education are disinhibiting things. When I was in school no one ever mentioned masturbation. It would have been extremely bad manners to mention it anywhere, let alone for an adult teacher to talk to quite young children about it and about other sexual practices in class. The moment these things start being discussed, it disinhibits people, it takes restraints off them that previously were there. Now, you may believe, and a lot of people do believe and have believed for many years, that these inhibitions are bad for us. That’s a point of view. I don’t happen to share it, and if you follow that belief as a parent, I suppose you’re entitled to introduce your child to this sort of thing as early an age as you wish in a free country, but what bothers us in many cases [is that] parents don’t realize what is being done in classrooms until after it’s happened.”

“Discussing these things in the way that they’re discussed [makes these] things sound normal,” Hitchens pointed out. “So it’s assumed that children will have underage sex or unmarried sex or promiscuous sex, and it’s assumed that they will do so, and all the precautions they’re supposed to take is based on this idea that this will happen. ‘If you can’t be good, be careful.’”

That is why our public schools are so involved in handing out condoms and ensuring ready access to birth control pills — because they assume that people, even children, are entirely incapable of abstaining from sex outside marriage. Sex education, in essence, proceeds directly out of that assumption. And that assumption is very much promoted by our current political class.

Follow Jonathon Van Maren on Facebook

“There [are] politics in sex,” says Peter Hitchens. “Much of those politics are about the family and the State. The state is increasingly hostile to the strong family, and the strong family is sustained by lifelong marriage and by a pretty stern and puritan attitude towards sexual relations — whereas the strong state benefits in many ways, as does modern commerce and the modern employer, from weak marriages and relaxed sexual relations. There’s also the point that Aldous Huxley makes, which is that we are increasingly going to embrace our own enslavement in the pursuit of pleasure, which [is a point] I believe actually the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm made … that there is absolutely no congruence in human history between sexual freedom and political freedom. Slaves have always been allowed to copulate. What they haven’t been allowed to do is marry.”

“And this,” Hitchens continued, “is an extremely important point. There is no necessary connection between a society which is sexually free and sexually uninhibited, and a society that is politically free and has free speech and freedom of assembly. It doesn’t necessarily follow at all. So [this is] a very, very profound philosophical battle about the nature of society, and it needs to be conducted in a very serious fashion. The difficulty is in finding anyone to give you a hearing.”

It’s a fascinating perspective, especially coming from someone who was once a radical Trotskyist as Hitchens was. When I pointed this out to him, Hitchens responded by noting that this is precisely the reason he is so well versed in the way the left thinks and does business.

“I decided to stop believing it because it seemed to me to be morally wrong and highly dangerous,” Hitchens told me. “But the great advantage which it gives me is that I know what left-wing people say and think in private when they’re not trying to please people on television shows. I know just how dogged and devastating this project is, which they want, and I know that the fundamental engine of left-wing activity, really since the 1960s, has not been to seize the post office and the barracks and the railway station; it’s been to seize the television station and the newspaper and the university, and to obtain victory through capturing the minds of people, and also to alter society not through the nationalizing of railways, but through the nationalizing of childhood.”

The nationalizing of childhood — a chilling idea that makes much sense. Give to the State and its education system the task of teaching children what to believe and which values to hold, and you’ve essentially co-opted the family structure.

“When they say children should speak for themselves,” Hitchens pointed out, “what they actually mean is that the parents should be removed from the discussion. They don’t actually want them to speak for themselves; they want the children to do what they want them to do, and they know the parental home is the biggest obstacle to this thing.”

This is why many states seek to ban practices that threaten this goal, like homeschooling: “There’s a certain amount of it in Britain, it’s actually illegal in Germany to this day because of the National Socialist law passed under Hitler, which has never been repealed, and attempts are being made to restrict it in Britain. They’re in their infancy, but they’re on their way, and I think parental resistance to it on that scale is probably the only effective answer. You say, ‘All right, well, if you feel that this is how you want to drive your power into my home and into my life, then I thank you very much, but I’m not going to let you. We’ll educate our children at home.’ And quite honestly, I don’t know what your public school system is like, but if it’s anything remotely like ours, it’ll probably come up with a much better general education on top.”

Parental resistance is, at the end of the day, the answer to the State’s attempt to educate and re-educate children, and that is already increasingly difficult. In many places in Canada and the United States, governments are stepping in and demanding that acceptance of certain sexual behaviors be taught. Officials are objecting to parents who want to opt their children out of sex education. Christian schools are being told that the day is soon coming when they will no longer be allowed to teach sexuality from the Christian point of view. Many people, after all, consider that point of view hateful and harmful.

First and foremost, it is essential that parents take the responsibility of educating their children on sexuality seriously. This is something Christians have often done quite badly, but it is the most effective way of inoculating the youth against many of the damaging ideas promoted everywhere in our society. If we teach our children nothing about biblical sexuality and send them out into a hedonistic and exhibitionist culture, we are practically guaranteeing that they will not be able to withstand the poisonous intellectual onslaught and torrent of temptation. Our children are the future, and if we do not educate them, the culture — and the state — will be more than happy to do it for us.

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, Jonathon interviews Christian conservative commentator Allie Beth Stuckey, who argues that social media is making too many teenager narcissistic and self-centered. Parents need to do a better job limiting their children's use of technology, she says: “We are incomplete people in need of our faith, in need of something bigger than us, and in need of purpose.” You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below:

  abortion, big brother, communism, contraception, peter hitchens, pornography, sex education